The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1806-07-29

>''>'''fs S'sSU ov 'slS its1Nent which neither
was nor ceuli ~ given, hns which If the nate
of things had exii'v.', aud The authority could
'''' ana had eseN sivcn, would nave fulfilled
tns Defendant ne, * wna,i nor, under theft
c,rcn'"tt'nccS. il ~ h"en through, t., the bar Of
his ccn"'rv. I, a.ixrt 10. an aet calculated 10
eU''.o'i Z With 4 firsieu 2nwer.
jhe D.'trts Attorney read an affidavit, of
his own. Rating th.. he o;icnce with which the
defendant food CHARGED was committed in this
c''y, and ':at the wi.neIes, againt whom at
tachcients we've prayed, reiided and were at
WA''.'ngron at the tne.
Having rca.li the affidavit, the Diarit9 A.tor.
ney re,i'c'lio the arguments IF the defendants
rouniv' a; grr"t length. He contea;lcd that
the teit!rody ct the wtnetfts was not ma. eri,
~ ju't,hca'iou, and therefore not sHential To
the inrv in forming its Judgment. For allowing
all that had been faid of the PrelitIent's know
iedg: and appreciation eft the enterprfc, which
was but afitrtion, aill thu, knowledge and ap.
probation did not amount 20 authority or d.
reeton to the defendant to DO an unlawful aSt.
On the arguments of the defendants council
refpeeling the itate of our public affairs when the
execution was commenced, the Difrit Attor.
hey was clear, logical, and concift. Congrefs
had not declared ofsajf1,s, nor had the PRECEDENT
authorized or directed drfuf1,e war. As the
government of the United States was at peace,
rome of its citizens had right to be at war with
Spain.
With regard to attachments, the authorities
which he cited were numerous and uniform.
In England, attachments were fined at the diff
erection of the court, and never but to purge
the, witneis of contempt.
The arguments of the Ditriet Attorney were
enforced and illufrated by Mr.. Edwards in
diicuriive fpcech, in which he fully maintained
his wel-earned claim to eminence at the bar.
He was happy in his playful and farcaitic re-
marks on the arguments of the defendants
ceunfcl, preiumng authority which had not
been given-a fate of war, which had not bee,
commenced, and the lawfulnefs of an act which
was clearly and alarmingly unlawful. MIR. Ed.
wards began his fpeech at one, and cIoIcd at
nalt after two inthe afternoon, when the court
adjourned till "Wednesday morning at 10.
Wednefday morning Mr.. Edwards was heard
in continuation, and was fuCceeded by MIR. EN-
NETT for the defendant.
MIR. Emmett commenced an elaborate and
learned fpeech of two hours, in which he diff.
played vaf powers Of mind and profundity of
refearch, by an impatfioned and impre(liye ex.
ordinm. In this he apologifed, as a Granger in
the country, for undertaking the defenceGbut
being engaged, he would exert his talents TO
the utmoit, fuch as they were, i'm behalf of his
client. He regretted that the action had been
commenced, and wifhed it were in his mower IN
remembrance of the country. He had no doubt
of convincing the court that his client had not
offended againtt the laws, and, on the other
hand, that the great and luxurious man who
prelides over our national affairs had in approy
ing the expedition, given additional evidence of
the excellence of his character, and atiurance of
the correctness his views. Neither, accord
ing to Mr.. Emmett, had done wrong.
Mr.. Emmett maintained with an earnefnefs
that Indicated fincerity, that the teitimony of
the witneties was material firR, in jutificati-
on, or iecondly' in mitigation of puui;hment,
and therefore that compulsory procefs ought TO |
Hue before the defendant be put to trial.
lnrefpeet to compulsory procefS in England,
on which the council for the profecution had dit.
canted at large, it was ilued at the difcreti.a
and to maintain the dignity of the courts, and
not the rights of the fuhject there, it was not
riSof which could be claimed bat briyilege,
which might be granted. He traced the ioStripc |
of attachments in England to the reign of Eli !
zabeth.
But in the U. S. compulsory procefs was put
on different footing. Here, faid Mr.. Emmett,
it was the right of the party accufed right |
guaranteed to him by the contribution, and |
which the court cannot With-hold.- --Ee read |
article OF the amendments to the contribution, !
which tsys, that" in all criminal PROHIBITIONS
the accufed hall have compulfory procefs for
obtaining witnelfes." This fundamental act
was the paramount law, in which the right was
tecured to every citizen. Procefs n1nR be iGu-
ed the acculed takes it as tie takes that which
belongs to him. He wanted procefq, call it by
whatever name, which would compel the wit
nefes into court. Any other could not be cal
led eombuJory.
There is no arguing, either with credit or fiic-
cefs, againt constitutional! prov6on. The
contribution undoubtedly guarantees TO the ac-
cuied compuliory procefs, fuch as is known to
the laws, been ifIued by the court, and an apo
logy rendered for falling to obey its inimGtions,
entirely satisfactory all things cnnfidered Mr.
Emmett tcouted the idea of attachments on the
principles of BritiIh inrfprudence, which he
deemed to be at war with the part of the con.
ftitution which he had cited. When, however
he was afked by the prefiling Judge whether,
in obedience to the contribution, congrefs had
by hatute provided fpeciic remedy, he ar
fwered that in his reading he had not met with
any. Failing then to bring the witnenes in by
iupGDa, to what procef5 could the court re- |
fort, if attachments, iiIued on the principles of
the common law we're to be excluded Mr.. |
Emmett did not defgnste any. Perhaps there
is none known to the laws. Oar ftatltes, As
conceded by Mr.. Emmett, are ilent on the fub. |
jett, The contribution which recognizes the
principle for which he commended, exits, hui |
the laws have made no proviion for Carrying it |
into effect.
With regard to the materiality Of the witner- !
fes, which, as the defendants c7uGf-l wiihed |