Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1806-07-30

Idavit of the defendant, it did not appear
to him that the testimony of MIR. Madison
was material. The crime of the deTen-
dant, said the judge, if he be guilty of a
crime, was committed in the city of New
York, when Mr.. Madison was at Wash
lington. When snecivi matter is presen-
ted, we will consider it. The Jurors were
discharged until TO morrow.
A desultory conversation ensued as to
1.-THE precedence Of the two motions for the
morrow. Judge Patterson said he would
mol fe,,er the counsel by ,orms. Adjourn
ed to Tuesday morning at 10.
Tuesday morning. ,fhe defendants
counsel produced asfeciat affidavit. 1t
had however, in our opnion, but remote,
tiffany relation TO lhesdsoision Of the court
tho preceding day, namely, that the OF.
fence of the defendant, ifany, being com
mit,ed in the city of New York when
Mr.. Madison was at Washington, this
gentleman could no, be considered by the
court as material witness, uDIess i; were
shown, by sheciii matter, that, in plain Ian
guaee, he had heard what he did not
hear, and. had seen what he did not see.
Under the circumstance of absence from
the place where the acl was committed
! in, REQUIRED, indeed, special matter to
prove That Mr.. MaSison's testimony was
at all material.
Tbs special affidavit, which wa, read by
! Mr. Golden, set forth that the defendant
hoped and expected to prove by the ties
itimony of MIR. M allison. MIR. Smith, MIR
Wagner, and MIR. Thornton, that if the
defendant had embarked in the expedition
OF The Leauder, that expedition was be
gun, prepared, and set on foot with the
knowledge and appreciation of the presi
dent and the secretary OF state" This
was the sheeiaHfy Of the affidavit. At
ltachmenls were now prayed for; not
gainst Mir. Madison alone, as yesterday,
put against the four gentlemen named.
Mr.. Golden followed up tho reading
of the affidavit with a speech of consider
uble length and zeal, and embracing a
variety of points and presidents, but il
appeared to me to be recession from
It6e question before the court. There is
am Obvious and wide distinction between
l--4ubether any msus in the United Siafes
I be above ihe iaqu ? which was nor made a
!roin,, or quheiher, which was the true
and only point, Mr.. Madison be a uateria.
s,itness 2 Leaving the latter ground almost
untouchec, MFR. Golden treated the questi
on on the former and adduced British pre-.
lcedents TO show that high official charac.
tiers in tina. country had under circumstan.
Ices analogous 10 ,nose CT Mr.. Madison,
! appeared in courts as witnesses. There
was indeed, he said, decision OF the su-
preme court of the United States agaios,
him. lie alluded TO the cause OF the u
; nited States VS.. Thomas Cooper, of Phi
ladclphia, in which the noted Judge Chase
imperiously decided, on very special
sfFidavit of Mr.. Cooper, that the then pre-.
sident, Mr.. Adams, could not be compel.
lied to come into court as witness.
He spoke in terms Of mild reprehension
of this decision. He could not wish the
court to apply Chase's rule in the case Of
Cooper to that of his client.
/ MIR. Golden was followed by MIR. Hof.
man on the same side.
The foundation of Mr.. Hoffman's ar
Iguraent was laid in possibilities not IL
what is but what may be. II, he said, he
could show a possible case in which the
Testimony of Mr.. Madison could be ma
tersl, the court would not withhold The at
tachment. Thetestimony ofMr. Madison
he said, might BE-, although he did no
affirm that IT was material; but in hi
conscience he believed il 10 be so. ir
viewing the subject in all lis relations, i
would be proper, he said, to take into con
sideration the posture of our affairs wher
the expedition was undertaken and CARR
ed on. In his message to congress, tn,
PRESIDENT, The highest official character IL
our country, and who ought to be respec
ted, stated that aets Of hostility had beer
committed by Spain on citizens of til,
United States within our own territory
and that he had ordered our armed fore,
TO repel these attacks if repeated in lu
ture.--Speaking of the functions of th'
executive, the right of declaring war, HI
said, was vested exclusively in congress
but could not the United States, he asked
be at war with foreign power without
declaration Of it by congress Congress
declared o6er@ve war, but when hos,lll
tres, such as those mentioned in the pre-
; sIdent's message, were commenced q
, gainst US; without such declaration b
/ icc,oresa W. were ofe focfo at war oIe/c,