Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1807-10-30
Gircult Gourt.
MOTION FOR COW HIrMGNr.
TUESDAY, October %.

TUESDAY, October %.
sC9aclgsivc y PTTEJW oftfc C4rgr Tvs
7IcG aflRSHAL, on ne ni2i:2n for CON.
7t,itment.
C"2rciu{'T.
10 prove this intcntion, the prosecutor
for the Upited S. ties Of rs evidence az con-
versations held by the accused or some os
them, with various individulls at cliff.rcnt
times, relative tn the views which were en-
tertaincd and the p!lns which had been
formed; aud Of certain facts which took
place after leaving the mouth os Gambler
land For although it was decided not TO
be within the power Of this court to com
init for trial in a territory OF the United
states, yet every transaction within a ter
ritory has been given in evidence in the
expectation, that such testimony might
serve TO explain the meeting 1T the mouth
of Cumberland, and because It was believ-
ed to be proper for 2n examining magiS-
tr1te TO receive il.
The conversations or actions nj DIFF
ferent time and place might be given in G.
violence as cOrroborative of the overr act
of levying war. after that had been pro
we'd in such 4 manner as 10 be leit 10 iurv,
j never doubted tHr IN Instant: But that in
case where the intent could not be infer
red from the fact, and was not proved by
DECLARATIONS CthlOeCCcV WIN the IiCt. a
uong which ] should include the terms IN
,lcr which those who composed the assem-
bIge were convened together, this defect
could be entirely supp led by cxtrin>ic tes-
Umony, not applying the intent conclusive
" TO the particular fact, is point, On
which have entertained doubts which
are not yet entirely removed. The opin-
on OF Judge Iredeil in the case OF Fries, ac-
cording TO my understanding of IL when
read at the bar, appears TO bear strongly
on this point, and that opinion would be con
elusive with me, At least while acting as an
examining magistrate. nave nor review
cd it particularly, because ny decision will
not depend on the prop.'iety of admitting
this mode OF proving the intent.
Il has also been made question, whr-
th2r after proving a connection betwec!
the accused for SONS general object, the
conversations OF one Of them may he given
IN evidence against any other than himself
for the purpose of proving what Tint OBJ
jcct was. On the part Of the u. S. it IS INSIST
ed, that such conversation NAV bcgived in
evidence on an indiC,mcnr for tire asNn in
Icvying Of war by the defence it is contend
ed, that such evidence is only admissible on
indictments for a conspiracy, OF On ind;ct-
ments where a conspiracy may De laid as
an overt act.
The principle that one man Shpli not be
criminated by the declarations Of another,
not assented 90 by INN; noc made in due
course ofl8w, constitute = rule NJ evidence,
which ought not uHr .fectjng'y to 5e invaded.
j is oIe of those principles on which ]
do not think myself required to decide, be-
causc am not sure that It's decision howe
yer interesting it might be on trial
in chic, would csseDtiall~c&ect the question
of commitment, nor an ! confident that It's
decisionas argued on the part oiJhe y. S n
troducc the testim onv it was designed would
to iptroiuce. In the EnglSli books generally
tine position that the declarations OF per.
son not or trial, NAV DC given in evidence
against man proved to kavc been connect
ed with him. is laid down only in cases oi
conspiracy, where the crime is completed
without any other open deed. The prsiti-
on is certaialy not laid down with respect
TO such cares, in terms which exclude IFS
application to others, but it is not laid down
in general terms, and is affirmed to apply
20 those particular cases, Without Being af'
frmcd 70 aTply to others. Prom this &c.
neral observation relative TO the Engl,si
books, East is to be excepted. He state
the proposition generally. Yet it may wei
be doubted, whether this general Statement
was no with view to the ~ in that trea
son, which, in England, almost swallow
mp every ether.
But admitting the law tn be the same II
treason by lcvying war, rs in cases uf con
spiracy, how far does it extend
The doctrine on this subject was eview
ed in the cases Of Hardy and Jookc. .!
the part of tho crown, letter OF Thc'wal
contain ns scdtious songs composed by him
self and sung in the society, WAS offered q
evidence against Hardy, who was corucc
ted with The;wal This testimony wa
rejected because it was in no part of tn
transaction itself, but an account Of tina
transaction given by Thclwall e. a pcrao
not engaged in the conspiracy. The cour
was divided, three for rejecting and tw
for admitting the evidence
a letter addressed by one c0nspirator {
another, but not proved to have been re
Ceived, was thcn offered and admitted n
gainst the opinion oi tho chief Justice. wii
thoucht that such Il letter did not amon9
to an act done which might be evidence
but only IN relation cf that act whic
could no. be cvilence He was overruic
because n letter from one conspirator 90 O.
mother on the conspiracy, was conplet
act N that co0sCiratcr.
The mex; paper cf,rcd, was lr.te
from q society I'm the conspiracy. which wa
found IN the possession Of one Of the c1r
spira;ors, and this was unanimously admt
ted.
The principle which appears to be C.