Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1807-06-20

and the attorney for the u. States should
be arrested in his attempt to prove what
the same witness had said upon 4 former
occasion, by declaration from the bench,
that such an attempt could not be permit
ted, because 1t would imply suspicion
on the court that the witness had not spo.
ken the truth Respecting 50 unjus;iiia.
BILE an interpretation bat che opinion would
be formed
The I'd objection is, that the letter con-
talns matter winch ought not TO be dis
closed.
That there may be matter, the produc.
ton Of which the court would not re.
qu're, Is cer.ain; but that in a capital
case, the accused ought not. in some form,
20 have the benefit OF it, il it was really
essential to his defence, is position
which tie court would very reluctantly
deny. II ought not not TO be believed,
that the department which superintends
prosecutions in criminal cases, would be
inClined 10 withhold il. What ought to
be done under such circumstances pre-
sents delicate question, the dissu sion
o. when, 1t is hoped, viii rever be req"
dered necessary in h country. At pre-
sent 1t need only BE- said that The cues.
ton does not occur al this time. There
is certainly nothing before the CONT which
| shows, that the letter in question con
IA ms any matter, The disclosure of which
would cndanger the public safety. If it
docs contain such matter, the fact NAV
appear before the disclosure is made. If
( It does contain any matter which il would
NJ I'll IL, -
the wish of the executive to disclose. if it
be not Immediately and essentially appli-
cable to the point, will, of course, be sup
pressed. tits not easy to conceive that
so much OF the letter as relates to the on
, duct ofthe accused, can be subject of de-
Icacy with the President. Every thing of
this kind, however, will have its due con-
sIderatlon on the return of the subpoena.
2dly, 1t has been alledged that a copy
may be received instead of the original,
and the act of Congress has been cited in
support of this proposition.
This argument pre-supposes that the
letter required is a document fled in the
department of state, the reverse of which
may be and most probably is the fact. Let
tiers addressed to the President are most u
sually retained by himself They do not
belong to any of the departments But
were the fact otherwise, a copy might
not answer the purpose. The copy would
not be superior TO the original, and the o.
riginal itself would not be admitted, if de-
MED, without proof that it was in the hand
writing of the witness. SUPPOSE the case
put at the bar, of IA Indictment ON this lie
ter for libel, and on its production shonld
it appear not to be in the hand writing of
the person indicted. Would it's being de-
posted IN the department of state make
II his writing or subject him to the
consequence of having written IL Ger
tta'nly not For the purpose then Of show
Ing the letter TO have been written by
particular person, the original must be pro-
/ duced and copy could not be admitted.
On the confidential nature OF this letter,
much has been said at the bar, and au
thorities have been produced, which ap.
pear to be conclusive. Had it's contents
been orally communicated, the person
TO whom the communications were made
could not have excused himself from de-
talllnS them SO far as they might be deem
cd essential in the defence. Their being in
| writing gives no additional sanctity, the
only difference produced by that circum-
stance IS, that the contents of the paper
must be proved by the paper itself, not by
the recollection of the witness.
Much has been said about the dsre.
specI 10 the chief magistrate, which is
implied by this motion and by such de.
cisioo of it as the law is believed to re-
qnire.
These observations will be verv truly
answered by the declaration that this
court leeis many, perhaps peculiar no.
tlVes, Tor mauifesIing as guarded a res.
pect for the chief magistrate of the uni.
on, as is compatible with its official du.
ties To go beyond these would exhibit
conduct which would desc We some ,ther
appeIlalion than the term respect.
II is not for the court to anticipate the
event of the present prosecution, should
1t terminate as is expected on the part Of
the United States. All hose who are
concerned in it would certainly regret
that paper which the accused believed
to be essential to his defence, which may
for aught that now appears, be essential
had been withheld from him. Twill not say
that this circumstance would in any degree
tarnish the reputation Of the government
but will say that ii would Justly tarnish
the reputation of the court which had Civ
en- its sanction 10 its being withbeld.-
Might be permitted TO utter one senti-
ment with respect 10 myself, it would be
to depIore most earnestly, the occasion
which should compel me 10 look back Oh
aoy f,.rf ,C 49,. ocrl..t 49,.