Alexandria daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1803-1808, 1807-06-19

t.,apaer MHcneii was ~
Co. CO. concerned with Hardy and the O..
Tiers. la !. ,vonId sucpest "a
a.r,the impossibility Of going into the
~ at present.
''g Mr.. Wickham said that all the sa,n0r''Ies
1",;oned BY the attorney, related to ac-'
so ehsh;uc the kings death. That ,here.
s'p ,hsx were quite inapplicable IN the
'o'. oues tion. He therefore proposed:
p' ..hs egurs would direcs the jury, when
Va Ia were a. a loss upon any particular
noio,, to submit ITO the court.
p0 MI. Hay attempted TO shew, that the
-. of Hasdy, &c. was perfectly sppllca-
.,S,o The .rsscrt case. Ihatto shcw there
Ds d;rsrencs, and wherein the dlssinc,i-
Wa a,ay no doubt would occupy eight days,
- he believed Mr. Martin said.
Ar. Martin interrupted him by saying,
i. OILY said one day.
The attendance of Mr.. Bollman being
,,ouired bs the grand jury, Mr.. hay NOV
= - hat DR.. Bollman should be asked to de-
ssob,r . certain letter found 10 the posses.
.;aa of Mr.. Wyley. This was nhjessed
!, Nv The counsel Of colonel Burr who con-
,ead,d that 90 letters or papers ought to
Be- sent TO ,ae grand gary without having
o,ssvd the court
The court accordingly drew up certain
;,,.,ructions ic the giaud jory, which
mon being Submitted to she counsel on
b5;b sides, and undergoing slight aliera
ION were seut 10 the grand jury.
looe and desul.ory argument afser-
wuds took place, as TO the proprsety OF
a,r. Wflry answering certain questions
which nigh, be propounded.
Mr.. Wyley and his counsel Mr.. VIII
l;ams. commended that giving answers TO
ii. questions Of the attorney might cslmi'
nate himself.
The questions proposed we're briefly. OF
The fa.lowipg nature. The attorney prodnc-
"a in court letter parslyin CIPHER and
partly written inihe Datch language which
letter was ailedged either "a have been
v,ilt:n BY MIR. WILEY from eel. Burr's
direction, or copiedby Mr.. Wylsy from
an original 10 Bnrr's hand writing, by col.
Burr's order. The attorney tilerefage
wished 10 interrogate Mr. sWyley on these
points. Mr. William and MIR. Bots con-
tended ,ha, if Sir. WILEY answered these
questions, they woGld either criasins,e or
micht tend 10 eliminate him, aud advanc.
ed several authorities 70 shsw that no wit.
ness was compelled 10 answer any question
tha. nigh, have that tendency. Two IN.
stances we're produced from the law books
Of Great Britain. One was the case Of a
witness who was asked whether or not he
Vas a Romsa Catholic, and upon refusing
- answer the question, the prosecutor ap
psasedt TO the court, but they were OF opin.
ion that answering such a question might
have tendency 10 criminate the witness.
es; there being severe penal law in force
against persons processing the Roman Ca.
tholic religion. The other was he case of
a witness who confessed himself TO the
court 10 the first instance TO be a Roman
Casholc; bu,beirg afterwards intercepted
as TO his occupation or trade in life, refused
to answer the question, ans the court tho't
nlmproper 10 compel him.
MIR. hay and Mr.. ~ Rae contended that
although Mr.. Wyley had transcribed the let
ter mcypher, or had wlitten it by col. Burr's
direction, yet he was ignorant of the meaning
of the cypher, and consequently although it
might contain treason, yet having no know
ledge of that treason, the writing or the tran
scrioing of it could in no ways crininate him.
They therefore proposed that In the first in
stance he should answer the following questi-
on which they argued had not the smallest
tendency to eliminate him.
Question. MIR. Wiley, do you know the
matter this letter contains?
Upon Mr. WILEY refusing to answer, the
rouit was applied to by the. attorney, and de-
saltory argument took place between Messrs.
Wickham, Bolts and Williams, on the part of
the witness, and MeSSrs HAY, Writ, and