The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1807-06-15

l .
form, but to Subpoena Duees Teeum, under
! fuch notifications as the court may pleafe to
prefc, be.
| Mr.. Martin read an extract from the cafe
of Smith aud Ogden in New York, about the
ifuing of an attachment.
| Mr.. Hay anerted that this extract did no,
prove the petition commended that there wss
| no cafe ola fubpena's having been ifTucd, be-
| fore the finding of an indictment that if the
clerk had ever iiiued them, it was a mere era.
| tuitous act (; and that he challenged the expe-
rlenced gentleman from Maryland, to cite
| Jingle inftancc of An application TO a court for
fubpnnas, before the finding of the bills.
| Mr.. Martin replied, that if there were no
precedents on this very point, it was becaufe
! this objection never was made before and he
hoped never would be made again.
Here deinltory conversation enfued wien
! Mr.. Hay obferVed, that gentlemen affected to
believe that the pre:ent courie purified By the
PROSECUTION was dictated by with to fupprels
the evidence that he conlured the gentlemen
to remember, that he had voluntarily applied
Tor the papers which they wanted and had
no doubt of obtaining them aud that he made
! theie remarks to guard any human being from
the iuipc'on that there eVaJ any iDdifpoGtion
10 retuie the papers; that he fhouid ex-
ert hIniet with not lefs zeal to obtain the evil
dence that was wanted for Col. Burr, than
| that which might be produced againft him.
TIE Grief Jufiee obierved, that he would not
| at preiet deliver any decided opinion upon the
point, though he was dfpofrd to believe, that
the accuied had fright to apply for fubprnas.
He cited the cafe of man, who had been
iotne time before brought before him and con.
demned for counterfeiting bank notes in thi,
cafe the Prifoner had attempted to delay the
trial by pretending that he had wineflcs in
Baltimore which plea had been rejected nv
| the co1rt, principally on the ground that he
had not before fummonfed thofe witnefIes-
The Chief Jg9ire however obferved that he
| ihould not decide this quefion at protest !;
but reierve it for future dccfion: In the mean
time, the counIeL might proceed with the O.
Their part of the argument.
! Some conversation here enfacd bsewee, Mr.
! Bolts and MIR. Hay, on the Interpretation of an
act of Congrefe, in which the term "accufed''
was employed. NIr. Martin then rofe 70 fun
port the propriety of granting this particular
fubpuna:
He laid down as general principle, in all
civil or criminal cafes, that every man had
right to projects to eitabiith his rights or his in
nocence. McNally's Evidence, VOL /. p. e55.
( Does there exif a Jingle cafe in the Brtih au-
thorities in oppotiton TO this doctrine? Sure
! y thefe gentlemen do not intend to reprefeni
| the PRECEDENT as kind Of fovereign: or as a
king OF G. Britain: He is no more than fcrvant
of the people. But even the Britifh king NAV
oe called upon TO give tettimony to his people.
| 1t Is true he is not Obliged to be lubposnsed
and to appear in a court of julfice; but his
teitimony under his fign manual is received as
| authentic evidence.
| Grief Juqiee. The council on the oppofte
hoe ADMIT, that the Prehdcnt may be fummon-
| ed.
MIR. Martin. They have furely never admitted
4 before. However i an, ~, - =.
admitted; as it will fparc me part of nv
| argument. will proceed then to the Others.
| The next queition is, whether the Prefdent
! can be funmoned to attend with cer,au pa-
! pcrS. One OF them we want is an original let
ter from Gen. w. of the elf October, and re-.
| eeived by the PRECEDENT on the 9th of No
vember. This letter (as appears by Col. BIS.
afiidavit,) is con6dered by him as neceGary
| to his defence and his council 70 far rs tbev
underltand the fubje6t are of the fame cLinion.
The other papers are copies of official orders by
the navy and war departments. 1t may be faid,
mr., that 1t application were made to ihofe de-
paTtments, Col. b. had right to the papers !:
TOR we had iuppoied, that every citizen was
entitled TO iuch copies of official papers as
are material to him. And | have never heard
of but one inftance where they were refuCed
! and this was Inuh certainly under presidential
influence.
Mr.. Randolph here enumerated the particu-
lars of his own correspondence with MIR. r.
Smith, ftcretary of the navy.
| Mr.. Martin proceeded TO the following ef
feet Il have aflerted, that Col. Burr was en-
titled to copy oftheie orders. We intended
to how that thSie orders were Contrary to the
contribution aud the laws, aud that they enti.
| tied Col. Burr to the right of reiaance. we
intended to fhow, that by this particular order
his property and his perfon were to be dcRroy.
ed; yes, 10y theie tyranncaI orders the life
and property of an innocent man were TO he
expoied 10 deitrueton. We did not expett
theie originals themielyes becaCfe they were
gone out. But we did apply for copies =.
* were refuled under Preferential inftance.-
In New York, on the farccal Trials of Ogden
and Smith, the officers Of the government.
tcreensd themieves from attending, under the
ianction OF the Prelident's name. Perhaps the
fame farce may be repeated here: and il is for
this reaion that we apply direGtyto the p. of
the u. 5. Whether it would have been beh
to haze applied to the fecretaries of Rate, of
the navy and war / care not All that we
want, Is, the copies of fome papers and the
original Of another.
This is peculiar cafe, Sir. The PrcGdent
has undertaken to prejudice my client by de.
claring that of his guilt there can be no doubt.
He has sGumed to himfslf the knowledre of
the fuPreme being himfelf, and pretended TO
iearch the heart OF my highly refpeeted friend.
He has proclaimed him traitor in the face Of
that country, which has rewarded him. He
Ia Let t+r. ft 4. e