The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1807-06-20

when MIR. p. received orders to eondue his priloner
to this csy-Do not gentlemen rteollea any infance
Of libes, upon the courts, when they were actually
IL, feilion Such have taken place on this iide of
the ocean well on the Others though not 10 i,
quently in Virginia, where printing pr.iIes nor
10 numerous, nor 70 exsravagsne in the iieenic,
which they a1ume.--I repeat tkat whichever does
any a9 which influences the administration of ulse,
is liable to an attachmeut.-Nfr, Wickham hoped
thar the court would hear this motion tomorrow.
TB. Chief Jxfise observed, that If the practice
could be flown to affect the dccfion of the Jury
while they were in feihon; tho court could not re-
fufe to hear the motion.
Mr. Eay. Whenever it is brought on, inal
renew my motion to fufpend this enquiry, until the
preiccuton fi,all be fniaed.
THURSDAY, June Is.
As foon as the court attended, the Chief
Juftice delivered the following opinion in the
cafe Of Willie.
In point of law the queftion now before the
court relates to the witncfs biHifeif. The at
torney for the United States offers paper in
eypher which he fuppofes TO have proceeded
from a perfon aganit whom he has preferred an
indictment fer high tteafon- and another for i
,nifdemeaner, both of which are now before the
Grand Jury, and produces perion fald to be
the .frcrrtarv or cle,k of the accuied, who is
fuppofed either to have copied this paper by
hs directions or 20 be able to prove III Tome
other manner that it has procseded from his
authority. To a oucft;on demanding whether
he under ttands this paper, the winefs has de-
elined giving an anfver, favng that the snfwer
might crimina,e hinitlf; and it 10 referred to
the court to decide whether the execute he has
offered be efficient to prevent his aniwering
the queition which has been propounded to
him.
1t is fettled maxim of law that no mAn is
bound to criminatc himieif. This maxim forms
one exception to the general rule which de-
eiares that every perion is coDpeiiahle to bear
tefimcny in court of juhice. For the wit
nefs, who conHdtrs himt,. as being within this
exception, it is aliedged that he is, and from the
nature of things NUT be, the fole Judge of the
efTset of his anfwer: That he is coHfequertly
at liberty to refufe to anfwer any Queifion,
IF he will fay upon his oath that his aniwer to
shat cucfion might criminate himfef.
When this opinion was hrf fuggeRea, The
court conceived the principle laid down at the
bar to be too broad, and therefore required that
authorities in fupport of it might be adduced.
Authorities have been adduced and have been
conlidered. In all Of them the court could
perceive that an aBtwcr to the quefion pro-
pounded might criniuate the wiinets, and he
was informed that he was at liberty 10 refufe
an anfwer. Thefe cafes do rot appear TO the
court to fupport the principle laid down by.
the csunfel for the wi.nsfs, in the full latitude
in which they have Rated it. There is no die
tum which takes from the court the right to
conGdsr and decide whether any direct aplwer
to the particular qusftion pro. 'uRded could
be reafonably fuppo!ed 60 af5eG. the witneis.
There may be queitions, no direct aniwer to
which could in any degree affect him, and there
is no cafe which goes 70 far as to fay that he IS
not honud 10 auiaer fuch Qucftion. ThsA
of Goony in this court is perhaps the $500
that h.. been adduced. But the general doc
trine of the Judge III that cafe mui have refer
red 10 the circumstances which ihowed that
the anfvsr might criminate him.
When two principles come in confii6t with
each other, the court mutt give them both a
reafouabe contraction, 70 as to Preferve them
both 10 a reafonahle extent. The principle
which entities the United States TO the teGmo-
ny of every citizen, and the principles by which
every witnefs is privileged not TO accufe him
fe!f, can neither of them be entirely difregard-
ed. They are believed both to be preferved TO
reafonabIe extent and according TO the true
intention Of the iule and Of the exception to
that rule, by obterying that Courfc which 1t
is conceived courts have generally obieryed:
j Is this:
When quefon is propnunded, it belongs
10 the court tn coniider and 10 decide whether
any direct anfwer TO it implicate the wit
DelS. AZ ms De decided IN iHS USSatlSC, tbcn
he may aniweT it without violating the prlvi-
Irge which is fecured to him by law. If di-
rect anfwor TO it may criminate himfelf, then
be Euft be the fole judge what his anfsver
would be. The court canilat participate with
hun in this judgment, becaIethey canpot de-
eide on tine effect of his anfvrr sithout knowing
what it would be, aud difcldfure of that fate
to the judges would "trip him Of the privilege
which the law allows and which he claims. Ii
follows neceGariy then, from this hatc Of things,
that if the queition be Of fuch a dsfcrip tion
that an anfwer TO it may may not crimiuate
the witneis according to the purport of that an
fwer it muit ref with himielf who alone can
7eii what it would be, to anfwer the eueftion
or NOT. II in iuch cafe, he fays upon his oath
that his anfwer would criminate himfeif, the
court can demand other tyhimopy of the
fact. If the declaration he untrue, it is in con
fcience aud IN law as much a puIjury as fhe
bad declared airy other untru,h upon his oath
rs it is one of thofe cafes in which the rule of
law mufl be Abandoned or the oath of the wit
nefs be received.
The counii for tie u. S. have alfo laid down
this RUE according 10 their understanding of *
but they appear TO The court TO have made it
as much too narrow as the council for he wit
nefs have made it too broad. According 10
their fsrement \ winefs can never rrfufe O an
fwer any queition urlefs hat aufwer unconnett-
cd with other tetimony would be- fufioient 10
lcCnyi6t hm Of crime. This would be
%rderiug the rule almoh perfectly worth