Alexandria daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1803-1808, 1807-06-22

TRIAL OF COL. AARON EURR.
WEDNESDAY, June IL.

said were thrown est With q view 20 anSci
The character OF general Wilkinson, from
whom he;had this day rscs,yed letter In.
forming hica the letter 10 eypAsr, was de-
livered 20 him by q house 10 New of-
leans.
Mr.. Martin reqeessed % know who 9
nsned the letter, or who hrst broke me
seal.
The cot,r. said that this was 2 sguession
not now before them.
Mr.. Bolts said that al proper time they
would bring this matter bssaie the court.
Mr.. Martin prbceeds 20 raakr some OBJ.
servasions on the question oi Yesterday.
Whsther or not awitness could DC compeA.s
ed 20 answer question ,ha, he had declar.
ed on cath would rsimioate him. cir.
Martin said lie would shew to the court
mat the Law supported him 10 asserting the
!. witness could not be compelled 70 answer
He then adversed tothe argument ,Mr.
War, who said tina, he woula not travel out
Of the cas-. .b-fore the court.
The gentleman, Mr.. MARTA said had
not however followed that course, but tra-
yelled wilfally from the question in case.
He eorp.imsnsed the counsel for the pro-
secusion, bv calling them kind irdulgent
friends Tor the advice which they wefeper-
pesoay giving shs@ Be /! b Sc
~ Inconsistent wiihslr professions, for they
had used every exersion to prejudice the
public mind agains. his client. When-,he
laws of the country presumed his client
TO be innocens, until convicted, he asked
how the counsel for the prosecution could
reconcile their conducs with the dictates of
reason and justice. At this stage of the
tusiEess, he said every observation should
be avoided that might excite prelude.
either on one side or the o.her, The gen.
sleman. he said had declared he paper in
cypher had been material. If the paper
wc:S really criminal, why therefore did
they wish 70 erminaie Nj. WILEY in the
business, BY making cohesion TO that
purpose. This case he said and the mode
which the prosecutors were pa, suing,
were different from any thing he had ever
seen in his extensive practice. 1t they
could not translate the letter themselves il
was their datY he sad TO find some pc son
10 translate il. !; bat that court IF Jastice
could not compel any wfsress to translate
or interpret the letter. Any -peraou to
translate a letter before a court CT justice
ought TO be sworn for that purpose tia.
1t was the duty oft the prosecutor TO fud
aperson TO do this ad not he witness, aud
neither was il the duty Of ihs3court to as.
s'ss him in finding an Interpreter TOR III
purpose. -
Mr.. Martiu then referred TO the ed page
of NJ Nally tor this purpose as likewise
ihe Sd page of Peck, to shew that the evi.
dence must be applied ts the particular fact
IN dispute. I. wa. also rule of law, that
all tbs evidence ought to be snewn TO the
court, in order that the court might Judge
whether or nor the evidence was pertinent
TO the issue. He quoted also the index of
Hargrove to ths state trials. Mr.. Har.
grove. he said, appeared also TO be Of
opinion If the Witness only Imagined the
question had tendency 10 criminate him.
or subject him to penalty, he had 90
sightto answer il.
Some alsercation here, took place be.
tween MIR. Martin, Mr.. Hay and Mr..
Writ, respecting Hargrove'stndex and the
text 10 whichitsnferrsl.
Mr.. Mario also read an argument on
The same subjec.in the case of Ogden and
qsoted the question pu. to Mr. Ogdenre.
la,ive to his FIRST acquaintance with Miriam.
da. when the court appeared TO be OF OPT.
MON Thar Mr.. Ogden had 20 right to an
swer any question which might erlnlnate
himself
Mr.. Hay interrupted Mr.. Martin and.
requested he should read the arguments IN
The case of Ogden and Smith, on the
,,.~e &c sha rrnorc nf;nn a ffer Rrrsae dis