Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1807-05-16
VIRGINIA ARGUS.
r &c Il NJ o n ID:
SATURDAY, MAY 10, 1907.

wednesdays Argus, and on very different
grounds. The passage in question is in the
following words: awe fear indeed, (al-
"though the allusion in Griswold's letter
"appears to have been to the Judges of the
"Supreme Court of the state Of New
York. that there is too much reason to
"suspect some Of the Judges OF the Su-
"preme Court of'the United States, of be-
sing accomplces in the conspiracy. God
"grant that future incidents may not have
" still more injurious effect on their re-
puJations."
10 our sentiments so expressed, some
have objected that we put on Griswold's
letter, construction TOO favorable to the
Judges OF the Supreme Court of the United
States.
Those who make this objection, are of
opinion, that by the Ju{yes o/thc .Sutren,c
Curt, (all of whom are said in that letter
to be united in support Of COL Burr,) those
OF the Supreme Court cfthe United States,
and not OF the state Of New York, must
have been intended.
10 TINS, we answer, that the meaning
OF the extract appeared differently to us
ana we endeavored, according to the best
OF our Judgments, not to misreDres sent it,
he setter of Griswo,d evidently referred to
the election i'll New-York ard to exertious
which were then making to secure the sue
cess OF col. Burr, who was a candidate for
the Office of Governor Ii revealed in
deeo, most criminal mode of proceeding
70 accomplish that object; viz. by fraud
ana hypocrisy by his apostatizing in Sc
Cree from the republican party, with the
knowledge of the federalicts, but continu-
ing IN appearance attached to the former
support himself in this manoeuvre,
l.
ing contrivanceS, this extraordinary in
triguer is stated to have engaged all the
Judges OF the Supreme Court of New-York
IN ms service but as the JUDGES of the Fe-
deral Courts did not reside in that state.
ana could not be so immediately or obvious
/ ~ ose'ui to his views at that time, (For we
presume his present dangerous conspiracy
was not then thought of) it appears most
reasonable to suppose that he did not ap-
ply 10 any OF them for assistance in that G.
lection
a second objection is, that we have indie
Gently and unjustly attacked the Judges of
the Supreme Court of the United States.
by expressing our fears that some of them
may be concerned ia the conshirQcy. and
our wishes that future events NAV not in
crease the sus. i,ions now entertained a.
gainst them
We viii here observe, that the words
"accomfHces IN the conshiracy" were
slightly, but undcsignedly eQuivocaI; since
they might have been applied either to the
conspiracy in 1904, to make Burr governor
OF New-York by improper means, or to the
last mentioned conspiracy against the u.
States: But the latter was the idea we in
tended to convey.
We conceive ourselves not OBLIGED TO
answer for our opinions or suspicious but
that we have an indubitabe right. in the
tar enjoyment of the liberty of the press
(Which thank Heaven, is no longer shack
led by sedition.act. } n communicate them
TO the public. For wilfully publishing false
statements Of facts, printer is indeed CuI-
pable; but excusable, if he should be mis-
[ ken IN his oti fans.
We might therefore he content to sub
NIT those which we have expressed To the
'ugdment Of the community; but we will
take the liberty of asking our opponents
few questions, by way of explanation.
]. isnot the screening person accused of
treason from the punishment Justly due to
his crime, presumptive evidence Of mar
ticipation in the crime itself?
9. Is not the dscharring a prisoner
from custody, Gn case where the crime
alledged to have been committed by him
is stated to have been perpetrated at
great distance from the place where he
was apprehended, or at which he is brought
before Judge to be committedl without
allowing the prosecutor sufficient time to
procure the attendance of witnesses from
the scene of action, one of the most effec-
tual ways Of screening that prisoner from
punishment since it enables him, if gull
ty, to make his escape?
3. Is not the assumption of unconstituti-
onal or illegal powers, for the purpose of
taking cognizance # prisoners case, and
the discharging h IN afterwards, some evil
dencc that such surpation Of iurisdicti-
on was on hHrfose 10 diScha RE him h?
fla Ju'ge usur, Jurisdiction on purpose
to discharge prisoner, is there not rea-
son to suspect that he is partial, or an ac-
complete in his guilt?
A. Did not the Supreme Court of the u
nited States, which is only Court of .Hh-
hedis, usurp original Jurisdiction, in un-
del taking TO set Yollman and Swartwout
ut liberty by virtue Of writ of Habeas
Corpus
5. Is not the admitting prisoner to bail
in so small sum, and with so many secu-
rites, that the temptation TO make his es-
cape is very great, and the inducement TO
appear very small, an act in some degree
improper in Judge?
6. Is not positive testimony that pri-
soner intended to commit Treason, and
of 20 10 -.