Alexandria daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1803-1808, 1807-06-26
CONTINUED !

S p
Upon The immrmorial usage then, and
upon what is deemed a seand coos .*uciton
uf the esnss.,atiOn and the law OF the land
the court IS Of ppnion that any psrsoa
chargedswith a crime 10 ,hs courts OF the
Uni,ed S ase. has a right before as well as
AFTER ibdicsment, to The process OF the
court TO compel the attendance OF his
witnesses. Much dslay aud much incon.
veoiepce nsay- be ayeided by thss constrsc.
tsesn, % Smischist which is perceived can
be prodaeed by ii. The process would
only Issue when, according ioAhe ordinary
course of proceeding the indiesmeoi would
be .ned al the tern to which the subpoena
is m de resursab,e, SO thar il becomes in
c.,Xbens on the accused TO be ready for
tsiai asshat term.
THIS point being disposed of, !. remains
TO euduire whether Subb1na duces fecs.ni
can be directed 10 the presiden, sf he y.
S and whether it orght TO be directed 10
this case.
This question originally consisted of two
parts. Ii was al frs, doubted whether a
subpoena coold issue IN any case 20 the chief
magistrate of the nation; and If il could
whesber that subpoena could do more thar
direct his persouaI attendance; whether II
could dirscs him iosbring with him a paper
which was 10 constitute the g'stof his ses-
NmonY.
While the argument was opening The 81
tornsy for thc u. S. avewsd his opinion
thats general subp9aa n'ghs issue to the
president, bar NOT subp0aa aRces tecum.
isis terminated the argument on that part
of he qar ssion. The cau.s, however, has
,hot |, necessary TO state briefly the fcanta
ton of It's ap,alon that such subpoena may
issue.
In the provisions Of the constitution and
Of the statute, which give 70 the accaseb a
right to The compulsory process OF the
court, there IS 20 exception wha,ever. / he
sblgauen therefore of these provisions IS
general; and it you'd seem that no perscn
could claim an exemption from them, bus
one who would not be witness. A. shy
ra,e, if an exemption 70 The geaer.i p'ia.
cipie exists, ii must De locked fer 10 the
lsw Of evidence. Thsexceptions furnish
edbythe law OF evidence (wish ore only
resesva.ionj SO far IS they are personal,
are of those only whose testimony could
mol be received. The single reservation
a!laded 10 is the case of the king. Akho'
he may, perhaps give testimony, 1t is said
to-be Incompatible with his dignity 10 sppear
unasr the process of the court. Of the
manv points Of difference which exist be-
tween the 6rss magistrate in England and
thr frs, magistrate Of ahe y S in respect
OF the personal dignity conferred 90 .heEa
by the constitution of their respective ma
tiens, the court will only select and men
too TWO. tits principle ct the Eag'ish
CONSTITUTION ,has the king can DO no wroos.
that 20 blams can he imputed 20 him, that
he cannot be named 10 debate.
By the constitution of the United States
the pres.dent as well as every other officer
OF he government may be impcached, and
nav be removed frcm Office on conviction
of high Chimes and m,sdemeanors.
By The constitution Of Great Britain, the
crow is hereditary, and the monarch can
never become asobject.
By thar of :he u. S. the president is e.
lecssd fyem the mass Of the people, aud on
the expiration of the time for which he is
elected, returns .oshe mass of HE people
again.
How essentially this difference of cir
comstanees musr vary the policy Of the
laws of the two countries IN reference TO
the personal diguity OF the executive chief,
will DC perceived by every person. 10 this
rsspecs he first magistrate of the union
may more properly be likened to the 6rst
msg'asrate of a ssate--at any rate undsrihe
former confederationand it is nolknown
ever 10 have been doubted that the chief
magistrate of state might be served with