The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1807-10-14
LafrR Proeeediupe.

There was no court on Saturday, on account
OF Mr.. Wirt's indifpofition.
On Monday, MIR. Martin returned the arru.
ment at 10, and continued fpeakng till four.
On TUESDAY, Mr.. Hay offered the affidavit
of Benjamin Stoddert, Eiq. which he had inn
received from that gentleman Mr.. B,,r ot,,
ieeted to its production, on the ground that
Mr.. s. ought to have been preCent 10 be Crofs-
Exam'ned.-Ihe affidavit was not RECEIVED
Mr.. hay then moved for an attachment arainR
Mr.. Stoddert; which was awarded by the
court
MIR. Wirt obieived, that he had urderfood.
| the gentleman who had opened the caufe on
the part ct the defendants, had aferted that
| fyitem of espionage had pervaded the tranfaeli-
ons IN the Weitern Country, of which MIR. Ora.
ham was faid 10 have been the frlt miciOer.-
hold in my hand. fays Mr.. W. the original
| initrucIons of the Sec'ry OF State to Mr. Ora
ham, which offer as evidence to the court"
| Mr.. Burr objected to their production, on the
ground that this paper referred to previous
8 aerial explanation. "-.i'hc CD. rus. obrsry
ed that there was no neceiiity for their intro
duction; that according to Mr. Graham's own
| itaement, he had hecn commlffioued by the 90
vernment 70 enquire into the fiuation of the
| Weitern country, in character very different
from that or Spy; and that no evidence had
been produced to difprovc thsfe fatements.
| u
on was made 10 Mr.. Graham az difrharrjny the
fervices of fpy, he ihould wave the reading of
thofe inArnctions but if the oppoiite couufel
Thought proper TO pref5 Iuch inftrutfions again.
he fhoud con6isr it DeceiIary to reproduce
this paper.
Mr.. Martin then returned the argument on
the motion for commitment.
Ii ia nnderfood that Ddn Clark, ECo. of
New. ORLEANS, Mr.. Powers, and Dir. Cum
mngs has arrived in this city, as wilnenes on
behalf of the accuied.
Commodore S. Decatur has arrived as wit.
ncis on the part OF toe U. S.
From the rapidiiy Of MIR. Graham's pronun.
citation, 1t was mpofIiDle for us not TO commit
tnme inaccuracies in the report of his teftimony
Mr. G's ab;ence prevented US from having the
opportunity OF correcting 1t before il was pub
lf!bed. The two following errors occur in The
ftatement of his opinion as to the Ouachita
land
1 Mr.. Graham did not tell Mr. BlenperhaGstt
that col. Burr would have no title under Rae
ltrop's grant. He haz7rded doubt or cave AN
opinion on that fubjecl, for which he ALIGNED
his rsaions among thelc, that col. Lynch (un-
der whom he undeifood col. B. clamed) had
purchaied part of this grant from Mr.. Ed.
ward LlviDgaon-that be had not complied
with The conditions of the contract, and tina,
1t had been fet aside by decree of the fupreme
court of the Orleans Territory.-From III.
manner in which this circumRance il reported
in the Enquirer, it might be fuppofed that col
Lynch had no claim to any part of this grant,
fave what he derived from Mr.. Livingston an
idea which Mr.. G.. never meant TO convey 10
Mr. Blennerbanett or any other perfon for be
expressly told Mr.. Bl. that COL l.. had claim
70 part of this grant, which he derived from
another iource. Mr.. G. mentioned the pur.
cbaie from Mr.. Liyiuslou, beeauf. he was uu.
/ der the impreiiion that col Lynch had fold hrs
whole intereit in this grant 10 col. Barr.
! When Mr. Graham was afked as to the cha
rseier ot this land he anSwered, that ihole who