Alexandria daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1803-1808, 1807-06-19

ness (Mr, Hay himself who We. -.
~ the case of judge Chase from ref,s. su'ed
MS memory by the reading Of ps,,;r a'as
memorapdums. f'''scar
Mr. nm asked the court if he eye,..
cd that narrative written by third 80. s.a''
would be Proprr~evidence. He den.a 'ua
ever made such statement. He orlv s'
ludsd to original letters in the rossessio," -
general Wilkinson, which he could s'I
s'ansiase, He did no. say VIVA, Mar WIZ, et'
ham had made him Iha. he did ~.
wish absurd positions should b. pu; in,ob;,
mouth. "S
Mr.. Wickham denied having eve, nv, *
surd positions into his mouth bur ia, ~.
argumentwas absurd, which oa,urav n"..
lead to absurd positions. He cid no, s,n
what papers were in gen. Wl!k;ason', ~.
session were proper orimproper. Hesnl,
| meant that oei,her g,n Wilkiason, o, .,n
other wtpess, should carry up papers H.,
did DOT previously pass ,hroega the hand,
Of the cour,. The attorneys obiec, now
ever was, that any witness m ghs ca,ry y,
what papers he pleased, which he shos,I
always oppose.
Mr.. Hay stated he meant 70 such ,b;nc.
he only meant tia, the.wi.nesses m;eht T..
allowed to refresh their memorir, 5y y,
ps.s, by looking TO notes. He said Mr.
Wiokham attempted TO support his srsu
ment byreferfiog 20 the case Of iudgt Cbsr
He could not say WHAT was done On thu,
occasion but he wosld say VIVA, wss dare
was improper and contrary 20 aw. He cp.
ed 10 supporter his argument. the CASE cf
Hardy and Horne locke ia England where
witness was aRawed TO rtffesF h S memo.
~ 10 open court by referring to notes.
Mr.. Bets replied, in the case Ct Chss..
legal or not, it was decided By toe unap.
NOUS vote Of the senate.
Mr.. Hay denied i, was so decided.
Mr.. Martin affirmed it was.
MIR. Bolts proceeded, and detailed infuN
The circumstances a the case before the
senate, lhs witness inaues,ion bsvjcgbetn
MI. Hay himself. Hesiicrwards enforced
his argument, by stating several improper
effects that necessarily would arse were tie
Witnesses at liberty to produce lcicers and
papers to the grand jury, that had 20, PISS
cd through the inspection Of ,hr '.aurt,
The Court delivered their opincn, that
as the grand Jury had the privilege 81 send
ing for Witnesses, they had also discre.
tiohsry power Of judging OF The reception
oEwhAtever pspersshev Ugh. offer ifthose
papersformed part, or regarded ice trans
actions respecting which the witness was
Opposing.
Mr, hay begged TO observe to the court
thar gen. Wilkinson m ghs-not only refer to
letters directly 10 himself from the person
accused BIZ. all auch letters or paq-ts!ha
related 10 his deposition.
The Court WAS Of opinion thu. the vii.
ness could only resort to letters or facts dc
,ecsly communicated from the accused 10
the witEess.I
Mr.. Hay answered, by this that al! the
d fiicul,ics cuula 90 be .bvlaed. That Il
was necessary that gen. Wilkinson should
vindicae bis conduct and sll bis actlen''o
the grand jary, bas he could uo' 20 ms 0y
the simple production ofetsers fromta ss'
cused 70 him.
The Cart adhered 20 their opinion.
Mr.. Wlekhm said that wspeycr ger.
w lki1soo himself came o. trial. he wooia
rave no objection to the production OF inc
papers required But this was oct INC
case a, presens-Gea. Wilkinson was
cot on uisl, and therefore could not Dc
admitted TO produce on the trial CT ano'he''
pasers cha, iefsrred tohimself.
Mr.. Writ supposed It was competent u
he grand iufy 10 examine iaso the cempe'
ssucy of any witness, add therefore had a
,igh. to see any papers which might sauS'y
the m as 10 he cred biltv Of aoy particular
witness. They therefore hada right '0p1'