Alexandria daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1803-1808, 1807-06-23

IT the letter in question contains evidence
Of treason, whichis fact not aspSn dent ca
the testimony .of the witness before the
court, and therefore may be proved without
the aid Of his testimony, and if the witness
was acquainted with that treason when the
letter was written, he may probably be
guilty Of snisprisen of treason, aud, there.
fore the court ought MOTTO compel h'nnao
answer any qaesilop, the answer 10 whlca
might disclose his former knowledge OF the
contents Of that letter.
Buff the letter shonldrela,e to the mis-.
demeanor and no, the treason, the COURT IS
not spprised, tina, a knuwledge snd conceal
mens of the misdrmeanor, would expose
The witness to any prosecution whatever.
On this account, lie court was at first DIS
posed 10 enquire, Hhethsr the letter could
be decyphered, 10 order to determine from
It's contents, how fsr the witosss oousd sx
examined respecting IT, re conft Was
inoiIned 10 this course, from considering
the question as ore which might reqairs .
disclosure of the knowledge which toswit-
ness nigh, have had Of ,lls contents OF this
letter, when it was put 10 cyRher, or WhenIt
was copied by him. lsindeed suah was the
fact. Dat on hearing the question more
particularly and preelssly stated. AID ind
ing ,ha, il refers only 10 tbs prvsrnsknow
lvSge cf the cypher il appears 20 the courts
that the question may Big answered without
duplicating thewitness because his fressot
.knowl.dge -wouId noi, j is Believed 10
crlmiaal prosecution, justify the inference
,hat his kaowiedge was acquired previous
so4hs trial, OF sffo,d %he means ct proving
that face:
The court is therefore Of option, that the
witness may answer tIe question now pro-
pounded.
{ The gentlemen of the bar, VIII understand
the rule laid down by the court to be TINS.
1t is the province olt the court to judge,
whether any direct answer g the question
which may be proposed, viii furnish eslaeAoas
against the witness
If such answer may disclose . fact which
forms a necessary and essential link IN the
chain Of testimony, which would be st-hclept
to convict him Of any, crime, he IS not bound
to answer it. SOFAS e furnish matter Tor that.
conviction.
In such case, the witness must hsniself
Judge what his answer,wilI be, and ii he says
on oath that he cannot answer without accns-
ing himself, he cannot be compelled to an
sWer.
Mr. Wyley being interrogated, replied, he
did not understand the part OF the Letter III cy-
PREF.
Mr.. Hay then PIT the following question
(" Mr.. Wiley, do you know whether or not
this paper was written;by col. Burr or by his
direction
Answer. The part in CIPHER was wrote
ly cal. Burr.
Mir. Hay then moved, that the paper so to
the grand jury. as they lad sent for it.
MIR. Bolts objected to the motion, and con-
tended that the materially ofthe papef to- the
present case, ought first to be shewn to the
court, before the paper could be sent.
The court were Of opinion, that the paper
ought to be decyphcred in court to prove its rec
levancy, before it could be sent TO the grand
jury.
The grand jury came into court about two.
Mr.. John Randolph, the foreman of the
gsslnd Jury, thus addressed the court May
it please the Court, one Of the witnesses In-
der examination, has answered certain ques-
tons touching a letter in cypher. fhe grand
Jury understand, that letter Of the same de
scrption is In the possession Of the attorney in
the court, ard they wish to have that letter in
order to ascertain whether it be the original
or a copy ofthe same The latter in cypher
was accordingly, after some discussion by the |
counsel on both sides, delivered to the grand |
jury.
The court afterwards adjourned.
MONTE VIDEo..