Berkeley and Jefferson intelligencer. [volume] (Martinsburg, Va.) 1802-1810, 1807-07-17
lWaotr No. 4as.l

Mr.. Hay answered, BY this. that IN
the dil6eultiescould not Be obviafed.--
That il was necesstly HAT gen. Wilk In
son should yindicate hiSrondust andall
his actions tothe grand jury but he could
not do this be the simple production of
ietter from the accused 10 him. =s.
The Court adhered % their opinion.
The attendance Of Or. Bollman being
required BY the Grand Jury, Mr.. Hay
moved that Dr.. Bollman should be naked
ID decypher l certain letter found In the
possession Of Mr.. Wyley. This wa OBJ.
jected TO blythe counsel Of Col. Burr, Who
contended hat no iettefs or papers ouehe'
70 be sent tothe Grand Jury Withous ha2
wing passed the Court. 54tta Il IT. : :
The court accordingly drewup certain,
institutions to the Grand Jury. which
upon being submitted to the counsel On
both sides, and undergoing 1slight a..
teration, were sent 10 the Jury. ~ i =
a long and desultory argument aftefS
wards took place, % 70 the propriety Of
Mr.. WILEY answering certain questions
which might be propounded. e. p ! E ii.
Mr.. Wyley and his counsel Mr.. VIII.
liams, commended that giving answers 10
the questions ofthe Attorney, mizhf cri.
minate himself. = &
4 i The questions proposed were. briefly
ofthe following nature. The Attorney
produced IN court q letter partly In Cy-
pher and partly written 10 the Dutch Lam.
guage, which letter was alledged either
70 have been written BY Mr.. Wyley from
Col. Burrs direction, or copied BY Mr..
Wyley from an original in Burr's hand
writing, by Col. Burr's order. The
Attorney therefore wished 70 interrogate
Mr.. Wiley on these Points--Mr. Vii.
liams and Mr.. Bolts contended that IL
Mr.. Wyley answered these questions.
they would either eliminate Or mighe
tend to eliminate him, and advanced
several authorities to shew that no Wit
ness was compelled TO answer any ques-
tion that might have that tendency. Two
instances were produced from the Law
Booksof Great Britain One was the
case ofa witness who was asked whether
or not he was Roman Catholic, and
upon refusing to answer the question, the
prosecutor appealed to the COURT, bat
they were Of opinion that ariswerine
such a question might have q tendency
TO criminate the witness there being sesr
we're penal Laws in force against persons
protesting the Roman. Catholic Reliei-.-
on.-The other was the case Of awitness
who confessed himselft 10 the court in the
first instanceto be Roman Catholic,
but being afterwards interrogated q TO
his occupation or trade 10 life, refused
TO answer the question, md The eours
thought itimpnoPsr 70 compel him. +
Mr.. Hay and Mr.. M'Rae commended
that although Mr.. Wyley had ranseri.
bed the ietter in cypher. or had written
il by Col. Bulr's direction, yet he va
ignorant ofthe meaning Of the eypher,
and consequently although il might con. !.
tain Treason, yet having no knowledge
Of that Treason, the writing or the tfanss I
eribi1g Of il could in no ways criminate
him. They therefore proposed that in
the first instance he should answer the
following que stion which they argued
had not the remosest tendency TO crimi.
nate him. q RI
Question. --MF. Wyleydo you know
the matter this letter contains -:
Upon Mr.. Wyley refusing 10 answer.
the court was applied 70 BY the Attorney,
and q desuitory argument took place be-
tween Messrs. Wickham, B6tts md
Williams on the part of the witness, and :
Messrs Hay, Wift and M'Rae on the b
part ofthe prosecution, q 70 the propri- !
ETY. Of the question. r.
The court were Of opinion that Mr."
WILEY should answer upon oath whether
or not he thought that answering the pro.
posed question might have q tendency 10
eriminate himself. ss.s
Mr. Wsley replied il might erininate
himsi in the eventof q certain case. IA 4
Mr.. M'Rae hoped the court would
mt allow the Attornev Ens the nro.., 49, n