Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1807-05-27


not called by the marshal, and often
his services to be sworn on the Grand1
jury; in which case he could not be
rejected. The question depends how.
ever on the point whether there was
an actual summons, for conversation
merely preparatory to a summons is a
different thing. 1t is therefore proper
to examine the marshal as to what
has been done.
Col. Burr. The court having con.
Cured in the privilege contended for
by me, l will now ask their aid in
coming at the truth of the fact. L
trust there will be no impropriety in
asking the marshal to state what num-
Der were originally summoned, and
what names have been erased, and c.
theirs substituted in their stead. He
would name several gentlemen who
mad been ummoned, and whose
names had not been called.
Maj. Joseph Scott, the marshal Of
the district, was thereupon examined.
He said that he7had shewn the Judges
them selves a letter from Mr.. Iohn
TAYLOR, of Caroline, who had been
summoned and they had said that his
excuse expressed in that letter was
sufficient. He had therefore summon
ed Col. James Barbour, of Orange,
in his room; but did not say that the
Judges had directed him to do SO, all
tho he conceived it to be his duty in
consequence of what had passed be-
tween him and them. He acknow.
lodged also that Mr.. John M'Rae,
who had been summoned, having
since that time lief the state, he had
under similar impressions summoned
DR.. William Foushee.
The Court decided that Mr.. Bar
bour and DIR. Foushee, had not been
legally added to the PANEL of the
Grand Jury they were therefore
Withdrawn.
! The PANEL having been reduced to
sixteen by the removal of those gen.
tlemen as Improperly summoned, col.
Burr expressed some regret at exer-
cising the privilege of challenging two
Others for favor. IF the right was
conceded, it might be necessary to
Appoint triers and go into an exami-
EnatIon OF witnesses. He wished it to
be distinctly understood that he claim.
ed the same right of challenge, for
good cause shewn, in this stage of the
business, as he were now before the
petit jury, tho he admitted that he
could not peremptorily challenge.
Mr.. Bolts presumed that there
could be no question as to the right.
Even ia civil cases this was cause,
though not a principal cause of chal-
lenge. The law, which had been read
was explicitin its application to this
case. Our cause of challenge must
be made out by testimony. If we
shew that an impuritv exists it ought
20 be purged away tho no rejection
whatever was intended or the honesty
or uprlghtness of any of the Jurors.
Mr. Hay believed the law to be as
stated on the other side. No obiec.
ton would be made by him to the
course which the gentlemen wished
to pursue.
| Colonel Burr then proceeded to
name the persons and causes of
challenge. He first mentioned VIII.
liam b. Giles. With respect to him
there were two causes, the first Of
which was of public notoriety and re-
CURED no proof. Mr.. Giles while a
member Of the Senate had occasion
to pronounce upon documents of
which he (col. Burr) was the object.
and had voted for the suspension of
the writ of hdbeas Corpus. The con-
stitution had declared that a suspen-
sion OF this writ could only be war
ranted in extreme cases; and that by
Pronouncing on the expediency Of that
measure, Mr.. Giles had inevitably
formed an opinion as to the designs
Imputed to him. Further, he would
endeavor to establish by testimony.
that since that time Mr.. Giles had
said that the documents laid before
Congress furnished evidence of his
(Burr's) guilt, and guilt of the high
est grade.
Mr.. Bolts. The law affirming the
right of one in state Of prosecution
to challenge a grand Juror, for cause.
IS express and unequivocal. We must
/ /. Al.