The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1807-06-13

corum 10 now the ealc with which one
man may be defroyed ny another man or by a
faction; and with the fame unfreipg in,iiirr-
ence as philosopher fees rats Rrusgling in al,
air-pump (; will read quotation from Tuck
er's Blackstone.
Mr.. M. produced feveral inftances, that even
the originals OF recorded papers may be brot'
before court of juftice.
Refpeeting copies of the navy orders for
deltroying the property and perfon of Col. B.
It is very material to poffefs them. II may
Fbe necefiary to fhow. that thefe acts, which the
prosecutors are peafed to deem treafonable,
were in fact nothing but juitfable means for
defending his own rights.
ITO Be Continued.
LstsR Proeeelings.
The court have been occupied during the
three laft days, on the motion to obtain Sub
prna Daees Teenm, addrefied to the Preli-
dent of the u. S.
We have detailed part of the argument
that was maintained on Wednesday on this
iubjec. Mr.. Martin was followed by Meflrs.
Mc.Crae, Bolts, Writ ard Wiekham.
On Thurfday the Grand Jury were adjourn
ed over till Saturday: And the argument was
relumed by MIR. Hay, who was iucceeded by
Mr.. Randolph.
On Friday, the argument was continued by
court have not yet given their deciIion, on
tins interetsing point. Mr.. Burr obierved that
as Gen. Wilkinton might now be expected in
fhort time, before the court, it was delirable
to obtain prompt decifion.
On the conclufion of this argument, MIR.
Burr addrefied the court: he obferved that
this was perhaps the mott proper time for re-
newing the motion, which he had foae time
ago made TO the court, abouAsiviug more fpe-
chic intruetions to the Grand Jury, on certain
points of evidence. Thefc points he had re-
duced to writing in the form of abftraa propo-
htions, which he would take the liberty of
reading to the court
The following is f of thofc proportions
with the authorities cited to fupport them
l. That the G. Jury cannot confidently with
their oath find Bill except on fiich teftimony
as would jufiify petit jury TO find the prifon-
er guilty.
Foaer 2ss Sec. 8 Sd Inaitute e5-9d Inititute
sS4-Dalton 5i9--Judge Wilfons Works, Vol.
I'd. 364-T. w. Williams Jnfiice Sd Vol. prin-
ted l7s4-sd. State T. 4l9, 4oo and Sir John
Hawles obiervations, S. L. iS3-4th Black
500 to 5000 Hale Chap. Page 6l--Wilfons
Edition with Wilions note--2d Hale Chap. %
page l57 with Wifons noted Hall Chap %
page l69 with Wiiiops note Eunon,os Dici. I'd Sec
SO page l24-5-6--State T. page S--Fofter, page
232 Secs.
4 A"~t W. AS'tiuoiiJ VI WttuclicS OuRnt TO
go to the Grand Jury but what are legal and
competent to fupport the chars about which
| the enquir, is made.
Danby's cafe, Leech 443 Chap. le7--Dodds cafe
| Leach So Chap IT. Commonwealth of Virginia
VS. Hopbani, Varies and DAVIS before the c. Court
at Williamsburg.
8. That the G. Jury cannot return Bill for
Treaion for levying againft the U. s. un-
lefs they have two witnefcs who fwear to tina
~ 4 n
both which Witueiies are believed by THIN.
Ia Crown Law Chap. I'd Ssc 3d.
That both n,utf be believed I'd State Trials page So
f.. That there mutt he two witpefes TO the
Grand Jury of each overt aet, follows alto as a
| coufequence from the former petition, tina, they
muH have fuch teitimony az would be reeuiitc
for the Petit Jury.
5. That the Grand Jury cannot find a Bill for
Treafon in confequence any confefIiona made
though proved by two witneGes.
Foaer 24i-S. Black,
Contribution ofthe U. 5. Article Sd. Sec. s-Cray-
dons Dyeif IlJrdge iredslls charge -Friess Trial
17i-l72 Esfh 96-97.
S. That as the Graad Jury only bear evidence
on the part of the fate, if upon that evidence
they entertain doubt Of the truth of the
charge, they ought not to find the Bill, as the
presumption is ever ia favor OF innocence.
/ It. McNaiiy 9 TO g..
- ANO at VI Il tulEO ptrlCn can ne gwen
evidence aganit the accufed to prove him
guilty of Trealon. or of nnifdemeanor under
the law of 9Th June 1874, unlefs that ad is
proved to have been committed by the advice,
command, direction, or mitigation of the ac.
cuted, if done in his abfence or if done in his
prefence uniefs it be proved that the acouscd
was aiding or affiting.
An at ihail bind perfon connected with the Aa
but the declaration fsll not bind hin, becsufe no
part Of the act.
McNslly 6i5 to GIG.
8. The declarations ofothers cannot be given
IN evidence on the prefcnt enquiry to fuppors
the charge of ,Treafon or of mfdemeanor un-
der the act of Congrefs Is h June 1894 unlefs
1t be proven that the accufed was prefent and
aieDted thereto.
Eat 96-in cafe Of confpiraey confefons good agant
him who makes them but not sgainh Others
Poakc Il. CoDiefs, Peake Heariay --KeIyng 9Th
MeNally 4o-4i, Conisliony Of one cannot be read
againtt others.
Sd State Trial 574.
relation of what had been done no evidence.
McNaily el6.
Declarations of Others is not evidence.
4 State Trial I92-Ie6.
State Trials 2lS in the prefence of others, they
quieiiipg.
McNalIy cyl.
Mr., Hay oppofed this proceeding. He con-
tended, that the court had no right to give
fpeci6c initruetons to the Grand Jury, after
thev had hsenronce oeDeratlx, cba.n.< L.. ~.