Alexandria daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1803-1808, 1807-06-26

Soc the court " hich shews that the letter
& oaession contains any matter the discio-
s,,rs Of WHICH would cndanger the pubic
..tety. If il does contain sacn matter the
g,c, usy appear before the disclosure IS
made. If i, does con,ain arys matter
which il would b-imprndcns 70 disclose,
'.E1x;ch ii is not,the wash Of the executive
aisclose, such mas,ersif BE- no, imnsedi,
=. s,riy a. essertially applicable 20 the point
s;a OF course be suppressed. |, y not ea-
-. ), eonceive thatso much OF he letter is
,.,a,es 10 the eondoct Of the accused, can
he subirct Of drlieacy wi,h.,he Pfesidens.
Escsv thing oil this kind however will have
y, due consideration on the return Of the
ssbrGaa.
s2.y. II has been alledgsd that copy
may Be received inslead Of the original,
add the ae,ef congress Has been cited IN
support Of this pToppsision.
This argument psesurposts that The let.
Ter REQUIRED is document filed in the de-
psr,mrst Of state, The reverse OF which
NAV be ADD enasr probably is the fact Let
sers addressedto the president are mostu-
sua!ly retained by himself. They do net
belong 10 any of the departments. But
were The fac, otherwise copy nghs not
answer The purpose. The copy csuld DOT
Be superior 10 the original. and the
cr:pinsl itself could not be admitted
If deuied without proof that i was in the
hand writing Of the witness. Sappase the
case ous. al the bar CT aniad!csment Oh this
letter 70, libel and % lis production 1t
should appear notso be In The hand writing
OF the person indicses. wculdits being de-
posted in The department. of state, mskelt
his wr;;itg or subject him 70 the conse-
qusccss sui haviag written is! Certainly
not. For the aarposc then Of showing The
letter to have been written by a particular
person he origina! mus, 3. produced and
copy coalli no, be admitted.
On the confidential IA ure Of his letter,
much has been said at ths bar. and aulhari.
ties have bsen produced which appearta be
conclusive. Habits contents bean orally
rommraica,sd, the person to whom he
comnnaica'iaas wefe made could not have
excused himsr'f from detailing 1hcrn SO Ear
as thew Nigh, be deemed essensiai in thu
defence. yher heirg IN writing. gives
no adJislCral saussity, the oalr difference
Wodnced BY that circumstance is ihatsdhs
contents Of she psper must be proved By
tbe paper Itself, pcs by the recollection OF
.th- wisness.
Mach has been said about The disrespscs
TO heachief magistrate, which is irapllcd
tbs ,his mo;ionsnd by such decision OF il
as the law is believed TO require.
These observations viii be very truly
answered by TIE dsehrssioa TIA; this court
feels raauy. perhaps peculiar ruo,ires fer
maoifes,ing4 as guaded rcsPsct fo- The
chisf msg, s,ra,e OF the uuioo, rs is com
pa'lhle wi.hi,s efficisl 'istiss. 4 20 60 be-
yoad these wsusd exhibit ccnduct which
wpuld daserve some other speculation than
the tenn resprc,.
1t is not for tie cour. TO Anticipate the
event Of the prsssn. procedures, shouid 1t
termiuate as is expected on he psrs OF the
u. Sail those who are eoncsrnaa in II
weuld certainly regret that psper which
the accused belevsdto be essential TO his
defence, whith may for angh, that appears
be essential, had hsen withheld from him.
viii not say thu. this cireumssance woeld
IN any degree iarpsh the reputation OF the
government, but will say that it would
justly tarnish the reputation OF the court
which hal given lis sanction to It's being
withheld. Might be permitted 10 utter
one sentiment, with respect to myself II
would be TO deplore raoss earnestly the oc-
cason which should compel rae TO look
back on any part OF ms ofhcias conduct
with so much sels-se9reach as | should feel,
could declare on the infss NATION now pcs.
sessed, that the accused, is not entitled 10
rae le,rer in question. If il saould be really
important TO him.
The propriety OF requiring the answer TO