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

-
Of them the court could perceive that an an,
eswrr to the question propounded might
eliminate the witness, aud he was reformed
that he was arlibsrty TO refuse al answer.
These cases do not appear TO the court to
Support the principle laid down by the
counsellor the ~irness Ia the full Latitude
in which they have stated il. There is no
dictum which takes from the court the right
TO consider and decide whether any direct
answer 10 the particular question propound.
Cd could be reasonably supposed 70 affect
the witness. There may be Guestions, no
direct answer to which could 10 any degree
afec, him, and there is 20 case whiehg2es
SO far as TO- say that he is not bound TO an
swer such questions. The case OF Goose
y ID shis court is perhaps the saoagsstthat
has been adduced. But the gsneral doct-
rine of the Judge in that case nnst have
reference 70 the circuHs ances which shew.
ed that the answer might terminate here.
When two principles come 10 conflict with
each other. the court must give thenabosh
reasonable construction, SD as TO preserve
them both TO reasonable extent. lhe
principle whish entities the u. s., TO The
testimony of every citizen, and the 8prin
ciple by which every witness ls priv,lvgsd,
not to accuse himself, can neither Of hem
be entirely disregardsd. They are believ.
ed both to be preserved to reasonable. ex.
teas, and according 10 the true intention OF.
The rule, and Of the exception to that rule,
by observing that course which i. is Goa
cslved courts have generalyobsrrved. L.
is this: whea a question is propounded, II
be.ongsto the court 10 consider and 90 dc
eide whether any direct answer 10 il can
irnplica.e the witness, If this BIZ decided
10 the negative, then he may s-uswer II
wiihous violating. The privilege which is s.
cured TO tim BY law. II direcs a swer
90 it may criminase himself, then he muse
be the sole judge what his answer would
BE-. ihe Court cannotpariclpae with him
in this Judgment, because they canno' de-
eide on The eifac, OF his answer without
knowing what ii would be, and adlsclosure
of that fact TO The judges would strip him
ct the privilege wslch shc law allows, and
which ne CAIRNS. 1t follows necessarily
then from this state OF lhlngs that if til
qaession be OF such description that 40
answer 20 IL, may or nay nc. crimlnaie The
witness according 10 the purpers ny hat
answer, il must ress witb himself who alone
can tell wha, it would be, To answer the
question or not. II in such case be says
upon his Ga h that his answer would cri-
inmate himself, the court can demand 30
other testimony Of the fact. IL he tiecla.
ration be untrue, i, Is, In conscience and
ia law as much PerJnry as II ne had de-
ciarsd any other unirnsh upon h,s oath. Il
is one at those eases in which The ra,e ct
law must be abandoned or the GATH Of The
wltorss be received.
The counselfos the q S have also lsId
down this rule according to lheiT under
standing of it, but they appear to the cou't.
to nave made il as much 100 narrow as the
counsel for The WINGS have made it TOO
b. Dad. According 10 their stasement,,a
witness can never refuse to answer any
question unless that answer unconnected
with other testimony would be Sufficient.
TO convict him Of a. crime. This would
be rendering the rule s!a,ost perfectly use.
less. Many Inks Frequently compose that
chain of testimony. which ,sDece ssary 70
, convic, any Individual Of crime, 1t sp-
pears TO The court to be the true sense of
the rule, that no wisness is eompellab!e TO
furnish any one of'',hem against himself.
1t is certainly no. only possible ba, a
probable case, thar witness by disclosing
single fact, may complete the testimony
against himself, and to every efectual por-
pose accuse himself. as entirely as he would
do by stating every circumstance which
would be required for his convicsion--
That facs OF Itself might be unavail'pg,
but all other facts wiihou, it would be, IN:
st,fE Gent LEh,Ia that rnxnairae conc Ned ]