Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1807-06-20
I Il IN l.
Got. Narott 9Surr.

CM. Nar0tt Burr.
{ Chief Justice M0rshaH's ot,inion ON the
motion for writ Of subpoena duces te-
cum to the President Of tie United
Stdtes--concfuded.)
How essentially this difference of cir
curn,iances must vary the policy OF the
laws of the two countries in reference to
the personal dignity of the executive chief
will be perceived by every person. In
this respect, the first magistrate OF the
union may more properly be likened to
the first magistrate of state ct any rate
under the former confederation land it
rs not known ever TO have been doub ed that
the chief magistrate Of state might be
served with subpoena adj testi6ciendum.
Ut in any court of The u States, il has
ever been decided that subpoena cannot
issue TO the president, that decision is un-
known 10 this court.
itupon any principle the president could
be construed TO stand exempt from the
genersl provisions of ,he constitution, i,
would be because his duties as chief ma
y
oral objects. Blu, it is apparent that this
demand is not unremit,ing, and lift should
exist at the time Nhen his attendance on
cour; is required, it would be sheWn
on the return of the subpoena, and would
rather constitute reason frr not obeying
the process of ihe court, Than a reason
gainst its being issued. In point Of fac(
| it cannot be doubted that the people of
England have the same interest in the ser.
wee o. the executive government, 'hats
of the cabinet council, that the hmerlcon
people have in the aervics Of the exccU
tive of the u. States, and that their duties
are as arduous and as unremiltirg. Yet
it has never been slIedged that subpoena
might rot be directed 10 them.
Il cannot be denied, that oissue SUBJ
pcns to person filling the exalted s;ati-
| on of the chief magistrate, is duty which
would be dispensed with much more
cheerluIIY than it would DE performed;
but If il a be duty the court can have no
choice in the case.
! If then, al is admitted by the counsel
! for the u. States. subpoena may issue TO
: the president, the accused is entitled to it
of course and whatever difference may
! exist with respect to the power to compel
! the same obedience to the process as if it
had been directed to private citizen
there exists no difference with respect TO
| the right 10 obtainit. The guard furnish
ed TO this high ofiser tn protect him from
being harrassed by vexatious and unne.
cessary subponas is To be looked for in
the conduct ofa court after those su6pe-
| mas have issued, not in any circumstance
which is to prccede their being issued -
lin being summoned to give his personal
| attendance TO testify, the law does not dis
| criminate between the president and a
| private citizen, what foundation is there
for the opinion that this difference is Gre
ated by the circumstance that his testimo
! ny depends on paper in his possession,
I not on facts which have come To- his know
ledge otherwise than by writing The
court can perceive no foundation for shch
an opinion. The propriety Of introducing
any paper into a case as testimony must
depend on the character Of the paper, not
on the character Of the person who holds
it. A subpoena duces tecum then may Is
sue to any person to whom an ordinary
subpoena may issue, directing him to bring
any paper OF which Inc parry praying IL,
has right to avail himself as testimony
if indeed that he the necessary process for
Obtaining the view Of such paper.
When this subject was suddenly intro
duced, tho court felt some doubt concer.
ming the propriety Of directing a subpoena
to the chief magistrate, and some doubt
also concerning the propriety Of directing
any paper in his possession, not public in
its nature, TO be exhibited in court. The
impression that the questions which might
arise in consequence Of such process
we're more proper Tor discussion on the
return of the process, than on its ISSUING
was then strong on the mind of the iudg.
IS, but the Circumspec;ion with which
hey would take any step which would in
any manner relate to that high parsonage
prevented their yielding readily TO thos,
Impressions and induced Ihe request tina
! hose points fnol admitted, might be ar
<ued. The resuli Of that argument is
confirmation Of the impression originate,
Entertained. The court can perceive n,
legal objection to issuing a subpoena duce
.scunI to any person whatever, provided
the case be such as TO justify the process
This is said 10 be q motion to the dis