Alexandria daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1803-1808, 1807-06-22


inmate himself Of implica,e himself, whoa.
The court decidedly pronounced this g be
according 10 law: Here then said Mr..
Martin. as far as the authority OF Judge
Ircdell goes, is the fullest proof OF
The justice of the position have SGT
dawn, that witness casnos crimioatt h,m 4
seif.o Mr.. Martin now read from ~ Nal Nal
" 10 the case Of the king against Edwards
who was accused Of grand larceny, twas
the law Of Great Britain that w.tness
conld not criminaie himself it was the law
IN The state 10 which Mr.. Martin lived,
and it was The law in every state, whose
judicial proceedings he had investigated
He would pay he said, some Little as'en,
ton to- remainiug arguments OF the eoan-s
sci for the United Staies. These were
founded on N Nally, $50. 10 the king q.
gainss 'Titusotes, a witness who was no.
mao Catholic was askedia question, who
did not answer, because he supposed i
would criminals himself. He was al
SO asked another question, whether OF
not the house where he lodged at Saint
sOmers was governed BY priests 4 Jesults.
This question MIR. Martin observed, could
net have been supposed il would affect The
accused, yet he was not compelled TO an.
swer it. Mr.. Martin next remarked the
questions put to John Ryan, reported ny
MsNal!y, enc of which was "do yoo toll
low any busiaess or profession :" This Ger.
,ainly appeared a very inaocent question,
vet the court gave him this caution, that hc
| was nor abliasJ .0 answer the question. il
| ,ur wrought il would crimina,e himself. The,
court did not ask him to shew how the an
| swering of the question would criminate
him, or how il might tend TO crimina'e
him; only if he thought SO, that he was
not obliged e answer it. Mr.. Martin next
remarked, that the gentleman associated
with himself had said, and he would agree
with him, if wi.eess declared he was in-
seressed in the cause, he might no, answer
aoy question ia which he m! ght suppose Re
wasin,erestcd. This certainly was proper
| and conformable to every principle Of just.
ice; for if person interested, was com
| psl!ed TO answer questions which nigh, ln
jure him, it would affec, him equally as
questions which night criminate him. This
was generally supposed to be Jaw 10 civil
! cases; how much more, therefore, ought
ito be a rule in criminal cases, whtre not
only property, but life was in jeopardy
Earl Mansfield had expressly laid this
down TO be law In civil Sases, did 1t no.
therefore apply with ten times more force
IN a criminal case, where witness might
lay himself open TO the severest punish
mcnt In the kings brnch 10 cause re.
specfirEg patent, az objection was ma1eto
the oath OF one Of the servants Of the pa.
tentee, because he nigh. epdangcr his We
fac.!y ina case IN VIII ch he was much 10.
terested The gentlemen concerned for
the U. S. said Mr.. Martin, addnced the
case OF an attorney at law, VINO WAS oblg
ed disclose what be knew in particular
cases respecting his client but, said Mr.
Martin, In those Gases where he himselfis
iaseressed, or where his elient is interested
he is not obliged 10 disclose wha. he knew
With respect toethe presen, case, it would
be Impossible for him 20 give 40 explsna:
ticn 70 the court, without taking thai SHE d
from him, which alone could secure him
from the severess punishment. Even i
he were closeted with the court in priysse,s|
i; would DC highly ;mproper FOR him,n d.
close testimony in which he conceive HIM
sell interested, not pcthapsfor atrAe. for /
few acres of land, but tG SECURE his i,ber
sy il rot his life. MIR. Martin sdverted to, /
the case of MrsLincoln. the late attorney
general, 10 the msndamus case, as it was
generally called. In This case. when Mr..
Lincoln was called as witness, he was
told he was not obliged TO state any thing
&c crimina.e himself hIr. Marin said,
when he showed these authorities, and |
there was net a shadow of authority prof.