Alexandria daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1803-1808, 1807-10-28


bad onsiitsed these rscausionary passsufes
81 should nave deserved The severest de-
nunciassonss If The govsrnmsn was
prompted By that pufs pa,riotisna whirh
has always ia uenecd my condnct, and ny.
character for whlcIi trust will nfver be
fafnished. / shallconsihue TO dcty The VA.
mos arr, fraud, deception and sillaoy. that
my encna les can PRACTICE g wards ms
Mr.. Wickham objecssd % ths Psoduc,
/ tion of the drposisionss
After dcsnltory Argument 81 The Lhtff
= usfice determined thai II wasanot correct
& Is read them. If these afidayits had been
made previous 10 The transaction AZ New
Osleans, they might have been read ex-
plana,orv of the grounds Of general VIII
kinson's conduct but being taken since
they are objectionable, as every thing 9. that
kind ought Ia be subjsctedsoa cross exa.I
mina,ion. General Wilkinson has stated
the grounds Of his conduct, and very pro-
spsrlY !; but he has 10 right TO support his
explana,ious by illegal evidence.
& Mr. Baker. The court having, disposed
Of the dispositions, the oply question tha.
remains, relates TO the letter, On.his ques-
ton Two points occur. First; Whelhrr this
is correct copy Of a certain lcttrr--and
Secondly Whether tia, letter was written
BY gen. Jackson.
Chief Tustice 10 gen. IVillkinson. Do
you know The baud writing Of gen. jack
son a know il only BY comparison. !
neyrr saw him write.
Mr., Wickhan,. Did you compare this
Letter? "A My clerk did; and he is here,
Mr. I4cl3ae. Did not this letter form
she ground, 10 part, ofsyour csndues! A
II did certainly influence my conducs.
Mr.. Wickham objected 70 its being read,
because It was only proved 10 be srus
accpy by the general recollection OF the
wisness. Some drsoIory CON aersasion co,
seed
Chief Tustice. Both sides admit that II
is immaterlal whether gen. Wilkinscn's
impressions of the state Of New Orleans
we're actually true cr false. Both sides adj
nit Tia. he may produce any letter which
is verified BY hinsself. Blu, this copy is
not proved by him tobe a true copy, $1,000
There is 30 objection 10 gen. W,lkinson's
stating the contents Of shia letter bus that
statement cannot be confirmed by the copy
that is Offered
lNr. TVickhan,. There Is one thing rcre
| 10 be considered. The coaft has DOT cone
10 any positive decisioo as TO me letter c1
tue 18th Nov. If grn. Wilkinson does
|, not produce the omitted parts, by the rules
OF evidence, we are al liberty 10 state and
to use them. until they are disProved.-------
!! Gen. Wilkinson may, i ,:e phases, pro-
dueesshe whole letter at any subseq Ell
| period.
Is MIR. Hau. The president of The y. S.
has prescribed the course which should be
! pursued. It's he, and no: gsn. Wilkinson
| .ha, withholds the omitted parts. Is itfai'
then that the opposite counsel should sup
ply these omissions as they please, and
that .hsir suppositions should be received
| az evidenced
Lhfsf Justice. I have already decided
I this question. It's certainly fair TO aup-
ply the omitted parts by supposition,, tho
| such ought not 10 affect gen. Wilkinson's
private character. Ifahis' were asrial in
chief should perhaps think myself bauDd
|, to continue the cause, on account of the
withholding the parts Of this paper: apd
{ Il certainly cannot exclude the differences
whici, gentlemen may draw from the omis'
sions.
Gen. WilSinson. have to offer, sir, q
fester from James L. Donaldson, which
T Mr.. Martin called for yesterday.
Mr.. Martin. Thisis only an extract.
Gen. Yyilsinsoa. Z hadin other.
Mr. Marhn returning the papsr) We
! take no extracts.
Mr.. Wirt In an ander KEY Unlessi.
be of molasses-
Gen. Wifkinson. Ih.ye also aoo.her pa,