Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1807-06-20
r Il III
Got. Iarol1 9Sugr.
FRIDAY, June 10.

FRIDAY, June 10.
Col. burr informed the court that the
express, who had been sent with the writ
OF snopocns duces tecum to the President
OF the United States, had returned; that
Tue process had beep served, and the Pre-
sident had told the person who served il,
that "no answer would be sent bv that
person" The inference was that some
answer was intended to be sent i'm some o.
ther way /; but. as none had been received
by the last mail, and time sufficient, as he
contended, had been allowed, he gave no.
tlce- that, on tie next day, motion would
be made to enforce the process.
HE Counsel for Col. Burr called two
witnesses; Mr. James Knox and Mr.
Chandler Lindie who were severally
sworn to Certain fIidavits; which were in
tended to be made the foundation Of tive
motion against Gen Wilkinson, of which
noUce had been given the day before. The
hmuaVts were shewn to the counsel for
the United States. The Chief Justice pro-
posed that the court should peruse them,
before any argument should be had: in
order that the grounds intended to be ken
on behalf of Col Burr, should be better
understood; and that the motion should be
made the following day
HIr hay thought this very proper, but
wished the court, Off they should be Of OPT
mon, after examining those aiIidavits, that
they contained nothing on which the motion
could be tounded,) to reject them atogc-
ther but, If they entertained any doubts,
10 direct an argument on the subject. He
observed that from single glance at one
Oh them, he had noted an expression so mon
strous, 1t convinced him Of the faisehood of
the whole; that they were evidently in
tended only TO SANDER Gen. Wilkinson, and
thereby to make an improper impression
Oh the public mind with respect to the tri-
Al OF Aaron Burr; and had been obtained
from persons who were willing to say my
thIng TO answer the purposes ofthe accused.
our very reluctant to give any evidence on
behalf of the United States.
After series of desultorv conversation
In which Col. Burr's counsel endeavored
TO VindIcate the witnesses whose afidavits
were taken, and insisted that, as their char
aclers had been attacked, the affidavits
: sh'uid be Immediately read andt the argu-
iheht commenced. while the counsel for
the On tee States commended that those aft
nudNitS should not be publicly read until
inc court had peru ed them, and directed
IL toDe done 1t was finally determined that
the court would take them for the nrcsent.
and that, on this day, the argument on the
motlon should take place Some CONVERSE
ton also occurred concerning the wording
OF the motion which was reduced to wri-
ing by MT. Randolph and is, in substance,
tnata rnlc be granted requiring Gen Will
kIDson 70 ShcW cause, If any he can, why
an attachment shall not be issued against
nm Tor contempt of the court, committed
by him, touching the witnesses whose afFi-
daVlts had been taken, and far obsfJncki,lp
me due administration ofjusfice.
N7r f'ay also moved to be permitted to
send in!errogatories to the grand Jury, to be
propounded by them to the Witnesses be-
tore them; alIedgin.5 that many of the wit
nesses were unwilling to state the whole
truth, and cautiously answered only so far
as they were Intercepted and that the
grand Jury were not as well informed as
himself as to the questions which ought to
be put, for the purpose of fully explaining
thls mysterious business.
The ChiCf Justice asked ifthere was a
ny objection on the other side to this mode
OF proceeding. Col. Burr's counsel agreed
to 1t, provided Undergraduates might also
be sent by them. The Chief Justice said
that,in principle, he could no. discover the
lmproprIety Ut such ,nterrogatOries being
FURNISHED on both sides, although a prac-
tee OF this sort was unprecedented i'm this
country. Cuiarlyi he conceived, that,
II interrogatories were pcrUi;ted to be sent
on behalf of the u. 5. the same privilege
ought he granted othe accused ;bccause.
although the grand Jury were to- examine
Only the witnesses on the part of the u. :.
they were to obtain from those witnesses
the whole truth, as wen where IL might
make in favor of The accused, as where it
made against him.
The counsel for the u s said they could
not consent 90 intcrrogatories propoundcd
BY the accused being sent Co the grand Jury .
as no example to authorize such a mode OF
proceeding had ever occurred within their
knowledge and, in the end, withdrew their
motion