Alexandria daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1803-1808, 1807-06-03

~ 7Eg4r. sYzaYs H seems tnas Ing al1Av sau J.
intclhgeat counsel whs were employ q for
The Unnsd States did not deem i neees.
cary 10 safe this objection. 4 passrd .sn y
<silensio. Ii was. not once nctlctd5 even in
the material rase ~ general Wilklnson,ss
ssf6dayit, Why was. i nsglecsedR sor why
did The able and zsslons eouusel, who Ger.
,ainIy s?sred DO exertions 10 the caus col
1thrir Gle q ss< o nit o raise thisNery ohlec,
\ ton ia The iof.n of autkensicasion. IS
3 W.. Aartin. Although twas counsslln
these cases beforeelhe supreme csurt OF
the United States, am couhdent this 90.
irc,,en was nsyer raised. u Gen. sllkl ia.
son was known 20 be ia New. Q rleans, and
the magistrate WIN cerl1aed hs'deposilion
was knownto have been duly commissions
ed. Ia fact the other objections 70 that
saiaasis were SO material, that Al hey were
thopgh. 20 Be amply sufficient. ! biz oae
escaped cur notice. .ss s
The shisf justice then pronounced the
opinion OF the cours IN the following
words:
Or the part ofthe United States paper
pHyporting 70 be an alHdavirhas been offer
ed in evidence. 10 the4rsading Of whichStwo
exceP ians are taken: IS $50
Eifst that an aasdasi. ought BOT 70 be,
Admitted whsrs shespers ena. attendance OF
ths witness could have been obtained !;
Secandty, tha, this paper,s not SO au.
ahenticsted, as 10 cattle itself 10 be con-
.sidercd a. aa affidavit.
+ That a magistrate may con mitupon ale
4fdayits, hes been decided in the Supreme
Iscour. Of the u. S. Though not without he.
ssitation- The ,presenceot The witness to
| be examined By the committing justice
confronted with she accused, is certainly
Ito be desired land ought to be obtained,
ualess considerable incouvenisnce and dit
6cuity exists in procuring his attendance.
.Anex psrte affidavit essped, perhaps, BY
Iths person pressing the prosecution, will
always bs viewed with scms suspicion and
facted upon wiki some caution, but the
court thoughts would be going 'cotar to
reiestil altogether. lti,was obvicus that
I the attendance Of the witness was easily
assainsb.e, but that he was intentionally
1.ksp, out Of the way the question ealg ht be
otherwise decided. (
| But the particular case before the cours
sGoes no. appear 10 be of this description.
+ The witness resides q, = great distance |;
+ and there is 30 evidence ihsrthe m a,eriali
lsty of ehisies.imony was known 80 the pros
secueors or lolhe executive ia time TO have
( Greeted his attendance. II is true that
/ general ina,ruc.ions. which would apply 10
4 I .rL, haA a
the attendance Of this or any other matere
/ al witness OBJ aimed under those instruc
/ items but it would b. requiring too mnt b
4 to say, that The ON ssion 10 do this ought
to exclude anashdavit. This exception,
I therefore. viii not. prevail. :.
4 The I'd is, that Me paperi is not SO al.
i thcn,icated, assto be introduced as .es.i
moHy on question which concelns the
kberiy of a ci.ssn.
4 This objection is founded On twc oasis.
sioss in the certificate.
4 The FIRST is, that the place at which the
/ affidavit was taken does not appear; L
The second, thar tne certificate Of The
i governor does not state The, person
I who administered the oath TO be 9
magistrate, bu, goes no further THAI
| to say, that person ofthat name was
! maglsra2e.
That, for augh, appearing to the court,
this oath may or may not 10 point Ct tact
hare been legally administered, FAUST be
conceded.
! The place where the oath was admins:
stered not having been stated; j, may hav.