Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1807-12-04

rant of commitment the CHARGE of;-easeY.
were not founded on legal axi0nls. nor 80
facts admitted or proven; but T,ere mer2!y
PeciouS, unfagg'W, and based upon au un-
warrantabic sdpposition, Inconsistent with
facts known to the public, and Nshich IL is
'air therefore to presume were within YOUR
knowledge.
In that part OF Your opinion which corr
siders the Probability of the commission Of
an overt act .os treason, By IN actual as
Isemblage of men Cor Tie purpose OF making
war against the u. $. | understand you 10
have said of Slportsooaf's declaration, re.
lied ON To render the facS Of assemblage
probable, Z" that the utmost point TO which
this testimony can be extended is, that il
denotes a further cmbodving of men, which
is more particularly mentioned in The let
ter itself, and that it affords probable cause
to believe, that the troops did actually em-
body at the period designated for their AS
sembling, grdifch IS sufficient 10 iEdycr the
justice 10 Sohcm Mc uIliHcaiion "a made 70
commit for frici"
Here is an admission that S1uarf yout's
declaration Cannot extend to tine points Ok
Ihro6a6itity, tina, troops did actually elnboI
dy at the period designated for their as
lscmblage
Nowit must be granted that, as the pro-
be proven before an examining magistrate;
and as this testimony was affirmative of
that probability, 1t was certainly sufficient
and ought to have induced YOU, to commit
n. burr on the charge OF treason, nileSs
the probable cause t. believe the commits.
sion OF the overt act, afforded by this tes-.
tlmoDy, was done away by other equally
weighty and opposing evidence.
For whenever legal evidence is adtuced
IN court to establish a fact capable Of such
lproot, the court are bound to consider as
true the facts supported by the evidence,
until ether testimony is introduced, which
dlSapproves either The supported facts
themselves, or leaves the mind free hy i'm
peaching the credibility of the Witnesses
on whose veracity the belief depended.
! 1 am warranted in going farther, when
ever legal presumption, is created, that
presumption must stand until the contrary
! is proven Now, sir, where is the iestimo.
/ nydoing away the presumption admitted to
arise from Swartwcut's declaration There
70o8 none l'roGuced by the accused.
Alter admitting that Swartwout's decla-~
ration can furnish probable cause 10 believe
that the fact was committed, which liz
suhcient 10 induce the justice to whom the
application is made, to commit for triai,s
YOU require proof oF the :act itself. Won
|
swer, by asking where was the necessity
OF positively proving the fact, if Swart-
wout's declaration can afford Probable cause
to believe, that " troops did actually en-
body at the period designated for their as
scmbiaSe," which is sufficient to induce
the Justice to whom the application is made,
to commit for triel
You ask for farther proof of what. OF
that which you have already admitted 20
De proven sufficiently to induce a commit
ment.
The amount of your doctrine is, that lc-
gal presumptions are destroyed b. the nom
production of positive proof Atone blow.
you annihiiate the whole doctrine of pre-
sumptive evidence. For if the non-intro-
auction OF direct testimony destroys pre-
sumptlve proof, how Can it exist
know of no other kinds of evidence.
except positive and prcsumptIye. The
ifroduction Of IoatiVe E,oof certainly
leaves no room for presumption, and ac-
cording To your doctrine, IFS non-hroduc-
non, destroys the very existence of that
presumption. But even. could admit the
iesahty OF this extraordinary doctrine, vet
1 shail shew that IN this case, the non hro-
dection OF which you so much COMPLAIN
ought not even 20 haze .yegkcued tire
strength of the presumption arising out of
IoWartwoutS declaration, and that T." YOUR
reasons were At least based upon an un-
warranta6ie supposition inconsistent with
facts known to the public, and which it is
inr therefore topresume were within your
knowledge"
In my next, Undertake to shew, that
you have exhibited culpable partially to-
wards the accused; < a shameless soIjcitude
I'm which you faiied) to implicate the go
., OF your country as negligent of
their duty-and that this imputation ofneg.
hgence framed by your own ingenuity, was
n negligence, of doing what it was innpos-
siole 10 do; while if the judge had, as was
n duty, attended to the course OF conduct
pursued by the executive, the diligence
which was pursued ought to have extorted
from less malicious magistrate, senti-
ments more consistent with the dignity Of
the judicial character, and more credita.
Die to his liberality, instead Of being rec
pIoachful to his head and heart.
LUCIUS.