Alexandria daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1803-1808, 1807-07-11
Continuation o tie Debate on TIE motor
}oY a ssbbcua Duees Iecans.

-
amazon The president OF the Y Sand that
he as smenable to that process as aoy
other Siszen. If his public functions dis,
able hia from obeying the process, hal
would be Nsstis fac,ory excuse tor his non.
attendance pro hoe uice bu, does not &c
80 prove his total exsmption from the pro.
cess. we thiDk farther, sir, that q man
s,anding In the situation Of the prisoner,
has also the rightto demand all papers ma.
sesial for his defence, whrresoever they
: may 6e, the disclosure of which will net
eompro mit the national safety: but then
she papersreq uired must be shewn TO be
\ material for his defence. The subpoena
al festi1fcanaua is matter of right, and
The prisoner might have demanded is from
the clerk wishou: the intervention of the
court bal here is a motion for subpG "a
s.duces .ec,lua, TO compel the prssidens to
produce certain papers Of state. the mate
ria.itysof wh;ehsis not shswo.
shall contend FIRST, sir, that the sub.
Z tc1,a x|sscss tecupa is not a process of right;
that Ahs molten f5r il, is q motion address.
cd to the discretion Of the cours and that
the court may award or withhold j, as
Sbeysssc ct.
sn the uexs place, / shall contend that
this discretion of the court should be con
trouled and determined only By The rele.
saney and materialisy of the papers re.
qoired-
Add, thirdly, that 10 the present In
stance, the relevancy aud materially Of
the papers required, is SO far from being
ahcwn, that from every thing which sp.
pears they are both immaserial. and irrele.
want.
shall proceed to snew 10 the FIRST place
that the su5peaa ds1ces tecum is .nota pro.
cess Of tight; but tina, the application for
ii. is addressed merely 10 the discretion
OF the court.
Mr.. Wickhan,. That is admitted. sir :
We admit that il Is an application TO the
sound discre,isn of the court.
Mr.. Wirt. / thank you for the admis-
! sion, sir, you have relieved me from the
unnecessary trouble Of so much of my
argument. II being conceded then, that
this IS au application to the discretion Of
the court, the quession naturally presents
itself, by what circumstances shoeld tina,
discretion be confronted and determined
Should it be by the mere wish of the pri.
soner? IF so, II is in vain that the cour,
posscsses any discretion on the subject: the
only discretion exercised about it is the
discretion Of the prisoner; he has but to
ask aud have: and By his mere wish. hs
charges this from a process flowing from
tie discretion of the court, into a process
of absolute right. Consider hiswide and
bold doctrine on the ground of expsdieuey
--woold you summon any private ,indiyi.
~6ual from the remotest part of The u. S.
toproduce q paper oashe. mere wish Of the
prisoner. without his defining the paper
and showing how itbore upon his defence.
If you would, you put the pursuits and
VheSpeace of every Individual IN the u. S.
1T the mercy of the prisoners caprices and
'resentmcnss. This Argument from incon.
vcuieuce assumes an attitude of the moss
awful and alarming importance, when you
extend it to, case ike this before the
court. A. prisoner seldom has aay cor
dial amity for the government by which
he is prosecuted for crime. The truth
Is. thar he feels himself in tecf war
with that government; and the more des
perate his case, The more ardent will be
his splr'tof revenge. Would you expose
the Offices of state to be ravaged at the
mere pleasure of prisoner? Who, il
he feels that be muss fall, would pan. 70,
nothing more anxiously than $ TO-. grace
his tall and make his ruin glorious" bs
dragging down with him the bright and
splendid edihce of the government. Sir
It Aarsn Burr has the right, at his mere
wiAh. 70 cad one paper from the govern
psns, hs has the same right TO call sauy