Alexandria daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1803-1808, 1807-07-03


lrerssd by the ei4l authority. The'ssenss
who executed he orders OF sne Juoge,
were indeed military men, who most pro.
badly would not have disobey edsthe coma
lmander ID chief buttha officer is GOT r..
lsponsible ia thii way for having tailed g
Iin,erpose his skthofity. ia order 20 pre-
vent the execution Of the orders Ct ING
Judge, those orders ought not 50 have bsen
given. .S.ss
Upon full. view of the sabject, the case
appears 10 have been this. GeneTsl VIII.
Ekinson was DESTROYS that the testimony 81
the witness should be obtained, and aware
Of the accusasiops which had before been
brought against him, for the use ne had
made Of The military power. he was l desIr.
Gus Of obtaining the testimony by lawtui
means, and therefore referred the subject
ito ajuJge Of the territory, undsr whose OF !.
lers all subsequens proceedings were taksn..
Whether the judge didor did pot transcend
the limits prescribed by law, those Ribs 8.
terial officers who obeyed his orders, can.
not be supposed to have aetes with 2 know
ledge that he had mistaken his power..'-.---
Should ii be admitted that this would be no
defence for them 10 an action, 70 Obtain
compensation for the injury, yet it furnish
es suficien, evidence, that no conie npt
was Intended To this court by general Wal.
kiHson. that he has not been guilty OF q.
ny intentional abuse of its process, or OF
any oppression inthe aannerof executing
il.
It's said that Capt. Gaines the gentleman
whom the marshal had appointed as his depu-
ty for this particular purpose, had not taken
tho oath of office, and was therefore not legal
ly qualified to act in that character. How
ever correct this observation may be IN Itself
it does not appear to the court to justify an at
ta.chnlent against gen. Wilkinson. The per-
son who sees in the possession of another, a
commission as deputy marshal, and sees that
others acting under that commission, ought
not to be subjected to a process Ct contempt
for having made no inquiries respecting the
oath which the law requires to be taken.
The attachment Will not be awarded be-
cause general Wilkinson cannot be consider
ed as having controlled or influenced the con-
duct of the civil magistrate, and because in
this transaction his intention appears to have.
been not to violate the laws In such case
where an attachment does not seem to- be al
sohtely required by the justice due to the
particular individual against whom the prose
cution is depending, the court is more incli-
ned to leave the parties to the ordinary course
of law, than to employ the extraordinary pow
.ers, which are given for the purpose of pre-
serving the administration of justice, IN that
purity which ought to be SO universally de-
sired.
Colonel Barr afterwards entered about -,
when after some. discussion between the court
and the counsel of colonel Burr, the lst Mon
day in August was appointed for his trial
DR.. Aartia then moved that the witnesses
summoned on the part of col. Burr, should be
bound over in rccosnizance to attend on that
day, and that they should be entitled to the
same pecuniary compensation for their at,
tendance, as the witnesses for the y. States.