Berkeley and Jefferson intelligencer. [volume] (Martinsburg, Va.) 1802-1810, 1807-06-12

attempts had been made 10 prejudice the
public mind against col. Burr, he was
justi6able in taking every advantage that
the law gave him. He cited = Hawk.
Pleas of the crown, p. SOY, ,16 sect. and
. BAG. Abr. 73S, to shew that . person
bound in reeognizanes 20 answer aeri.
ninal charge has 4 right TO aPPear and
make objections 70 the grand jury before
they are sworn.--Wkether q plea ID
abatement might afterwards be fled for
theerrOr committed, was q question not
necessary now to be determined nei-
ther was il the wish Of COL Burr to re-
sort TO that alternative for he anxiously
desired that the prosecution should ter.
inmate here and witha grand jury free
from all exceptions. -. -.
Mr.. Hay then read the law Of Virgil
MIA, (Rev. Code, p. 100, sec. 2 and
coateaded that the construction attemp.
ted to be put upon It was more rigid than
could be warranted by sound sense and
good poliey.-Ths intention Of the law
was that "a good men, and not liable TO
any of tie nexcepsior.a therein stated,
should be summoned. What reason
therefore could be given to prevent the
marshal # he discovered that man
whom he had once summoned could not
attend J from summoning another, and
thereby securing the attendance Of the
full number required! The marshal
summons a man without Knowing the
situation of his private affairs. The
man afterwards informs him that he 10
subject to uncomfortable domestic dili-
euIties for example, that he is going q
Journey on indispensable business. Why
should he not excuse him, and summon
anothsrs Where is the authority 20
prove that the functions of the officer
who collects grand jury cease before
the dayen which it 10 impannelledi :
When the return 10 made, if sulici-
eut number do not attend, discretion
Invested int narshalto appoint others
in the room Of the ahseutees and noe
the principle the same, when he Knows
that the -, whom he has frat summon
ed, cannot attend ! 49,.
He observed too that the gentlemen
were Influenced by mistak en- idea for
he had understood that the marshal, ia
the instances to which they alluded, had
only enquired of the persons said to have
been summoned, whether they could
attend or not expressing his intention
to summon them, if they could attend
and, upon their assuring him Of their
inability. had applied to others. ~
Mr.. Hickham said that the counsel for
the u. S. had not fairly met the questi-
en-. AS the authorities he had cited be-
fore were short, he read them, obser-
wing that his only object in doing so was
to shew that ,hs, objection ought to be
made before the grand Jury were impan-
nelled, and therefore mustnoW be made.
ou,he meitts of the objection he said
that Mr.. Hays argument concerning
policy had no weight thar the words Of
the law Of Virginia being plain on the
subject in question ought alone to be re-
garded that il was sufficient to answer
iia iex scripta est, that policy however
was on hissside Of the question since
great danger would result from permit
ting marshal who was appointed by the
president Of the United States, and de-
pendent upon him for his continuance
in Office (howeSer respectable the pre-
sent marshal 10 acknowledged 10 be) to
change the members Of che grand jury
a. his pleasure. ~ "A = i,
The law il, that If the ~ grand ju-
rors who have been summoned do NOT
attend, Is are sufficient to constitute q
grand jury. Mr.. Hay l. therefore mis-
taken Is % the law in supposing that ~
are neeessary.-Let il be supposed that
aday or an hour before the sitting Of the
court. the marshal 10 informed that one
of the grand jury cannot attend. Ac-
eording to the doctrine eontended for by
Mr.. Hay, he may excuse him and sum.
mon another but, when they attend IN
court, If 16 are present, be has no such
power. II the excuse 10 made to the