Alexandria daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1803-1808, 1807-12-05

McTios FOR CommlTMEs~.
EXAMINATION OF EVIDENCE.
WEnsEsDAY. October {.

which he said was > true copy of arc5cy =
rhercd letter? A lido not recollrct.
reeo.iec. general Wilkinson rendered CO.
~.
Mr IVicksanl 10 DR.. Brockrnbrongh. Do
you reeollsrt whether general Wilkinson
produeed any fair copy of the cyphefedsle s
Ter 70 .he grand Jury a IrecoIlsct that We
had newspaper IN which il was Published,
and aswe decyphrfed the original, we OF
scn compared our trsnslation with that CO.
py, and found some variations.
Mr.. Hay. Have you copy OF the cY s
phered ierer, as translated ny the grand
jury? a have.
Mr.. WIiickham stated that there were naa-
terial and essential variations between the
translation made by the grand jury andthas
Published.
Mr.. CabeN said, he begged leave TO ob.
ssryet that general Wilkinson was one out
sof ffty wituesses examined by the grand
jury; that his exa,sins,ion took up. four
days, aod that such circumstances only
were treasured up as were deemed mstssi.
al.
MS. 1IcFae. Have you attended to the
exsminss;oa Of general Wilkinson before
tie Judge Will ven state whether his les.
rilnoDy correspondent with thar delivered
before The grand jury? That is avery
extensive question. and oncwhich il islm.
possible 20 answsr. During the rxamiaa.
ton Of general Wilkinson before the judgs,
my attention was oiien called off, and there
fore csnoo, pretend TO say whether HIS
fsslimony throughout corrcspondsd With
thar delivered before the grand jury It
you viii state any particular pars Of his les.
timony, viii endeagor TO recclleet whe
.iher il corresponded.
10 general, as far as have attended to.
the evidence Of general Wilkinson given
before the Judge the narrative is very much
the same with that delivered before the
grand jury; with some sligFN variations.
For instance, understood general vii.
kinson said before The court, that but oae
lester passed between him and colonel Burr
from the ,iGae ofiheir interview at ST. Lou.
! IS till he commencement of the ncxtsum.
neT; before the grand jury understood
him 10 havcssaid some letters or notes.
The circumstance Of The packet being
slipped from the side pocket OF Mr.. Swart.
went and thrust into the hands of general
Wilkinson in the absence of colonel Cush-
ing atthe interview at Nstchisocnes, was.
mrDuoned by The general to the grand ju.
~; If the same was not stated 10 court,
as have undorslood, that makes another
variance.
Mr.. lucRGe. II was mentioned 10 the
cou,r by general Wilkinson.
Mr.. CabsA Then, sir, | stand correct
ed. / have already said thasI could not
pretrud,o an accurate recollection of all
sruefal Wilkinson's testimony before the
court
Mr. Viickham to lIr. Brockeahyough. Do
you recoiiect any variance between she G.
violence OF MF. Swartwou. aud general
lVilkiasou! hsto the delivery of the
letter from colosel Burr, there is 90 mate.
rial variance; bat ia the dctailsof their
conversations there wss very Important
one:
). Here some desultofy conversation took
plaes between the counsel 90 both sidss,E
The court, CO The subject OF Mr.. Tszc.
5 wells reply TO the question proponnded to
DIR. Brockenbrouga. The coupselfor the
prosecution and the chief justice disagreed
10 sheir notts.
Mr.: Wickham asked Mr.. Cabtll the same
general qnesgon.
Mr.. CabeIi answered. that The statement
az Mr.. Iazewell had appeared to him We.
rg p|asn, and correct, and had been deli.
vcred with his usual ability. Being called
% 10 state how far general Wilkinson and
Mr.. Swarswans agreed 10 their testimony
before Sic greed jury. 10 relation 70 sheir
convcrsasioss al Natchitoches, must say.
shas they conceded 10 some respects, and
xi;fYered In ethe.s The material variance