The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1807-06-15
-Ds6ase on tie motion for q Sabp1na
Duees Teeun.
WEDNESDAY,, June 10th.


gentlemen ieemed very oicitous to fena on 4
,neHenSer to Warrington to obtain intruetions
2,etting them GoaD To act: but If the faving
OF time was an object with the court, the
couric which he recommended was bet calcu-
lated to obtain it. 1t was the fhortet way to
refort at once to that expedient, which mutt
be at lat employed if the expectations of the
attorney for the U. States, fhould turn out to
be fallacious, AID his application at Wafhing-
ihoud prove to be unavailing.-The clerk
himf,if, If called upon for iubpoenas, NUT iiiue
them absolutely. 1t was the practice and it
was the law but inftead OF applying to the
clerk they deemed it neceilary in a cafe of fuch
Importance, to make their application directly
30 the court. They were more willing too to
prefer this ccurfe; as they did not with the
pretence of the prelident but only OF certain
papers 1; and it was not therefore their wifi, TO
obtain common fubpsna for his perfon, but
inbpena Duees Teeun for thofe papers.
. This s the frf time haze heard, fInce the
Declaration of American Independence, that
an accuicd man is not TO obtain wtDeiies in
his behalf. What has the gentleman hmfef
dong? Are there not witneies prcfent, whom
he has Summoned under the authority of this
court and at his own fpecial infance? And
will he at lalt admit, that there is to be emo kind
OF equality between the accuied and the proie.
Gution and that we are to remain here per
the 6eciion of his own witneiTss?
But at what time arc we to be entitled to
;heie privileges AT the period of Col. BIS
sraniportation That is mott unwarrantable
proceeding there is no iuch cafe recognized
BY the contribution and therefore there could
be nothing in that contribution to give us the
right of founding any Judicial proceeding on
fuch rep. Bur, fir, tuch an illegal traufac
zion entities uG 10 ftill more, it entities to the
- r,i,;- in
well as Of this court.-Suppofc that Col Burr
was now pat on his examination would he
not have right to examine any witnefes, who
were beyond the bar and of courfe to fub.
poena every man, who would be brought be-
fore you during the term of examination This
practice is every day purified by magistrates
Why not in the prcient cafe
It has been faid, that there is nothing in this
country to iuhify fuch an application that
"a there are no PrecGdents. But / will quote,
Ssr, another trial, which was timilar in its pro.
seedlings, and fimilar, truft, in its refuts.-
] refer to the cafes of Smith and Ogden before
she Circuit Court of New-York. Snbpenas
were actually taken out, before the Trial, for
MeArs. Madiion and Dearborn: and even the
expenses Of their travelling were rendered to
ahem. But the proceedings did not even flop
here. For motion for an attachment was
made before the court, founded upon the proof
of !ervinS thefe Subpauas; and the proof of
offered compensation, The argument at length
sioied on this motion for attachment. But no
man doubted the right of the court to iffue
SahpGnas. The only queftion was, whether
At that time an attachment ought to iilue.--
L he court was unanimous about the right of
SubpGnas; but on the attachment, they were
divided Judge Patterion being for it and
Judge Taimadge aganft it.
We are however aked, Sir, for what pur-
pole do we with to procure this evidence! II
rs at their option to fay, whether bills ihalI be
laid before the c. Jury or not" Granted, Sir.
IT IS IN the power OF the attorney for the T. s.
10 iend up his bills or rot. But fhould thefe
bills be found true, and the trial come on, NAV
we not be ruled to rrial, myfanter and with.
out the aid of our witnehes? But what was
done the other day, may be hereafter repeated.
Witpeiies were introduced on behalf of the II.
B S. and Others perhaps would have been; on
ahe motion for commitmeut. This motion is
FOR the prefent only fufpeHdcd. But if that be
ehe cafe; may not the tetimDny now required
he relevant to our defence 1.-The attorney for
the U. S. triumphantly declares, that we muR
do as he pleafcs; and that we know not what
he intends To do. That is true, Sir but may
not we too DO fomething? May not Col. b.
move for his dhrharge? AS he is 10 remain
here until the court peatss to difcharge him,
may he not move for his recognizlnce TO be
fTicharged Have We no right alto to all the
means, which are neoefiary for the fair ADM.
Intration OF iuitice?
9 No iime is fipuIsted for the return Of tn.
ltbpona." This is great difficulty indeed!
ii will be admitted, thcu, that the court has
r'ght to ifus fubFona; and yet becaule
tbr.e happens 10 be ro particular provfon a.
Bout the day, this right NUT be necenarily
null Bur, Sir, is this OBJECTION really iualhed
ny practice! Has not the court right 20 FIX
day for the return of procenes of this fort ;
according to their own convenience or the
convenience Of parties
Bot why have we not applied for thefe do.
cumcnts foCncr Yes Cir, it is aiked of u.s.
WHY we have not madsth' application fOouer
and yet even now does the gentleman win tc
delay it. He declared that we have made il
too foon and yet be now declares that we
have made it too late. Now it cannot bc
both II It be too late, il certainly cannot be
too fD0D.
Wehaveheard iome remark upon Col. Bur'l
privilege and among others, upon the four
Councillors who are TO defend him. But
what kind Of an argumcat is this If we turn
So lis Laws Of Congress, we mali find there
Is onc attorney for the u. S. appropriated &c
each dhrct And yet there are no lcfs than
tmcc councillors employed on the prefent &C
caiiOn. No d0sbt there is a law providing
for the payment of the two others out OF The
treasury bet with what proprieiy can thcfe
gentlemen complain Of my Client making fiich
T.a.