Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1807-05-23

curry should be made /; but declared that |
ne hadno Intention to wound the marshal's
feelings, whose error was certainly unin-
territorial.
Mr.. Hay. ! said before, that no good rea-
son existed for not authorising the marshal,
where he discovered it to be certain that
a grand juror could not attend, to supply
the deficiency by summoning another be-
fore the commencement of the term. Ac-
cording to that doctrine, if ID of those who
are summoned should fail to attend, there
might be no grand jury at all.
The chief Justice enquired whether this
question had ever come before the state
courts p
Mr.. Randolph answered that it never
had within his knowledge, although he had
thirty years ago been attorney for the Com
monwealth; but there never had been a
case like the present; and therefore no
necessity TO make similar objection had
ever been felt. This case was indeed a
peculiar one, for in no other had such 4
torrent of prejudice been ever raised and
by means too which gpe shat shortLv nm
Itola. In this case therefore it becomes
necessary to contend for the rules of which
we now avail ourselves; and i'm conse-
quence OF the power vested in the mar
shall and his liability to be influenced by
the government, great danger would arise
from relaxing them.
The Chief Justice. IF this is a question
which his never been decided in the courts
OF this state, we must have recourse to the
words of the act of Assembly only. No
be taken now.
The law of Virginia authorizes the Off
! Ger TO summon % men, but says no,hnp of
! any more. He therefore cannot summon
70. Ii he desires the 25th man to attend. it
| ought not TO be considered as summons
but the act is void. Most certainly the of.
hcer is not authorized to DISCHARGE a :.
NY person. Where 16 grand Jurors do
| appear, by-standerS may be called and
not impannel.ed but if 1S of those
summoned appear, they are TO con-
ST tnte the Grand Jury. There is no NC
cessity therefore to vest the Marshal
| With the power ofexcusing those who saw
that they are not able to attend. 1t is in
! deed the custom of the officers IN this
"'ate to exercise discretion in such cases
and no doubt the marshal acted with the
I best intentions under an idea that his con-
duct was proper; but after he has sum
moned any individual he Cannot let him
on. a pam argument In support Of th.s
Posi'ioh' IS that the person summoned might
In
The marshal, and offer his services IN I've
sworn on the Grand Jury in which case
he could not be rejected. The Question
! depends however OH the point whether
there was an actual simmons, for a con-
Versation merely preparatory to sum-
mons is different thing. 1t is therefore
! proper to examine the marshal as To wbat
| has been done.
Maj. joseph Scott, the marshal of the
district was thersupon examined. He said
| that he had Showed the JUDGES themselves
a letter from Mr. John TAYLOR, of Caro-
line, who had been summoned and thew h. 4
SAID that his excuse expressed in that let.
ter was sufficient. He had therefore sum.
moued Col. James Barbour, of ORANGE. in
ms room but did not say that the JUDGES
had directed him to do so, altho' he con.
oelved it to be his duty in consequence of
what had passed between him and them
ne acknowledged also that Mr.. John
NJ 'hae, VINO had been summoned, having
since that time left the state. he had ,p2
der similar impressions summoned 6oct
| William Foushee.
| he Court decided that Mr.. Borho.,r
and Dir. Foushee, had not been legally adj
ded to the PANEL of the grand iury they
were therefore Withdrawn.
! he PANEL having been reduced 70 civ
teen by the removal of those gentlemen i'm
| properly summoned, col. Burr expressed
some regret at exercising the privilege Of
challenging two others for favor. If the
right was conceded, it might be necessary
to appoint triers and go into an examine
non OF witnesses. He wished 1t to be dis
tihct'y understood that he claimed the same
right OF challenge in this stage of the busi.
ness, as IT the cause were now before the
| petit jury.
Mr. Bots PRESUMED that there con1d he
no question as to the right. Even in civil
/ cases this was n cause, though not n Dr;nci-
| pal cause of challenge. The law which
mad been read was explicit in its applicant.
on to this case. Our cause Of chaIlcnre
must be made out by testimony.
Mr.. Hay believed the law tn be &c sto.ed
on the other side. No objection would he
I made by him to the course which the c.n-
tIemen WISHED to pursue. Col. Burr fhen
! proceeded to name the persons and causes
vi cnailenBe. He first mentioned lillian
H. GtleS. With respect to him there ,vere
TWO causes, the first Of which was of public
notoricty. Mr.. Giles while member If
the Senate. had voted for the suspension Of
the writ OF habsus corfus. The constitn.
tson had declared that a suspension of this
writ could only be warranted in extrenoe
cases. and that by pronouncing on the ex-
ped'ency OF that measure, MIR. Giles had
inevitably formed an opinion as to the de-
signs imputed TO him. Further. he would
20 -