The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1808-03-18

risk of life, limb or reputation before court
aid not have the benefit OF that testimony
which would prove his Innocence. There
was no civil criminal jurisdiction throughout
the United States, the constitution having
forbad it, in which the person accused was
not confronted with his witnesses; depositi-
onswere not allowed to De produced as evil
dcnce in such cases. This bill provides, said
he, that in cases going to life and infamous
punishment, oral testimony shall be had in
other cases, dispositions mayb taken upon
application to Il judge Of the United States
10y the judge advocate or party accused. My
own opinion on this subject is, thatin nctasc
whatever, ought Il sentence affecting life to
BIZ adjudged unless the party Bc Confronted
BY his witnesses this too is the practice in
our civil courts under the constitution. The
principle contained in the bill does not vary
from the practice of the courts Of the United
States, or cfths several states. 1nasmuch as
but IN few cases, CAN'T be necessary to sum-
mon witfesSts from remote parts of the
Union, and as in those cases they ought to
atreha, wish the bill not to be recommit-
ted.
= Mr.. NJ Williams wished the bill to be re-
committed and stated his reasons for So doing.
Amsng others, that parole evidence taken
before a-court OF enquiry when collected,
could not be received by court martial in
cases affecting life OK limb. When gentle
men come to examine the principles of the
bill, said he, they will be found erroneous.
am certainly .ofopinion, that there ought to
be provision by law to give person accused
OF crime a fair opportunity to meet all char
ges against HIM; but cannot see any good
grounds why citizen Strould be dragged be
fore a court martial, or compelled to come
forward when their testimony could not be
received. Whenever an officer in the army
is charged with n crime against military law,
he is tried by military court but whene-
yer he commits an offence of civil nature,
1T is tried by a civil court. 1t is we'll known,
that the case which has formed the ground OF
ttis tiil. is triable by civil court--and, sup
pose charge against an officer for murder,
Cor bribery or corruption, is it proper that
these being civil offences should be tried BY a
military court tlTnk the bill very keep
tionable {; / wish every person accused to
have a fair trial, but would never givepow-
er to a military court to drag our citizens
from every part Of the union. Another sec.
zion gives powerto compel the production o.
all public papers. Would you compel 9
clerk ola court to bring forth all his records
Is there in the United States any court which
has that powers In some. cases. copies Of
Particular records ave permitted to be taken
--=butthis bill not only requires the records
the Summons of a military court. Another
part saws, the witness shall be tried for noH
attendance by the military court, and fined
by civil court. The second section says
the witness shall not be discharged until hi
has gone through an examination, and the
court think proper to cischatge him Gen
tiemen have told us. that military court wi
not preccndto abuse their authority !: / woul
not give an authority to them which they
possibly could abuse. A witness might bt
led to give testimony to convict himself by q
court composed of military men, who, tho
actuated by good motives, may not be az
ouaintea with he correct rules of procedur.
IN such cases. can never consent to vot.
for this bill II it be rccommitted and suci
bill reported as might be formed, Nigh
vote for it, as / am willing to make som,
provision in the case. Such bill as this, ia
king powerfrom the civil and vesting it witt
the military authority, never ought to be a
dopted in our government We should b,
careful not TO legislate for the particula
case, but consider the general effects of the
bill.
Alter some further debate the House ad
journcd