The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1808-02-02
CfSE OFJoiav SMITH.
WEnNEspAY. IAN. 20.

WEDNESDAY,, JAN. 90.
After the examination of Mr.;Titfin, the
following report of the select committee was
taken into consideration:
Mr.. anderson, from the committee to
whom were referred several resolutions,
which were offered to the consideration of
the Senate, in the case of John Smith, Seu-
ator from the state OF Ohio, reported the
following resolution: -A
ReSoived, That on the first day of March
next, the Senate will receive such testimo-
ny as John Smith, Senator from the state of
Ohio, may then adt!uce in his defence, and
that the Senate will then proceed to the fl
nal consideration of the report of the COM
mittee appointed on the 27th of November
last, to enquire into his conduct, as an al
legged associate of Aaron Burr; provided, in
case Mr. Smith shall adduce evidence to dis
credit any witness, whose testimony has been
made use of against him; that he shall
make 1T appear to the Senate, that reasona-
bic notice had been given to the witness so
intended to be discredited, of the time and
place appointed for the taking of such evil
dence, and that he was served with copy
of this resolution.
Mr. Robinson moved to strike out the
first day of March," for the purpose of in
sorting son Monday the 25th inst.
Mr. .4nderSon suggested the propriety of
dividing the question, and observed that it
had been stated by Mr.. Smith that it would
be the beginning of February before he could
have the assistance of Counselin the room of
Mr.: Martin.
MIR. Robinson acquiesced in dividing the
question.
Mr.. Bapard said he understood that it was
the object of the motion to preclude Mr.
Smith from the opportunity of adducing adj
flI al
the different resolutions were referred in the
report made by them went on the principle
that 1t was correct and obligatory on the
Senate to hear any evidence Mr. Smith could
bring from the state of Ohio, the scene of the
offences alleged against him. The first of
March had been fixed on as the result of a
calculation, which allowed two weeks to
travel to Cincinnati, two weeks to collect e.
violence, and two weeks to return 1t would
be impossible, i'll a less period of time, to &C
complish this object. If, therefore, the a
mendment were adopted, 1t must be on the
principle of denying to Mr. Smith the OPP
portunity of obtaining this evidence. To
deny him such an opportunity, Mr.. B. should
view as equivalent to an absolute denial to
hear him. For what, said he, is hearing?
Not the vain words of counsel unsupported
by evidence. Mr.. Smith is charged by the
allegation OF certain facts. If then he is
not heard in his defence through the medium
OF facts he is substantially not heard at all.
l VIII put the case, that under present cir
cumstances, grounds OF suspicion exist that
render him unworthy of a seat in this BODY.
But how often has every man, conversant with
criminal justice, on the hearing of exparte
evidence decided one way, and afterwards
on hearing both sides decided otherwise
Will ask gentlemen, what they would saw
OF the Judge or jury who, on hearing one side,
should declare that the case was SO plain
that 1t would be : waste of time to hear the
other Is this S'occdure sanctioned by any
court in this Country, or in any part of the
world! 1t is a mockcry of justice to say to
say to an individual accused, we will hear
you, and yet preclude him from all possible
means By which he can be fairly tried. Mr.
Smith says he can adduce proof to shew the
existence OF a conspiracy to destroy hischa-
racter; unless, therefore, you allow him a
reasonable time, you prejudicate his CASE
You refuse him the means of a defence.
Further the committee viewed this, not
merely as a decision on the personal appli-
cation to MIR. Smith, but as establishing an
important precedent that would not be con-
fined to this Individual case Let it also be
OBSERVED that the charges in this case are
generally founded on conversations, charges,
which, even if unfounded, arc from their
peculiar nature, the most difficult to be re-
PEELED. Shall we, under all these circum-
stances, say we will hear Mr.. S. and vet not
listen to his defence? five will not allow him
reasonable time, we may as well decide
OH his case at once, for to allow him coun-
sci, without giving him materials for de-
fence, will be burthen instead of bene-
fit.
Mr.. Franklin spoke against the amend
ment, but in so low a voice that we are
scarcely able to give his leading ideas He
read the provision of the constitution that
authorizes the expulsion of a member, and
then observed that a member might be ex-
PEELED OH various grounds, some of which,
such as disorderly behaviour, might occur
under the eye of the Senate, in which case it
would be unnecessary to so abroad for testi-
mony; but that the charges in this case
were not Of this nature. They had been
preferred on testimony received from dis
tance and all that Mr.. Smith asked was the
indulgence i'll the same right of going abroad
for evidence to confront that brought against
him. And if, as he alleged, he could defend
himself by this testimony, Mr.. F. was of o.
pinion that the first of March allowed him
no more time than was reasonable.
MIR. IdaUS said he should not have risen.
had not the gentleman from Delaware stated
the motives Of the committee in allowing
Mr.. Smith until the first of March to adducc
additional testimony, and had he not stated
that the committee considered this as not
cY,I.- cc,.rcrt 81, ,te,iF -.