The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1810-05-18
Cite Gnqulrer.
GENERAL JAMES wILx1NsoN.

treated Nv the II ot ". on tne last Gay OF
their session, is such case as deserves to be
ex -parte Report of Committee was receiv-
ed by the II. Of II. was read and ordered TO
be printed. Was this righti =
1t is not for me to say any sbing for or "a
gainst Gen. Wilkinson at present The
question of his innocence Or guilt is not relev.
ant to the issue before us. The point is, not
whether he is ,'ensioner or atraitor. but
whether he has been treated by the II. of
X. in Ia way, which any man. standing in his
situation, would have merited.
Nor is the right ofthat House to Institute
an enquiry into his conduct, the point at is
sue. As to that. am opinion, that in all ca
SEES of great public concernment, where the
public interest is at state and the public feel.
ing is awakened, such right exists in the
Representatives of the People.
am disposed to cherish vigilant jea-
lousy over the Executive Department, and
TO con6de n large sphere of revision, and
Contreul, to the immediate anG more res .
Ponsible representatives of the people -
The House of Representatives cannot i'm :
peach;a military officer-but why, may they
not enquire into his conduct, pass resoluti
ons of Censure, or where there are no other
means of relief. discontinue the Office itselff
Our doctrines should be suitable to all times
Ito state of war as well as of peace: In
war, where larger portions Of disct elton
mast fall to the executive. greater vigilance
must be exerted. Amongst other plaques
may rve not, at some time or other, be ours
ed by Walcheren expedition, or by a Duke
of York-in kind. at least, if not in de-
greer
The true point, which wish to canvass,
is this ought the House of Representatives
to have let in to the world an FIX parte Re-
port of evidence against James Wilkinson ?
Let us first hear the arguments of those who
advocated 1t on the floor of Congress -
~ My statement of these arguments is
from a Report in Federal paper, at
Georgetown.
Complaint is made" says Mr. Key,+
IS that the testimony is ex-parte. 1t is 50
and in such proceedings must be so. What
person accused goes before the grand Jury |?
The testimony against such is ex parte; but
On trial he is allowed to vindcate himself"
MIR. Randolph. the cold and philosophic
politician, who chad no quarrel with Will,
kinson and felt no malignity towards him, %
he too "was surprised that the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Nelson) should COM
plain of ex parte testimony Had that gen
Sleman forgotten the part he took in enqui :
ing concerning judges Chase and Peters !
Was not the testimony against them alto
gcther ex parte And was il not in posses
sion of the pubic eight or ten months pre-
Vious to the trial of Judge Chase Did the
gentleman then feel or express any sorrow,
or make s.ny objection to the proceedings at
that time or was not the contrary the case ?
Burr certainly had more cause for complain.
ing of the eFect'o ex-parte testimony he
was imprisoned on no other. Did he appear
before the grand jury of Richmondf"
2 Yes, it is John Randolph WHO bushes not
60 resort to such a miserable sophism. To
clutch his victim at once, he hesitates NOT to
strike down the ciearest distinctions of COM
mon sense. He attempts 70 run parallels
between cases, which have not a single point
of resemblance. Yet Mr.. r. they say, is no
aophist I'm what respect are the cases of
Aaron Burr or Chase. analogous to that of
Wilkinson!
The two former. are so far similar. that
An each OF them there was an enquiry pre-
paratory to the trial in chief A. Burr was
charged with criminal practices against the
laws OF his country. In such cases, a Grand
Jury, as previous link in the chain of pros.
ecutiou, is not to be dispensed with. In
what other way was it TO be known. whe
ther an indictment would lay against
him, and he should be put on his tri..
al, unless it had been duly determined, aohe
aher there were any charges against him and
svhat these charges wefes The Grand Jury
Oh hiCNinOnQ was tne organ Tor maStHw TINS
enquiry; before this inquest. no testimony
IS ever exhibited, but what is exparte or
the testimony AGAINST the accused.
Judge Chase was not to be tried, like A.
Burr, before an ordinary .court of law
but to be IMPEACHED before the Senatc
of the United States.----'rhe iacipirnt steps
are, however, similar in both ca ss--the i'm
parchment corresponds to the trial---the
Senate to the Court--the II. Of Repre- senta-
tivcs is the GRAND INQUEST of the natl
on. IL is their duty to frame the articles
OF mpeachmene-and, therefore, to enquire
whether there are any, & what charges a.
gainst the accused This anaiogVis T.. strain
ed onc--it flows from the very nature of the
subject itself----it is tacitly admitted by
MeSSrs. Key and Randolph themselves--bu,
It is built Oh much higher authorities, both
british and American, than theirs. can
i'm ?each ment, says Blackstone, before The
Lords by the Commons OF Great Britain,
IN Parliament, is a prosecution of the alrca
nv known and established law, and has been
frequently put in practice /; being present.
Jnent 10 the most high ard supreme court of
criminal jurisdiction, by the most solemn
grand inquest OF the whole Kingdom" "The
articles OF impeachment are a kind Of bills
of indictment, found by the House of Com
snons, and afterwards tried by the lords
"Thc Federalist," treating of this oow
er Of impeachment, resorts to the same
doctrine:
What it may be asked, is the true spi
Jit otthe institution itself Is it not designed