Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1833-07-01

this respondent, nor the letter itself Is expected
to be either sufficient or competent 70 establish
by its own specific credit or force, any one Tact
or Circumstance whatever, but to be used as the
mere means Of discovering some new source oI
evidence that may by possibility turn out TO be
competent aud mate. ia. But what is still more
remarkable anomaly, thi. indirect objectis pro.
iessediy sought to be accomplished by means 81
a sumGs0as issued IN one case 10 .nswer the COL
lateral purposes nt The prosecutor IN another
case, by means of suumnU, issued 10 the hrst
case Of an indi, tmenr for consl r4sy not YET pas
sed found b, the Grand Jury, To seek dis
cOvery ot possible evidence iOI the trial OF an
indictment for an actual assault already passed
On and found by ti,e Grand Ilry; 50 that. after
all, thi, Respondent has been summond TO at.
tend in person. ami 20 prpflnce the letter IN ques.
ton. opnn pending enqairv fore the Grand
jury, whether enc rifaurc has been comitted,
for the mere pJrposr Of ;ne pOsslb. discovery
of new sources at evidence operating on another
case Tor different offence. thereafter to be tried.
5ihy. B'cause The utter sroundlessneSs- ut the
pretex,> On which the summons Is professed to
have been issued is den 0nsIraive from the con.
tents ct the letter published, and from the shew-
Ing Of the District Attorney in his sal affidavit,
since it Is deemed quite evident and clear, that
il the wii:er of the letter, upon being discovered
ard produced ds a witness, were to prove every
- Wv .,. a. -, ,onJ.,cv
:" ,n,,,o ,I,o s,s,onoa If .n, snch con,o,racv
w P""'" Wv " 80 az, -
ground of the only Indictment yet pending be
'",e ."e >''"u '', w" -,
wherein any mater >'a'eu w we 'e''e' .o"'' W
"' a. "'"e''"i' vac, " VI. -,
ac'ua' a''a"''; "oo 'hhl Is 'ie F'.e'> 'a'e ~
WINCH l"e summons was ""' ,'eue"; a"' NV
"vef, II u c"ilh pns''Nly oe "eemeu 'he p'"p.'
Office ut summons to e"'npe' the discovery "
one w'nes, "t another witness S''her - Inc same
or IN different case, II Is not Pretehatu Una. any
such ,nd'rect method 81 getnnS al e''de"'' MUS
any APOLOGY. "ilhrr ~ 'he ""'u' supP'ess'"'' "
IN any indirect ar'e't "' pa'e''' e''ue".e ~
prove we 'dSl "' 'he "tt"m 0'S"""' oe.au'e
u h"'"' '"o> l'"' '"' P'oee' u''' '''' y" wy =,
nehcr OF rye WITNESSES W aou"ua"'e W P'''s wv
iac' 'hcnh'esiao'y'
lhe redi "hJec', me true ehh- anu ann o' tne
summons, could De inferred roo the tenor OF 'he
summons its''i, and from the known tendency
OF the evidence required by u, I" De no olher
than "'le searching linguistic" INTO me au'"or'
snip OF pno ,-hed letter. ei'her Tor the purpose
ut THROWN odIum or suspicion on the Unknown
'''''''' "'' ''' ~ ~
witness to iac's which II was well known this re
pendent was no witness TO prove, and wnere9' 1"
was equally notor Us the letter itseIf could not
be competent evidence: and this respondent is
well advised that II Is n" "iiice o. snm"ons' nor
al all "i'n'n Inc province "' anu jury, 10
drag clizen ON Ms h'"e' anu SET oh '''' d"
od'"u' 'nqu'S''''" '"'" NJ private co're'p u
'ente,for the mere chance OF Tie vi o'e'
Witnesses. who may POSSIBLY prove "nal 'he WIZ
ness su""'neu e"n"o' Prove a'u INA! 'ne ISSUING
"e"',''o"s 'o' any sue" Purp"se u a'na"i's'
aon use D. ,he process OF 'hc I"urt:
Gun us Tue common r'sh' oi tue c,'izeh 10
tF, s'"e' ~ rue h's esI &c, :" p"a'e e"'es
sP"'us"ee WIZ. "'s '..e"us anu az q"a'n,a"ce' VI
VI ANU! '"ou' '"'''"u'''a',u"' ''"'s" '"e P''o>'
~, " Wv PGo'' any ,'"es s W "p'".o"' y" pu"
y. VI P'r|'' u""''.''"''' ".e'.' as" "'..ou'
y, O.'"s pe,,I"'"! a'""" III f'es.p"'
el'"., W. p'n''s' W a. ''e o'' ~ ',y 'e'
go -, wv, $50, ,r.',.aa Wv. 100.
,;. Jn,, and !, ~ an. d
~ ,,h common ,1nh, ,n uI' - ".,
nar;ons ,huss ~ Iso,I nr,csss ~ .,;,n,. ,nv
rr# ;,I .,,L ,,hl;c ,rnn;s,,;on ~ d;sonua, ,ho