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

sidetstian. qassh tie procedure as t.anscenlinS
the KNIT. OF its powes and jurisdiction, and as
being in itself irregular ausonteaso,ab!e IN o'hef
respects; yet from his rsalresfec' Tor the charac
tee, beth personal ard oiicia, OF ,he CHtht. he
begs .eaye to submit to ,he Courl. in The hrs' in
stance. the circumstances which he hores "cu!2
t,ave constituted a ju.t and reasonable excuse Tor
his failure to attend the Court CT the otana9urF.
pursuant to the tenor Of the summnns in qucs-
tiun. even>if regular summons mish, lawfu'iv
run. IN any case. from The District oil COLUMBIA
into til. Commonwealth.
TTheSlst .coun; refers 10 domestic matters
9 rhis respondent has no personal knowledge
Of any crime or offence, committed In the Dis
rict OF Columbia. or any wise coSnisabIe by.yoar
Court or BY the GRAM, Jary of Alexandra coun
": nor wa, there any circumstance from which
the Iaw offers OF the u. States could reasona
by have presumed his possessiin Of any such
Knowledge: hu, every kaown fact, and every e
ultimate sunposition Of facts, c"nhpcte; with his
relative situation aud cicumstances--indeed all
nuturic,y-wen, to raise directly opposite pre-
surarton name!v, that he was an after stran
yer TO any transaction that could then have been
the subject Of investigation before the Grand ia
~: aud that. Of the great mass of person, with
IN the same distance from. the scene al action.
there vas not one 10 wanm aGY personal &aOw-
lc'na at tie matter aig hl n0i haVe BEEN imputed
Will as unch reason AMI probability as 20 linn
SELF.
+ g. Tic summons imports Hot that :h"re was
anv prosecution. or other CAUSE. actually pend.
| Ing urf,rr tie Court or the Grand Jury, wherein
he W.. ,couirrd 20 testify wltGcss; names
no party against whclh. nor any existing litIga.
ton wherein he was required To testify. The
letter which he was required to produce, was a
simple relation of the ASSAULT Said To ave been
committed by Robert b Rando pin on Andrew
Jackson, and the attendant circumstances, With.
ont tie rem0test ailu,un to any other offence com
mit,ed by him or any other person; and the facts,
| or some of the facts stated IN the letter, would
of course be the subject OF proof On the trial OF
| Mr. Randolph for tina. act; but me rdietment
| against him for that act, had already bPeE pass
ed upon aud found by the Gr"hd J"ry;--and by
M possibility could It be presumed that N"ch act
was any longer the subject OF Investigation he
fore the Grand Jury; NJ. w. N" esp"ndent sum
muned To attend as a witness IN that case, but
only to testify vasuelS up"n sumo Undetermined
ami indefinite sutj'ct b fore the Grand Ju'v:-
Whereas this respondent was. and Is well adj
vised, that according 10 the positive law OF the
land, AID the well established practice OF crlmi.
ma, jurisprudence. as we'll ~ the county OF Al
eyaT,ris "a in the Com,nnnw rf Virginia,
RIO witness. can be lawful, summoned by any pub.
lie Or private prosecutor, to testify before the
Grand Jury. but in case Of d,tini,e charge,
n,,.C,rred in the s.emn form Of an indictment
or information. tor some specific offence charged
auamst .ume individual nr ndi.,uuas by name;
and that the summons for witnesses 10 SUI, case,
should IDENTIFY tie Ease aud the par,iesby name.
An Neither the summons itself. nor any sub
segment disclosure Of is object or purposes, IN
Bs A4 ass ss IL fr se s 10 by e@fnss
could rea,unabl, b" presumed by the law officers
of tn" United States. even competent. far less
materiaL ssxsAcnce. Ut any one fac: or clrcum-
s'ance9e6ushSto prove the commission "f any
crime orSaa9cs whasa er. b, any person ar per.
sons whatever, in taesr0npty Of Alexandria or
elsewhere: 49,
1st. Because the letter itself is not pretended
to be the ground of any prosecution against the
writer thereof, for any libeIlous. or ether crm-
nal matter therein contained, but the contrary
appears both on the showing of the District At
torney. and on the face %! The letter itself. where
the entire innocency both = the writing aud Of
the publication thereof stands manifest.
q Because the summons calls for the pro.
ductlOn OF the letter. not as letter written by
; any party to any prosecution pending before the
Court or TIE Grand J REfatsKssny named or de-
scribed individual xpxfljcd3ffnx as IA letter
simply described llidsbii d.re. &c,
no matter bv wind ~ M tier whether
the facts related II = 1sfis6 from the per.
sonal knowledge Of sIlstst Fom hearsay.
g. Because from the - sPfHa ing Of the Dis.
trict Attorney, in his SAID affidavit, II does not
appear that the letter is charged, or even sus-
Peeted to be written by any patty to the prosecu.
ton mentioned in such aflida,rt; but that the pro.
ductOn OF the letter i, BROADLY demanded, no
matter by whom. CT under what circumstances
or upon what Information soever written.
4th. Because the District Attorney. when he
undertakes to specify the use intended TO be
made OF the letter Itself and Of the testimony
OF this respondent, pretenus not that either The
one or the other is compeentt far less material EVIL
dence oil any TACT or circumstance affecting the
guilt or Innocence Of any party 10 the alleged
prosecution, or OF any other individual in par
ticular; but merely suggests, or rather con iec-
trr hIoa nnIic ~ ,I