|
Federal Gazette & Baltimore Daily Advertiser 1807/07-1807/12 msa_sc3722_2_6_2-0184 Enlarge and print image (5M)      |
![]() |
||||
|
Federal Gazette & Baltimore Daily Advertiser 1807/07-1807/12 msa_sc3722_2_6_2-0184 Enlarge and print image (5M)      |
|
»«i
f,>i tin; diss'rp ition i;f this impending
A short nine after Mr. H.iy had conclud-
ed he was about to proceed to the examina-
tion of thewitnesses. gen. Baton was sworn;
when Mr. Burr rose and objected to this or-
der of examining tile Witnesses". He said
that Mr. Hay had not stated the nature of
Mr.- Elton's testimony ; but lie presumed
that it related to certain conversions at
Washington.—Mr. iiiy. . Our object is to
prove by him what is contained in his de-
position. Mr. Bin*. Then we call upon
them first to prove what the court lias alrea-
dy established to be the course of proceed-
ing, an overt act. Why waste 5 or 6 weeks,
to 11,. purpose ; at great expence and great
trouble ; & after all to know nothing which
is re... Ult to the point at issue ?
An argument then ensued upon this ques-
tion which detained the court till 7 o'clock
at niMit. Messrs. Botts, Wickham, Lee,
and Mai tain advocated the necessity of prov.
jng the overt act first. Mr. Wirt opposed
the motion.
He first laid a great stress upon the deci-
sion formerly given Vy thecoud, relative to
uae point, on the motion tor holding
¦col. 15urr t0 nkner ^ail ' ''1cy stated tila'
the'order of evidence was a part of the law
of the evidence ; that the court was to judge
of the competency of evidence, and that it
had a right to stop any evidence, which they
deemed immaterial; that it was of no avail
to prove inteiitiqn--, before an overt act had
been established ; 'hat as in a writ of eject-
ment it would be ridiculosto begin *tth the
boundaries before the title *as proved, so
it was improper to begin with the declara-
tions of col. B. or wiih any conversations,
unt'd the overt act was shown ; that these
declarations could only be admitted as con-
firmatory evidence ; that it vouid be pecu-
liarly hard on any individual for his whole
life to he exo>sed in a Court", every conver-
sation which he had he'd, or every mriocent
declaration whit* he had ever .11 da, bet re
it was known whether any actual crime
could be proved against him; that if the
prosecutor was thus proceeding to develope
the evidence as to intention only, the c .nrt
had a right to stop him, and require him to
Eive evidence of the act itself; that if it
Was not so, he mit?bt be going on to charge
a man accused of murder with a malignant
intention, when the man said to be murder,
ed was actually alive ; Or of Alson, when
the h use was starrdin.;. They cited a va
rifty of opinions and cases . judge Iredell's
opniion in the case of Fries p. 164. Vaug-
hart-'s case 5 St. Tr. p. I?-^2- Messenger's
a St. Tr. p. 585. 8 St. Tr. p. 219.
Mr. Wirt contended, that from the first
foundation of c -arts to this day, it was the
practice for (lie projecut r who was suppos-
ed to know the evidence best, to display it
in his own way; and that it would be a
disrespect to the attorney for the United
States', to wave this practice on the present
occasion ; that the chronological order
¦which the attorney was ab >ut to pursue,
¦was the lucid order ot nature herself ; that
the proper course for enlightning the minds
of the jnry was to take the conspiracy from.
its first birth toils consummation ; w .uld a
man be.nn s tale at the end of it ? Would
an historian commence the American Revo-
lution at the siege of York >. That the rule
¦Was t ¦ brinp; in nothing which did not
touch the issue ; but that the intention was
an important feature in that issue. And how
are thejury to be disposed of ? The court
knows they have no right to keep from
them any evidence touching the issue. If
the prosecutor state; that he is about to pro-
ceed to the intention, can the court say,
that it proves not the overt act, and then
send the jury out ? Iredelle's opinion in
Fries' case, p. 174*5. And who is to be
the judge of the evidence to prove the overt
net ? The court. Is the court to stopt the
prosecutor ? Is then the court to usurp the
right of deciding upon the evidence ? As
to the firmer decision of this court, there
were two circumstances to explain it : 1st.
The court wished to avoid poisoning the
public mind by a needless display of evi-
dence and called upon the prosecutor to
prove the overt act first. 2cliy- The court
was then both jndjre and jury. It might say
when it was satisfied with the evidence, and
when it might stop it : hut the jury is no <
to sit upon the trial and the court is stript of
' half its character.
The chief justice will most probably de-
liver the opinion of the court this day (Wed-
nesday.)
Adjourned till to-morrow 10 o'clock.
Half after 10 o'clock.
The court has just decided that the attor-
ney for the prosecution is at liberty to pur-
sue his own judgment ; and the court will
arre.it any evidence which does not appear
at its introduction to he relevant to the
point at issue. The opinion in our next.
BOSTON, August 19.
COMMUNICATION.
flit if as, August 1, iP07. _
A considerable sensation is excited in
this province, in consequence of a trial on
Wednesday last, the 29th ultimo. The Bri-
tish schooner Eleanor arrived here not long
snce.iu distress, and was seized by the col
lector of this port for being in distress, and
brought before the inquisitorial vice-admiral-
ty court here, which inquisition, without the
least hesitation, condemned the vessel and
cargo. An act so repugnant to humanity
Could not fail to excite resentment in the
breast of every man of feeling, and has giv-
en rise to inquiries and discussions which
are not very favorable to the British govern-
ment. It seems this court is not authorised
by the laws of this province, but consists of
thfl prosecution, accuse* p+e$le 0? every
thmg he can think of, without being obliged
support of his accusations^
but ftire '5 i) -oil! ¦ to prove that tJiey ,irc ir.ha
cut! The people ot this province have re-
vived the discussions thyrt took place at the
beginning of the revolutionary war ; the
right of the English parliament to pass so
infamous a law as deprives them of trial by
a jury, and establishes a court among them
that is a disgrace to the jurisprudence of a
civilised country. The British government
is using its utmost exertions to force people
to be its enemies.
TIip accounts, via Europe, of a revolt of
the Spaniards nt Buenos iyres, in March
last, and ofthe.fr having declared themselves
an independent nation, we are enabled to
state, on the authority of advices from the
Biver Plate of dates two months later, are
wholly unfounded.
The. emperor Napoleon has broken and
disgraced admiral Leissegues, for his conduct
in the sctisn ofFSt. Domingo, Feb. 2<>, 1306,
when bis squadron was destroyed by admi-
ral Duckworth.
Prince Jerome Bonaparte is to be created
Grind Duke of Hanover.
The Lond n papers state, that the pre-
sent British ministry very promptly and
pointedly discountenanced the impertinence
of captain Love, |