Activate Javascript or update your browser for the full Digital Library experience.
Previous Page
–
Next Page
Full Title
The trials of William S. Smith, and Samuel G. Ogden, for misdemeanours, had in the circuit court of the United States for the New-York District, in July, 1806.
Author
Lloyd, Thomas, 1756-1827.
Date Added
11 January 2014
Language
English
Publish Date
1807
Publisher
New York: I. Riley and Co.
Source
ACHS Historic Papers Lloyd Family.
Topic
Smith, William Stephens, > 1755-1816 > Trials, litigation, etc. Ogden, Samuel G. > (Samuel Gouverneur), > 1779-1860 > Trials, litigation, etc. Venezuela > History > Miranda's Expedition, 1806. United States > Foreign relations > Spain. Spain > Foreign relations > United States.
About
More Details Permanent Link
Disclaimers
Disclaimer of Liability Disclaimer of Endorsement
OCR
6
“any secréts of government connected with the measure for which
WILLIAM S. SMITH. — Gi
’
Col. Smith stands indicted. oe
But it is also urged that the witnesses could not be forced to
answer questions that might criminate themselves. No; but
there is nothing in that argument that-should prevent their being
brought into court, to sce whether they ‘will make an objection
Which they certainly may waive. Intruth, however, Col, Smith’s
affidavit does not lay us: open to that argument ; for it does not
charge any one with approving of that expedition, but the presi-
“dent and secretary of state. Now, Mr. Madison may be called to
prove the conduct of tlie president, and the other witnesses. to
prove the conduct of Mr. Madison. Soa
Parrnsoy, J. | Would Mr. Madison be liable to a prosecution,
if he answered that the conduct of Col. Smith was with his know-
ledge, or knowledge and consent of the president ? -
#mmet. If the view I shall hereafter take of the statute be
correct, he certainly would not. eee
Another circumstance has been mentioned; that those gentle-_
men have offered to be examined under'a commission, and the
court was pleased to express some surprise that such an arrange-°
ment had not been before thought of.) With the utmost: deference,
I beg leave to answer, that the circumstance was adverted to3
but neither the defendant nor his counsel are willing to accede’ to
that arrangement. For my own part, I declare, that except upon
some very extraordinary occasion, which I cannot now foresees I
never will consent to examine a witness under a commission in a:
criminal case, if his attendance on the trial can be forced, Even”
in civil causes, I have more than once had occasion to lament the
‘inroads that are made upon oral testimony, by the increzised use of
written depositions ; and Iam convinced that the latter frequently
prevent the discovery of truth. Every one knows, that when a
witness is examined in open court, the manner in which he an-
swers, and the manner in which he declines to answer,*are mat:
ters of public observation ; and that cross-examination may: draw
out more than could be obtained by studied and written answers. -
to written interrogatories.’ It is the wish: of my client that this-
case shall be made as clear as possible ; that the truth shall be
cviscerated and brought into public view ; that the allegations of
the defendant, aud the testimony of the witnesses may be com-
pared and judged of by the jury and the public. a
The advantages of oral testimony over written depositions, are
so strikingly set forth by Sir Matthew Hale, in ‘his histor of the
common law, (vol. 2. ch: xii. p. 145.) that I shall beg -leave to
read a short extract! from it ; as, perhaps, if the same reasons
were assigned by myself, they might be supposed to have some
personal allusions. ©’ .
“ The excellency of this open course of evidence to the jury,
3