date

If by means of this feature in this best
If by means of this feature in this best of all as yet established

Governments, a degree of inaptitude, not to be matched perhaps in the

worst European Government in existence can be produced, some practiced

proof may perhaps be regarded as exhibited of the inutility, to say no

worse, of this part of the structure of the Government. In the

year 1802, the United States had a "public Minister" at Paris— at

the Court of Bonaparte— French is not only the language of that

Country, but the diplomatic language of Europe. This public Minister by

whom, not to speak of the expected intrigues, conferences were to be

carried on necessarily with the appropriate functionaries in that Country,

but incidentally with those of every other— who was he? A man

who could neither speak nor understand a word of French, and to whom

conversation, even in his own language, was rendered difficult by

deafness.

If at this or that Court, the Union has public Ministers of the same or

different ranks more than one, what might be expect is that at least

some one of them should be able to converse in French. This expectation

would not in every instance be fulfilled.
Similar Items
  • Title: [24 Aug. 1813 Logic Ch. Language]
    Description: 24 Aug. 1813

    Logic

    Ch. Language-Grammar

    Conjugation Grammar

    Tense

    2

    Whatsoever be the species of action, and whatsoever be the portion of time, in which, by the representation given of it, it is placed, - if, in the nature of it, it was susceptible of continuance be brought to view, - it is a matter of no small convenience when the structure of the language is such as admits of the bringing the fact of such continuance decidedly and distinctly to view.

    Of the existence of this feature of convenience, the English language affords an exemplification; of its non-existence, the French.

    I am now walking to Charing Cross; I was walking yesterday in the Park; I shall be walking to-morrow in the Park.

    Many are the occasions in which the importance of an action depends on its continuance. If the structure of the language admit of it, the bringing to view this continuance is, on an occasion of this sort, frequently a great beauty, - the not being able to do so, a great defect.

    The French language admits not of the giving, in this manner, continuance to any portion of time, nor, therefore, in a word, to any action.

    In a translation made from that language into English, the advantage thus attached to the English is apt to be overlooked; and the word employed in the English being, in this respect, the literal translation of the French word, the poverty and unexpressiveness of the French language is thus transferred into the English.

    42
  • Title: [10 April 1804 Evidence Forthcomingness]
    Description: 10 April 1804

    Evidence

    Forthcomingness

    § 6 Appearance - General

    Subsequent Appear

    French Law

    §. 6. Continuation - French Law.

    In French law, it should seem, after the recent improvements /legislative labours/ of so many years, this innovation is yet to make. Summoned by the defendant in a criminal cause, or at any rate a capital one, a witness is at perfect liberty. Friendly to the summoner he obeys the summons: adverse, or indifferent, he takes no notice of it. The case in which this was pronounced to be law, and by the first /highest/ person /authority/ in the law, was the case of treason committed against the person of the first Magistrate. +

    It means /declares/ just the contrary. I neither dare to appear, nor would appear if I durst. There is one above me /Above me sits a potentate/ whose wish it is to see the defendant convicted, guilty or not guilty. By hope and fear together the wish of that [...?] reigns in my heart paramount to [...?]. Were I to appear, and to be examined, I must save the defendant at the expense of my interest, or destroy him at the expense of my character. Then plea /speech/ may be true or false: but such is the tenor /language/ of it, as plain as it is in the power of silence to speak, by the interpretation of circumstances /with circumstances to interpret it/.

    Dans le procès criminal contre leur qui avaient tenté d'assasséner Bonaparte, Demerville l'un des accusès se plaignait de l'absence du Consul Carabarerès[?] qu'il avait démandé comme témoin à dechaigé - Je demande, dit-il, que le tribunal lui enjoint/enjoigne[?] de compaioître - Le tribunal n'en a pas le droit, répond le President. La comparation des témoins à décharge est volontaire pour eux. Ne point comparoître, c'est repondre, c'est dire qu'ils n'ont n'en à déclarer en faveur de l'accusé - Paris[?]-par delties[?] n.220 Fevrier ann. 1800.

    Ce principe est faux. Le témoin sommè par l'accusé ne doit point avoir le droit de se refuser: il ne peut point savoir davance sur quoi l'accusé peut s'appelles en témpoignage - ce peut être sur un fait essentiel que lui seul peut prouver - accorder ce droit aux témoins à decharge, ce seroit mettre un accusé dans le cas de ne pouvoir faire aucune de ses preuves justificatives - c'est donner libre carriere à l'homme puissant contre tout le monde - c'est exposer les témoins à dècharge qui compaivissent, au lieu que leur propre sûreté demande qu'ils soient sous la constrainte de la loi et sous celle du serment.

    Le refus de compaioître ne signifie point qu'on n'a n'en à declarer en faveur de l'accusé - il signifie qu'on craint de se compromettre en parlant pour un homme accussé par une partie redoutable - qu'on est indolent qu'on n'aime pas l'accusé - qu'on ne se soncie pas de lui -

    Le témoin sommé peut-il decider davance sur quel point de fait l'accusé a besoin de son témoignage -

    Ce principe me paroit si horrible que je crains de ne pas comprendre le vrai sens du President de ce tribunal cependant, je ne puis en trouver aucun autre. Témoin à decharge, e'est un témoin que l'accusè rèclame en sa faveur. Les laisser libres de paroître ou de ne pas comparaître, c'est les laisser libres de refuser le premire service qu'on doit à un citoyen et[?] à un malheureux.

    (Translation)

    In the criminal process against those who have attempted to assassinate Bonaparte, Demerville one of the accused complained of the absence of the Consul Carabarerès[?] whom he asked to be [a] witness for the defence. - I ask, he says, that the tribunal call upon him to appear - The tribunal is not entitled to replied the President. The appearance of witnesses of the defence is voluntary for them. Not to appear at all, is to reply, is to say that they do not declare (themselves) in favour of the accused - Paris[?]-by [...?] n.220 February yr.1808.

    This principle is false. The witnes summoned by the accused does not at all have the right to refuse: he could not at all know in advance on what the accused would be called upon to give evidence - this perhaps on an essential fact that he alone could prove to accord the right to the witness of the defence, would be to put an accussed in the place to not be able to do anything with his relevant evidence - it is to give a free hand to the powerful man against the whole world - it is to expose the witnesses of the defence who testify, wheras their own security demands that they should be under the constraint of the law and under that of oath.

    The refusal to testify does not at all signify that one does not declare oneself in favour of the accused - it signifies that one fears to compromise oneself by talking for an accused man by a redoubtable party - that one is indolent - that one does not like the accused - that one does not concern oneself about him -

    Should the summoned witness decide in advance on whichpoint of fact the accused has need of his testimony -

    This principle appears to me so horrible that I fear not to have understood the true sense of the President or this tribunal however, I can not think of any other. Witness of the defence, it is a witness that the accused calls for in his favour. To let them free to appear or not to testify, its to let them free to refuse the first duty that one owes to a citizen and [?] to an unfortunate.
  • Title: [1822 Oct¼r. 3¼d¼. Tripoli © Account]
    Description: 1822 Oct¼r. 3¼d¼.

    Tripoli © Account of

    ?.5. Religious Establishment.

    Notaries accessors

    Deperition of necessary evidence is conclusive.

    Good, it may be said, good perhaps in some such extraordinary cases, but what shall we say of it in ordinary ones? Should we not call it mere ex©parte evidence? In this way, whether it be in penal cases or in civil cases, but more particularly in civil cases, might not evidence be manufactured in a most untrustworthy and deceptious shape, and give effect to the most nefarious designs. © Yes certainly, if it were regarded as conclusive which however, there seems to be little danger of its being on any occasion in any place. Yes, but too probably if in Tripoli the Examination were conducted in a no more apt manner than in a London Examiner's office under the auspices of English Equity. In a more unapt manner it could not be conducted even at Paris or Constantinople. At Tripoli, It is conducted in a different, and therefore in a more apt manner.

    Assessors on these occasions to the Notary are © Witnesses, 40 in number, chosen it is said out of the men of best repute in the parish.¼+ At the worst, they could not be chosen upon a worse principle than an English Jury, taken by /with/ choice under the pretence of chance by an English Master of the Crown Office, dependent on the Minister by a revocable Sinecure, as well as on another dependent creature of the Monarch, in the shape of a Chief Justice against whose corruption they are to afford security: or a French Jury, creatures of the official creature to whose corruptions they are to oppose a check.

    ¼+Quere © by whom chosen © and what the qualification?