The Rhode-Island Republican. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1809-1841, 1830-11-25

ing TO the town. fhron-rl the Cent inside
the bar. Among the nnnber was -tiei,o.
ias C. Boss. Esg. a distinguished d mason
and he was next sworn. lie was asked
by Mr.. Hazard if the oalhs rs stated in
sf.icht on Masonry" were truly the obli-
cations taken By fnasons in the three first
slecrcess Answer No they are moi, This .
auswct wns given after hearing them read,
~ wines. had previously said hc did not
know what they were stated in the book /
10 be 4
Question BY do.-Whai part of them do .
YOU deny or DO you deny them whsiy
tns.-I deny ;hem wholly.
Question By do.--"DiJ yon. as mason,
ever take my oath that disqualified you
from deciding case fairly and indifferent I
y where one party was mason and the
other was not a mason %
! This question vas objected 10 10y roun
scl for plaintiff and witness was not per
united 10 answer it; on the ground that 1t
/ would b" stating an opinion and not a fact.
| lie was then cross examined by Mr. Pearcc.
Question. = Were you present when
Nr Cranston was examined Ans.--l was
not.
What pariicnlar part nc these oaths do
yer deny to be'correct? Ans. The whole
of tlIcan except that some words in boili
afc the same.
/ Q'rsticn by do What ords nre they?
Ans. Why such words as "of' and "dnT
and "fhe"
Question by do.--Will you state interips
The obligations nf masUus ~ voIi have TAX
u D Y 4 MI
shall: no mol feel myseifaf liberty 10 do so:
hat is a masonic affiir altogether.
Qncstioa by do III | read these obliga
,ions to you sentence By sentence. Will you
show me in what respect they diHei, a
Mr.. Cranston has done I? Ans.--lf you
expect that fme, consider MY beiag call
cd here as a witness on insult, aud uigh
ms well at once decline all further answer
The Court said Mr.. Pcnrce's question
was proper one, and the party PROFOUND
ing it might or might not waive il nj their
pleasure. IL was waived by Mr.. Pearco.
md the argument then proceeded. Mr..
Hazard closing the reply 10 the challenge.
lie said the present was The TicbedeS'
, motion that hc had ever heard made in this
Court; tha, it was putting fire TO a train OF
comhrsiible matter the Termination oi
which he was sure the mover could noi
ldrcsec. That if the present motion pre-
vailed, we should ncx, heur Of challenges
10 Judges who were masons. That n ma
jori,y Of the General Assembly might be
masons and their right to lhril seats wonld
!, be contested on the same grnunds. That
, this was very tic&lish ground and ought ,c
, taken with great dclibs rpiion, and not a, =
mpmcat when it was calculated and per-
+ hap- intended 20 influence elections. That
the very next steam boat that srriVcd
would show that such an excitement exist
1 ed, cnl that u.c Court would rccnllect that
in So IA case as this il was q course en-
tjrcly new, 10 chGllenge Juror, and they
would cvcntui lily decide The question witl
. great caution. fIa denied that tho doctriE'
: tsid down IL Blackstone and Jacob wa
n law.or tia, / i'ji'ird the 90 IstiI ct.oh'con-
:, tended for. That It applied, II at uN Il
members of the same Lodge. That tii,
Juror and the party were members of dit
. tcrent Lodges, and therefore did not fal
, wi,hia ans construction tilRt could be Civ
;, On To the an,llerties produced. That fair
iy 10 hsv. met III" question on the part o
r. the plaintiff, would have been to put Ia
carer an his r0ise di,c, aud that failing L
do that. eviuccd desire Oh the par, ot th
!, plaintiff not only to get rid Of tho juror, bu
/, 10 create an nnfavorablc impression agains
!, his client, who was Inssoa. and ciiize
Il of faso,hcr state. Tint DR.. Case was M
4. q fair and impartial witness: II was noio
p ri,ms that he and the masons had had grea
;, difficulty with each other for years; an
:, that il he (Hazardl had been in the si,ua
team Of DR. Case, he would heve had li
-. 4. L.. 4 I,
gwen such tcs'iniany a lc had III the pre-
r. sent Instance. That the obligations {
!. masons were to be taken by the Court
), be what each one Of them understood thcl
a SO be. Tint Msnro had not had an oppol
10 tunty To declare what he 0ndcrstood b
hcn. That he penalties gEtcd 10 a brcGc
IN OF ihrm, ,oere against iu:c, and therefore n,
!, binding on those who took them; and
j. they so understood them, they would NJ
ainoant Ia disqualification. IroGjhs, the
., were no, administered by any court &
"a magistrates suthori,ed by law, for sue
purposes, and were therefore void. Th
"A nny decision the Ccnit might make. won
g. like wildiire all over The Uniicd State
IN and no calculation could be- made Of Il
N miechicf il might do.
il. .sir Fcayce or the part Of the plain,i
u closed the o1secticu. lie hegan by statiI
that the challenge had been insisted on
81. his client as legal one; ,ha; it involved
priaciple that NIGH, as well be decided
r.. the prescr, case as in any other. 1f'
'iy objecli"n was legal one ond supported
ie, evidence, the Cour, woald sustain it; vi
n erwisc not. That it ough, 10 be sciil
IN. ono way or tie other. and tL,, it was u
so iaaportant What the rule was. as Ill
's. there should bc some uniform rule or I
10 subject: lie dis, la,ned. on the part of 1
'e, PLAINTIFF any other personal objection
the juror. and all desire Of creating an Il
he due prejudice against the defendant, \
Ia Bordea. Thatcertainly the deiendan,