The Rhode-Island Republican. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1809-1841, 1830-12-23
alR. CRANsTON's LETTER,

CuklDU tuut EVlhtto w kilC IlOuOu UDdut W
take of an aporoed and decided an,nnoson.
I must herr take some little notice Of
Mr.. r. suddenly, and 'tciM no sort of fear"
seizss hold of few expressions nsed in
ms note, published in the Herald of the
letting off various windy words, and
sundry assertions indicative OF won
derfnl smartness, he clevates himself
upon that lofty pedes'aI-his own self com
placency, and says. that the son " proof Of
fered, in relation 10 the nnlinaspnic juror
challenged by me. (Cranston,) wcn, 10
show ths' the Juror wa not nh aniimlson
so decidedly so (conlinues mr.. 7. that
the Juror was directed TO remain on the
7annel, and the counsel Sor tho defendant
ceased, thereafter 10 bite agfiHSi n .f,s"
this is very smart in one So young. an J
affords evidence Of greai promise. Nav
let us look a little 10 that matter. and see
what were really the fac,s. Aijer the ma
sonic Juror was taken Oft nv client sug.
ges,ed 10 me that he had been Informed
that there was a strong d,ana ayoW,
ed antinason in the box. and that he (nr
Bordea,j though, that the Court would up
on motion take him OF also, and for ihc
same reasons, which were presumed 10
UuNr IUhuEFI llltln VI IfIPEl Ulil. .hlUUfD.
then replied to mr. r. That The Juror hp
had named wns 10 lonb, an an,mn son, bu'
he was, as Afterwards stated 10 ,hc Cnnr
as fair and MS honest a man az lived: That
u wns, as also stated To the C0ur' an cx
trrmely unplensnn, and painful dl'y for
me to discharge, 10 challenge the Juror
considering, as | did. the grounds o.
both challenges alike uusound nnf
Il e.,
juror had been rejected by the court. and
as mr.. Borden wished the other challcnge
made moved the Court that the juror
should be taken Off ! will not trou5I
you with the reasonsthat &crc urged TO tho
court why the Juror should not got in tie tri
nj 1t will readily he conceived tlnf thosr
REASONS necessarily grew out ofall lhe rra
sous that could have been urged or ,bought
ofin Justification of The mntioa made 10 re-
move Munro. In tho course ofmy remarks
to the conrt upon that motion. mr.. Penrcc.
as he Is prone to do, Interrupted ms md
eaid al Mejuror. "you arc not All anlmn
sou - yon do1t balong 10 any such socety,
do you mr.. JnrorF' II was nol intendr
by me, nor could | have been understood
us meaning that there was my iacoporaic6
Society ofaniinasops in this State Tho IN
tCTfNIIIDU,. InFltinT', was lUlPlltltu M
doubt m n mrarprre. Mr. Pearce theG
asked the juror, "arc yon an nn,imason do
yon belong 10 any such socicty?" The jn
ror answered. NJ. Mr.. y. then, with M
air Of triumph, ba,r,ea out--"ihcre. there,
where's yonr avowcd md decided nnin'
son juror ?" The juror was then examined
ppon his voire dire. He VIVA asked whctb
or he did or did nnt entertain The belief,
that the masonic Institution, WA bad and
dangerous institution. and that it ought to
be disconn,cnnncei and put DOWN al least.
bv pubGc.cpinion if bv 10 other meansi
To This question the juror snswcred very
emphaiicolIy lnlced- Yea Sir, do. Mr..
Hozard then asked the Juror. whether hc
did or did nat consider himself ns belong
ing TO, or being one Of thnt class Of the
community thu, were generally dcnomina
ted antimasons, and were cndeavoring to|
put down masonry, and whether he wns
not ,choHy and totally opposed 10 masonry?
Witness: yes, rather think | do;-I am
wholly opposed to masonry But have no
prejudiccs whatever against any mason,
nor have sny kind Of bias in this case
j feel no difference. nor will IL make nny
difference in my juagemen, in this case bc
cause ono of tho parties is mason that
never will have any weight with me,
shall 40 my duty although ! had much
rather come of than to set in the case"
Mr.. Hazard and myself both stated that
we had no objection to the Juror whatever
the objection. we had raised was forced
upon us by the decision made by the court.
in the case OF tho rejected Juror. So much
for that part Of The Reporters commnui.
cation as felatcs 10 what | still with "no
sort OF fear" call the avowed and decided
nntmasonic Juror, who was retained by
the Court. not brcauec there was no evi.
dence offered to ehew that he was an anti
mason, but so'ely for the reason gwen at
the time by the Chief Justice or the Court
--"that if he was what was termed an an
timason it did not appear inor was il pre-
tended by us) that he had ,ukcp any oaihs,
or that he was under any obligations rs nm
an,imason. that might conflict wit, his
oath asar impartial Juror"--and Wherefore
said the Court. the Juror is not to COME
off," The public will now perceive thot I
had right 10 complain Of the Reporter,
and his report. AT ono time am repre-
resented as having confirmed under my
oath as witness the truth OF Bernard's
book, and at another time, nm rcproached
and charged with having considered my
masonic obligation, as paramount TO my
civil oath taken as witness, and of reTus
ing tn answer, ,rotwi'hsta nding had sworn
to tell the ,chole truth, aud this by the by,
you imr. Wallct,) do no, consider could be
treH done unless n witness should have an.
swered any md every impcrtinsnt and
foolish question the Reporter or mr.. Pcarcc
might have put to him, for tho purpose Of
"blo,cing masonry SKY high" All tha,
havc given in the preceding sta'cincnt as
having bcen said by me, is correctly and
truly stated. This am thoroughly con-