Herald of the times. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1830-1846, 1830-12-01

i, cry 10 90 ~.
/, But will do az b.for. said, that the
Masonic obligations, as ! understood
them, do not contain any thing inc consis-
/ tent with mans duty "a juror.
Il The Count here said mr.. Pearce''
| question was proper one for the witness
meet the question.
Il Mr.. Pearce then said he would read
the Obligations as recorded IN "L.sht O,.
.nasOnry," sentence by sentence, ana
would at the end of each ask the witness
ii he objected to, or admitted it, and he
went ON 10 do so--the witness asserting
to all with IL saving oi some mere verbal
alterations until he came to where the
sign was expressed to be "handed, sent
or thrown" Sc. some part Of this mr.
Cranston objected, and said he had new
or known the oblie eations so administered.
He was asked what distance was inten-
dcd by "the length of his cable tow"
Witness replied, as he understood it, it
was very indefinite, according to cir
cumstanccs; it might mean five feet or
five hundred miles; it was as far, as Il
masonic sign could be communicated.
\ In this way the obligations Of the three
first degrees were repeated and canvas
scd and were substantially proved to be
correct, as recorded by Bernard.
BY the time this cross examination
closed, great number oi'masons belong
ing to the town thronged the Court inside
the bar. Among the number was .N,ch-
oias q. Boss, Esq. distinguished mason
and he was next sworn. lie was asked
by mr.. IIazatd if the oaths as stated in
"L'ga on .Masonry," were truly the OBJ
legations taken by masons in the three
first degrees; Ans.-No they are not,
(this answer was given after hearing
them read, as witness had previously
said he did not know what they were sta
ted in .ac book to be-
/ Question by do.-What part Of them
! do you deny or do YOU deny them Who'll
Iy? Ans-I deny them wholly.
/ Question by do.-"Did You, az ma
son, ever take any oath that disqualified
you from deciding a case fairly and in-
differently where one party was mason
and the other was not II mason.
i, This question was oh lectcd TO by coun
sci for plaintiff, and witness was not per.
mittcd to answer il; on the ground that i
would be stating an opinion and not fact
/ lie was then cross examined by Mr.
/ Pcarcc.
4 Question Were YOU present when
/ Mr. Cranstcn was examined; Ans
was not.
| What particular part Of these oa.hs do
! you deny to be correct? Ans.-1hc
whole of them except that some words in
both are the same.
! Question by do. words are they J
4 Ans.-Why such words as 'ct, and 'ond,
and hc.'
/ Question hy DOWN you state in
terms the obligations of masons as you
have taken or known them. Ans.--l d.
not think shall; do not feel mgs'y Al
liberty 10 do so; that is a masonic affair al
together.
Question by do.-If read these obli-
cations to you sentence by sentence, viii
you show me in what respect they differ,
as Mr.. Cranston had done; Ans.-iI
YOU expect that of me, consider my be-
ing called here as witness an insult, and
might as well al once decline all further
answer
| The Court snid Mr.. Pcarcc's question
was proper one ,and the party propound-
ing it might or might not waive II at their
pleasure. ltwas waivedby MIR. Pcarcc, *
the argument then proceeded, MIR. naz-
ard closing the reply to the challenge.
7 lie said the present was the w,chtdes
motion that he had ever heard made il
this Court; that it was putting fire To q
train of combustibe matter the tcrmina-
ton of which he was sure the mover
could not iorcsce. That if the present
motion prevailed, we should next hear o.
challenges to Judges who were masons
That majority of the General Assembly
might be masons and their right to then
seats would be contested Oh the same
grounds. That this was very tlcklish
ground and ought to be taken with great
dcllberation, and not at a moment when II
was calculated and perhaps intended to
influence elections. That the very next
steamboat that arrived, Cirom New York
probably) would show that such an cl-
citemcnt existed and that the Court would
! do well TO recollcct that in such case as
this IT was course entirely new, to
challenge Juror, and they would event
ually decide the question with great cau-
! ton. He denied that the doctrine laid
down in Blackstone and Jacob was law,
or that il justified construction contcnded
for That it applied, if at all to members
ofthc same Lodge. That the juror and
/ the parry were members of different
= - ,ho,,C,,c I'D not fall ,,,tl,,,, =,