Wilmington expositor. (Wilmington, Del.) 1831-18??, 1832-03-30

sSA@Aotts ahu pfouEnE Htnh TO Wltnlu SfOTt
Or fifty miles of Rochester. he had bee
watched at Albany, on his way to the west.-
At, night stranger came on board the cana
boat, in which the agent and Parkhurst were
and in the course of the night Parkhurst disap
peared, and no tidings have since been had o
Him. 1t is believed that this man could hav'
identified many persons at Rochester, as hav
ing been engaged in the carrying Morgan thr't
that place.
Inquiries. however. were pursued before thu
grand jury; much information was obtained. 8
an indictment for conspiracy and kidnapping
was found against the Rev. Francis H. Cum,
ming, a settled clergyman at Rochester, who
had been regarded as among the most respect
able of his profession.
AT this court, the Indictment against Sine.
on B. Jewett was removed into the Supreme
Court, BIZ the defendant
in Sept. 1929. a further examination of wit
nesses was had before grand Jury in Niagara
county; and bills of indictment were found a.
gainst Henry Maxwell, Norman Shepherd, and
another, whose name is not recollected, for 3
conspiracy to remove Morgan from Batavia
kidnap him. An attachment was issued a.
gainst John w. Beals. who had been duly sub.
poenaed as witness to attend this court, and
had refused to attend. He is mason of high
grade, as is understood, and a veryrespectable
citizen. He was taken on the attachment, and
gave bail to appear & answer for his contempt
He did not appear, and his bonds were forfeit
ed.
SIN October. 1889, Simeon B. Jewett made
motion to the Supreme Court to quash the in
dctment found against him in Monroe county,
on several grounds.--that the town officers, in
selecting grand jurors, had evinced partially
in not taking any masons. and returning many
anti-masons; and that some Of the grand jurors
had expressed opinions 'unfavorable to his in.
raocence. The motion was denied. The court
held that the discretion of selecting grand ju-
fors was vested. by law, exclusively in the SUI
pervisors; and the only power the court had,
was to inquire whether any of those actually re-
turned possessed the qualifications required by
law. and, as the contrary had not even been all
leped. there was no ground fer the objection
With that latitude of remark which judges are
sometimes apt to indulge, upon matters, in re-
spect to which they previously admitted that
they had no power. some of the court thought
proper to express disapprobation OF the super.
visors' excluding any set OF men, on the ground
of their belonging to any particular association
or observation-disclosures II had just been admit
ted that the discretion rested wholly with ths
supervisors. This remark, which was entire
" extra judicial, is therefore, as liable to OBJ
servaton as if it had not been made on the
bench. Can any unprecedented man seriously
think that members of fraternity should be
ced upon the inquiring and accusing jury,
which had in charge an accusation that vitally
affected that fraternity? Apply the principle to
any benevolent society. to a church, to a bank
ing company; would any one, in his senses, Sc
lect the members of such societies or compan-
les, to investigate charge, which, If true, ought
to destroy the society? But the objection APP
piled with ten-fuld force TO the selection oil
fnasons to detect and prosecute the persons en-.
gagged in the offences against Morgan. The facts
detailed in this report show how far they made
common cause with the offenders, and how lit
tie they were to be trusted. thousand cor
roborative facts and circumstances, which were
daily passing before the eyes Of an intelligent
people, evnced the close connection between
tne masors, and their general defence Of the
outrages. Add to this. that the horrid obliga-
tions of the fraternity to conceal each other S
crimes, to fly to the assistance of each ether in
every extremity, save that OF endangering life,
and 10 espousc the cause OF brother, whether
right or wrong, had been revealed, and repeat
eddy confirmed by jud'cial evidence. Would
it not nave been dereliction OF duty to appoint
men, under such circumstances, to determine
whether their brethren Snoula NC punished Tor
an offence committed under the sanction of ma
sonic obligations? The subject might be more
amply discussed, but this much seemed due to
:, body of honest and independent citizens, who
save been traduced beyond measure for the
,grformance of sacred and solemn duty. ac-
.orCing to the dictates oftheir cousciences, and
Or giving a decision similar to what has been
had in the highest court in the state, for trial
If issues of fact, and by OF the Judges of its
5upreme Court.
iAta court of Oyer and Terminer, held for
lie county of Orleans, in the month of Novem-
Der, 1929, Elihu Mather was brought to trial.
on Reimbursement against him before mentioned
Tor conspiracy and kidnapping. The then spe-
ciaI counsel determined to test, in the most SOIL
emn and formal manner, the question, whether
freemasons were competent jurors on the trial.
,,,L;ch hrnther. $780,.