Vermont telegraph. [volume] (Brandon [Vt.]) 1828-1843, 1837-03-08

the offence of unbeIieI; and never do they
receive any description, either full or
plain, either substantial OF formal, of the
crime or offence for which they must an.
Swer. = -
Will it be said, that in6delity is moi, in
legal contemplation, d crime or ofencea
Our reply is, So much the greater the
wrong and injury inflicted by tie law
But if it be not an offence, what can be7
If that which Is so suddenly, SO severely
so sharply punished, be not crime or OF.
fence, pray what is it? Is it inisfortune2
Then should it be pitied, and not punish
Led. What punishment could be more I'd
equivocai, than the seizure of so precious
right the imposition Of so grieyous
disability, the infictioh Of open, disgrace
by the brand Of the court. - !.
The odiousness of this violation Of the
constitution Exaggerated by the fact, that
escape the common observations. Infrac-
tons of right, thus 4rtfully yelled, are in.
fnitely more dangerous 10 liberty, than
bold and bare-taeed usurpations, which
rouse the public indignation at once, and
are punished by Immediate public action.
Prudence and courage may defend US
from the open assault of highway rob-
Der; but neiteer bravery nor foresight
avails much against the covert attack of
lurking assassin.
If it be said that, although. perhaps, it
may be proper to call infidelity crime or
an offence, within the meaning Of the con.
stltution, yet the witness cahnot, properly,
be regarded as called upon, or "held to
answer" thereto, within the intent of that
instrument,-we reply, that bubble or
evasion Of this sort is worthy Of those who
defend this sin against the CONSTITUTIONS
But the intent Of that great charter is
Iuminously clear Its liberal spirit is not
to be cramped with old-school legal tech
aicalities: That spirit is mdnifestly out
ragged, whenever and wherever any indi-
vidual, be he party or witness to suit, or
however otherwise in the power of
court, is assailed by the tribunal, is sub
jected to inquisitorial examination, and is
rendered amenable to judicial censUre aud
legal penalties, without having been fur
nished with description, "full and plain.
substantial and formal.' of the offence for
] which he is made to answer A witness.
charged with intidelity, is, in fact, put up
on trial before the court, for an offence
the issue is infdel or not in6del; the Judge
tries it :; the Judge decides it, and the wit
ness, thus held to answer, is so held with:
out previous notice, without the advice of
counsel, and without the constitutional
privilege of jury. There is no writ,
no service, no declaration; no plea, no ad-
vice, no Defence no jury, and no record Of
the court. But there is an offence, there
is criminal, there is holding to answer.
and there is a Judgment, from which there
is no appeal. Such is the efficacy Of con-
stitutional safeguards of liberty and right
If, in view of all these arguments, any
one continues to support the existing ruls
of evidence, by which witnesses are ex.
cluded FROM testifying because Of their
opinions on matters of religion, we de-
sPair of changing his convictions by any
! array of reason or Of facts.
Let it be borne in mind, that we do not
pretend to claim for the unfortunate SUBJ
iects of this rule any given degree of cred:
it or belief All that is asked for is, that
they be heard with full knowledge of
evsry fact affecting their characters, OF
the value of their evidence, and be allow:
ed, like others, to pass with their jury for
what they are really worth.
The most notorious liar, the most cor
ruptreprobate that goes unhung, is allow
ed to testify upon these terms, and, sure
ly, it is not unreasonable to ask the same
allowance for other men, whose only
fault is in matter Of opinion. J. A. B.
lDoLATRY IN 1ND1A-At meeting of
the members of the East India Company,