The Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1837-1845, 1845-01-31

BISHOP oNDERDoNK's TRIAL AND
STATEMENT

connected WIN the trial, by the Bishop himself
Thousands of copies of both publications. will no
doubt DO called for; as they give the evidence de-
ta the letters, questions replies and every thing
relating TO ihis grave and important matter. The
trial occupies pamphlet OF more than three hun
dred pages. The piesentment was made by Bishop
Meade, of Virgnil, Bshp Otey, of Tennessee, and
Bishop Elliott, Of Georgia.
Bishop Chase, of Illinois acted as presid ng Off
Ger, and the Rev. Bird Wilson was elected Clerk
The Court convened Tuesday, Dec. 10th, in
the upper room OF the Sunday School building st
tachedto ST. Johns Chapel, IN the city of New York
Inc presentment occupies about three Pages of the
pamphlet, and embraces nine articles. The first
icle charges Bishop Onderdonk with having insulted
the lady of the Rev. c. M Butler, on about the
LIST day Of June, 1887, while Mr.. and Mrs. Butler
and The Bshop were m a carriage, proceeding to the
town Of Syracuse, New York. he second charges
that at the time alluded to the Bishop under the
influence OF vlnous or spirtuous liquors. The third
charges that in August 1888 Bishop o. was travel
ling In stage from Batavia to Utica, with the Rev
James A. Bolles, and young woman whose name is
not fuIn he'd and that Oh the said occasion The Bi
snop iusulted the female
The fourth article charges, that in July, 1882
Bishop o. visited Westchester county, dned at the
house OF j. V. Coles, aud after dinner walked with
Miss Anne Wilson and Miss Chadwick and that
while the ladies were separated, the Bishop rudey
insulted Miss Wilson. Article nth charges, that in
June, lS4l, Bishop D. visited st. James's Church.
Hamilton square, New York that alter service he
l-tt IN carriage, In company with Miss Helen NJ
Ruddero~. to proceed guest to the house of her
brother; that while so riding, be Dsuted Miss r.
Article sixth charges, that the day mentioned above
while at thr house of Mr., Rudderow, and when in
The parlor the Bishop grossly insulted Miss Jane o.
Rudderow. Article seventh charges, that in July,
1872 the Bishop held Confirmation at Zion Church,
Long Island, and that after the services ended
returned TO the house Of the Rev. II. M. Beare, in
car riaup IN m with no 10 nd hat
while 'id,ng and hen seated with Mrs. B. upon the
back seat, he insulled the isdy named.
Article eight charges, that IN july 1912, Bishop O.
held Confirmation at Whitestone Chapel, Long
Island After the service, he spent the evening at
the residence of Mr.. J. l.. Franklin; and that at
o'clock, while riding to the house of MIR. Beare,
companied by Mrs. Beare, the Bishop and the lady
sitting the back seat he nsued her the grossest
manner.
Article ninth and last, charges that Bishop o. has
al sundry times within seven years, insulted other
respectable ladies, whose names have come 10 the
knowledge OF the presenters. The details of the
charg' are unfit for publication in columns
The respondent pleaded NOT GUILTY 10 the charges
made. II was ordered by the court that the ninth
article of the presentment be stricken out-beng
without reasonable certainty as to time, place and
circumstances.
AT the sitting of December 18th motion was
made that In proceeding to investigate the charges,
the court do with protest, to transactions al
legged to have anspired anterior to the date of three
years prior to the date Of the presentment Voted
down-ayes 6, noes H.
David B. Ogden appeared counsel for the de-
PENDANT, and Hiram Ketchum, for the presenting BIZ
shops.
These preliminares arranged-the case was open
ed by Mr. X. in brief address. The testimony OF
the witnesses occupies the greater portion of the pub
LEGATION, and will no doubt be read with avidity.
Mr. Graham's address 10 defence, Analyses lhetes-
tlmony with great care and ability and occupies AZ
pages. q. Cia,ke, Esq, then commenced summing
up the evidence on the part of the presentment and
his address is also quite long David B. Ogden Esq
then concluded the summing up in behalf of the re-
spondent, and terminated his address with this Ian
guage:
! =" have now offered all the remarks on the ev
dence with which intend to trouble the Court.
have, however, to say word relative 10 the point il
this case. Every Of these charges has been sup
ported only by one witness The rule is well settled
IN my opinion that, both by the divine and civil law
one witness is not sufficient to convict Of such
charges as these have always understood that, by
the Jewih law, and also by the Christian law laid
| down by opr Savior, and by bis Apostles, and sus
Ia ned bt1he practice of the primitive Church, the
testimony OF two witnesses was absolutely necessary
TO convict man of offence. On this point beg
| to cite Burns Ecciesiasl Lao, vol H. 20S. Now
TINS IS spiritual Court and according to this autho
rliy, no Churchman can be convicted upon one single
witness; there must be at least two And in Gbsons
| Coder, l0ll, the sane principle is laid down anc
| commented on at some length The same principle
applies IN cases al common law Thus IN the o.
PERJURY, as was stated by my associate, two witness
es are necessary, and whyl Because the oath of
single witness cannot be taken sufficient proof o
the violation OF his oath by the accused party Ano
let me ask, is not the defendant here under oath
know OF no oath more solemn than the conservation
VOW Is this defendant, then, to be denied the priv
| nd IN he nart
| accused OF perjury,
| But, If the Court please, have heard it intimated
mat although none of the charges has been support
ed by the requisite amount Of legal testimony yet in
asmuch as they all go to prove the general chsrg
OF immortality and Impurty, they are to be added to
gether and throan into the scale Against that doc
trne most solemny protest. What the law upo
this subject! 1t expressly prescrbes that you canno
TX charge upon man except by two witnesses -
You must proceed here precisely they do in court
oi law every specification not proved is TO be cas-
aside AMI each IS 10 be lass upon sepa atey. |
not what IS The consequence Here four crarg,
taken separately they nothing; taken togethe
they amount TO somethng-that four ciphers max
unll-according to a species Of arithmetic that
cannot understand. Now not one Of these charge
has been legally proved They are just man.
ephers.
Il the court please shall conclude after few
additional remarks. have alreaJy detained you to-
| long.
here does appear TO me with all due Difference
TO IN. Presenting Bishops, and any oher gentlemet
who have taken an active part IN these proceedings
not only disregard Of the peace of the Church, bu
desire almost 70 break 10 pieces The most peaceful
Diocese on The continent One having more gener .
confidence IN the purity Of the Bishop csonot exist
These Presenting Bishops-with all due Difference
say it-sfe rending the Church. Tney were bound
70 my feeble judgment TO have acted very differently
independently OF all other consder atioDs the seec
ZION oil The time in which these charges were made
was TO my mind an act of gross cruelty could
be perPetrsted by any men upon their felow-beng
Al The very moment when my client was wei hec
down to the very dust by the unfortunate Of bi
bro,her-when he and his fJmily could hardly hole
up their heads IN the communty-that moment wa
seized upon To rake up against him all those old trans
actions, passed and forgotten years ago. But this u
Cour OF mercy. 1t is a Court organized in tn,
name oil the gieat Goo Of justice aud of mercy
From your decision there IS no appeal. ! now com
mil this case to your hands, with the earnest prayer
tast you may be enabled TO decide IT under a du,
sense of your solemn obligations to the Church, t,