The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1845-01-31

BISHOP ONDERDONK'S TRIAL AND
STATEMENT.


BISHOP oNDERDONK's TRIAL AND
STATEMENT
Mr.. G. q. Applsto0, las Chesnut street, has just
published The trial Vi B.sbop Ondsrdont, Of New
York. aud slso sistoent Of facts s1d circumstances
connected With the trial by the Bl.hop himself
Thousssds Of copies Of both publications will nc
doubt be called for; they give The evidence In de-
tai, the letters, questions, replies, aud every Thing
relating To has grave and important matter. The
trial occupies pamphlet Of more Than three hun
bred pages. The pfescnimeni wss made BY Bishop
Meade, Of Virginia Biship Otcy, oil Tennessee, and
Bishop Elliott, Of Georgia
Bishop Chase OF Illinois acted as presiding oh
Ger, and the Rev Bard Wilson was elected Clerk
The Cour convened Tuesday. Dec. 10Th, In
the upper room OF the Sunday School building At
tsehedto 81. Johns Chapel IN the city Of New York
The presentment occupies about three pages OF the
pamphlet, and embraces nina sftcles, The hrst az
iiele charges Bishop Undertook with having insulted
the lady Of the Rev G. M Butler, on or about the
lst day of June, 1887, while Mr. and Mrs. Butler
and the Bishop IN carriage, proceeding to the
town Of Syracuse, New York. he second charges
that al the time alluded to the Bishop was under the
influence Of ynous sprituous liquors. The third,
charges that in August, 1888, Bishop U was travel
ling IN a stage from Batavia to Utica, with the Rev
James A. Bodies, aud young woman whose name Is
not furni he'd add that the said occasion the b.
snop insulled the female.
The fourth article charges, that in July, 1889,
Bishop O. visited Weslcbssler county, dined al the
house Of j. " Giles, and after dinner walked with
Miss Anne Wilson and Miss Chad wick aud thai
while the ladies separated the Bishop r1deiy
insulted Miss Wilson. Article nth charges, that IN
Juoe, l54l, Bishop o. visited ST. James's Church,
Hamilton square, New York that after service he
len In a carriage, 10 company with Miss Helen NJ
Ruddero~, 10 proceed as guest TO the house OF her
brother that while so riding, he insulted Miss H.
Article siI h charges that the day mentioned above
while at the house Of MIR. Rudderow, and when IN
the paIlor the Bishop grossly insuled Miss Jane y
Rudderow. Article seventh charges, that IN July
lst2 the Bishop held Confirmation at Zion Church,
Long lslsod and that after the services were ended
returned to the house Of the Rev II. NJ. Beare, 10
carriage, 10 company with the wife OF Mr. b. aud that
while riding, aud ~hen seated with Mrs b. upon the
back seat, he insuted the lady named.
Article eight charges, thatin July, 1872, Bishop y
held Confirmation at Whitestone Chapel, Long
island. Alter the service, he spent the evening o.
tho residence Of Mr.. J. l.. Franklin and that at
companied by Mrs. Beare, the Bishop and the lady
sitting the back seat he insulted her in the grosses
manner.
Article ninth and last, charges that Bishop o. has
a sundry times within years, insultcd othei
respectable ladies', whose names have come TO the
knowledge OF the presenters. The details OF the
charges are unit for publication IN our columns
made. II was ordered by the court that the ninth
article OF the preseDtment be stricken out-beioe
without reasonable certainty as 10 time, place and
circumstances.
AT the sitting Of December 18th a motion wa,
made that in proceeding to investigate the charges
the court do with protest. as to transactions al
legged TO have anspged anterior to the date OF thres
years prior to the date Of the presentment VOTED
down-ayes6 s, noes IL.
David b. Ogden appeared a counsel for the de
fendant, and Hiram ketchum for the presenting b
shops.
These preliminaries srranged-the case was open
ed by Mr.. X. 10 brief address. The testimony o
LEGATION, and will no doubt be read with svidiy
Mr. Graham address in defence, analyses the ties
tmooy with great and ability, and occupies 4.
pages. G. Clarke, Esq, then commenced summing
up the evidence on the part Of the presentment snt
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;
"Ihave now offered all the remarks on the evi
dence with which intend to trouble the Court
have, however, to say word relative to the poih IL
this case. Every Of these charges has been sap
ported only by witness The rule is well settled
In my opinion, that both by the divine and civil Law
one witness is not sufficient to convict man Of suo
| charges as these. Ihave always understood that,
the Jewi-h law, and also by the Christian law IS
down by our Savior, and BY his Apostles, and SUI
tanned by the practice Of the primitive Church. Ii
Testimony of two witnesses absolutely necessar
to convict a man Of an offence. On this point ! be
| to cite Burns Ecclesiasi. Lao vol. H. 208. No'
this is spiritual Court and according to this autho
rity 10 Churchman can be convicted upon one sngl
witness there must be at least two And in Gibson
CodeI, iOIl, the same principle is laid down, an
commented on at some length, The same prIncpl
applies in cases AT common law. Thus in the case
perjury, as was stated by my associate, two witness
| es are necessary, and whyi Because the oath OF
single witness cannot be taken as sufficient proof {
the violation Of his oath by the accused party An
let me ask, is not the defendant here under oath 2
| know OF no oath more solemn than the consecratlo
vow. Is this defendant, them to be denied the priv
| lege which the law and reason extend to the part
| accused of perjury?
But if the Court please, have heard it intimate,
that although none of the charges has been supper
ed by the requisite of legal testimony, yet il
asneh as they all go to prove the general chare
of immortality and lmpurity, they are to be added 4
gether and thrown into the scale, Against that doc
trne most soemnIy protest. What is the law upo
this subject 1t expressly prescrbes that you cann
hx charge upon man except by two witnesses :
You must proceed here precisely as they do in cour
Of law; every specification not proved is to be ca
aside, and each is to be pass, upon separately.
not what is the consequence! Here are four charge
taken separately they are nothing taken toge,ht
they amount to something-that four ciphers max
a unit--according to species of arithmetic that
cannot understand. Now not one Of these charge
has been legally proved. They just so man
ciphers.
Ii the court please, shall conclude after a fe'
additional remarks. l have already detained you to
long
| There does appear to me, with all due deferenc
to the Presenting Bishops, and any other gen,leme
who have taken an active part in these proceeding
not only disregard Of the peace of the Church, bu
desire almost break in pieces The most peaceft
| Diocese on the continent One having more geDera
confidence in the purity of the Bishop caonot exis
| These Presenting Bishops-with all due Difference
| say it-are rending the Church. They were bound
IN my feeble judgment, to have acted very differently
independently of all other considerations, the selec
ton of the time in which these charges were made
| was to my mind an act of gross cruelty as coul
DO perpetrated by any men upon their fellow-being
| At the very moment when my client was wei he
down to the very dust by the unfortunate Of hi
brother-when he and his family could hardly ho
up their heads in the COMMUNICATED moment wa
seized upon to rake up against him all those old trans