Jeffersonian Republican. [volume] (Stroudsburg, Pa.) 1840-1853, 1848-06-01
Infidelity.

Sketch OF the argument oil DAVID fAUL
Brown upon the question:" Can the dying
declarations of an luridel (alleged to have been
murderedl be received in evidence.
This is a grea, question for this world and
the neat Since the time of Pon,ius PLATE. few
questions of greater importance have presented
themselves TO a judicial tribunal It's conse-
quences should be well considered in It's decl-
slon.' T.
| An in6del-Aone who denies The existence oil
God, and future state of rewards and pun
lshment-- cannot be Sporn. That is established
doctrine An oath, ID such circumstances
would be solemn mOckery An oath, or appeal
to God, is the only lie that human tribunal
can have upon thelruth Of witness. Truth,
The whole truth, and nothing but that truth
so help me God" Is The obligation assumed by
the witness But i. has no power---no binding
influence where The existence of a God and tu-
ture rewards and punishmenls are denied. =
Ifthen this man. if living, could not be sworn,
can his dying declarations be evidence They
are even more objectionable and more danger
Gus than his testimony. They are ex-Parle,
they are surrounded by none OF The safe guards
of cross ross.examinallon---.hey are TO received by
us by transmission through others, ,-and, super
added TO all these objections, the deceased was
an avowed and unqualified lnfidei. Why is al.
oath binding! From lis appeal 10 God? Why
are dying declarations admissible From an
approach to God and his judgemen',- ,--from the
almost immediate approah TO that mighty One,
that inhabts e.ernIry," and of whom The sacred
Bible is the earthly emblem. Ii is therefore OBJ
viously necessary, 10 competency, that God
and judgement should be present in the mind
OF The dying man.
Suppose The dying declaration Of defendant,
would II be received TO affect the reversal of an
allainder No. Why not F.! Because not
competent ODE sworn. Suppose the deceased
were infamous from crime, or pecunlary in
ieresled. His declarations could no, be heard
For legal purposes nfdeEty is The same. An
in6del is not competent as a President Of The
United Slaies---as Judge, as counsel as a ju-
ryman, as tipsaf, as any officer Of the Gen
efal or Stale Government that requires an oath
for the life of an oaih is fear of hell and reu-
erence for heaven.
This doctrine, is said by the opposite coun-
sci 10 be a novelty. and it is further said that
its novelty is an argument against 1t. The nov
city of the doctrine consists in the anomalous
| character of The crime TO which seems to -four
lsh most in the present century. But we are
told that he effect Of the doctrine will be big
otry and deluslon. What bigorry is that, that
stands by the Holy Blblel Whp is deluded
thai relies upon the justice of the OmnIpolent
lie, me tell you, lha. the effect of the opposite
doctrine will be impety..- -corrupliona and per-
dlliOn.
A man who HueS as a beast and dies as a
beast, must, according to his own standard, be
considered as beast, and for judicial purposes,
he should enjoy no greater privilege. The
rights of the delendenl and the sacred charac-
Ter of Justice demand il---lhe lofty and immuIa-
BILE principles of our. Religion forbid that II
should be otherwise.
The decision of this day will sarile lhous.
ands from their impious aud perllous slum-
bers.
Do ask you to work iniquy TO any man
ask you to do justice to the Great Source OF
all justice. | beg you not 10 perml, an oPpor-
tunlly for so much good, to pass unlmproved. =
The fale of The defendant is nothing but these
principles are vital to US all.
Remember. allow for all differences in
creeds or modes of worship but make no al
owance for lha, man who bodily confronls his
God and his cloyen foot upon the Book of Eler-
nal Life.