Spirit of the times. [volume] (Ironton, Ohio) 1853-1858, 1853-05-10
In1delity.


Sketch Of the argument Of DAVID
PAUL BnowS upon the qucstion-"can
the dying declaration Of an inidcl( (alleg.
ed to have been murdcrcd) be received
in evidence"
This is great question for this world
and the ncxt. Since the time of Ponti
ua Pilatc, few questions Of greater impor.
tance have presented themselves to a ju.
dcial tribunal. Its consequences should
be well considered in its decision.
An inGdcl-one who denies the exis.
tence Of a God, and fu,ulc state of re.
wards and northumberland be
sworn. That is established doctrine.
An oath, in such circumstaces, would be
solemn mockery! An oath, or appeal to
God, is the only tic that human trbu.
nal can have upon the truth Of wit.
ness. "Truth, the ,chole truth, and moth.
ing but The truth-so help me God," is
the obligation assumed by the witness.
But it has no power-no binding innu'
ence, when the existence Of God ami
future rewards ana punishments are dc.
MED.
If then, this mar, if living could not
be sworn, can his dying declarations be
evidence? They are even more objec'
tionable and more dangerous than his
testimony. They are ex'partc, they are
surrounded by none Of the safe. guards of
cross.examina,ion-they are to be re.
ccived by us by transmission through
others,-and, superadded to all these OBJ.
jcc:ions, the deceased was an avowed
and unqualified in6del. Why is an oath
binding? From its appeal TO God!
Why are dying declarations admissible!
From an approach to God and his juJg.
nt,-from the almost Immediate up.
proach 10 that high and mighty one, that
inherts eternity" and Of whom the sa.
cred Bible is the earthly cmblem,-It is
therefore obviously necessary to compc.
tency, that God and judgment should be
present in the mind fthe dying man.
Suppose the dying declaration Of
defendant would IL he received TO effect
reversal of an attainder? No. Why
not? Bccaus, not competent TO be
sworn. Suppose the deceased were in
famous for crime, or pecuniarily interest
cd. His declarations could not be
heard. For legal purposes inddelity is
the same. An infdcl is not compcten,
as President Of the United States as
judge, as counsel, as juryman, as q
tipstaf, as any officer Of the General or
State Government that require an oath
for the life of an oath is fear Of hell
and reverence for heaven.
This doctrine, is said by the opposite
counsel 10 be novelty-and it is fur.
thcr sail thatits novelty is an argument
against it. The novelty Of the doctrine
consists in the anomalous character of
the crime to which i; relates, and WHICH
seems to flourish most in the present
century. But we are told that the effect
of the doctrine will be bgotry and delu.
sion. What bigotry is that stands by the
Holy Bible! Who is deluded that relies
upon the justice Of the Omnipotcnt? Let
me tell you, that the effect Of the oppsite
doctrine will be impiety-corruption-
and perdition'
Amau who tires as 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 privileges, The rights ofthe de.
fendant and the sacred character Of jus.
tice demand 1.-THE lofty and immutable
principles Of our Religion forbid that it
should be otherwise.
The decision Of this day will startle
thousands from theiI impious and peril.
Gus slumbers.
Do ask you 10 work iniquity TO any
man! l ask you only to be inst to the
great Great Source Of all justice. lbeg
you not permit an opportunity. for 50
mnch good, to pass unimproved. The
fate Of the defendant is nothing-but
these principles are vital to Us all.
Remember, l allow for all differences
in creeds OF modes Of worship, hnt !
mako no allowance for that man who
boldly confronts bis God and plants HI,
: clovsn foot upon the Book Of Eternal
. Life. 9 Z w