Lamoille newsdealer. [volume] (Hyde Park, Vt.) 1860-1877, 1864-07-27

not formally ordained at the time he was
again licensed, some seven years since.
If these afford no reason, as they GER
tainly do not, for expelling Mr.. Cutting
more summarily, and with less proof and
regularity of proceeding, than if he had
never withdrawn, why did not the drawer
of that resolution approach the subject
directly, and propose the revocation of his
license for the only show of cause which
is assigned - that his labors had not
proved useful but detrimental to the cause?
1t evidently bore on his mind, that the
adoption of such a resolution in such a
manner required some excuse other than
the real one, or the one assigned and SO
he attempts to foist something into the
preamble entirely impertinent, even if it
were all true. Il do not understand it
to be true that Mr., Cutting ever relin.
quished his credentials of ordination.)
You suggest, parentbetically, that the
license granted in 1857 was "conditional
provisional, probafional." AS much SO, l
suppose, as is every license you issue; and
| should be pleased to see your authority
for suggesting that it is any more SO. But
suppose it was, is that any reason why it
might be withdrawn without full and
fair hearing? If nobody but the de,aon-
ination were interested. it might do; but
Mr. Cutting could not be ousted without
affecting him beyond the mere withdrawal
of his right to preach. Hence, the Coun-
ell were bound to give him an opportunity
to do himself justice before the public !;
and if he could not fully defend himself,
to have record made of what was chorged,
to exclude the imputation of any other
guilt or fault than what there appeared.
You say that concerning the facts,
there was no dispute in the Council. y
That is all very probable. There was
nobody there to make any. Mr. Cutting
vas not there or anybody to represent him.
Only one side was heard. There is not
usually a very sharply contested, fierce
trial when the defendant is detaulted, es-
pecially if he has not heard of the court,
You say also that " the facts were ad-
mitted By the whole Council" r..
Suppose they were, Who authorized
the Council, the triers, the accusers and wtt-
nesses to make admissions for Mr.. Cutting?
You say further that the facts were no.
torious,' "matters of public record" and
" admitted by Mr.. Cutting himself .
/" Notorious Is it enough, then, if il
become matter of general belief in a
community. founded on what is Supposed
to be we'll known. that person is guilty
of some heinous offence. and shall he be
condemned and suffer the penalty of the
law, without any trial, or even an oppor.
tunity to explain what tends to show his
guilt, and show the falsity of common re
lport 2."4tgs s@ aaa6 ae,g 81.
I Matters of public record \" What
was ever recorded (before the resolution
showing, or tending to show, that the la
bors Of Mr.. Cutting, since 1867, have beer
detrimental rather than useful F?
Facts admitted by Mr.. Cutting ,
How could he make any admissions fol
the purpose of hearing he knew nothing
about? presume you mean' however, BY
admission such statements of his as were
testified to by others, when the resolution
was adopted. Well, it is laid down in tht
books and is often remarked by judges il
their instructions to juries that this is thu
most unsafe kind of testimony and to b'
received with great caution. Hence, Mr
Cutting should have bad an opportunity
to be present, to cross-examine. explain o.
contradict such statements. But did any
member of the Council pretend to stat
that Mr.. Cutting had admitted that hi
ministerial labors had been more detrimen
tai than useful? eiEese@ da8 p
You say also that the Association
thought any further testimony on thcs
points was superAuous.' ase5faa y
That is, they thought it was entirely
superhuous to have any evidence or allie
CATIONS on behalf of Mr.. Cutting. q
i Well, precisely 50 thought the Dutcl