, 1869-07-22

s.mpl, to can the attention Of the oou,s to i. n
Ln1 Its cptuton. do not aay thnl Ii e OF -eny
binding force' OF obligation. but ~ an uatnion, il
lrom our canon. when Iesriye IL mat point, thai
! Il \ Sound opinion, und one thas should *
aoeI,.e n1 ~ II r. ,as pssssedtas @ he,s.~
we'll tuows, ~ hare 20 dhnht mat yon, Pros
idenf1 Know. that ihe right OF challenge ls = com
n.p9 ~ aT,sSt: Z, n nos only pe.snpo5g but ps5tieu
would obt9tn here nnless thcro q somstains L
courts because martial, ~ nearly . oni
can set II y Approach, In their generai chatacter
sstirs, ecclcaiastic.l udbuDsls Of this caa.aetet
challenges sEo ont ana nenoe tho greaser iIoeEall
y n showing Challenges for esnss-
aa M Rs a1a; ~ e 9se as se5s .e :.
ahall presently aho1 thai this IL eaulys!cn
to challenge To lhe asraJ, although Il does n fac
e IL Tsy nn s sns nnels q e e. sssrr ae
tndtncfent between tho parties and .wher1
be sunmon9ea impWpel, PERSONA, OF AZ WheE,
pef.ou1 occupying certaln poaltsons IN llte, n
Knight or Esquire, snd they Eere not returned, o.
asWhen The fny WM poe a1mnoned 1eon ~
Military Law, m objection which Ahows that ~
| court Is not competent 70 tIy the case, u,sJ, b.
u,adc the groaud Of tho challenge 10 the Au77
l
oi these Woutd seem to be tho Object That wal
| also allow ed 10 the largest extent There wAi
principal challenge where there was pripsa .fael
favor. which was usually determined b. tia
! weere thetr was principal ground ct suspicion os
! the pRrt u:.the accused. 90
| se7Ms''a, but they lead up TO the era1nauon o
The eauou, and are necessary 10 the fnli under
standing Of the position l take about IT, j.
1 " the challenge 10 the poll there were lou
Eiata- need not rehtarse ihem; perhaps 1t u I.
we'll: FTtpfer honor7s resp<etusn prept<r dtfetuM,
SO s ~ II 5as
70 the poll, bins, and that VIA determined b.
| Gyc11
| nal cases for What reason: What docs the com
mon law assiGn ns reason : II ts most strnngIJ
applicable here PeTslnptoU ehalIeuges were
| That the accused might excuse pcrSona upon nu
cause whatever aasianed, merely from his view
@ 3nan sIea OF 9n9n NJ Pe5s9R en- 9nt be pan o.
law, which Il not EcneIally- considered 60 ver1
merc1fnl. lntctposed and decia1ea taat IN apch 4
case he might pertmptoEly challenge to q certatn
nuntter-might e1cuae such person lest he
should De embarrassed OF disconnected IN making
hls defence, md 30 not get the fuI benefit Of al
TINT he could a!lege IN his own favor By reason
Jury were prelndced aga!u4t hlm; 9nd the second
ground was that IN examining as 70 the compe-
examine = person who was found compesent and
who by the very examination might be b!ased
against him. OF, AZ least, the accused might be-
Now, examining the csaon-xnd suppose, Mr.
PtesIdent, from what has lalten from ,yoo1 you
tIink that Is all that ought to be exAmined-we
ehAu 0nd not s5llnble in II TO cat the Accused on
from The exercise Of this right under proper ctr
cumstapces IN a proper case, or upon my case
docs Of cTmnai, Or q1.a.f T cr,nalnai sastae.er. e M
BeIore allndnx to that caAon let nc call the at
tention Of the presbyters % the tsts Of the Rev.
e1eud Joseph Trsp1ew IN Maryland. There, upon
the reading Of the prracnttnent. the counsel for
the accused asked time to prepare n protest,
ana ~, Il. ~ s. q
sevsssl7. snd M Of essn md e7st5 II tss sllesa- s
j. y Ms Is eeaSs: ass, ess.a.s &c 'sGas!s aaass
.ps 16a ssa5ed aa u VIZ ssa
try and decade the same" Thst exception Or
rfotest-here is one othsr allegation, bdt It has
aa qSes no,
tion, because It simply asserts that under the cir
cumstances ssated IN connection with the char1es
s aess bs I no. s. Has e shs s9a
that The Standing Committee OF the
Diocese OF MARYLAND, under thelz then canon,
which has slnce been amended rs II ought 70 have
and at the same time was cited 70 try hun. Tne
court instead ~ rejecting The protest or denying
the right Of the sccuttl 10 make It, toof IT under
scrlous consideration, lstene,s 70 IN elaborate NJ.
satisfactory 70 them, thai the exception or protest
IN thai particular shou!d lie amendeu, because
they had not pre]udged the case IN tnat instance,
MtntAIJ upon the protest, and It SIM
rl5Rdeclareh that there WAS .canse for
l1aL i does not strike me lhat the ground on
one We should think II strange At common law
L members Of the grand Jury were to nt to t1y u
ma man. and It lsd 70 an entIre change Of the Mary
land caHnn ID that particular.
Now We come to ousseiyea. There Is an iu-
stance where similar pro.est was entertained.
no matter as only cited It to illustrate that we
have pursued the proper course Now. canon No
H,an n Us nsrt seos9n pro'd1s That Mhsnever
lion, as detailed, thar any Clergyman Is under IN
putinu, DC, Il shall he his duty TO appoint three
Tern, 10 examine the case. The commission IN rhls
case u open 10 very sertous objection, which we
~ n1u 3t sso e ~ nc ~
Hnt, Without dwelling upon th&t sunpoatng, for
The Arguments sake, It A proper commission,
nrese1tmeut tor rnst sly yio my learned friend
that don't think II is), and II there be Ia their
opinion suficlent grounds far the preseatmcn1,
op, and x::es careful consideration Of this case.
thihI there must be serioua Misrepresentation,
may tudgr from appearances, between us and
rot only 10 the particular point under consldera-'
ton. ouf IN Tits point respecting the time sad no.
tis. Ies G1 tI.aL Upon ne presentment betnR made
the bishop, he shall thereopon cause copy OF said
presentmelt, together with the citation, 10 appear
IN answeI thereto, to be served upon me accused
Win all cunf cDltnt rIrtN-&ne citation 10 appear
and answer, and rs We undcrstant the citation In
this case, II Is nothing but citation to appear and
anh~er IL does NIT nntHort and scas not so lar az
one mag Judge RON the Offices Of II, intended to
be Eotce OF time and place Of THAI, which Ia pro-
videa for By the fourth section, which will now
read:
"a written notice OF the time and place ap-
pointed 1ot The trial shall be served on the nc.
CEeed, and S1so Oh one Of the prcfcuterS nt least
thirty days previous thereto"
Now what hare 10 asy In the trst place la, that
the citation aud the notice Of time and place OF
trial Two entirely disereut and distinct things,
nlld think can demonstrate thaf they were In
tended to te SO, and that AN not standing mere
" uon the mere letter Of the canon, Int upon lts
from its pe.utat. II my lcarncz r1end Viii turn
10 ihe eighth section ho WILL ind provision In TO-
Fatd 10 the scr. Ice of all citations and notices in
any ecclesiastical proceedings, which provides
That the time between rGe DAY or service and the
day CT appearance shall not be 1cas than twenty
!ata over and above the ordinary time required
y travel TO the place OF appearance. II thus be-
comes mnnfest that the citations spoken Of IN tho
lrst SECTION may be msde rcturnsble IN twenty |
tays ! M under a.d oy virtue ol nc eighth section.
1nttce OF tie time and place Of TRIAL saall be given
or thirty days, which, II scens 10 nc IN court
II law taud ny learned friend can sci me right II
.statiou mud the notice Of time and place OF trial
= rrc thteuled TO be TWO different things: one OF
Ac11.ed for the other--thc place and the time ot
hc rrturn Of both notice and citation tanA . dlf-
ereut time NJ that) even prescribed BY canon un-
les vhlea !, 4 nssnned We are acting,
Now then, the Bishop, i rays IN tac eecond SEC
lion ul theit he any DlshoH}, shali appol1t tho
lime and place Of trtal and may posspo1s ne. now s.
not refer 10 the undoubted right OF IN ecclesastt-
cal conn to continue from tina 70 time, out It !.
outside OF that The ecclesiastical authority Or
cnec t,pon aprlcattof before The t1&zl comes. bE!