Lamoille newsdealer. [volume] (Hyde Park, Vt.) 1860-1877, 1873-12-17

aEd--au ofeBes which directly tends TO
disturb the peace Of society. to interrupt
domestic haPpiuess, 10 corrupt the rising
generation TO violate the feelings Of the
sr"at body Of believing people. aud to
iesiroy that political decCrum. which il
Inc basis Of = well ordered government.
That You ordered the Blasphemous rx.
pressioas charged ID the Indictment, was
not denied by your Council. In your de-
fence Oh trial, il has been urged that
is not crime against the
common law, eogniEable by our Courts of
Justice, since the repeal ofa certain stat.
ute law, enacted against il; but we hnJ
upon inspection OF the authorities, that
our English ancestors, took cognizance Of
this crime ia the common law Courts, as
a breach of the law Of the Land and it
is well understood that the statute sllud.
ed to, was made in afhfmancc Of the CON-
mon law, and merely enacted to modify
the punishment, now rest on the cummen
law; that law, which is hot enrolled 10
parchment. but which is readily collected
from the sentiments, mauners and habits
and written in indclble characters on the
hearts of a virtuous community; that
law, which without the aid OF the Legisla.
turc, would punish man who should in.
trude naked INTO a worshipping assembly,
or commit crime against the order of ma
tuIe, has called you TO an account and
will now son,cuce you for still greater
breach Of public decency.
1t has been urged in your defence that
in altering this blasrhemy, you merely
expressed a speculative opirion; an Upin.
ion entertained Gy men the most respec-
table and wise among us; as to the ro-
>pcctability of such men We make no re-
marks; of their wisdom, great doubt
may be nationally entertained. 1t has
been further urged that there is society
of Christians who disbclieve ib the d.
vinity of our Saviour ; this is true: am
personally acquainted with men of appa-
rent p,ety Of that see, aud can assure you
10 men would shudder at blaSphemy no
men speak more reverendly of the media
tor of The new covenant. But if this was Il
speculative opinion, can VIC not reason
without outragine the best feelings Of
others? Can We not discuss poiuts of
faith without blasphemy?
Ii has been more strangely urged in
your defence, that the legislature, by the
late repeal of certain sections Of az act,
enacted for the support Of the Gospel,
have taken all restraint from the hagtious,
and sanctioned latitude for the Bias
phemcr. The tenderness which this court
ever exercise towards the accused on trial
alone prevented the apprehension of so
bold au assertion on the spot, and it is
even now astonishing how so hardy a po-
sition could have been advanced by your
correct aud learned advocate. We willing
ly impute it to the ardor of the former !;
for we know that the dream ofeloquence.
hike those of eur mountain rivers, while
confued within its natural channel, cher
ishes, invigorates and beauties; but
when suddenly swelled into torrent,
spreads de'ormity and destruction IN its
rapid and resistless course.
But let us inquire was the object of
that ac, to restrain blasphemy? docs its
repeal countcEauce it? is it not well
known that the act alluded to has been
long considered BY good men as aseptrenched
upon our bill of rights ? Had it no. long
been complained of as giving pretereHce
of one denomination of Christians over
others? Was not its reveal moved for,
by men protesting the most ardent attach
ment to reveal religion? And was 1t not
eventually repealed in the part, to ease
the tender consciences of most Jealous OF
our religious professors And does there
not remain unrepealed in the act, suffi-
Gent to enable the pious to support pub.
lie worship by voluntary association
and contract? Although the ingenu-
ity of Council might assert, can ev-
en- the absurdity Of the p'asphemer
imagiu that he can shelter his horrid fol-
lies under the partial repeal of this act
But au Intelligent aud impartial Jury
have, by their verdict, stampt their true
value on such positions as learning and
ingenuity have been constrained TO ad.
vance in your defence, and you now stand
convinced by them of a 0asrant crime
against the common law of the land. Is
it not a crime highly agravatedf Does
net language like yours tend to disturb
the public peace? Does it not directly
tend to sub,ert good government? Why
have the legislature by the form OF the
oath administered to witnesses, reminded
each one that he swears in the presence
of God a? Was it not to add the fear Of
his judgement to the penalties Of the law
inflicted on pcrjurors ? Is there not a
great propriety in adding this soem OBJ
legation ? Do not all we hold dear. our
rights. our properties, our regulations, our
liberties, aud even life itself depend on
the testimony of witnesses in our Courts
of Justice ? By the obligation of an
oath, our Chief Magistrate and all sub
ordinate officers in the State are bound to
u faithful discharge of their duty Is it
net apparent then that the man whose
language tends to lessen in the least de.
degree, our reverence for God. is doing
il fatal injury to Government? Even the
careless and common swearer. ifany such
are present, should reflect on this. Fur.
ther, does no, such language as yours tend
to break up the tender foundation ot
family concord /? Be persuaded to look
at those few families ameng as who indulge
in the exeorations Of iufdeity and bias.
.... ..o 4hnu Enn,,iiaa " huen hannI