The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1898-01-19
RELIGIOUS
LIBERTY.
Question. in Christian
Science Cases.
DEFENDANTS in COURT.
Counsel Desired to Waive Consiitu-
tional Question.
DEFENDANTS in COURT
ARGUMENTS ARE TO BE MADE.

There was another hearing in the Sixth
District Court this morning affecting the
interests of the Christian Scientists who
were arrested several weeks ago on an
alleged Charge of offending the law by
practicing the art Of healing contrary to
law, and brought to trial and held on
disgraceful testimony, from spoilers VINO
admitted under oath that they obtained
their flimsy evidence by falsehood
IL will be- remem bered tlat at the pre-
liminary trial the attorneys for the de.
PENDANTS raised the constitutional ques-
tion of religious liberty. and the testi-
mony was taken In the District Coutt so
that it could be- certified To nnj carriad
TO the appellate division of the Supreme
atty could he settled.
Since then the attorneys have decided
TO proceed otherw iso and this morning
they appeared for a hearing before Judge
sweetland. There was "a misuDderstand-
ing as 10 the time set for the hearing.
The attorneys were Of tho impression
chat the time set twas Jan. 10. but the
Judge thought IL was the 18th. AS he
could not devote sufficient time TO the
matter tod8y the hearing was postponed
until tomorrow afternoon at O'Clock in
the District Court cham bers in the Provi-
uence county court mouse.
Walter +. Angel, representing David
Anthony: George A. Littleiield repre-
senting w. j. Mylod, and Henry j.
Spoouer and Warren q. Pierce, repre-
senting III. ,. Taft, were present As
sistant Attorney General Stearns repre-
sented the state.
Mr.. ANGEL made motion TINT the
principals be surrendered by their sure
ties and that the constitutional question
be waived. Whereby letting the district
court have jurisdiction to hold the prin-
ripals and bind them over just AS II the
constitutional question had not been
raised. lie quoted from chapter 2S5 and
section S OF charter 2GS Of the public
statutes In support Of the motion.
Mr.. Littleteld told the court that he
wished 10 surrender his principal ana did
not want To complete toe constitutional
question. He did not want to waive the
right TO raise that question, however.
later on In the development of tho case
The danger Of having the whole question
decided 10y the Appellats Division Of the
court. he Thought, would work TO the
disadvantage of his client.
II was learned that the testimony had
not been prepared for oertitication to the
Appellate Division Of the court Such
testimony was 10 sat forth the points In
the case on the constitutional question,
which was merely that of religious lib
Urtv.
Mr.. Spooner stated that 10 was his in
tcntion to proceed In the same manner
as Mr. Angel and bIr. Littleiield. He
understood that tie matter was still un-
der the Jurisdiction OF the District Court.
Judge Sweetland said that be did not
think that the surety was permitted To
surrender his principal under the
statutes It was not tb3 sort OF reccg-
nizance cons sdered in the statutes, and
lie did not think that surety could sur
render a In criminal case.
In reply To Assistant Attorney General
Stearns the jucge said that II the attor-
news for the defense didhot desire To raise
this constitutional question he could not
see how they could he compelled IN. lie
did not think he hnd the right to permit
the withdrawal Of the constitutional
question lie could not take the prin-
cipal on the surrender 10 the surety.
Assistant Attorney General Steatns
stated that IL wa al important object to
have this law settled to save esIeD-s Ia
cases ~ come hsfesftef. anu THE wa- a
fair wsy e. settle the subject lie did
DOT however care lo work hardship 4
these principals. ana nt this point the
hearing wss continued to the time men
toned tomorrow.
The argument will be on the right 10
withdraw the constitutional question.