MASONIC OBLIGATIONS UNLAWFUL,

As proved in a Court of Justice on Empannelling the Jury at the Trial of Elihu Mather for a Conspiracy to Kidnap William Morgan, at the Orleans County Court, Nov. 11, 1829.

His Honor Judge GARDINER presiding.

Wednesday, Nov. 11, 1829.—The Hon. John C. Spencer, Special Counsel for the people, called on the trial of ELIHU MATHER, who stood indicted for a conspiracy to kidnap WILLIAM MORGAN. Gen. V. Mathews, Wm. H. Adams, Esq. and Daniel D. Barnard, Esq. were counsel for the defendant.

Mr. Spencer was assisted by J. B. Coles, Esq. in behalf of the people.

Upon calling the jurors, some conversation took place between the respective counsel upon the manner of ascertaining whether the jurors were unbiassed. The counsel for the defendant proposed to put questions to jurors as they were drawn, and if the answers were not satisfactory, then reserve their right to challenge. To this Mr. Spencer objected, and offered to refer the examination of the jurors to the court. Judge Gardiner remarked, that questions would probably arise of considerable importance, and suggested the propriety of pursuing the legal course, which was adopted.

The clerk then proceeded to draw the jury. William Loomis and Simeon Gilding, were drawn from the panel of petit jurors, and being found acceptable to both parties, were appointed Triers, by the court.

Jonathan French was challenged by the defendant's counsel, and upon being sworn, said he had formed no opinion upon the question at issue. He had, he said, no bias against the defendant. Triers decided that Mr. F. was impartial, and he was sworn as a juror.

Amos Cliff was drawn and challenged by the defendant's counsel. Upon being sworn, said he had formed an opinion. He was rejected. John Follett was challenged by defendant's counsel. Upon being sworn, he said he did not know that he had formed or expressed an opinion. Had heard something about the Morgan business, but had read very little upon the subject. Had no bias or prejudice. The challenge was withdrawn.

Charles Kelly challenged by the defendant's counsel, and sworn. Has not heard much said about Mather, and has formed no opinion against him. Thinks he has not said that the whole fraternity were guilty of the murder of Morgan. The challenge was waived.

Samuel Church was challenged. Seymour Murdock was sworn as a witness. He said he had heard Church say that Mather ought to be punished for the Morgan business. He said that those who drove the carriage ought to be punished. He had heard Mr. Church say this several times. Mr. C. was then sworn. He said he had often said that the guilty ought to be punished, but don't recollect of having named Mather. The triers, after a short consultation, rejected Mr. Church.

Chauncey Hood was challenged by the defendant's counsel. El

bridge Farewell testified that he had heard Mr. Hood say, that Elihu Mather had a hand in it. Hood was rejected.

Epaphras Pennel challenged. Zimri Perrigo testified, that he had heard Pennel say that he thought Mather was concerned in carrying off Morgan. Mr. P. sworn; testified that he had no recollection of saying that Mather was positively guilty. Had said that if the circumstances related about M. were true, he must be guilty. Had not made up a positive opinion. Was rejected.

Luther St. John challenged and sworn. Had formed a qualified opinion. If reports were true, he considered Mather guilty-if not true, not guilty. His opinion would be governed entirely by the testimony. Had no bias or prejudice against the accused. Had heard and read much about the abduction of Morgan.

Mr. Spencer contended that Mr. St. John was, in the eye of the law, a competent juror. It would be impossible, he said, to find, in the county of Orleans, an intelligent man who did not believe Mather guilty, if the circumstances alleged against him should be proved to be true. Mr. Adams insisted that Mr. St. John, having formed a qualified opinion, could not be impartial, and therefore urged his rejection. The triers, after a short consultation, decided that Mr. St. John "is indifferent."

D. Reed challenged and sworn. Thinks he has expressed an opinion that Mather was concerned in the Morgan business. Rejected.

Wm. Bullard, upon being drawn, said he had formed an opinion, and was excused.

Robert Anderson, next drawn. Mr. Spencer challenged this juror on the ground that he was a member of the society of Freemasons, and of the degree of Royal Arch. Gen. Mathews demanded that the cause of challenge should be reduced to writing, which having been done, Gen. Mathews and Mr. Barnard denied that the cause stated was a legal ground of challenge. Mr. Spencer then produced his authorities. It was laid down in Archbold, among other causes for principal challenge, that where a juror “belonged to the same Society or Corporation" with a party, he was an incompetent juror. The court remarked that the term society, in the sense which it was used by Archbold, had reference to societies recognized by law. Mr. Spencer said he was prepared to prove that the Grand Royal Arch Chapter, of which the juror and defendant were members, was made a body corporate by an act of our State legislature. After hearing the arguments of counsel, the court overruled the challenge for principal cause. Mr. Spencer then challenged the juror “to the favor."

Mr. Spencer here stated that the juror, Judge Anderson, was an important witness in behalf of the people, and ought not to act in the capacity of juror and witness. The defendant's counsel urged that Mr. Anderson's being a witness, did not disqualify him as a juror, and that they could not consent to excuse him for that cause. The same triers were again sworn, and Mr. Spencer called Dr. Joseph K. Brown. Witness is a Royal Arch mason. Knows Robert Anderson and Elihu Mather as masons of the same degree. He and they are members of the Gaines chapter. Freemasons are not all of the Royal Arch degree. Lodges are below, and encamp

ments are above the chapter. Witness has met with Anderson and Mather in the Gaines chapter. The avowed objects of Freemasonry are to favor morality and benevolence. Their charity is confined to their own members. Witness does not recollect a quarter of the Royal Arch obligation, about helping a companion out of difficulty. The words are-" That I will aid and assist a Companion Royal Arch mason, wherever I shall see him engaged in ANY DIFFICULTY, so far as to extricate him from the same, whether RIGHT OR WRONG." There is a sign by which a mason can communicate his distress to a brother mason. This is a secret sign in the master's degree. This sign binds a mason to go to the relief of a brother. Thinks this obligation is IMPERATIVE, if the person to whom the sign is given has the power to extend the relief.

Cross-examined by defendant's counsel.-Was first initiated at Ridgeway, in 1820. Was made a Royal Arch mason at Gaines, in 1827. The obligation which he then took, was administered verbally. Recollects the striking parts of it, and that part which he had related, in particular. There was no qualification or explanation of the obligation, at the time it was administered. A part of the oath related to keeping the secrets. The candidate swears that he would sooner have his head smote off than reveal any part of the obligation. He was requested to attend afterwards, and receive instructions and learn the lectures. Masons told him that they would instruct him, if he attended the meetings of the chapter. He attended once, but no explanation of the oath was then given. They met in the lodge room, but the chapter was not opened. They sat round the stove, and rehearsed their obligations. He had never heard the nature of the Royal Arch obligation before he took it. There was nothing in the Royal Arch obligation which bound him to respect and obey the Don't recollect that the candidate swears to support the laws of the country, in any masonic obligation which he had taken.

LAWS OF THE COUNTRY.

[To a question from the defendant's counsel, whether there was any thing in the masonic obligations which justified him in VIOLATING the laws of the country, the witness replied that there was one part of the obligation which MIGHT bear that construction, and which he could repeat, if required to do so. The counsel, however, waived the question, and the answer was not given.]

Daniel Pratt.-Witness was a neighbor of Mather and Anderson. He considered them good friends; more intimate with each other than they were with some, but not more than they were with other of their neighbors.

Archibald L. Daniels-Witness lives two miles and a half from where Capt. Mather lived. He considered Mather and Judge Anderson good friends-perhaps they were more intimate than they were with their neighbors generally.

Here Mr. Spencer rested, and Robert Anderson HIMSELF was now called by the defendant's counsel, and sworn.

Witness says there is a clause in the Royal Arch obligation, which, without being qualified, is of the same import as testified to by Dr. Brown. With the qualification, that clause means that when a Royal Arch mason sees a companion engaged in a quarrel, he is bound to get him away. This is the only obligation of such a nature, that

witness ever took. The obligation requires me, when I see a companion engaged in a quarrel, to give him a particular sign to come away. I think this qualification forms a part of the obligation. There is nothing in any obligation of masonry which requires me to give a verdict contrary to law. All the charges and lectures in masonry enjoin respect and obedience to the laws. Witness thinks that some

of the obligations require him to support and obey the laws and constitution of the country. Witness was in the chapter when Dr. Brown was made a Royal Arch mason, and is confident that the oath administered to him was qualified in the manner before stated. Dr. Brown was the only person raised to the Royal Arch, in Gaines, since the abduction of Morgan. Witness thinks there is no bias on his mind-his intimacy with Capt. Mather commenced about politics. They were old bucktails together.

Cross-examined by Mr. Spencer.-Witness has said in the fore part of the excitement, that Morgan was not carried off. He thought, at first, that it was a trick of Miller and Morgan, to speculate. Has said considerable about the Morgan business. May have said that Morgan was not in the carriage which Mather drove. Had formed an opinion, at first, that Mather did not know Morgan was in the carriage. Has been pretty warm, frequently, upon this subject, and has participated in the feelings of the masons. The clause quoted by Dr. Brown, may be substantially correct, with the qualification in the oath. Thinks the oath contains the words "dispute or quarrel.” It is possible this qualification is in the charge which follows immediately after the oath, but he thinks it is in the oath itself. Is not sure that the obligation requires obedience to the laws, but the lectures do. The obligations require members to support the constitution of the State chapter, and the by-laws of the chapter to which he belongs. Has not paid much attention to masonry for two or three years, and is not very bright. There is an obligation about obeying regular signs and summons, but witness does not recollect the language of it. He has taken seven different obligations.

By defendant's counsel.-Witness now thinks that Morgan was carried off.

Mr. Spencer.-Thinks that if Mather knew that Morgan was in the carriage, he must be guilty. Has not made up an opinion whether Mather did or did not know that Morgan was in the carriage.

Isaac W. Averil.-Witness was a member of Gaines Royal Arch chapter. The Royal Arch oath requires us to "EXTRICATE a companion out of any quarrel or difficulty, whether he is RIGHT or WRONG." Masons swear to obey regular signs and summons, when sent, handed, or thrown. This is in the master's degree. Witness has forgotten most of the obligations.

Cross-examined by defendant's counsel.-The qualification about helping a companion out of a quarrel, is not in the oath, but is repeated immediately after it. The explanation given to witness, was, that if he saw a companion engaged in any quarrel in the street, or elsewhere, he was to go and extricate him without inquiring whether he was right or wrong. Never understood that his obligations required him to assist a companion out of the hands of the law.

Milton W. Hopkins.-Witness has been a Freemason-recollects

the obligations. One part of the oath in the master's degree, is, "I furthermore promise and swear, that I will obey all regular signs and summons, given, handed, sent, or thrown from a brother master mason, or a regular constituted lodge of the same." There is no qualification to this. There is another obligation in these words—“ I furthermore promise and swear, that I will fly to the relief of a brother master mason whenever I shall see the grand hailing sign of distress given, or hear the words annexed thereto, if there is a greater probability of saving his life, than of losing my own." In another obligation, masons swear to apprise their brethren "“of all approaching danger as far as is in my power."

There is no qualification or explanation to the oath relative to the sign of distress, or that about apprising a brother of approaching danger. These oaths are not explained to mean any thing different from what their tenor imports. The charges and lectures, witness thinks, are calculated to disguise the real character and tendency of the oaths. Witness has only taken three regular degrees in masonry. He has taken what was called the Secret Monitor's degree, in addition. Witness has seen these obligations imposed in many instances, and in different lodges-has heard them given by the Grand Visitor. The hailing sign may be given by words or by motions.

Cross-examined by defendant's counsel.-Witness was made a mason in Jefferson county, in 1817-he seceded in 1826. He had studied masonry a good deal-when Morgan's book was first published, he could have rehearsed two-thirds of it. Candidates take the oath naked and blindfolded-the charge is not given until they get their clothes on and can see-the charge inculcates virtue and benevolence. Witness thinks the obligations of masonry Do require the concealment of crime. The obligation to which he refers, is this-" Furthermore do I promise and swear, that a master mason's secrets, given to me in charge as such, and I knowing them to be such, shall remain as secure and inviolable in my breast as in his own, MURDER and TREASON excepted-and that left at my own discretion."

Witness knows that this obligation is administered in the lodge in this town, (Barre,) and is quite sure he has seen it administered in the Gaines lodge. Candidates, just before the oath is administered, are told by the master, that there is nothing in masonry to affect their religion or their politics. Witness has himself administered these obligations.

Dr. O. Nichoson-Says he is a mason-was admitted as such in the Gaines lodge-that the testimony given by Mr. Hopkins respect ing the obligations of masonry is correct, so far as he can recollectrecollects no qualifications in the oaths-that the charges are separate and distinct therefrom. Did not suppose when he took the obligations, that they required him to secrete crime; but latterly, on a further examination of the oaths, that by a literal reading, they did require it.

The counsel for the defendant, Col. Barnard, occupied about three hours in an able and ingenious argument, in favor of admitting Mr. Anderson as a juror. He contended, to exclude him, on the ground of his belonging to the society of Freemasons, would be a violation of his rights as a fellow citizen, and establishing a precedent terribly