114
��^iiiiaiiating from the defect of the laws, and the ar- hitrariiiess of the jud2;es, as well as from the tor- tuous course which the lawyers are permitted freely to pursue. I will merely remark, that in no coun- try in the world, is there so much use made of oaths in tribunals, or where perjury is less common. But the only punishment that results from the proof of a witness^ or either of the parties (for both must establish their action by oath) having committed perjury, is that his testimony produces no effect.^ In criminal suits, it is necesary that the crime should be completely and sujjerahundantli/ proved.
��* Don Luis de Onis, in this, shows himself either more ignorant of the laws of our country than, from his situation, might have been expected, or designedly guilty of misrepre- sentation. From liis avowed attendance upon our courts, it is not probable he could have been ignorant, that perjury was a capital offence; but his feelings and prejudices, in the trials fov piracy (as he is pleased to term it,) which took place at Baltimore, and to which he subsequently alludes, led him to regard every witness as perjured, whose testimony went to acqi'.itthe South American patriots, who were the accused. Jf the judges and juries of Baltimore have no greater fault to answer for on the great day of account, tlian their acquit- tal of those who were arraigned on that charge, they may sleep for ever without feeling a single sting of conscience. No evidence could be more explicit, no pleadings could be freer from sophistry, no law could be less susceptible of ca- vil, than those under and by which, the trials alluded to re- sulted in the acquittal of the accused. T.
�� �
