University of Virginia Library

Search this document 
  
expand section 
  
expand section 
  

expand section1. 
expand section2. 
expand section3. 
expand section4. 
expand section5. 
collapse section6. 
expand section6.1. 
 6.2. 
expand section6.3. 
expand section6.4. 
 6.5. 
expand section6.6. 
expand section6.7. 
expand section6.8. 
expand section6.9. 
expand section6.10. 
expand section6.11. 
expand section6.12. 
expand section6.13. 
expand section6.14. 
expand section6.15. 
expand section6.16. 
expand section6.17. 
expand section6.18. 
expand section6.19. 
expand section6.20. 
expand section7. 
expand section8. 
expand section9. 
expand section10. 
expand section11. 
expand section12. 
expand section13. 
expand section14. 
expand section15. 
expand section16. 
expand section17. 
expand section18. 
expand section19. 
expand section20. 
expand section21. 
expand section22. 
expand section23. 
expand section24. 
expand section25. 
expand section26. 
expand section27. 
expand section28. 
expand section29. 
expand section30. 
expand section31. 

12.3. 3. The same Subject continued.

Those laws which condemn a man to death on the deposition of a single witness are fatal to liberty. In reason there should be two, because a witness who affirms, and the accused who denies, make an equal balance, and a third must incline the scale.

The Greeks [5] and Romans [6] required one voice more to condemn: but our French laws insist upon two. The Greeks pretend that their custom was established by the gods; [7] but this more justly may be said of ours.

Footnotes

[5]

See Aristides, "Orat. in Minervam."

[6]

Dionysius Halicarnassus on the judgment of Coriolanus, vii.

[7]

Minervæ calculus.