honesty of B and C are
unimpeached, their testimony as to the fact cannot lawfully be rejected on
any ground, except that they may be interested in the result of the trial,
and might be benefited by the conviction or the acquittal of the
defendant. But this is an objection that would hold against the evidence
of a Mason, as well as a profane.

Any other rule would be often attended with injurious consequences to our
institution. We may readily suppose a case by way of illustration. A, who
is a member of a lodge, is accused of habitual intemperance, a vice
eminently unmasonic in its character, and one which will always reflect a
great portion of the degradation of the offender upon the society which
shall sustain and defend him in its perpetration. But it may happen--and
this is a very conceivable case--that in consequence of the remoteness of
his dwelling, or from some other supposable cause, his Brethren have no
opportunity of seeing him, except at distant intervals. There is,
therefore, no Mason, to testify to the truth of the charge, while his
neighbors and associates, who are daily and hourly in his company, are all
aware of his habit of intoxication.

If, then, a dozen or more men, all of reputation and veracity, should
come, or be brought before the lodge, ready and willing to testify to this
fact, by what process of reason or justice, or under what maxim of masonic
jurisprudence, could their testimony be rejected, simply because they were
not Masons? And if rejected--if the accused with this weight of evidence
against him, with this infamy clearly and satisfactorily proved by these
reputable witnesses, were to be acquitted, and sent forth purged of the
charge, upon a mere technical ground, and thus triumphantly be sustained
in the continuation of his vice, and that in the face of the very
community which was cognizant of his degradation of life and manners, who
could estimate the disastrous consequences to the lodge and the Order
which should thus support and uphold him in his guilty course? The world
would not, and could not appreciate the causes that led to the rejection
of such clear and unimpeachable testimony, and it would visit with its
just reprobation the institution which could thus extend its fraternal
affections to the support of undoubted guilt.

But, moreover, this is not a question of mere theory; the principle of
accepting the testimony of non-masonic witnesses has been repeatedly acted
on. If a