{"character_count": 834, "word_count": 157, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9359999895095825], "ccnet_perplexity": [1401.300048828125], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
tiiere lsa vast difference between those

 two rules. The justification of the wit , ness to speak or not in the ahse..ee ef the accused, depends on the object for

 which he is called and not on what he may say; if he be called to support the accusation then he should mol speak in the absence of the accused; but if he be called for defence, ,he may speak with- out q viola. ion of @ the principle which has governed ny course. Pehaps Mr. Cnmmins might d. nv a profitable lesson from the principle Of !he Afhenian law which made it n capital raence 10 speak evH ol a man, dcad or aDsent. And the history A i ii<,Ilssts for isc is.st its W years, bya sort of negative illustration, affords ample proof of the practical ullltty of this principle-mitiout il- tending 10 accuse any, now only de- fend myself. Yours c

 VIM. TRiMBI .1z,.