14 Dec 1801

Maximum

1

A maximum law would be in possession of one good property at least – it would

have the affections of the great body of the people for its support: all eyes

would be open to any violation of the law: all tongues ready to convey

/communicate/ intelligence of it Could the law but be so adjusted as to give an

compleat indemnity, though it were but a bare /mere/ indemnity for the necessary

expence of prosecution, reward over and above such indemnity would be scarcely

necessary to the engaging men to stand forth /lend their assistance/ in the

capacity of prosecutors and informers.

This would be no inconsiderable advantage. The ignominy /infamy/ /reproach/ which

vulgar /unthinking/ minds that /which/ is most minds, are so eager to fix upon

the character of him who lends his services to the public in the character of an

informer, would with at least equal reason be heaped upon him who lends his

services to the same law in the character of judge. If the being paid /receiving

payment/ for this service were a just cause of infamy, the judge should be the

more infamous of the two, as being the best paid as receiving the highest price.

That because a man will tell /speak the/ truth for a given sum, he will speak

falshood, he will committ perjury, and by so doing heap /that sort of perjury by

which/ punishment /is made to fall/ upon the head of the innocent – for the same

sum, is a proposition as absurd in a logical view as it is in a moral view it is

scandalous and injurious. Perjury for saving of the Guilty is but too abundant:

of perjury for the condemnation of the innocent, a fair example would scarcely

to be found. The informer is never in fault – never deserves otherwise than well

of his country howsoever the legislator his employer may deserve ill of it. Yet

among men in other respects