[059-[not marked]]

6 Dec r 1803

Evidence

Note[?]

Exclusion

in general

''.3 Notoriety

In proportion as the /one/ substantive law is good, the adjective /another law/ by which the effect of it is defeated can not but be a bad one. But the only by a person to whom it is known, /and therefore in proportion as it is known,/ that a law, good or bad, can be called forth into active or in any other way [...?] by. So far as it remains unknown, so far it remains without effect. In this way it is, that so far as a substantive law is good, the non-notoriety of an adjective law by which if known and profited by the effect of the good substantive law would be destroyed, is a desirable and beneficial incident. On the other hand, in the case of a bad substantive law, it would seem that the non-notoriety of an adjective law by which the effect of it would as often as the adjective law were called into action be destroyed, should by purity of reasoning be a desirable /non undesirable/ /good/ and and [...?] incident. And so it would, supposing it realized. But this /that is a supposition which is scarce now verified/ is a case which scarce ever happens. to apply to use the law of procedure is the function of professional men whose daily occupation renders them constantly conversant with every branch of law, and that among the part. - a branch which for want of such peculiar opportunity /incitement/ is almost [...?] uncommon to every other class of men.

As to the law in general, meaning the whole body of the laws, taken in the aggregate, it is not only good, but so good and so indispensably good, that if in every community it was /were/ abolished, and no other introduced in the room of it, society would be abolished along with it and this not only in the case of the best system of established laws known, but in that of the worst. It will be seen as we advance, that under the best [...?] governments known the cases /rules/ of exclusion are so numerous and extensive, that the mischief that would result from their of universally known and perfected by, would cut out a most enormous share of the official power of the protective laws. Even as it is, the mischief done by them is prodigiously great: because so often as the case + is brought under the view of a professional man, so often [...?...?]. But the

+ a case in which exclusion is put upon evidence