WINDER v. DIFFENDERFFER.— 2 BLAND. 175

that they be opened, read, and copies taken by all concerned, if
required. The examinations being thus brought to a conclusion
and made public, no further testimony can be taken in relation to
the matter in issue between the parties; unless under very special
circumstances. 1 Harr. Prac. Chan. 458.

After the publication, but not before, either party may exhibit
articles against any witness of his opponent; and obtain a commis-
sion to take testimony in support of his articles impeaching the
credibility, or the competency of the witness. Forum Rom. 147;
1 Harr. Prac. Chan. 511. And if any of the interrogatories, or any
portion of the testimony be scandalous, or impertinent, and irre-
levant to the matter in issue they may be suppressed at the hear-
ing; or if not, still they must be totally disregarded; since it would
be deemed error in the Court to ground its decree, upon any such
testimony; and the party, at whose instance such impertinent
testimony has been taken may be made to pay the costs.

From this mode in which the English Court of Chancery has
the testimony of a witness taken, it is manifest, that it would be
utterly impracticable, before publication, to suspend the examina-
tion until objections to the competency of the witness, or the rele-
vancy of the testimony was determined; because a party cannot,
from the general notice given him by his opponent, that such and
such persons will be called as witnesses, be prepared to shew the
incompeteney, or to discredit any one of them without hearing, or
knowing the nature of his testimony. Although the incompetency
* of a witness arising from infamy, or the like, may be known;
yet his interest, or any incompetency deducible from his own 187
disclosures cannot be known; and therefore it is, that articles of
impeachment are allowed to be filed after publication, as all such
matters are until then sealed up in secret. Purcdl rs. McNamara,
8 Ves. 326. And besides, even if such a course were allowed to a
party, the delays he might interpose, by such objections, might be
multiplied without end; and, by a sinister ingenuity, a cause
might be interminably procrastinated. Hence there is no trace to
be found in the English books of any such objections ever having
been attempted to be made.

It is a fundamental principle of our law, in criminal matters,
that the accused shall have a public trial; and it is manifestly
beneficial to all, that the administration of justice, as well civil
as criminal, should be open and public in every stage, and in all
its branches. It is one of the greatest safeguards of the rights of
the citizen, that all judicial officers should be subjected to the sal-
utary influence of public opinion; while on the other hand publicity
is the best and the strongest protection that any upright, faithful
officer can have or desire. King v. DaIy, 1 Ves. 270; in the matter
of Lord Portsmouth, Coop. Rep. 106; The Chancellor''s Case, 1 Bland,