The Litchfield County post., 1828-04-24

mittee, to destroy that religious sensihility to their nature, and that scFupul0us and cOn. cieDtious regard to aII their requirements, which alone entitle them to confidence. Great and enlightened men have. with one accord, cond .mneds sthe multiplication of paths, with or without the sanction of law, as immoral and inlpOltic.
 If these rysgeneral; reconsideration were notEentirely satisfactory to your committee, the most understandable reasons for abolish ing extra judicial Oaths, will he found in the character and consequeses of certain de- scriptiOn of oaths as stated and set forth in the memorial has called the attention of the legislature specifically to the abuse of admin istering Oaths, as it is alledged to exist in Ma sonic societies and snbioined the varl0usOb- ligatiOns,as they are said to be administered in the different stages of advancement in that society. When it is recOIIrcted .that these paths have been communicated to the public by members of that society, highly elevated and maintaining fair character and respec- table standing in community. it is not per Efaps unjust to believe those annexed tO the memorial are substantially correct. They exhibit peryersionsof the appropriate office of an oath which strongly recommends the policy of law prohibiting the administration of any extra judiciai oath These fuaths could, by no possibility, eniOin the practice of virtue, not already commanded by reli- zion, and.morality !; and literal observance of them, would bind the sworn individual, under the seyerest penalties, to the perform ance of acts forbidden by both. The efica- Icy of these oaths, illustrated by the peti- tioners, by ascribing to their ininnclions the outrages. committed within recent period, upon two of our citizens, followed by what is now erallysadmitted toSbe the murder of one.
 Whether the oathssreferred to would au- thorise the commission of the crime, when rightly understood, is deemed by your com mittee altogether immaterial. The petition CTS represent, that persons upon whom these paths have been imposed, acting under be- lief of tLeir controlling power, have commit ted violence upon the liberty of one citizen, and upon the life of another; and that no donbt can exist upon that subject in the mind of any person who has attentively examined and weighed thetestimony disclosed upon the trial of the several indictments which have grown out of the abduction of William Morgan, an unoffending citizen of this state. If there is reasonable ground for this belief and the circumstances which have been de- velOped, leave little doubt, it IS the duty of government to adopt such measures as may be best calculated to prevent the rscurfence of an outrage so aagrant, as that Ito which the petitioners have referred. and which NJ anxiously andspainfully occupies tae pabEsSs { The possibility that the obligations impo sed by an extra judicial oath may conflict with the duty which a citizen may be called upon to discharge, is conclusive in the minds of your committee. in favor of granting the prayer of the memorabilia. Although the law would pronounce an extra judicial oath, and all its obligations, nugatory, when ia col lission with legally administered oath yet, having done SO, it is apparent that the indi- ,yidusl must judge for himself of the relative power of conflicting obligations. There is danger then that justice may he perverted, and truth falsifed, in courts created to dival- ope truth and administer justice. The suspi- cion that such may be the consequences. is sufficient. in the judgment of your commit tee, to induce the legislature to remove the possibility of it, by a statute prohibiting all oaths not authorised by law. The commit- tee have therefore directed their chairman to ask leave to introduce bill.
 - T. CHILDS. CRa'r. N MT. Childs, from the committee to whom was referred the memorial of delegates from the several western counties, on the subject of extra judicial and masonic 0aths made a report aad brought in bill entitled "an act to prevent the administration of extra judi ciaI oaths,"' the provisions of which are :--- |. It shall not be lawful for any person to administer an oath or affirmation in any case not authorised by the laws of the State. 2. It shall not he lawful for any person to take an oath or affirmation in any case not required by the laws of the State.
 1 s. Any person offending against either of the preceding sections, shall be deemed gull ty of misdemeanor, and on conviction shall be punished by fine and imprisonment; the fine not to exceed S2OO, and Imprisonment not to exceed six months. s...
 The following is taken from The Souye- mir" Philadelphia literary publication and the caption of the article must convince eve " man that this short and interesting sketch l of our illustrious chief magistrate, was not penned by violent partisan but that it isa candid statement of plain matters of fact.
 How certain little contemptibIe newspaper
 scribbles can expect to hurt the cause of such man, in Connecticut, by raising against him
 the cry of federalism,we are unable to divine, They who attempt the thing will find it 'hard to kick against the bricks"