Grand River times. [volume] (Grand Haven, Mich.) 1851-18??, 1853-05-04

probable that the errors are net all chargeable
to the printer.
In your editorial remarks, you say "To do
away with the requirement Of a sworn state
ment, and the imposition of penalty in case of
refusal to make it, seems to us like taking a
back step towards the old state of things We
have too much confidence in the integrity of hu-
man nature to believe that the administering of
such an oath as is prescribed in the law, only
once in year to each citizen, is likely to make
us nation of perjurers."
Now, it is undoubtedly very well to have con-
fidence in the integrity Of human nature" but
this confidence should not lead us to shut our
eyes to papable facts.
The oath proposed is no more solemn than
that formerly administered to our assessors, who
were probably men of at least fair average in
tegriy." Yet, though these men were duly
sworn, faithfully to perform the duties of asses
sors, among which. was that of appraising the
property of the State at its true cash value,
Gov. McClelland says in his last message that
the property of the State has not been assessed
at above 33 per cent of its value, for years, and
calls the attention of the legislature to the fact,
asking their action to remedy the evil.
"The fear of detection and punishment would
Of itself render frequent violations of the sane
tty of the oath too hazardous to be ventured"
| will answer this by simple question. Did
you ever hear of an assessor being prosecuted
for the violation Of his official oath?
AS you very justly remark, "a refusal to
give the required statement. in any supposable
case, will not enable the one refusing to escape
taxation,"-so that no advantage could be gained
by refusing even if there was no fine imposed
But there are grave objections to this oath
aside from its direct application to the desired
object of ascertaining the amount of property
in the State
l. 1t multiplies oaths unnecessarily an oath
is asked in case where it is neither so necessa-
ry, nor so advantageous as to afford proper
justification for demanding what ought to be- a
very solemn and unusual affirmation.
DIR. Wayland says, zone thing however,
seems evident, that the multiplication of oaths,
demanded by the present practice Of most chris
tian nations, is not only very aoicked but that its
direct tendency is to diminish our reverence for
the Deity; and thus, in the end to lead to the
very evil which it is intended to prevent"
DIR. Paley says, 1t merits public considera-
ton whether the requiring of oaths on so many
frivolous occasions has any other effect than TO
make them cheap in the minds of the people,"
2. 1t requires a positive oath, in cases where
a man cannot, in some cases possibly take one,
without running risk of committing perjury
In this case, in many instances if an oath is ia
ken, it must be indefinite. We have many men
whose business and property is such that it
would be an impossibility to make an invento-
ry of their effects which they could swear was
positively and exactly correct. Now if you
compel man to swear to his statement, he ell
Their qualities his oath so that there is nothing
tangible or positive about it, or he hazards a
false OATH Suppose conscientious man comes
to his supervisor, and says, " cannot swear
positively, as to the amount of property have {;
| have large quantity of lumber on hand which
has been piled as it come from the saw, all win
ter and spring, which is not measured, and
cannot talley it without great inconvenience and
expense" What shall do I? shall refuse to
swear and be fined twenty-five dollars for con-
science sake, or, shall strain a point and swear
to what do not know positively, and save my
money! Suppose he takes an indefinite, quail
fed oath, how does it affect his moral sense of
the obligation and intention of an oath. The
same man may be called into court the next
day, to swear to an occurrence which he has wit
nessed and the liberty or life of one Of his
neighbors may hang upon his testimony. He
may have the greatest possible motives, friend
ship, sympathy, or enmity and deadly hate, i'm
polling him to SUPPRESS or dstort his evidence
so as to turn the scale of justice. If he allows
his feelings to govern him, cannot he justify
himself to his own conscience, by the recollec-
ton that he is so often called TO swear in cases
where he does not positively know, and that
there must be some latitude allowed, else all
must be perjurers!
He must come to this conclusion, or else he
must believe there are two classes of oaths,
some which are solemnly binding, and others,
l. e. 4 4