The Yazoo City weekly Whig. (Yazoo City, Miss.) 18??-1855, 1855-05-18

oR lsF
aa St ~
gigo hoping i ny eonl
due moral health d tie Iaudetdal So.
Ger hieh peetabilit5 who are ST II
has ae ontlle know. Nothngs. we BAL
alI disposed 81 the oath 81 secrecy. but basi
thl oath, n MsKinnon tells u, aths obliga
Of lhe urael requires ne candidate tor admission
80 promise aa swear That ia Willyote TOR The
nomIa. tie Know Nothing party, i 81 can
canseisa 5uslg Do So: fhs cannot he viii nol
vote .nst him. The question nov arises, can
DIr. Mszinnon, and tha. Iiaaderdale laders u.
olate thier promise without being guilty 81 moral
perjury They affirm; 81 deny.
Letna bring up III. N Sinnoa witness, Arch
deacon Paley. Ha tells Is that promises are not
binding when tie performance IS unlawful we
admit the truth 81 this proposition; but Is it s-
lpptal to perform the promise? II any laW pre-
sefibes how qualified elector shall vote, Yaia is
boast Of civil liberty There i 10 such laws hence
the seesders may lawfully evote for tie fominoe
of the Know Nothing party i they can eonseien-
tiousIy do so,s orif they cannot, then il Is still
lawInl for them not to vote against him. But
Paley goes on 10 testify thai when the promise
is understood BY the promisee to proceed upon .
certain supposition, 81 wien the promiser appre-
hended il 70 Be understood, and that superstition
80 - ~, ~. t,, 4ls NAL
ing. This WIS admitted also. and we ask what
was the supposition upon which the Know Noth-
ing party understood tie promise to proceed, Or
which MI. MsKinnon apprehended to be 80 IN
dsrstood, and which has turned out to 30 fslss2
We will tell this sabtIls casuist. Haappreheud-
ed tito bs understo. by the party that bis prom-
Use proceeded upon the superstition that he would
not violate solemn oath; that supposition has
deed turned out 70 Be falss; and the proof IS us
ouoa confession. Tnen the case stands thus; for
committing moral perjury bis justification ii that
be has committed moral perjury
Butt IS time to cross question bis witness.
Tell Us Areh-deacon Paley, If q man promise to
vote for certain candidates, aud should afterward
prefer voting forsoma other candida s tie
promise binding o. isit snugatory deaeoq
PaleY replies thus. 81 prolnis eaadidate nv
He' nly another candidate appears, for
whom Certainly would have reserved it had /
been acquainted with bis design. Here therefore
my promise proceeded from an error and i never
should have given such promise had / been aware
Of the truth Of the case. as ithas turned OUT But
the promisee did not know this: he did not receive
the promise subject to any such condition. or as
from any such suppostion: nor dbl al
The time imagine he so received 1t. This error,
therefore, Of mime must fall upon my own head
lnd the promise be observed notwithstanding. =
IPaley's Moral Pailosopy Book 8, Part Oh. 5,
Lei Mr. McKinnon, and tie Lauderlale sece-
lers, remember that when they made promise
inaer oath to tie Know Nothing party, to vote
or the nominees, '.the promiss that is the party
did not know" they would afterward prefer to
'ote for other candidates; did not receive the
promise subject to any such condition, or as prom
Sc subject to nysueh condition or as proceeding
rom any such suppositiou nordid they themselves
i the time; imagine that the promisee did 50
eceise it. Then according to Archdeacon Pa
ey, their error must fall en- their own heads, and
the promise be observed notwithstanding. III.
fsKinnons own Witness whom he IS estopped to
question" decides his case against him.
--@--@-~----~-1~-
a sWINDLER PASS HIM ROUND.
We feel tia duty t. warn our exchanges and
sad r generally against one s. NJ Knight, call
lghinself praeticing Attorney ii the Court Of \
llaims at w ashington City. We published his
advertisement as directed BIZ letter from himself.