The western Democrat. [volume] (Charlotte, N.C.) 1852-1870, 1855-05-04
Judge Saunders and the Know No.
things,


Having alluded, day or two since, to the
charge recently delivered by Judge Saunders to
| the Grand Jury Of Boncombe County, against the
Know Nothing organization, we feel bound, an
act of justice to the Judge, TO lay the document
before our readers. We copy also The present.
ment upon which the charge was based:
STATE OF Norm CAROLINA, }
BGncombe County.
Superior Court Spring Term, 1866.
The Jurors for The State, upon their oatls, pre-
sent that they have reason to believe that com.
bnation Of men, commonly called ''Know Moth
i'"gs, exist In this county, one of the objects Of
which is, by binding with extra judicial oaths
secretly administered, and by other secret obIga-
tons, and by threatening those of their members
who offer 10 Withdraw from their order, to control
citizens of this county in the exercise of their right
TO vote coniormably with their free will, as
contemplated by the Constitution and laws of this
State. And the said Jurors are ready, if the
Honorable Court shall so advise, To furnish for
the information of the Court and the Solicitor for
the State, list of witnesses 10 prove these facts.
And whether this is violation OF the crmna!
law, and what is their duty in the matter, they,
the said Jurors, are ignorant, and pray the advice
of The Honorable Court in the premises.
ID. j. ROGERS, Foreman, and others.
CHARGE OF JUDGE SAUNDERS.
The Grand Jury applied to the Judge for in
structions as to whether it was inJictabe Of.
fence, if it should appear that a Society had been
formed IN this county, the object and design Of
which was, to Influence men to join the Society
and then by oaths to bind its members to secrecy,
and to compel them to vote against their WILL for
against a particular candidate. His Honor
piled lii substance, that it had been said by nigh
authority, that few things are involved in greater
doubt in the criminal law, than the point at which
a combination of several persons in common
object becomes illegal. II this be so in England
IN regard to associations of political character,
still more must it be in this country. 1t is the
combination agreement of number of persons
to do a particular act, that constitutes the gist uf
the offence. But 20 make the conspiracy or agree
ment criminal, the act proposed must be unlaarfH;
or the combination and agreement must be to ef-
feet legal purpose by illegal means. The ad.
ministration of oath 10 the members of any
Society not TO diVulge it secrets, to do or not
to do any particular act is no binding obligation,
and in a moral point OF view decidedly wrongs
The Law only authorizes the Judge Magistrate
10 administer an oath, IN some legal investigation
then pendug and of which the Magistrate may
have jurisdiction; and unless thus administered,
the party, even should he swear falsely, could not
be convicted of perjury. If party's word Of
honor could not bind him, unauthorized oath
would not be likely TO have the effect of doing
n England they have an act Of Parliament de.
clarng the Society OF United IlShnaen, and some
other Societies, as unlawful, and forbiddng the
administration Of oath TO its members, uccor.
ding to the rules of the Society. But welAave
such statute in this State, and whatever may be
thought of such oaths by christian men, they can.
not be treated as criminal In this country parties
and associations may unite together to carry any
political object by fair argument, and
hod a2v IN
unite in the support oI particular men measures.
Bat if any of men should conspire together to
elect or defeat any one, who mi gbt be held up for
any public trust, by forcing the voter to vote against
his will, by threats otherwise, the act would be
unlawful, and therefore criminal. And if the
Grand Jury should know that any such act had
been DONE it would be their duty to present the
offenders. So if the Grand Jury should know or
have reason 10 believe that there existed in the
county any ASSOCIATION of men, combined together
to effect such purpose, it would be their duty to
investigate the matter and act accordingly. But
the Jury should not institute such an investigation,
unless they had sufficient grounds to suspect that
such a conspiracy did exist, and that for
lawful purpose.
*One OF the articles Of Faith of the Episcopal
Church--and The Methodist Church it Is believed
has Article of similar import-declares "that
vain and rash swearing is forbidden christian men
by our Lord Jesus Christ. But that man may
swear when the Magistrate requireth."