The weekly American banner. (Yazoo City, Miss.) 1855-18??, 1855-06-15
KNoW NOTHING oArH.

ocF'1s q test week concerning HThe Kno
Nothing Oath, y which the conclusion
!. grasely teschei that 1t q not binding. ~
{ presufne thato1F recent remarks gave rise /,
{ this articlvs althouh We ere NOT alluded 70, an
: though we have never advocated Ne principle
thereln combattod. We have. ever spoken
: perjury Gas IL il were every nall offence, , bu
on the contrary we have been insistine that
is'A DErEsrABLE CRANE, rim opposition 70 other.
whose efforts 70 exculpste the perjurer Jay then
, much more liable to the charge Of regarding i
"a small offence" Nor have we once intimat
ed that any one = pe1ured for outing the
Know Nothings ''from an honest conviction
that their principles are radically wrong.ss On
the contrary, We have from the first expressed
our appreciation Of such course; and to avoid.
1t 20 .sible, all future misunderstanding, or mis-.
representation, we viii once more state that Il
any man finds himself entrapped into any ain-
famous, cowardly, sneaking, and corrupt organ
ization," any "foui party that teaches dissimu-
iation. dishonesty, lying, meanness and rascali-
y." i is certainly his duty. his imperative duty,
to leave that organization; and we Join our
neighbor in earnestly exhorting him to perform
that duty. As we have not now, and never
have had,any connection with the Know Moth
ings, it would be unjust in US to apply to that
order she strong language above quoted from
the Democrat Nor can we do our neiehbor
the injustice to condemn him as APPLYING those
unsavory epithets to the majority of his fellow
citizens, without such evidence as we are ma
BILE to obtain.
Moreover, we fully concur with our neignbor
in the opinion thai Browns PHILOSOPHY, though
not the highest authority, is entitled to-pot
"a hffle more,' but very much more weight than
the declarations of any styling, whipper snap
per-" whether Know Nothing or anti Know
Nothing. We alsoendorse every word of the
long extract which our neighbor quotes from
Browns Philosophy. We insist, however. tba,
1t has as much to do with the question as the
Battle of the Frogs and Mice,'-and no more
II Is in substance, what had been already quot
ed from Paley and Wayland, and which we had
shown to be irrelevant. They say that sprom.
ses are not binding when the performance Is
1atatgf'a,' while Brown says 81 nmorap' instead
of unlawful. We agree with all these phylos-
ophers, and have SO expressed ourseIve1 i eve-
~ article in which we have discussed the sab.
ject. How is that our neighbors or his assist
ant' cannot yet perceive our position. we can
only account for on the principle that sThere's
none so blind as those who will not see.n
Letus once more state our positions posi-
ton which our neigheor, in all his attempted
replies, has never noticed. We do not know
what oaths the Know Nothings take, if any. /
But if they swear that they "will reveal none
Of the secrets of the order,' he who violates
that hath is guilty Of peyury-no small of.
'eace, but one of the greatest known to the
catalogue of crime; one of which Sharp has
said, he that is periured hath braved God Al
mighty, and hath, in effect told him to his face.
hat if he was foresworn, he should desire no
mercy and hence he reasons that while Gin
ne case Of other sins, there may be an appeal
made to Gods mercy, got in this case of perJsry
here is none" +
Perjury consists in doing what one has sworn
lot 10 DO or emitting to do what he has sworn
o DO; 1t is to sweare falsely, to break or vio-
ate an oath. This, we say, constitutes perjury,
ithough the etUa penalties of the law do not at
ach unlcss there be other circumstances con-
lected with the perjury. Hence we drew
distinction between legal and moral perjury. 1t
must, however, be lascful to do, or to omit, in
accordance with the oath, or it is not binding.
Vow we ask our neighbor to tell what Brown,
Nayland, and Paey say on the subject of oaths
secrecy. Does either of them place these
mong that class of promises or oaths of which
ne performance is unlawful or immoral? Not
all. Archdeacon Paley expressly says that
promises ofsecrecy ought NOT to be violated,
Though the public would derive advantage
rom the discovery. Such promises contain
10 unlawfulness in them to destroy their obi
alton; for as the Information would not have I
cen impaired upon any other condition, the
pblic lose nothing by the promise which they G
'Suld have gained without it."
We repeat, therefore, that we have never de. J
ounced as perjured, any one who silently with
rev from the Know Nothngs, nor even those .
Tho published their withdrawal to the world.
We think the latter, by SO doing, betray one al
'ast, OF the secrets they have promised not to e
'val; yet the judgment of charity is that they !
rred in judgment, or that we err in Judgment
that point. But for those who openly be-
ay all the secrets of the order and expose the
apers they have sworn not TO expose, even
,arity can find no softer name than perjurers, n
W