Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1862-01-08

u
in taking it. The prompt response would be, we
clre bu. little for the thing proposed to oe sworn
the bection Is to being compelled to swear q. al
as condition to the enjoyment OF our INFORM rights
of property aud citizenship. We render 10 the gov
ernment our LOYALTY and duty, as we cherish ana
support our wives and children, and perform otner
obligations as members of society; but we VIII take
no oaths upon compusinn, to bind US to those du-
ties and least of all an oath that is accompanied
with lie poite alternatives of exile or degradation
Nor will they be any better satisfied with that 9TH
CT idea contained in the report and which seems 10
he the fayoriie explanation of the ordinance that 1t
is a Inere measure of detective police not intended
10 do any harm to patriotic men, but TO discover and
expci diSloyal This assumes that it is legIt
mate and proper to hunt through the conscenceS oil
all good men by an oath CT discovery, in order to
ferret cut the bad. BY parity of reasoning, II
reasonable correspondence were suspected IN any
county or neighborhood, every man should be re-
ouirel TO open his desk, and submit his private cor
respondence and papers to the inspection OF magiS-
trate This certainly would be no more harsh than
to ask discovery of his conscience. Or to Illus
trae it more srikingy, it is in principle, the same
AS in case a theft had been committed in order TO
be sure of visiting punishment on the real offender,
YOU should require every nha6itant OF the vlcuage
to receive forty stripes save one Your people will
say to you, point out the guilty or suspected per-
sons, take the warrant OF the law in your hands,
summon us of the posse cOBitdtUS if necessary, and
we are ready TO render our duty any where; but our
homes and conscienceS are not to be made hunting
grounds for traitors feonS and if we could submit
to make them such, we should not feel ourselves
much elevated above either.
But, Sir the jealous and sagacious spirit of liberty
which pervades our people, will discover in this
process Of test oath something more than an usur-
patton or abuse of power part and an instru-
ment of tyranny, oppression and degradation upon
the citizen. They will perceive at glance, that no
more eifectual continuance could be devised to en-
able faction in the possession of temporary power,
to convert the government into an oligarchy, exPe
their opponents from the State, and riot upon the
substance they had left. Such faction need only
to enact test oath, for patriotic objects OF course
but to take to infuse into it such ingredients
as they knew would be offensive and inadmissable
by its opponents and declare that every man who
refused it, should be baniShed from the State, or
lose his rights citizen with forfeiture Of all his
possessions. Carry it ont with the high hand of
force and it makes no difference whether majority
or minority, whether in fifty will take the oath
the few who do will have the whole government in
their hands, and the spells of the eXeS besides
Our theory has BEEN that majority within the
Limitations of written Constitutions, can mould
the government at will-can make revolutions and
unmake them; but this is an invention 10y which that
theory is Snbvered, and those who have power may
keep it till the end of time. Whenever they are
about to lose favor with the constituent body they
have but to prescribe q new OATH and that no man
shall vote who refuses it, and they will never fail
IN an election. Since the commencement Of the
present revolution and the adoption Of the new Con-
StitutOn of the Confederate States there has been
much speculation as to the facility with which it
may be abrogate1 by any State, who may become
dis a:isfed with its operation or administration If
there be that virtue in test oahS which this ordi-
nance su?poScs, it may be perpeuated indefinitely
Ii there DC majority favorable 10 it IN the Legisla
ture there will be of course in the outset, when
ever they suspect opposition or lukewarmneSS they
may enact oath to suit the case, and Danish those
who refuse it before the next election. speak as
if there no constitutional rmpediments to such
4 course this ordinance considers that there
none, or proposes to override them, if they exist
Mr.. President, the very mention OF test oath
carries back to the bigot monarchs aud the butch
er priests of the days Of the TudorS and StuartS
and beyond these, to the InquiSiton itself 1t is a
device of power in Church and in State, to perpet-
uate itself by force, against free discussion and in
quiry, and in defiance of what in liberal times
we call public sentiment In direct contravention
Of that most essential principle of criminal justice
that no man shall be compelled to give evidence
against himself it requires of its victim the confes
sion Of creed and his failure or refusal it takes as
conclusive evidence Of his guilt and inficts upon
him tortuous penalties forfeiturcS such as, if
they will not cure him of his hercsy, may deter
Others in like cases offending. Whether the creed
be religious or political the remedy be the thumb
screw the iron boot the break wheel or the rack or
whether it be punishment deprivation of privilege
degradation or forfeiture of estate there is diff
ference in the OdiOuSneSs Of the principle. For
sakng every yeStge Of Christian charity and tolera
ton, it assumes to control by force that con-
science which the God who gave it designed to be
free, aud aVows its purpose TO drive men to perjury
or seli-accuSation. have somewhere seen or read
of picture Of a trembling prisoner of the Inquisi
ton, who when called to take the religious test Of
that memorable tribunal, replies: 81 cannot; I'll
be damned, if DO" To which the stern Inquisitor
replies: you'll be damned, if you don't" 1t will
require no stretch Of imagination to picture your
justice, under this ordnance with his prisoner be-
fore him, refusing the oath, with "Il be perjured
forever, if take it, and the equally stern reply
You'll be banished if you don't take it"
The history of our mother country affords us
some instruction on the subject Of tests, and the
prosecutions that attended them, religious and DO
ltical. In the Catholic ascendency Protestants
the victims in the Protestant reigns, Catholics
suffered in turn; and it is reproach to that en-
lghtened and Christian nation, that even down
within our own memories, no man could hold even
a military Office until he took a test oath against
Catholicism and received the sacraments according
to the rites Of the Church of England. This last
vestiSe of intolerance and bigotry in that country
was swept away under the enlightened counsels of
Earl Gray, the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert
Peel not more than thirty years ago.
But in the worst and most intolerant time neither
in England nor in any civilized nation Of which
have recollection, was there ever such an expert
ment made as is proposed to be made here, of pre-
scri6ing test religious or political and running a
muck with it against the whole people, to see if
perchance, some victim may not be found for ban
ishment or degradation.
In this country VIC have known but little of test
oaths, except as we have read of them under more
arbitrary governments. The Legislature Of Vir-
ginia more than fifty years ago, in laudable desire
to suppress the practice of duelling, directed an
oath to be taken by certain public functionaries
and among others the advocates in her courts Of
justice, that they would not engage in any duel
Mr. Benjamin Watkins Leigh, since known to the
country as one OF her most distinguished lawyers
and statesmen, was then at the bar, and the court
having decided that the oath must be taken, Mr.
Leigh requested time to consider the question of the
power of the Legislature to impose such an OATH