The Shasta courier., 1863-08-08
The Obligation of an Oath.

We frequently hear men who claim to be
high toned, chivalrous descendents of the
Il thels Of the Southern States, denounce the
Administration for violating the Constitution
y every measure il has adopted to enforce
- laws against those rebels, who are seek
ing to destroy the Government, by compel
ling them to submit to the very laws under
which they have lived for more than half a
century, and many of whom who have sol
emnly taken the constitutional oath to obey
it in former years. These same men pro-
claim that they do not consider the oath pre-
scribed by the last Legislature morally bind
ing upon them. because it compells them to
subscribe to the same against their will, for
tie purpose of conducting particular kind
of business, and that they take the oath sim
ply to comply with form of law, but ignore
the very spirit of the oath, and do not feel
morally bound to observe it.
These persons ignore the highest, and il
may be said the only obligation that protects
liberty and property under the civil law
The civil law declares that no evidence shall
be admitted in Courts of fjustice except under
the solemnites of an oath, the form of which
is laid down in the statutes. Certain classes
of persons are precluded the right to testify
in Courts, simply because the moral obliga.
ton of the oath has no binding force to en-
sure their telling the truth. For this reason
the Chinese and Digger Indians are not al
lowed to testify where white men are parties
to the action. Now we ask, as a logical
conclusion, where is the difference as between
these sympathisers with treason snd the
Chinese and Indians, if neither of them feel
the moral binding obligation of an oath, when
properly administered by a competent officer
of the law? The simple form or combina-
tion of words does not constitute the obliga'
ton to tell the truth, or to perform solemn
duty, but it is the solemn intention of the
inward man, recognizing God as the Supreme
Ruler Of the Uniyerse-to whom the individ-
ual appeals 70 witness his intention, to keep
and perform the matters expressed by the
words laid down in the form of an OATH Un-
less the oath be taken with these Divine obi.
cations to observe tho same, NE can see no
difference between persons taking the o.th,
whether they be known as Christians or
heathens. Let the doctrine held by these
men, of complying with the simple forms,
while they repudiate the spirit and intention
of the lsw. prevail, and the corner stone of
.4v;lized society and republican institutions
is removed. and the whole structure must
fall.
All nations. whether civilized or not, have
some established usage for obtaining the
truth in the form of an cath, afirmati61 or
pledge, made under some moral obligation,
which gives assurance of the truth of the
words spoken or subscribed to. Among
Christian nations no class of persons are pre-
eluded from taking an oath except Atheists,
and they are not allowed to testify in Courts
Of justice, because they do not believe in
Supreme Being, and consequently no form
of words would create any moral obligation
to speak the truth.
We ask, then, if men will proclaim that
they do not feel any moral obligation resting
upon them when they take one form of oath
prescribed by competent authority, for the
protection of the Government and society,
should they not be excluded from testifying
in Courts of justice in all cases, for it follows
as natural conclusion that if a person will
take an OATH without feeling any obligation
to keep or observe it, in one case, he would
not feel under any moral obligation to tell
the truth in any other. Itwould appear that
if such persons are permitted to testify in
Courts, no mans life or property would be
safe.