The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1864-10-22
SUGGESTIONS ABOUT SWEARING.
IT'S LIMITS AM PENALTIEs.

To swear is a vulgar and wicked habit, forbid
den by the law OF God and the usages of good
society. But it is often difficult to know when
the dividing line between mere ejaculation and
an oath is reached. Tom Hood called the slam
ming Of door by person in passion "a
wooden oath" In the British empire there is a
penalty Of fine for swearing. By the act of 10
George II, C. 81, it is decreed that man con-
yicted of profane swearing shall forfeit Is. If he
be n day labUrer, common soldier, common
sailor; but 2s If he be any other person under
the degree Of a gentleman; or So. if he be of or
above the degree of q gentleman. A Scotch
paper, the Glasgow Herald, says on this point -
"Dotbe penalties vary according to the strength
of the blasphemy The Duke OF Wellington
seems certainly to have formed some conception
OF a classification of foaths on this principle When
asked by the Government OF the day what he
thought OF the proposal on the part OF the French
Government to remove NapOeOu's bones from st.
Helena, the great captain is reported to have
said well, l don't see why they shouldn't have
his bones if they want them. Otherwise they'll
say we're afraid. Not that care what they say.
/ don't care twO-penny d-n what they say
Now will any of our legal friends assist us here
What is two-penny d-n|
Two profane men, Daniel Ncale and James
Scott. were lately fined in Glasgow for swearing
and the paper from which we have above quoted
further remarks -
"There are many other interesting fields of in
quiry opened up by the law under which Scott
and Daniel NCale have been fined For instance
does the object cursed make any difference? Is
the fine as heavy for cursng a stubborn donkey
as for cursing fellow man Wouldthe rascible
old gentleman who bursts forth with a savage
malediction upon the stone against which he has
struck his gouty toe would the heavy swell who
curses the omnibus that has sPattcred his clean
trousers with mud would the fuddled youth who
is trying 70 let himself in at two in the morning.
and brcathes a halt-articulate curse upon the
keyLOle which won't let him get the latch-key
I'm would the man who curses himself and the
man who curses some other bOdy-would all
these be mucted in the same amount, provided
the formula employed were in all cases the same
Would 1t make no difference that the maledction,
If II could hurt man, could certainly not hurt
donkey
"Then there is the question of oaths uttered in
one burst of passion, as distinguished from the
same number of Oaths uttered after successive
intervals, admitting Of reflection. In the Scott
case Mr.. Justice Blackburn gave it as his opinion
that 'One big yOlley of oaths should be deemed
only one otlense. And morally, there Is GER
tainiy great difference between the two cases.
Then there are the compound OathS, like the oath
that Redmond swore when under examination
before committee of the House of Commons.
Its the sacred truth I'm sp0kn',' lie roared out,
when the opposing counsel was questioning him
strongly as 20 his YeraCiy-'lJ's the sacred truth
I'm spakin', by the sowl of Dan O'Connell, which
is big, and your own sowl, which is very little,
my Lord = Would this bimembra oath be counted
as one or rs two2 Again, would q curse en-
braciug the whole body entitle the blasphemer,
without incurring any fresh penalties TO curse
in detail the various parts Of the Aforesaid body,
as, c. g., the eyes on the principle that having
paid (pTospectiyely) for curse on the containing
whole he Is Mt liberty TO curse at his leisure the
contained parts, and, as Coleridge puts it, 'chari
tably dispose OF the fractional parts of his oppo.
nents body and limbs to every conceivable and
inCou ouceiyable place that ever QuevedO drcamedof'
"a still more important question: and one that
brings the subject nearer home, remains. Does
SWEARING, when put in a genteel dress come
within the letter or the spirit Of the law Is By
George By JiDgO' or by the Holy Poker
punishable under the act Does the yiyaCious
young lady, with her 20 la !! her 80 my Z and
Goodness gracious escape because the oath Is
left Incomplete in expression Strange, is ID not,
TO see In what respectable houses blasphemy finds
its way when il puts on its kid gloves Again,
does putting q curse in the impersonal form
exempt The blasphemer from the penalties of the
law as when he cries deuce take it, Hang
itp 'CCnf0und IL! Then what OF Mr.. Mantiliui
and his genteel little tDemmit ? This, by the
way, must surely have been the mild form of
imprecatiOn which tho Great Duke alluded to.
But Mr.. Mantilini suggests another question;
for Mr. Mantilni being fiction, cannot possibly
be brought before the court TO answer for any
infringement of the laws of the country. Who,
then Is TO pay for Mr., Mantilinis profanity Is
Il Mr. Dickens Or are noyelists 70 be alto
gether exempted except when speaking in the
first person for II they are what Is there to pre-
vent man of profane tendencies TO create bias
phemOus character, give him place in all his
publications. and through him, as mouthpece,
send everything and everybody 70 the deuce
and then, when challenged about IT, 10 say 20,
that man is meant to be a blaekguard. He re-
presents wicked class Of people but his vices
are not allowed TO go unpublished. have hanged
him in the third YOlume.'"