The star of the north. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1849-1866, 1865-09-13
The Unconstitutional Oath in Missouri.
From the Illinois State Register

From the Illinois State Register
Matters in our neishboring Stale are rap
inly approaching crisis. The oath requi.
red by the late convention, in their so called
Constitutional Convention, is being gener-
ally refused by both clergy and laity, by
lawyers and people; neither will take it.
Able articles have appeared in The 81
Lonis papers denouncing The requirement
10 take the oath as iyrannical, inde:ensible
and unnecessary. A mastery letter, writ.
ten TO The Attorney General of the Stale by
G. L. T.. Davis, one of :hs abIest jurisis o.
Missouri, appeared in the Missouri Repubh-
can, on Monday last, and attracted general
attention. The views taken By the writer
are mastery and unanswerabie. He at
tacks the action OF the convention with great
seserity, and shows that the object of that
body in Illuminating the oath is 10 disfran-
chise the lawyers and take from them theil
profession Olher writers have also ex-
pressed their opinions, and the utmost dis
satisfaction is held regarding the obnoxious
oath.
As with The lawyers, 80 with the clergy.
A determined opposition is evinced TO TAX
ing this unnecessary oath. The Catholic
clergy have agreed unanimously 10 refuse
it, we are informed, and other denomina-
lions. The bishop o. the Methodist Church.
Kavanaugh, recently delivered an address
to his people, in which he ounseled them
10 abstain from taking the oath, advising
them that 10 take II would be at variance
with their obligations and relationship TO
God
Archbis hop Kenrick, of the Roman
Catholic Church, has written letter TO The
priesthood of Missouri, informing them that
they canuot take The oath in question with
oul sacrificing their religious liberty. The
venerable prelate promises in case The civil
power does not abstain from exscling such
an oath, that he will give such counsel and
assistance as may be required.
The main objections 10 this Infamous oath
are stated to be in this, that il proposes TO
hold The people subject sor their ympa,hies.
Human laws never heretofore considered
The cherishing OF a sympathy as criminal
Thus the lawyer or preacher is required TO
swear that he las never held sympathy
with the Southern rebellion. Again, retro
spective laws are Inconsistent with our pol
icy and Constitution. AL eI post fdcto PEN
alties are void. That which is moi criminal
10 day cannot be punished as a crime by a
law passed Tomorrow. And yet the oath
claims the right 10 make an action OF Yesler-
day what was not then criminal, TO day 10 be
a crime. Another objection to the oath
arises from It's partial and invidous distinc-
tion=. Why should preachers and lawyers
be required to take an oath before they can
pursue their profession, which is not exact
ed of doctors or oihersi
Every indication points 10 speedy break
ing up of the political elements in Missouri.
We pity that unhappy people. As if she
had no: suffered sufficient during the rebel
lion, party of rabid fanatics are now seek
ing 10 plunge her in clover deep" of hor-
ror and suffing. AS the obnoxious oath
must be taken by lawyers, preachers and
others by. the first week 10 September, and
as the period is rapidly approaching, we
look for exciting times shortly in The over
ridden State.