The Louisiana Democrat. [volume] (Alexandria, La.) 1845-1918, 1866-05-09
Test 0aths.

These devices for establishing an inquis-
'ition upon private opinion and lettering
thought are not new invention. They
are as old as tyranny itself, and figure al
most as prominently in history as those in
genious instruments whereby, in the olden
time, refractory subjects were made to see
the error Of their ways, They belong to the
days Of wheel and rack. of thumb screws
and iron boots, and bare with them the
obloquy and eaccration to which. an en-
lightend civilization has consigned them.
Even in monarchical Europe they have died
out. England long since swept most of
thcm from her statute book, and the few
that remain are, by common consent, held
to be mere anmeaning formalities, like the
no0 episcgpdri Of aspiring prelates. There
was double reason for this. They were
not only recognized to be tyrannicaa, but
we're found to be practically useless, in the
long run, in accomplishing the end sought
to be attained. For as these oaths are
generally exacted from persons who are so
circumstanced that they have little option
in the matter, the duress came to be regar-
ded as lexcusing the perjury, supposing the
oath to have legal effect. And it was re-
Gently stated BY a writer in one Of the En-
glish Reviews, that under this system per-
jury had become the national vice of Eng
land. But that relic of religious and polit-
ical intolerance which modern civilization
has discarded, the fanatical party that, for
the moment, Yields the power and controls
the destinies of this country, are DESTROYS of
establishing as permanent feature of our
internal economy. That this policy will be
resisted and eyaded, the teachings of histo-
ry lead US to expect, and it will surprise no
one that, in Missouri, where the people
have been subjected to its operation in the
most offensive form, fierce and bitter con-
test has been aroused. 1t was stated, not
long since, that several citizens had been
indicted for perjuryin taking tho test oath
required, as q condition precedent to the
exercise of the elective franchise by the in
famous law which now disgraces the stat
utes of Missouri. Within the last day or
two case of peculiar atrocity is reported.
Iii is that Of q venerable clergyman who
was arrested for continuing to exercise his
sacred Office without taking the oath re-
required from all ministers Of the gospel.
He was dragged from his bed at late hour
of the night, and compelled to ride ten
miles to the county town, where he was in
generated until the following morning,
when bail was procured by his friends. The
1 Tribune, referring to some remarks made
by a city contemporary on this case, flip
PANTY asks in what respect it is Infamous
to require one to take solemn oath that
he has not been, in act or sympathy, q
traitor to his country This is most dis
ingenious statement of the question. The
editor of The Tribune knows very well that
the oath in question is Of the most search
ing and inquisitorial character, and that the
af1iant is required to affirm, underits sane
ton, things that no honest man, no decent
man ofSouthern birth, can truthfully affirm.
But this is not the only objection. Where
is the authority for establishing such an in
QUESTION, and exacting such an oath
Suppose the Legislature of the New York
had passed an act requiring citizens, as a
condition precedent to the exercise Of their
ordinary civil rights, to make oath before a
magistrate that they had not been drunk,
that they had not borne false witness against
their neighbor, ct cetera would The Tribune
defend the law? Would it not rather de-
Inounce it as an insult to the entire COM
mupity, and swell the chorus Of popular in
dignation 1t would be sure to excite
| As for the Congressional test oath, upon
which the House Judiciary Committee has
recently made report, we can only say that
after carefully perusing the abstract Of the
report furnished to the press, and the elab-
crate comments Of the Evening Post upon
4 it, we have been unable to find q single sol
/ id argument in favor oft. The sum total
of their arguments is, that Mr.. johnson
once favored the oath, and that he is very
naughty boy for having changed his views
The constitutionality of the oath was never
once touched on, and the report is mere
partisan document of the most disgraceful
character. This Of course, was d thing to
be expected when even the Supreme Court
postponed; for party purposes, the deliver
ing of "a decision, which had been arrived at
on this very question = IN. Y. News.