Year: 1863

HiO CubNh'oiiHS " SulGlO tHo dCiS VI lbc
late Legislature concerning test oaths, from
the deserved infamy with which they are
visited by public opinion, by claiming that
those oaths only require the affiants to swear
to support the Constitution of the United
States and of the State of California. The
Constitution of the State prescribes the form
of oath to be taken in order to attain the
the proposed end, and is as follows:


II do solemnly swear that will support the
Constitution of the United States and the Consti-
tuition of the State Of California. and that will
faithfully discharge the office of -- accord
ing to the best of my ability"


Now compare with this the form of oath
required by the Legislature, and the inteIIi
gent and candid reader will at once perceive
that the journals referred to are engaged in
misrepresentation so manifest that charity
itself must pronounce it wiful For conve'
nience of reference we insert the form Of
one Of the test-oahs:


II. -, do solemnly swear that will support
the Constitution of the United States and the
Constitution of the State o. CALIFORNIA;; that
will bear true faith and allegiance to the Govern
ment OF the United States. any ordinance. reso
luton or law of any State or Territory, or of
any Convention or legislature thereof. to the
contrary Notwithstanding; that have not, since
the 25h of April, 1868, knowingly aided, enCour-
aged, cOuntcnanccd assisted. nor will | h ere
after in any manner, aid. encourage. countenance
or assist the so-caled Confederate States. or any
of them, in their rebellion against the lawful
Government of the United States and this | do
without any qualification or mental reservation
whatever so help me God"


1t is impossible for these two oaths to be
the same If the obligation imposed by the
first oath is to support the State and Federal
Constitutions, the obligations Of the second
is to do something more. If the first oath
means to secure obedience and fidelity to
the fundamental law by the sanctions of CON
science-the second oath means more than
to obtain such obediance aad tilelity-for it
says more, and requires more.


But further--the State Constitution del
clares that "no other OATH declaration, or
test, shall be required as qualification for
office or public trust" Will the advoca es
OF these enactments maintain that the addi
tonal test provided by them can be super.
added to the oath which the Governor or
Supreme Judge, or Attorney General is
required to take2 Were such additions
attempted, the violation of the Constitution
would be so monstrous and so fragrant as
to be obvious to the dull sense and distorted
vision even of the Sacramento Union. Such
violence of law and civil right was too flsgi.
tious for the Republican Legislature in the
first yeir of their possession and abuse of
power. They were welding an unaccus,
toned power and had not become sufficient
ly hardened to perform such open and APP
parent fats of awessness. But if the
Defence which their advocates are maki ING,
shall be successful, they will return to power
with the disposition TO subject too patient,
and too submissive community, to the chas'
tisement of scorpions, where they have
before been chastised with cords.


We have too this further illustration Of
the absurdty and righteousness Of the laws:
That the sanctions of An oath which the
Constitution deems sufficient to secure faith
funess in the Executive Of the State, and
all the Judges who administer its laws, are
not sufficient to secure the safety of the peo;
pie from the malevolence Of litigants in
courts, and the masters and mistresses Of our
public schools. Stronger barriers and de
fences must be thrown around the possession
of power to prevent its abuse by the latter
than can be imposed upon those who are
welding the entire Executive, Legislative and
judicial power of the State. The Attorney
General can execute the functions of his
office and practice his profession by taking
an oath exacting only two conditions; but
the ordinary attorney is required to praetice
law at his peril unless he shall burt hen bis
conscience with large and more onerous sane
tions. But for the lawyers we have little OF
no sympathy. They know thesr rights and
have to maintain them. If they submit to
oppression they deserve it. But for the
teachers, and the private persons who are to
be deprived Of their rights by this most odi
ons, and what has been thought to he obsolete
schemeio despotlsm, we have a heartfelt and
cordial sympathy, and it is for the purpose
of but limiting to them what their ri ghts are
that this article is written. We shall prob.
ably return to the subject again-in the
meantime watching with interest the disturb
ance and confusion which the agitation o.
this subject has already excited in the camp.
of the enemy.