Funding for the digitization of this title was provided by R.J. Taylor, Jr. Foundation.
About News & planters' gazette. (Washington, Wilkes County [sic], Ga.) 1840-1844 | View Entire Issue (June 17, 1841)
NEWS AND GAZETTE. PKUICIPI.EH mtkl MXN. WASHINGTON, GA. THURSDAY, JUNE 17, 1841. FOR UOVEIt.XOR, WILLIAM C. DAWSON. Congress. The bill to repeal the sub-Treasury act has passed to a 3d reading in the Senate, by a vote of 3(1 to 16. Mr. Buchanan, the Loco toco Senator from Pennsylvania, vo- | ting in favor of the repeal in consequence of i instructions from his legislature. . In.the House, Mr. Adams reported a bill ‘• granting a blank sum to the widow of Gen. Harrison—it- was referred to a Committee of the whole on the State of the Union.— Mr. Itigersoll who voted in favor of rescind ing the 21st Rule, moved to reconsider the vote, and made a long and elaborate speech in favor of a reconsideration. On the 10th, the bill to repeal the sub- Treasury came up for final passage, and passed the Senate by a vote of 29 in favor of repeal and 18 against it. The House is delayed in its business by abolition discussion, got up by J.Q. Adams, and it seems that the Extra Session will be protracted much longer than has been an ticipated, by a disposition on the part of some members to engage in trifling and ir relevant discussions on every question. Report of the Secretary of the Treasury. We shall present this interesting docu ment to our readers next week, being obli ged to postpone it on account of want of space, and are convinced that we could not offer to them a more interesting article.— Differing greatly from the complicated and mystified Reports we have been accustom ed to for several years past; it sets forth in a plain and intelligible manner the condi tion of the Treasury, and will be regarded with the more interest as directly recom mending tiic creation of a National Bank as a fiscal agent. A striking fact is developed by this doc ument. For many years previous to the administration of Mr. Van Buren, the ex cess ofthe revenue of this Government o ver its expenditures, averaged about 811,- 000,000 annually. But during Mr. Van Buren’s administration, the order of things was entirely reversed, the current expenses exceeded the receipts more than 831,000,- 000, besides an outstanding balance of Treasury Notes and appropriations amount ing to 833,000,000 more. Before Mr. Van Buren came into the office the revenues had always exceeded the expenditures, ex cept in time of war, when they fell short on ly about eight millions, annually. So much for the economical and prosper ous administration of Mr. Van Buren !! Ought not these developments to put to the blush those who so strenuously upheld him and his Secretary, “cyphering Levi,” in their wasteful expenditure and in their artful attempts to conceal their extrava gance from tho people ! Report of the Secretary of War. This document presents but few matters of much general interest, and we therefore forbear publishing it in full, preferring to give a short abstract of its most important topics. Mr. Bell gives small hopes of an imme diate settlement of the Florida difficulties. The plan of negotiation with the Indians, it was hoped, would put a speedy end to this vexatious war: four hundred and thirty one Indians, one hundred of whom were warriors, had surrendered and were trans ported beyond the Mississippi; but after six months of negociation, no access had been had to the principal and most powerful Indian Chief, or to any of his followers.— Directions have, therefore, been given that the most energetic measures should be a dopted, and steps have been taken to place at the disposal of the commanding officer, more efficient means, and to enforce a re trenchment of expenses in every branch of the service. The Secretary calls the attention of Con gress to the condition of the public defences and calls for an appropriation of $12,186,- 547, for the completion of the works of de fence already projected. The speedy at tention of the National Legislature to this subject seems indispensably necessary, as the sca-coast defences of the country are notoriously in a most inefficient condition, and their inefficiency seems to be of more importance at the present juncture, threat ened, as we are, by a war with the most powerful maritime nation on earth, whose vtltTJ r roue fleet, if employed auainst us. j could almost without opposition, at any mo ment, lay our cities in ashes, and land for ! ces to penetrate in every direction through j out the country. A paltry sectional jeal i ousy has hitherto prevented the adoption of i measures for placing our national defences iin a proper condition. We hope that under ! anew order of things, Congress will legis late for the whole country, not for a part, and that the suggestions of the Secretary of W ar will be duly regarded. In conclusion, Mr. Bell exposes some corrupt practices which have prevailed in the Indian Department during the last ad ministration, such as paying out money without regard to the purposes for which it has been appropriated by Congress, and the unauthorized loaning of money by the Indian Bureau, to help other departments out of difficulty. lie also encourages us to expect a full disclosure of the gross frauds which have been practised in the dealings of the Government agents with the Indians. Below we quote Mr. Bell’s own words in relation to all these corruptions : “ A practice has prevailed in the Indian Department of making payments from mo ney drawn from the Treasury under appro priations by Congress, without regarding, in all cases, the objects of the appropria tions as specified in law. The practice virtually defeats that pro vision of the Constitution which declares that no money shall be drawn from the Treasury except under appropriations by Congress; for the object of this provision must have been not merely that money shall not be drawn from the Treasury with out being duly appropriated, but that it shall be paid only for objects specified in the acts of appropriation. The practice of making payments under such circumstances—that is, of taking mo ney drawn from the Treasury under an ap propriation for one object, and applying it to the payment of accounts, and for objects for which no appropriation has been made— renders the reports of the condition of the Treasury entirely fallacious, and utterly destroysall confidence in them. The true condition of the Treasury, or of its liabili ties, is not and cannot be presented under such a practice. The Indian department has favored itself in the means of practising this irregularity by another usage, directly in contraven tion ofthe law of Congress requiring that unexpended balances of appropriations, at the expiration of two years, shall revert to the Treasury. It has been customary 7 , be fore the expiration ofthe two years, to with draw from the Treasury the balances not actually required for disbursement within the specified period ; and these balances have been placed in the hands of disbursing agents, forming a very large fund from which payments have been made from time to time for objects for which no appropria tions have been made by Congress. The amount of funds in the handsuf these spe cial agents of the Department has ranged, on an average, from two to three hundred thousand dollars for the last seven or eight years, and this has been generally deposi ted in banks selected at the discretion ofthe agent himself. Under these circumstances, the disbur sing agents, having received moneys under authorized heads of appropriation, which have been applied to objects not sanctioned by law, have had their accounts brought in to such a condition as will not allow of their settlement at the Treasury without special appropriation by Congress ; and hence there are disbursing agents who have been unable to obtain a settlement during several years, and whose accounts are still open, notwithstanding the act of Congress, most salutary in its object, requiring a set tlement annually on the first of October. As one irregularity is often the parent of another, so, under the usage of the Indian Bureau, by which large amounts of money have been held by disbursing agents, which should have reverted to the Treasury, these agents have had the means of loaning, and have actually loaned, large sums, within the last few years, to meet the necessities of the Treasury in other departments of the Government or other and distinct branches of the Indian department; and, in this man ner a system of accommodation has ob tained without responsibility and unknown to the law. The evils of the practice, the subject of these remarks, will sufficiently appear when it is considered that they are precise ly those which it was the object of the pro vision in the Constitution, prescribing the mode of drawing money from the Treasury to guard against; and those also which were intended to be counteracted by the law of Congress requiring that unexpended balances shall revert to the Treasury at the expiration of two years. In the present condition of the accounts of disbursing agents, it is impossible to as certain the precise amount of payments re quiring appropriations by Congress for their final adjustment at the Treasury, but the amount is known, thus far, to exceed $200,- 000, and it will probably require $250,000 and possibly $300,000. It would be easy to multiply remarks up on the impropriety of this practice of the Department. The objections to it are nu merous and weighty, and some of them are founded so deeply in vital principles as to deserve some further notice in this report. All officers hold their powers in trust under the obligation of fulfilling the object for which those powers were granted.—• Congress is intrusted with the powers of granting money for objects to he accom plished by Executive agents. If the agents divert the money toother subjects, there is a breach of trust. But as all the officers of the Government are presumed to have in view the common good, Congress more or less relies upon the Executive agents to indicate the objects requiring appropria tions, with estimates of the amounts neces sary for their accomplishment. Thiscon iidenoc in Executive agents seems to have been regarded in some cases, as an implied authority in the agent to undertake objects not yet sanctioned by Congress, the agents looking prospectively for that sanction.— But if this discretion is to bo tolerated under any pretence whatever, for objects howe ver apparently needful or important, the chocks and guards provided by the Consti tution and the most dangerous experiments may be made with the public money, hav ing no higher sanction than the judement of the Heads of Departments, while the dis cretion thus exercised at the fountain is liable to become licentious in the .subordi nate agents resulting in frauds and defalca tions of extraordinary character and mag nitude. The attention of the Department has been directed to the subject of Indian treaties, and particularly to the manner in which some of those recently made have been ex ecuted, involving the disbursement of large sums of money lor the emigration and sub sistence of Indians. The frauds that have been practised in the Southwest have been to some extent inquir ed into, but a full disclosure of all the facts has not yet been arrived at. Enough lias, however, been brought to light to establish to conviction that certain contractors have realized the most enormous profits, the greater portion of which is believed to have been the direct fruit of gross fraud upon the Government or the Indians, practised by bribing some ofthe subordinate instruments in the public employment, or through the mismanagement of higher public agents, who can only screen themselves from the suspicion of connivance in the frauds by submitting to the imputation of gross negli gence, ignorance, or incompetency in the performance of their duty. From the involved character of these transactions and the difficulty of procuring full and precise information, it has been found impossible as yet to fix upon the point where the frauds commenced, or to ascer tain the boundaries of responsibility among the numerous public officers and agents through whose direct or indirect instrumen tality, connivance, or ignorance the con tractors were able to consummate their un principled designs. This investigation has been prosecuted with the most painful re luctance, though persevered in under a pa ramount sense of duty; and enough has been disclosed to suggest an inquiry wheth er the guilty recipients may not be com pelled to refund their iniquitous gains to the Treasury by process of law. Report of the Secretary of the Riavy. Mr. Badger reports that the appropria tions made at the last session, will be am ply sufficient to cover all expenses for the current year, unless more extended opera tions should be decided on. The sums of 888,706 on tho first of July i next, and 09,000, on the first of January next, will be required for the payment of naval pensions, and 86,000, for arrears of pensions. To meet these payments the De partment lias control of 828,040, being a deficit of 8139,666. The establishment of a home squadron, for the defence of our shores is strongly rec ommended. The attention of Congress is invited to the state of the Ordnance Department. The Secretary concurs with the general opinion, that a thorough re-organization of ; the Navy is indispensible. Report of the Post-Waster liieiKTal. The indebtedness of this department ex ceeds half a million of dollars, and Congress is called upon to determine whether it will remove this heavy burden at once, or suf fer the Department to struggle with its pres ent embarrassments. The receipts, for the quarter ending Ist March last, as com pared with the receipts for the correspond ing quarter of last year show a decrease of 6 per cent. Rail Road companies having in many in stances charged 200 per cent, higher for carrying the mail than is charged for Coach service upon the same route, the Post Master has suspended their contracts. On many routes the transportation of the mail was limited by the preceding Post- Master General, to 6 trips per week, and the present Post-Master has continued the practice of discontinuing the Sunday mail. The new Building, for the General Post Office, will be completed before the next session of Congress in December. Tlie McLeod Case. Mr. Webster’s admirable letter in an swer to one from the British Minister, is the best exposition of this case we have yet had. It will tend greatly to increase the already high character of the writer in the estimation of his fellow-citizens, and will make our position in the dispute plain and justifiable to the world. Mr. Fox contends that as the Britisli go vernment have fully approved the burning of the Caroline, the persons concerned ought not to be held personally responsible, that by this assumption of the responsibility it becomes a matter to be settled between the two nations, and he therefore demands the immediate release of McLeod. He further attempts to justify tlie transaction upon the ground that it was necessary to protect the British territory from the unpro voked encroachments of “ a hand of British rebels and American pirates.” In answer, Mr. Webster doubts the pow or of the executive to interfere directly or forcibly to release or deliver a prisoner in the manner required by Mr. Fox, such a one, having committed a crime for which lie is amenable to the law, can only be re leased by the action ofthe law, and sug gests that McLeod can at any time bring bis ease before the Supremo Court of New- York by means ofthe ordinary legal pro cess of habeas corpus. After signifying that no change of opin ion in the government of the United States had taken place as to the character of the act o! destroying the Caroline, Mr. \Vebster intimates that before self-defence can be pleaded as a justification of the act, it be comes necessary to show that all the ordi nary means had been tried and failed, be denies the propriety of applying the appel lation “pirates” to the Americans who were co-operating with the insurgent Cana dians, and shows that Great-Britain herself is by no means free from the charge of al lowing her citizens to engage in the civil dissention of foreign countries, and hints at the recent instance in which England per mitted w hole regiments to be raised, armed and disciplined, within her borders, to en gage in the civil war in Spain, a country with which England was at peace. In fine, the whole letter of Mr. Webster, places the matter so much in its true light, that many among ourselves who have been inclined to think McLeod hardly used, will see the justice and propriety of detaining him in custody until released by the regu lar course of the law. We cannot refrain from copying the con cluding paragraphs ofthe letter which con tain the gist of the whole : “ The undersigned trusts that when her Britannic Majesty’s government shall pre sent the grounds, at length, on which they justify the local authorities ofCanada in at tacking and destroying the “Caroline,” they will consider that the laws of the United States arc such as the undersigned has now represented them, and that the Government of the United States has always manifested a sincere disposition to see these laws effec tually and impartially administered. If there have been cases in which individuals justly obnoxious to punishment, have es caped, this is no more than happens in re gard toother laws. Under these circumstances, and under those immediately connected with the trans action itself, it will be for her Majesty’s Government to show upon what state of facts and what rules of national law thede struetion of the “Caroline” is to be defen ded. It will be for that government to show a necessity of self defence, instant, over whelming, leaving no choice of means and no moment for deliberation. It will be for it to show, also, that the local authorities of Canada, even supposing the necessity ofthe moment authorized thorn to enter the terri tories ofthe United States at all, did nothing unreasonable or excessive ; since the act, justified by the necessity of self-defence, must be limited by that necessity, and kept clearly within it. It must be shown that admonition or remonstrance to the persons on board the “Caroline” was impractica ble, or would have been unavailing; it must be shown that day-light could not be waited for; that there could be no attempt at discrimination between the innocent and the guilty ; that it would not have been | enough to seize and detain tiie vessel ; but that there was a necessity, present and inevitable for attacking her, in the dark ness ofthe night, while moored at the shore and while unarmed men were asleep on board, killing some and wounding others, and then drawing her into the current above the cataract, setting her on fire, and care less to know whether there might not be in her the innocent with the guilty, or the li ving with the dead, committing her to a fate which fills the imagination with hor ror. A necessity for all this the govern ment of the United States cannot believe to have existed. All will see that if such things be al lowed to occur, they might lead to bloody and exasperated war ; and when an indi vidual comes into the United States from Canada, and to the very place on which this drama was performed, and there choses to make public and vain glorious boast of the part he acted in it, it is hardly wonderful that great excitement should be created, some degree of commotion arise. This Republic does not wish to disturb the tranquility of the world. Its object is peace, its policy peace. It seeks no aggran dizement by foreign conquest, because it knows that no foreign acqusition could aug ment its power and importance so rapidly as they are already advancing by its own natural growth under the propitious cir cumstances of its situation. But it cannot admit that its government lias not botli the will and the power to preserve its own neu trality, and to enforce the observance of its own laws upon its own citizens. It is jealous of its rights and among others, and most es pecially, of the rigiitof the absolute immu nity of its territory against aggression from abroad ; and these rights it is the duty and determination of this Government fully at all times to maintain ; while it will at the same time, as scrupulously refrain from infringing on the rights of others. The President instructs the undersigned to say in conclusion that lie confidently trusts that this and other questions of dif ference between the two Governments will be treated by both in the full exorcise of such a spirit of candor, justice, and mutu al respect, as shall give assurance of the long continuance of peace between the two countries. Tlie undersigned avails himself of this op portunity to assure Mr. Fox of his high con sideration. DANIEL WEBSTER. I lIr.NRV S. Fox, Flsq. Ac. &e. <Sro. FOlt THE NEWS 6l GAZETTE. , Mr. Cutting :—The following extract from the opinion of the Supreme Court of Connecticut, delivered by Mr. Justice Dag gett, is perhaps, a sufficient answer to the ingenious and highly creditable argument of “ E.” in your paper of the 27th of May: “ The question is not, whether a person who believes in any future punishment, though not endless, may be admitted as a witness—but, whether a person who denies all punishment after this life, and who, in the language of the motion, believes that men will be punished in this life lor their sms ; but, immediately after their death, bo made happy; be a competent witness. Nor is it necessary to ask or to answer, whether an oath shall be refused to any one, on the ground of his religious opinions.— No objection is or can be made, in many such cases ; nor arc the rights of any indi vidual particularly affected. Os this des cription, are the oaths administered to elec tors under our Constitution ; oaths to sup. port that constitution and the constitution of the United. Stales, and oaths taken by judg es, magistrates, &c., of all grades. But the question is, if a person denying all fu ture accountability, is offered us a witness in a court of justice, in a case where life, liberty, property, or reputation, are affected by his testimony, he may not be objected to, by the party against whom lie is about to testily ; and whether, in such case, he is a competent witness l Nor has the statute in this case relative to the people called Quakers , who decline to take the oath by reason of scruples of conscience, and for whom a substitute is provided, by affirma tion, under the pains and penalties of per jury, any bearing on this question. This is a legislative enactment in alteration of the common law, which courts are bound to obey, and without which enactment, they could not dispense with the common law oath. Besides, the pains and penalties of perjury comprised in the oath, are not lim ited to the statute punishment denounced a gainst false witnesses. It is doubted whe ther the legislature would consent to amend that oath, by adding this qualification next after the words “ pains and penalties of perjury”—“ to be injlicted in this life only.’’ it is also true, that no declaration can be received in a courtef justice, without oath. The casuistical position, that an oath does not increase the obligation to speak the truth, is not yet a maxim of the common law. A man ofthe most exalted virtue, though judges and jurors might place the most entire confidence in his declarations, cannot be heard in a court of justice, with out oath. This is a universal rule of the common law, sanctioned by the wisdom of ages, and obligatory upon every court of justice, whose proceedings are according to the course ofthe common law. One cred ible witness is required to establish any fact. 3 Bla. Com. 370. Let us now ex amine the oath, which a witness must take, before he can be heard in a court of justice. This oath is an appeal to God, by the wit ness, for the truth of what he declares, and an imprecation of divine vengeance upon him, if his testimony shall be false. All law writers agree substantially in this defi nition, from the earliest to the latest. 1 Phil. Ev. 18, and eases there cited. The witness must believe in the existence of God ; for it would be absurd to hear an ap peal made to a being whose existence is denied. lam not aware of any doubt on this point. Many ofthe ablest commenta tors carry the principle much farther.— Thus, Lord Coke says, generally, that an infidel cannot be a witness ; (4 Cos. Rep. 6, b.) and under this he included Jews, as well as heathen. 2 Just. 506. Just. 165. Mr. Sergeant Hawkins thought it a suffi cient objection to a witness, that he believ ed neither the old or the new Testament. Hawk. 6 b. C. b. 2 : c. 48, sect. 148. Lord llale denied this rigid rule ; (2 Hale, 0 b. C. 279,) and it is now exploded. The doc trine, as now established, in this country and in England, is, that if a person believes in a God, the avenger of falsehood, and in a future state of rewards and punishments, he may be a witness, and not otherwise.— In the case of the King v. Taylor, Peake’s Rep. 11, a witness was called for the pros ecution. The counsel for the defendant asked him, if he believed in Jesus Christ? This question was objected to; and Buller, J. overruled it, saying, it should not be put. He was then asked, if he believed in the holy gospels of God ? Buller, J. said, that was not the proper question; and asked him, if he believed in God, the obligation of an oath, and a future state of rewards and punishments ? and, on his answering in the affirmative, he was admitted. lam a ware, that this question may not now be put to a witness, but the course is to in quire of other witnesses as to his belief on those points, and to decide the question of admissibility on such proof. This is man ifestly proper ; because a man ought not to be questioned respecting his religious opin ions, as the inquiry may subject him to re proach, if he should confess his infidelity ; and moreover, it would seem absurd to in quire of him under oath, whether he does not entertain sucli opinions as would show that he was unfit to be sworn. If, on in quiry of witnesses, it is satisfactorily prov ed, that the person does not believe in a fu ture state of rewards and punishments, there is not that tie upon his conscience, and of course, that sanction, which the law re quires; and therefore, he ought not to be sworn. This is the rule of the common law ; and there is no adjudged case, nor hardly a dictum in the English books, a gainstit. In Jackson and. Tuttle v. Gridly, 18 Johns. Rep. 93, Curtiss v. Strong, 4 Day, 51. Swift’s Ev. 48. 1 Swift’s Dig. 739, this doctrine is laid down, and the reasoning is very satisfactory. In 3 Bla. Corn. 389, tlie editor, Mr. Christian, remarks in a note, that he has known a witness rejected and hissed out of court, who said, that he doubt ed the existence of a God and a future state. Mr. Justice Story, in a case which occurred before him and the District Judge in Rhode-Island, in Nov. 1827, gave the following opinion : “ We think these per sons are not competent witnesses. Persons who do not believe in the existence of God, or a future state, or who have no religious belief, are not to be sworn as witnesses.— The administration of an oath supposes, that a moral and religious accountability is felt to a Supreme Being ; and this is the sane tion which the law requires upon the con science, belorc it admits him to testify.” One ofthose witnesses did not believe in the existence of a God ; the other did not be lieve in a state of future rewards and pun ishments here or hereafter—indeed, did not seem to have any settled religious belief. Both were rejected. The opinion of this learned judge expressly excludes a witness who denies the existence of a God, who de nies a future state, or has no religious belief. Can it he seriously contended, that a person who believes be shall be made immediately happy after death, without any regard to his conduct in this life, would feci any stronger obligation to speak the truth, than one who disbelieves in a future state. But the decision in Connecticut, Curtis v. Strong, 4 Day, 51, must be the guide to this court. This case was elaborately discuss ed ; it was decided by the unanimous opin ion ofthe nine judges of the Supreme Court of Errors, within the last twenty years, and the Jccision has been acquiesced in ; no murmurs have been heard respecting it.— The reasons should be cogent to compel a departure from such a decision. Nor am I satisfied, that there is any principle, or precedent of high authority, opposed to it. Two of the judges of the Circuit Court in New.York, at Nisi I’rius, hold, that persons of this description might testify. 2 Cos wen, 432, 572. We arc told, by the reporter, there are many persons in those counties where these decisions were had, who deny all future punishment. Why this is men. tioned, it is not easy to perceive, unless to suggest a reason for a departure from tho rule of the common law, in obedience to public opinion. On those decisions, 1 re mark, that they are directly opposed to that of the Supreme Court of the State of New- York, in Jackson and. Tuttle v. Gridley, 18 Johns. Rep. 98. The court there say with much force: “Religion is a subject on which every man has a right to think ac cording to the dictates of his understanding; it is a solemn concern between bis con science and his God, with which no human tribunal has a right to intermeddle. But in the developeraent of facts, and the ascer tainment of truth, human tribunals have a right to interfere. They are bound to sec, that no man’s rights arc impaired or taken away, but through the medium of testimony entitled to belief; and no testimony is en titled to credit, unless delivered under the solemnity of an oath, which comes home to the conscience of the witness, and will cre ate a tic arising from his belief that false swearing would expose him to punishment in the life to come. On this great princi ple rest all our institutions, and especially the distribution of justice between man and man.” In this opinion, I entirely concur. The judges above mentioned, at the circuit, in commenting on this case, say, that tho opinion was obiter ; that the witness reject ed did not believe in tho existence of a God, or a future state, and therefore was incom petent according to all the decisions. It is true, there was this farther objection to his testimony; but still, the court, in giving its opinion, expressly decides on his disbe lief in future punishment, and declares it to be a disqualification, quoting with high approbation, the decision of Curtiss v. Strong, 4 Day, 51. It is also said, that this decision rests, for much of its support, on the case of Omychand v. Barker, reported in Willes 549. and 1 Atk. 45 ; and that the report of the case by Atkyns is incorrect, and that by Willes gives the true state of the case. To this I would observe, that Atkyns furnished the case from the judges themselves and when the decision was pro nounced. With his accuracy as a report er, it is not credible, that he should have omitted what is now deemed important in the opinion of Willes. On the other hand, Willes’ Reports were not published in more than a half century after the decision, and the manuscript was furnished by his grand son. But the point in decision, in that case, was not, whether the disbelief in fu ture punishment disqualified the witness : It was, whether the depositions of certain Gentoos, s\\ orn according to their religion, should be admitted, in relation to the trans actions, which took place in their country, between a native thereof and the defend- ant, an Englishman. All the judges, in giving their opinion, lay stress upon that tact; and there was no proof as to the point of the belief or unbelief of the deponents in future punishment. It is urged again, that Courts have no rieht to interfere with reli , © gious opinions. It is said, faith is a matter between men and their God, and ought not to be examined by Courts or the Legisla ture: But, it is declared, by the judges in England, that Christianity is a part of the common law of the land. Our ancestors brought it with them to this State, and there is no statute abrogating it. Nay, our stat ute (p. 104.) punishes, by fine, imprison ment, and binding to good behavior, persons guilty of blasphemy against God, either person of the Trinity, the Christian reli gion, or the holy Scriptures ; and in p. 165, profane swearing, and in p. 355, violation of the Sabbath are punished by fines. Our Constitution declares it to be the dutyjof all men to worship the Supreme Being accord ing to the dictates of their consciences.— These provisions do not look like annulling Christianity. The law does not, indeed, prescribe any rules of faith, nor mode ,j>f worship, nor attempt to enforce practical piety ; it simply recognizes the great doc trines of Christianity, and preserves them from the open assault of their enemies.— This is all a legislature or court can right fully do. But it is not ca=v to.see how there is any interference wtiu' ,: gious faith, in deciding a person professing c. tain opinions unfit to be sworn. Vhat if man should claim the right of Araking h simple declaration, and that it should be re , ceived without oath, because his conscier told him that an oath did not add to the oi ligation to speak the truth : shall such a !
