LETTER XXXVI.

Official Oath. Religious Test abolished. - Party. - Unconstitutional Platforms. Sliding Constitutions or Platforms.-Perjury. - Chaplains. — Object of Religion.- Separation of Religion from the State.- E Pluribus Unum.- Norvus Ordo Seculorum.- Religious Intolerance.- Ratification by a Majority of the States. -No Preference of, or Difference between, the Old and New States.

WITH this letter we have done with the constitution proper.

"3. The senators and representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Public officers, in order to give a guaranty of their honest intention, are placed everywhere under such a solemn obligation, although it is by some thought superfluous, under a written constitution, about which there can not be a mental reserve. We have seen that it is almost impossible to get a seat in Congress or an office, without the intervention of party. It may happen in a free country that a party acts upon a platform, which contains sectional, anti-union, or unconstitutional conditions. An unscrupulous man may slide such a platform, and by dint of smartness and hypocrisy, carry the election, so that he can pass the Rubicon of this official oath without a great deal of violence to his conscience; but if he accepts such a platform, swears the oath, as prescribed in this clause, and acts and votes according to the platform and lets slide the constitution, he obviously commits perjury. The chaplains of the legislature and Congress should often expose this danger of violating the supreme law on party grounds. They should do it as the monitors of the moral and religious precepts, alias called higher law. I hope to see the crime of perjury in regard to this clause, if not punished, always promptly resented by the people. Against this oath is the doctrine of instruction; under it Congress is not free, and perjury almost unavoidable.

The abolishing of the narrow-minded religious test is consonant with the pure and elevated principles of humanity, morality, and justice, upon which the constitution has been reared. We all know that the object of religion is to induce and bind man to a faithful performance of his personal and social duties. In this regard all sects and denominations should agree, however much they may differ in their rites and creeds. For what rational use is then such a test? It was, therefore, not only a novel, but, as time has proved, also a wise and just step forward on the path of humanity to exclude a religious test entirely from public offices, while it is even at present required by all foreign governments.

Our constitution has in this manner made religion a private affair, obviously considered as such by its framers, and separated it from state. For, if the government has no right to require such a test, it has no right to interfere with religious affairs at all.

Thus ends this most noble document! It has, as our national escutcheon truly states, successfully united a number of discordant states in one stable-confederation (e pluribus unum), and opened a new period in the history of mankind (novus ordo seculorum). It has, upon the rational principles of self-government, established justice and civil liberty; and is not only a masterspecimen of a free political family compact, but also the first organic law, which effectively destroyed the modern Hydra: RELI

GIOUS INTOLLERANCE.

ARTICLE VII.

Of the Ratification.

"The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this constitution between the states so ratifying the same."

The ratification should take place in conventions of the people. A majority of the thirteen states was designated by the constitution sufficient for its adoption. Nine of these states ratified instantly, and thus began the confederation, four within a year afterward. There is not a vestige in the constitution favoring a preference of, or a difference between the first thirteen states of the Union and those later admitted to it, although some writers insist upon such a discrimination. They are led astray by the European notions

of territorial sovereignty. And thus live under its panoply in thirty-two states, twenty-six millions of happy men-they, at least, can be such, if they make a right use of their reason. May God protect this Union.

LETTER XXXVII.

Exceptions and Mob Commotions against the Constitution. - Bill of Rights. - Amendments. - Religious Establishment. - Freedom of Speech and of the Press. Assembling. - Petition. Great Britain. - Municipal Legislation. Right to bear Arms. — European Legislation. - Municipal.District of Columbia. Quartering of Soldiers in Time of Peace. Unreasonable Searches in Houses. — Grand-jury Indictment. — Double Trials. Process of Law. - Private Property for Public Use. - Municipal Legislation. - Speedy Public Trial by Jury. - Witnesses. Counsel. Trial by Jury in $20 Cases. -Blackstone. - Excessive Bail.Enumeration of Certain Rights. - Powers reserved to the States. - Extension of the Judicial Power. - Electors. - Presidents compared with Crowned Heads.- Executive. -Judiciary compared with the Legislative Branch. Stability of the Federal Constitution.

AGAINST this constitution were raised strong exceptions, even mob-commotions, because it contained no bill of rights, &c. But we have seen that all general principles of justice (such as make up what is called a bill of rights) were carefully embodied in this organic law, so far as they were in harmony with its purpose-the organization of the Congress and defining of its business. To do more would not have been befitting, or would have been encroaching upon state constitutions, statute-books, or judicial codes. But this would not suit some wiseacres, and therefore a string of amendments was proposed, of which the following were approved by the good people. I shall pass them over with a few remarks, because they are irrelevant.

AMENDMENTS.

"Art. 1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of Religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

You will see at the first glance, my dear children, that this

amendment is superfluous with us, while it may be appropriate in Great Britain or elsewhere. By abolishing the religious test the constitution has done more in regard to religious freedom than this amendment would do, if it stood alone. On the other subjects, even about the aberrations of the Mormon church, Congress has no right to legislate. To say a word about petitions is gratuitous and improper, our officials being our responsible agents and not our lords or royal proprietors, and, therefore, can and never will refuse to accept petitions on subjects belonging to their business-sphere. The main objects mentioned here belong to municipal legislation and not at all to Congress.

"Art. 2. A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Good for Europe. We have read the dispositions of the constitution about the militia. Congress has no power to legislate on the keeping and bearing of arms, except in the District of Columbia.

"Art. 3. No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

Is also good for Europe. We have no soldiers in the European sense of the word. If our troops should be in need of lodging and board, somebody must pay for it. Of course, necessity in times of war knows no law, no restraint; but the right to indemnification after the war, no one can destroy.

"Art. 4. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Very well for England and a statute-book of municipal laws, but superfluous here.

"Art. 5. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

This is entirely superfluous, and does not belong to the federal constitution; and, so far as partaining to it, has been provided for in the constitution. The maxim, that an accused criminal shall not incriminate himself, is equivalent to a prohibition of the confession of guilt, an utterly immoral and irreligious maxim, more calculated to accommodate and harden scoundrels than to promote order and realize justice.

"Art. 6. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence."

All this is municipal state-business, and does not belong to the federal constitution, and proves that this law was little understood by those who moved such an amendment.

“Art. 7. In suits at a common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of common law."

Also entirely improper for this constitution. Such municipal law-details, as the sum of twenty dollars, never belong to any constitution at all, for they ought to be regulated by a statute according to time and circumstances. If those men, who urged such amendments, had had a seat in the convention, which framed the federal constitution, it would have been either never made, or become something entirely different from what it is, most certainly a book of several hundred pages old English law lore, copied from Blackstone, &c.

"Art. 8. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted."

Such things must be left to the judgment of the legislatures, and will be taken care of just as well, if not mentioned at all in a constitution.

"Art. 9. The enumeration in the constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Is a matter of course. The federal constitution applies merely to the organization of Congress, and nothing else, and can, there