The Daily Union

THE OBSTRUCTION TO JUSTICE FROM THE OATHS OF KNOW-NOTHINGISM

The proceedings on a late criminal trial in Massachusetts have developed the startling fact that the obligations entered into by know-nothings come in direct conflict with the administration of the law in courts of justice. We copy so much of these proceedings from the Lowell Advertiser as shows clearly the practical working of their oaths in affecting the credibility or competency of know-nothings as witnesses in court. When the witness takes the stand he swears that he will state "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." When asked the question whether he is a member of a secret order, and, as such, bound by an oath, if he answers that he cannot testify without criminating himself and subjecting himself to punishment, he is not a competent witness. If he answers that he is such member, and so bound by oath he thereby violates the obligation of that oath, and discredits himself as a witness. In either point of view the administration of justice is obstructed and thwarted. This case exhibits know-nothingism in an entirely new light. We have heretofore regarded it as an engine of political and religious intolerance and proscription. The case in Massachusetts, however, shows that this was but a partial view of its enormity. The necessary consequence must be that those who attach themselves to the order and assume its obligations become incompetent as witnesses, and for the same reason, alike incompetent as jurors. No man will feel safe when his rights are to be determined upon testimony or upon verdicts proceeding from witnesses or jurors who are bound by oaths which disqualify them to act in either capacity. The result must be, that whilst the know-nothings are combining to exclude naturalized foreigners and Roman Catholics from the full rights of citizenship, they will exclude themselves from the rights of witnesses and jurors. Thus it often happens that attempts to inflict wrongs on others recoil and overwhelm the guilty. Without dwelling further upon the subject, we copy the proceedings which develop with such startling force the wickedness as well as the dangers of know-nothingism:

From the Lowell Advertiser, Oct. 28.

KNOW-NOTHINGS IN COURT. DISCLOSURES UNDER OATH.—

At the criminal term of the court of common pleas, now being held in Lowell, Bishop J. presiding, the following scene was enacted yesterday (Friday:)

The case on trial was the Commonwealth vs. Michael Reardon for rape; District Attorney Train for government, B. F. Butler and Daniel Needham for defendant.

H. C. Snow, of Groton, having testified for the government, Mr. Butler, on cross-examination, asked him the following question :

Do you belong to a secret society, popularly called know nothings?

Mr. Snow having denied that he did, and stoutly persisting in the denial, the question was put in a different form, when he was finally driven to the wall, and asked leave of the court to consult counsel. This liberty was politely granted by Judge Bishop, who gave the jury a recess of ten minutes on account of the delay.

When Mr. Snow again took the stand, the question was again asked; upon which he promptly replied :

I cannot answer that question without criminating myself and subjecting myself to punishment.

Again and again was the question urged by the ingenious counsel for the defendant, every time assuming some new form, but being the same fearful visage to this disciple of the secret order, until at last, having detained the court more than two hours and exhausted everybody's patience, he replied, "I do."

Ques. How long have you belonged to it?

Ans. About four or five months.

Q. Is it a secret society?

A. It is.

Q. Did you take any oath or obligation in joining that society?

A. I did take an obligation.

Q. Was it in form of an oath?

A. I do not know.

Q. How was it administered to you; did you hold up your hand when it was administered?

A. I did.

Q. Did you call upon God to witness the obligation ?

A. I think I did "So help me God" were the last words.

Q. Are there different degrees in that society?

A. There are.

Q. How many have you taken?

A. Two.

Q. Does Dr. Norman Smith (a witness in this case) belong to that society ?

A. I have seen him at the meetings.

Q. Have you ever seen John A. Gardner (another witness) at the meetings of the society?

A. I have.

Q. Have you ever seen Dea. John Pingree (another witness) at the meetings of the society?

A. I have.

Q. What is the form of the initiation?

A. I shall not tell, as it will criminate me and expose me to punishment.

Here the court remarked to the witness that he had a right to protect himself. If he had taken an oath contrary to law, he was not bound to criminate himself. But, said Judge Bishop, this is a startling revelation that men take obligations in secret societies which are regarded by them as of higher authority than those administered in this court.

A. M. Gage was then called. He testified, in a frank, humorous manner, that he once joined the order, but left it some three months ago. Mr. Butler called his attention to an exposition of the oath published in the Boston Post of October 25, which Mr. Gage seemed to think was about the kind of oath administered to him, though he did not remember exactly. From his testimony we judged he had become disgusted with the order, and exposed its secrets without any misgivings.

Dr. Norman Smith called.

Q. Do you belong to a secret society opposed to aliens?

A. I do; to a society which is calculated to exercise a political influence.

Q. Does it not also exercise a religious influence?

A. Some think it does.

Q. Can a Roman Catholic join that society ?

A. Not if he is a foreigner.

Q. Can he if he is an American-born citizen?

A. No.

Q. Can he if his wife is a Catholic and he a Protestant ?

A. No.

Q. What is the object of the society?

The doctor, drawing himself up to his full height, and extending in a statesmanlike manner his right arm, replied with great eloquence, "To protect our liberty, sir l" at the same time bringing his right hand, with great violence, down upon the judge's bench, and making the court-house echo with the sound of his hand as well as the music of his voice.

Q. What is the form of the initiation, and what the character of the obligation you take

A. I cannot tell.

Q. Why?

A. Because I have bound myself not to.

Q. But have you not sworn here before this court to tell the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

A. I shall not tell unless I am obliged to.

The Court here asked the witness if he thought by answering he would expose himself to punishment; to which he answered, Yes.

Q. Did you assist in getting up the lodge at Groton?

A. I did.

Q. Are you an officer in the lodge?

A. I am.

Q. What office do you hold?

A. I cannot answer that question without criminating myself, and exposing myself to punishment.