The Placer Herald

Oath Making.
Oath making has always been a favorite trick with bigoted, corrupt, intolerant revolutionists. The French Revolution presents scenes of oath making and oath taking, which oaths men violated as surely as taken, until all respect for such obligations were lost upon the people.

The civil wars of Great Britain were no less fruitful of such evils. As parties changed, the oath changed. The dominant party for the time being, overriding all sense of justice and decency, forced the minority to swallow any extra judicial oath they might hatch up.

Those who called on God to witness their devotion and truth to Charles I., beheaded him, and placed Cromwell in the Protectorate. Among the statesmen and warriors who bore a chief part in restoring to the throne of England Charles II., were very many who had repeatedly abjured him,—nay, some of them boastingly affirmed if they had not abjured him, they never could have restored him. The solemn league and covenant, a test of the days of Cromwell, was a few years after its vitality burned by the common hangman amidst the huzzas of thousands who themselves subscribed it. Those who plighted their allegiance in the most solemn manner to James II., plotted his downfall and placed William and Mary at the head of the legitimate? government. The chronicler of those events, in speaking to posterity of them says: "Do not flatter yourselves that the ingenuity of law-givers will ever devise an oath which the ingenuity of casuists will not evade. What indeed is the value of any oath in such a matter? Among the many lessons which the troubles of the last generation have left us, none is more plain than this, however precise, no imprecation, however awful, ever saved or ever will save a government from destruction."

This is the teaching of history, but it is also the teaching of history that ignorant, intolerant revolutionists will never be benefitted by such learning.

The most violent secessionist, black or white, may float between the camps of the contending armies in the Atlantic States, by taking the test oath at each blacksmith's shop he passes. In the North, they have, in some instances, added the gratuitous injury and insult to such of the prisoners as they have released on test oaths from the Bastiles, a clause to the effect that the swearer will not prosecute for false imprisonment, the parties instrumental in perpetrating the wrong upon them.

The people of this State seem destined to pass this moral scourging of fanaticism. We have a test oath laid down in our Constitution, and it is expressly declared by the same instrument, that no other test shall be required.

A bill has been introduced embracing the following test oath to be taken in our Courts and by attorneys practicing therein:

"I, ___, do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Government of the United States, any ordinance, resolution or law of any State or Territory, or of any Convention or Legislature thereof, to the contrary notwithstanding; that I have not since (here insert the date of the passage of the Act) knowingly aided, encouraged, countenanced or assisted, nor will I hereafter, aid, encourage, countenance or assist, the so called "Confederate States, or any of them, in their rebellion against the lawful Government of the United States; and this I do without any qualification or mental reservation whatever—so help me God."

The bill passed the House under a suspension of the rules, and will probably pass the Senate and receive the sanction of the Governor.

"Smith, of Butte," of wardrobe bribery notoriety and who says he is a lawyer, urged the passage of it. J. W. Owen, of Santa Clara, he who declared a negro barber in his county, the superior of one-third of the members of the Assembly, grew eloquent in favor of it. Sanderson, of El Dorado, a lawyer, and aspirant for a seat on the Supreme Bench, went in might and main for it.

These men—Owen excepted—well knew when they voted for the bill, that they were voting for a law which violates that Constitution they had sworn, when they took their seats, to hold sacred.

If Mr. Sanderson expects to advance himself in the respect of citizens, as a candidate for judicial position, by giving such palpable proofs of his utter contempt of the highest and most sacred obligations, he makes a great mistake. A man who will disregard the rights of the citizen as a Legislator, will not hesitate to violate the same oath when on the Bench. This will be the reasoning of the people of all parties, and we predict the gentleman has "cooked his goose."

Lest we should be accused of partiality to these worthies we will give the other lawyers and solons of the Assembly, the benefit of the record of the vote given on the occasion.

On the passage of the bill the ayes and noes were ordered, and the vote resulted:

Ayes—Adams, Adkison, Ames, Andrews, Banks, Barclay, Barstow, Barton, Beeson, Blanchard, Butler, Chappell, Clark, Collins, Crawford, Davis, Dodge, Dore, Dudley of Solano, Duncombe, Dunne, Fitch, Gunnison, Harrington, Hartson, Haswell, Irwin, Keys, Kincaid, Lux, Martin, Moore, Myers, Orr, J. J. Owen, J. W. Owen, Palmer, Personette, Rider, Robinson, Rule, Sanderson, Sargent, Scott, Sears, Simpson, Smith of Butte, Smith of Sierra, Sutton, Torrance, Wheaton, Whipple, Wilson, Wright of Contra Costa, Wright of Del Norte, Mr. Speaker—57.

Noes—Allen, Freeman, Kewen, Robertson, Swift, Walker—6.

So the bill was passed.

It was a mercy to traitors that they were permitted to live, and not immediately hung, in this loyal State and they could not complain at being merely excluded from the Courts. These men were too cowardly to go South and aid the rebellion, and if they remained here, as they were doing, plotting in every treacherous way to break up the Government, it was time for the Legislature to do something to put them down. He therefore hoped the bill would pass.—Extract from J. W. Owen's speech in support of the Test Oath Bill.

This creature believes that every person who does not agree with him on the current politics, is necessarily a traitor, and he would hang them if he had the power. We have heard of just his style of man before—Macaulay tells of "a mad tailor, in reign of the Protectorate, pronouncing eternal torments against those who refused to believe, on his testimony, that the Supreme Being was only six feet high, and that the sun was four miles from the earth."

As to people being cowardly, has he reflected that there is a loud call for soldiers by President Lincoln? If yes, why is he wasting away in inglorious civil life?