THE REPORTER.
"'TIS PLEASANT, THROUGH THE LOOP-HOLES OF RETREAT, TO PEEP AT SUCH A WORLD-- TO SEE THE STIR OF THE GREAT BABEL, AND NOT FEEL THE CROWD."
VOL. II. NO. 38	WASHINGTON, (PA.) MONDAY, FEBRUARY 12th, 1821.	WHOLE NO. 90.

      MR. EDITOR.--I have carefully read, as they appeared in your paper, the several Nos. written by Mr. Candidus in opposition to the "Moral Association" of West-Middletown, or, as he is pleased to style it, the "Middletown club." These Nos. however, I have not preserved. When Candidus first began to publish on this subject, I was at a loss what to think. Some supposed, that he wrote merely from vanity, gratified with the idea of seeing himself, and being seen by others, in print. Others thought he wrote from a conviction of the evil tendency of moral associations, and a desire to benefit the public, by bringing them into discredit, and thus destroying them. There again were some so uncharitable, as to believe him to be some ill-disposed person, who, by his writings was insidiously attempting so destroy that respect for the wholesome laws of our state, which is among our strongest securities for the prevalence of good order and morality. For my own part, I resolved not to form an opinion of the scope which this writer had in view, till I had read the whole of his numbers--with his motives and character as a man, I have nothing to do. That he is not opposed to our laws respecting morality, in general, is evident from what he observes in one of his late numbers, I think the 8th, in which he states the distinction between crimes as committed against God and as crimes committed against society, or as he, rather strangely expresses it, as they affect God and as they affect society. With the inaccuracy of the gentleman's style, however, I shall not trouble the reader. He grants, in the number just referred to, that immoralities are punishable by the civil magistrate, considered as committed against society. This goes upon the principle, that acts of immorality are injurious to the state. This Mr. C. grants to be the case, in regard to the vices of profanity, drunkenness, blasphemy, &c. What ground, then, I was ready to ask, for all this dispute with the moral society of Middletown? Does any of that society maintain the absurd position, that it belongs to the civil magistrate to punish crimes as committed against God? Did Mr. C. ever hear of any person, in the present age, holding this doctrine? I think not. If, then, it belongs to the civil magistrate to punish crimes, that is, violations of the moral law, considered as committed against society, as we maintain and as Mr. C grants; and if all good citizens should aid the civil magistrate in the execution of the laws, which none will deny; we do not see wherein the members of the West-Middletown association have merited censure; unless, indeed, it be censurable for men as members of civil society to agree among themselves to do their duty. A state of society may exist where wholesome laws have no force; the prevailing practice and sentiment being against the laws. Where this is the case--and if the sentiments of Mr. C. were countenanced by the public it would soon be the case all over the country--it then becomes the imperious duty of every friend of law & order to do his utmost to carry the provisions of the law into effect, and to combine his efforts in this good work with all around, who may be disposed to unite their exertions with him.

      These conclusions follow, irresistably and obviously from the concessions of Mr. C. just noticed, and they accord perfectly with the practice of forming associations of private citizens, when such associations are requisite to support the interest of order and law against the encroachments of vice and licentiousness.

      If these observations are correct, then the matter in dispute between Mr. C. and the moral society is reduced to this single question: Is it right to aid the civil magistrate in the execution of those laws of our good and moral state of Pennsylvania which respect the crime of sabbath-breaking? This question Mr. C treats in his last number.¹ He maintains the negative in opposition to "the Middletown club," judge Rush and the Legislature of Pennsylvania. But as numbers are not always a sure evidence of correct opinion, let us hear the arguments of C. He objects to the law in question. 1st. "Because it is intended to compell all citizens, without any respect to conscientious conviction, to observe a day in one sense only, by abstaining from industrious employment, which in some instances only facilitates the commission of crime and greatly increases those very vices which the judge himself bewails." To illustrate this remark Mr. C. instances the wagonner "who," he says, "spends the sabbath worse lying by, than in travelling." If I understand the gentleman here (for I am not sure that I do) his objection rests upon two grounds. 1st. That the law attempts to enforce only the partial observance of the sabbath. We admit that, in the sight of God, the sabbath is violated by carnal and worldly thoughts, as well as by outward labour. Now Mr. C's argument is that because the law does not forbid the violation of the sabbath in thought, as well as in action, therefore it is a bad law. Has Mr. C. reflected upon the principle of this argument and the consequences which it involves? The principle of the argument is, that no crime should be punished by law, unless all crimes and all degrees of every crime are also punished. The consequence involved in this principle is, that there should be no human laws at all. For to punish every degree of every crime, is to a finite being, plainly impossible. Some degrees of crime are necessarily hidden from human view. These, human laws cannot reach. They are, therefore, imperfect; But, because they cannot do every thing, should they therefore do nothing. Because they cannot prevent a man from violating the sabbath in thought, should they not prevent him from violating it in action? So says Mr. C. Let us apply the principle to another precept of the moral code. "Thou shalt not kill." But "he that hateth his brother in his heart" says the Divine law- giver, violates the precept. Do the laws of Pennsylvania forbid murder in "this case?" No: they forbid it, (in the words of Mr. C) "in one sense only," that is, in the sense of actually taking away the life of a man. Then according to Mr. C. they must be bad laws: and no man should aid in the execution of them: and murder may be committed with impunity, till we shall find a law to punish every species & degree of murder; murder in thought as well as in act, & a magistrate capable of putting such a law in execution. By the same course of reasoning we might go on to shew, that there should be no law forbiding adultery in the act, unless it should at the same time punish mental adultery, nor any to punish overt acts of theft, fraud, or robbery unless it could, at the same time punish covetousness, which is the principle whence these overt acts proceed.

      The 2nd. ground of Mr. C's first objection is "that hundreds of men, nay thousands commit more sin by being compelled to refrain from the daily business of life on this day than they do on any other day of the week." These are Mr. C's own words. I have said already, that I will not trouble the reader with remarks on Mr. C's language. The sentiment is my object; and the sentiment here seems to be, that the law which forbids sabbath-breaking, is some how or other, the occasion why thousands commit more sin than they otherwise, would. This is brought about by the effect which the execution of the law has upon the offender, in stirring up and exasper- [page break] ating his evil passions: Hence Mr. C. argues, that the law is evil. Paul, however, who we think was a much better logician than Mr. C. draws a very different conclusion, in a parallel case: "But sin, taking occasion by the commandment wrought in me all manner of concupiscence." [From] this he concludes that the law is holy. And if in the present case, the law in question provokes the evil passions of bad men, we should think it an argument in its favor. And though it be granted, that the operation of the law should have this effect upon the minds of individuals and thereby become the occasion of committing more sin, the fault is not in the law but in themselves.

      But, perhaps Mr. C, means, that the law by forbidding labor on the Sabbath gives occasion to idleness, and idleness to other practices more sinful than the mere practice of Sabbath breaking. The example of the wagonner, which he has selected, renders this probable. Being deterred from driving his team on the Sabbath, he remains at the tavern, drinking, swearing, gaming, &c. Now, says Mr. C. it would be better for him to be driving his wagon than acting thus. But when the law forbids him to drive his waggon, on the Sabbath, does it command him to swear and get drunk? Not at all: the guilt of his swearing and drunkenness, then, does not belong to the law but to the wagonner. Let us apply the reasoning of Mr. C. to another case. The laws of all nations lay heavy duties upon certain kinds of goods. This gives occasion to smuggling, false entries, perjury and innumerable frauds, which, but for these laws, wicked men would be under no temptation to practice. Does it follow from this, that there should be no such laws? We are ashamed to be laid under the necessity of exposing principles so obviously fallacious as these of Mr. C. we shall, only observe further on this objection of his, that if acted on, it would not only put an end to the business of legislation entirely--for what law is there, that does not, through the perverseness of mankind furnish the occasion to innumerable evil deeds --but that, it is, in another point of view, bottomed on a gross mistake. The question is not, whether it might not be better for the wretch, whose evil disposition leads him to break over all restraints, that there should be no laws inflicting punishment for acts of immorality, but whether it would be better for the community at large. Let it be granted, that the law in question is the occasion of much sin to the wagonner, who drinks and carouses in a tavern, to the merchant and tavern keeper who post their books, to the lawyer who rides to court, and to the parson, who profanes the sanctuary on Gods holy day; is it not still better for the community, that the sacred aspect of the Sabbath be preserved, that man and beast should rest according to the commandment, that the thousands of pious and orderly citizens should not have their devotions interrupted by the madness and folly of the sons of riot and dissipation, and that there should be some public and national proof that we are not a heathen people.

      Thus, Mr. Editor, I have taken some notice of the first objection of Candidus. I hope again to pursue the subject. I intend not controversy, my object is the preservation of public morals. I have a small family who will have an interest in it, when I am here no more. It grieves me to think how lightly the labors of our men of learning and wisdom and worth are esteemed by some. I was pleased to see the charges of Judge Rush in your columns:² and, to come nearer home, I was also gratified with the perusal of Judge Baird's charge to the grand jury of this county published in your paper some time ago. The sentiments on political economy, which it contained ought to be deeply studied by our politicians, and they are peculiarly worthy of attention at the present time. Who he could have been who in a subsequent paper, endeavoured to ridicule the judge, and who subscribed himself "Senex," I know not. Old, he may be, but if so, he is one among the humbling instances, which shew, that length of days does not always teach wisdom.

[The Reporter, February 12, 1821, p. 2-3.]