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. 39	WASHINGTON, (PA.) MONDAY, FEBRUARY 19th, 1821.	WHOLE NO. 91.

      MR. EDITOR.--In pursuance of an intimation given in your paper of last week, I proceed to notice some of Candidus' objections to the laws of Pennsylvania relative to sabbath breaking. ¹ As it is my design not to be tedious, I shall not, unnecessarily, refer to any remarks already made on this subject. Having answered Mr. C's first objection I shall, briefly, not ice the second which is as follows: "It (the law in question) "tends to oppress the consciences of some who conscientiously observe the seventh, and cannot conscientiously observe the first day: such as Jews and seventh day Baptists." It must be allowed, that there seems to be some force in the objection; for it is the duty of legislatures to respect the rights of conscience. But however specious the objection, it is, we believe, altogether inapplicable to the case. For every one who will take the trouble to examine the law, must see, at once, that the spirit and intention of the law, is not to confront men in their religious belief or practice. It was not made against Jews or seventh day Baptists, (of which sects there are scarcely any in the state,) but for the purpose of preventing the scandalous and open profanation of the christian sabbath. If the design of the law were to "oppress the consciences" of Jews and Baptists it would be, in its own nature, contrary both to the constitution of this state and that of the United States, and consequently null and void: any prosecution or plea founded upon it would be overruled in our courts of justice. Mr. C. must be ignorant of the nature of our institutions, if he supposes, that a prosecution for sabbath-breaking could be supported against a Jew or a seventh day Baptist under the "act for the preventing of vice and immorality" passed in 1794. The fact of his observing the sabbath on the seventh day of the week, agreeably to his peculiar religious belief, would secure him against the penalties of that act, as it must be construed agreeably to the principles of our constitution and the intention or spirit of the act itself. But can Mr. Candidus, or any other person, give us a single instance, in which a Jew or seventh-day Baptist has been made to suffer from the law just referred to? Can he furnish an instance in which any person has even attempted such a thing? Did the Middletown club provoke the ire of Mr. C. by attempting to persecute the Jews and seventh-day Baptists, under the operation of this law? Nothing of all this. Nor is there the least danger to be apprehended by these sectaries from this quarter, so long as there remains in our courts of justice sense enough to enable them to interpret and execute the law in question according to its obvious intention, and agreeably to the principles of our constitution. Thus we think, we have shown, that the law of 1794 when properly understood, is not liable to Mr. C's second objection. And it speaks much in favor of this law, that Mr. C. is under the necessity of misrepresenting it, before he can condemn it. In this it shares the honor which all good things and good men possess, namely, that they must be calumniated before they can be persecuted. Mr. C. accuses the law of an intention to "oppress the consciences" of Jews, &c.--Examine it--put it to the torture--call witnesses--inspect its character and history, and you will not find the slightest colour of evidence to support the charge.

      He objects 3dly "That the obedience which the law constrains is neither pleasing to God nor profitable to man. The man who observes the first day merely because the law requires him, performs not that kind of obedience which flows from the heart, and consequently it is with him an unavailing service." There are some kinds of argument, if they be so called, which it is extremely irksome to notice, and the more so, when they are frequently repeated. The above objection contains one of this sort--"Neither pleasing to God"--"not that kind of obedience which flows from the heart!! Pray, Mr. C. will you condescend to tell us what is the object and aim of human laws? Is it to make men holy? It is to regulate the affections of the heart? Is it to regenerate the soul? And are all human laws to be condemned that do not produce these effects? If your objection does not imply an affirmative answer to these questions, I am incapable of understanding it; and if it does, it implies, such a profound ignorance of the first principles of moral science in the person who could seriously propose it as, for the honor of our country, Mr. Editor, we hope, belongs to but few of your readers. Wretched, however, as is the objection, it was advanced before by Mr C under his "objection 1st" and it has already been considered in our former number, to which we refer the reader. We may possibly be induced to notice it a third, time, in some future number; as we perceive Mr. C. has introduced it a third time in the form of a fifth objection. Indeed Mr. C's lucubrations remind us of the feast of the Indian chief, which he prepared for his friends, in imitation of what he had seen in the Federal city--it consisted of several courses--but the same fish taken away from the table and returned again. The uncommon degree of self complacency, with which the master of the table prolongs the repast, does not, we must for our part confess, increase our relish for the entertainment. But Mr. C's 3d objection contains something new. Let us have it. "The obedience which the law constrains is--not profitable to men." In support of this position, however, there is not a syllable of proof. But Candidus has asserted it. Let that suffice.

      Mr. C. objects 4thly "That the law itself is unjust, inasmuch as it is partial; it consults the taste and voluptuousness of the genteelfolks in large cities by allowing them to go to market morning and evening to buy such things as may satisfy their craving appetite, while it would fine the poor farmer for saving his harvest or gathering the labours of the year--a work of much greater importance than buying and selling fresh oysters, melons, leeks and onions or a fresh beef-stake before sermon or even after they return from worship.

      Now, we affirm, that the provisions of the law are exactly the reverse of what is here stated. The law is too long to be here transcribed. The reader may find it in Vol. III. Page 178 of the laws of Pennsylvania published in 1810. The Proviso which Mr. C. says is partial to the "genteelfolks in large cities" is as follows: "Provided always, that nothing herein contained shall be construed to prohibit the dressing of victuals, &c.--nor the delivery of milk, or the necessaries of life, before nine of the clock in the forenoon, nor after five of the clock in the afternoon of the same day."

      Not a word do we find in the law about fresh oysters, melons, &c. but milk and the necessaries of life which shews the intention of the law to be in favor of the poor; not of the gentry. Neither does the law say any thing about "fining the poor farmer for saving his harvest" but on the contrary, it expressly permits "works of necessity and charity." What Mr. C. can mean by adding to the words "saving his harvest" the clause "or gathering in the labours of the year," we shall not pretend to say; but we do say, that, from the remarks just made, it appears that, what Mr. C. has stated respecting the law in his 4th objection is exactly contrary to the truth. Mr. C. should be more cautious while writing and publishing again and again on subjects deeply affecting the interests of the community. With this caution we leave him for the present.

      In the peice signed "Young Israel," dated the 29th ult. where it reads "wielding the word," it should read "wielding the sword."

[The Reporter, 19 February 1821, p. 1.]