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."
[NEW SERIES----VOL. I.]	WASHINGTON, (PA.) MONDAY, JUNE 4th, 1821.	[NO. 2.

      Having, in our last, noticed mr. C's 12th No. we shall now, contrary to our original intention, examine his 11th No.¹ In reference to a state of general licentiousness, we had said, that "It then becomes the imperious duty of every friend of order and law to do his utmost to carry the provisions of the law into effect."² Now mark the use mr. C. makes of this sentence--"From these words," says he, "it is to be inferred, that T. is a friend of order and law, and that I am not." Again: because we had said, that "the execution of the law exasperates the evil passions of bad men," and that this was, (contrary to the reasoning of mr. C) an argument in its favour rather than against it; Mr. C will have it, that we meant to insinuate that "T. is a good, very good man--a saint--and Candidus a vile sinner." Now, in our remarks, we could not be supposed to have any allusion to Mr. C. unless he had come under "the execution of the law," that is, unless he had been fined for drunkenness, profane swearing, gaming or Sabbath-breaking--a thing which we never once thought of. But mr. C. overlooking the plain distinction between the opposer of the law and the breaker of it, converts our declaration into a most infamous slander against him, and an odious compliment paid to ourselves! Now, we dare to affirm, that mr. C. is the only one of our readers, that has understood the above cited passages in this way. Will not people be apt to ask the reason of such mistakes, if indeed they are mistakes? Cannot mr. C. understand a passage of plain English? Or, is he so full of himself--so taken up with the figure he has seen at Auchtermanshohe as to imagine that, nothing can be said, done or thought, in this great world, but what must, of course, have some reference to him. Or, is he conscious of the weakness of his cause, and therefore desirous of diverting the attention of the reader from the subject to himself, and thereby gaining two objects at the same time? It is disagreeable for us to expose these disingenuous efforts of mr. C. (or perhaps we should call them mistakes--and if so, they evince a dullness of apprehension, such as does not ordinarily fall to the lot of poor mortals;) but, as mr. C. is likely to continue writing on the subject some two or three years longer, (should he live so long,) we have thought it proper to point them out, that they may be avoided for the future. And thus, mr. C. will save his readers the pain they must have felt from his incessant efforts to thrust himself instead of his subject upon their attention. And, for ourselves, we here promise, that, whenever we use, "morality, good order, wholesome laws" or any other such obnoxious terms with a view to insinuate any thing unfavorable to the character of mr. C. we shall give him due notice of it; so that, when he finds any sentence containing such terms unaccompanied by any such notice, he need not trouble himself in searching for squinting innuendos, or ill-natured references. These things adjusted, we proceed. In mr. C's 1st and 2d paragraph of the No. now under review, we find nothing worthy of notice: for, we can hardly suppose that the comparison of moral associations with the inquisition, which mr C. so often introduces, will be thought by our readers, to merit a reply. In the 3d paragraph we have the following sentence: "His words (T's) are, This is brought about by the effect which the execution of the law has upon the offender, in stirring up and exasperating his evil passions. Hence, mr. C. says, that the law is evil. Paul, who, we think, was a much better reasoner than Mr. C. draws a very different conclusion in a parallel case." Respecting this passage Mr. C. says, "I pass over its inaccuracies." Now, we hope mr. Candidus, will be so CANDID as to point out these inaccuracies. In attempting it, we have no doubt he will furnish an occasion from which he may see, that he is liable to mistakes in regard to style as well as argument--and discoveries of this kind, as they are peculiarly needful for mr. C. so we may hope, may not be altogether useless to him.

      He tells us, in the next paragraph, that the law of '94 commands the wagonner to do nothing on the Sabbath day and that "according to the old logic he that is commanded to do nothing is commanded to sin." We are glad to find that, if this kind of argument is according to any logic, it is according to the old logic; since it would fix a charge of impiety on every precept of the decalogue. For they all run in the negative style. According to this same logic of mr. C. (for we think he has an undisputed claim to it) the law is necessarily chargeable with all the sins which the wagonner commits; while lying by in a tavern, since these sins, he says are the necessary consequence of the law! But how, necessary? Does the law compel the man to swear, get drunk, &c. No: but his own evil disposition prompts him to it. And do we not see in instances occurring almost every day, that the infliction of merited punishment upon bad men, does, in all cases, "provoke their evil passions" and therefore according to mr. C. "it must increase the quantum of their guilt, while it can only change the quality of it?" So that, according to C's logic, punishment should in no case, be inflicted on bad men. Good men may be punished, with propriety: since, it may be expected that their evil passions will not be excited! Precious logic truly! But why should we detain the reader, by answering, again and again, these objections of mr. C. since though answered again and again they are brought forward with still greater confidence than before. Let us rather proceed to state a few plain dictates of common sense on the subject, noticing what may remain of mr. C's arguments; as they may fall in our way. And, here, we shall, in the good old way, state what we admit and what we deny.

      We admit all that is contained in the 5 items in C's 10th No.³--also, the 8th and the 7th with some additions and explanations. These items he calls his primary arguments. But they are all cut off from any connexion with the point in dispute, by the obvious distinction between divine and human laws. The former regard crimes as committed against God; the latter, as against the interests of society. We admit 2dly

      That no human law can, or ought to punish for offences as committed against God; or, which is the same thing in a different view, no human law can, or ought to enforce the observance of any religious duty as such. This principle we have already referred to, more than once; and had C. understood and applied it, he would have been saved the trouble of writing, you, of printing, and we, or reading a vast deal of things advanced in his 12 Nos. It is a principle, which, however, he really appears not to know; for he asks, in his No. 11. "Pray, mr. T. will you tell us the object of the law of '94? Is it to make men wise or moral, or good? Is it to diminish the quantum of guilt, or merely to transform the quality of it? Is it to compel men to cease sinning one way, or to destroy one bad example, while it institutes another?" All these questions, except the last clause of the last, are quite aside from the point, and we fearlessly answer them all in the negative. "Guilt, sin" and such terms belong to the consideration of crimes as committed against God, and human laws, have, directly, nothing to do with them. The object of human, penal laws (to which class the law in question belongs) is to prevent, by the operation of the principle of fear, the recurrence of the overt acts which they forbid. We deny, however, that human laws may not with propriety punish the overt acts of profane swearing, gaming, drunkenness and Sabbath breaking. The law of Pennsylvania of '94 punishes these acts. We think it, upon the whole, a good law, & for this opinion, now proceed to offer a few of our reasons. That the crimes of profane swearing, gaming, and drunkenness, are properly made punishable under this law, Mr. C. seems to have conceded. Sabbath breaking alone remains; which, he says, is not punishable by human laws. We affirm that it is--not, however, as committed against God, but as committed against the state.

      1. "The civil magistrate has "ex officio" says C. a right to take under cognizance all immoralities that affect the life, liberty, property and reputation"--and we add, the religious privileges "of the citizens," and further, a general right to provide, by law, against those things that are injurious to the prosperity of the community.

      Among the religious privileges of the citizens, we reckon that of worshipping God, in public, on the Sabbath, without interruption or molestation. This, we hope, no one will deny. But, how could men enjoy this privilege, if all those who do not count it their privilege were permitted to pursue their ordinary business on the Sabbath? How could those, for instance, who inhabit large cities worship God without disturbance, amidst the clinking of hammers and rattling of drays and carriages, were all who are so inclined permitted to pursue their ordinary avocations and amusements? Many would take pleasure in interrupting and molesting the religious services of their pious neighbors, under the pretence of attending to their lawful business. Such things, we know, have happened, in spite of the law. How much more, were it abolished?

      2. All acts of immorality are hostile to the prosperity of the community; and the more public they are, their destructive influence is the greater. The example tends to corrupt, and that in various ways. Let our children see the Sabbath violated, and hear profane cursing, and swearing; and the influence will soon, by degrees, work upon their tender minds. The power of imitation is great in all, especially in the young; and he who sets a wicked example, no matter in what respect, before others, does all in his power to destroy the best interests of the community to which he belongs; because his example tends to corrupt public morals, the basis on which public prosperity rests. The open perpetration of acts of immorality,

      3. Tends to destroy a community in another way, by bringing down the vengeance of heaven upon it. The rulers in a community are bound to do all in their power, for this reason, to prevent the open perpetration of crimes. And that the open profanation of the Sabbath is one of those crimes which the Almighty visits with national judgments, is abundantly evident, not only from the history of ancient Israel, but also from that of more modern nations. Who were those savage cannibals, that after murdering, by hundreds, their fellow-citizens, literally drank their blood and dragged them about with their teeth? Citizens of infidel France, whose legislature, by a solemn act, declared the Sabbath to be abolished, and instituted a decade of days instead of the week. It is in vain for C. to say, that the law, by prohibiting the profanation of the sabbath, only changes the quality without diminishing the quantity of crime. The principle is erroneous. Public acts of immorality are, all other things being equal, more aggravated than private ones. Their publicity is an aggravation. By the example they afford, they do more injury. They evince a higher degree of depravity in the perpetrator, in as much as he is not to be restrained by shame. Besides, crimes when they become public, then only fall within the province, as they then only fall under the cognizance of the civil magistrate. Whenever immorality becomes public, the vengeance of the law should strike it: and if does not, through the remissness of the magistrate or the people, the vengeance of heaven may be expected, not only by the offender himself, but by the community. Whereas, when the crime is private, the perpetrator only is answerable. For this reason, then, we repeat that "it is better for the community that the sacred aspect of the Sabbath be preserved and that there should be some public and national proof that we are not an heathen people. "Glorious proof! extraordinary proof! Tell it not in Birmah," exclaims Mr. C. when reviewing this passage, as if we had meant this should be the only proof!

      4. The magistrate and the legislator are bound, in their official characters to promote the principles of public virtue, since these are the true sources of the dignity and prosperity of the community. Now these principles have their origin in religion. Therefore, it is the duty of the legislator to enact, and of the magistrate to execute such laws as are necessary to protect the public forms of religion from contempt. He that openly profanes the Sabbath does treat religion with contempt, and is, therefore, guilty of not only sin against God, but an offence against the state.

[The Reporter, 4 June 1821, p. 1.]