001





177




I
HAVE not brought any Vouchers, for as I cannot take the Oath prescribed till some scruples are removed, I thought it needless. I declare myself, however, very willing to take an Oath which I believe, will be found to answer all the express designs of the act; and I beg in giving my reasons why I scruple the oath as it now stands I may be heard with patience, and without interruption: after which I am ready to submit to your sentence. The oath requires me to swear:
“In all things to do my duty as a good and faithful subject of the State.”
The Constitution of the State of Georgia is entirely democratical now to a

man brought up in a Republick, or understanding democratical principles, this part of the oath must be very alarming. The supreme authority is vested in the freemen of the state, and shall these freemen be obliged to swear themselves subjects?

are they then the subjects of their representatives, or can representatives call
?
their constituent subjects? whoever is a subject has a
s
a master, and thus far is not a freeman. This is a term I apprehend, neither the Continental Congress, nor any other state yet made use of, and well I know what risques those persons would run in Swisserland who should dare to call any freeman a subject. This great point once gained, that the people are subjects, it will be easy for them that call them to render themselves perpetual rulers. And to this I do not wish to contribute. As a native Swiss, I never could have brook'd to be called a subject, till I became so to the King of Great-Britain. His government in this state does not now exist, but our neighbours most wisely and happily preserved the spirit of the constitution. This state hath chosen a more popular system, but in the same act disclaims dependance on Great-Britain, and establishes subjection to some among ourselves. I clearly, roundly, and without any hes
s
itation, profess that I do not know the man, nor set of men among us to whom I would to swear

myself a subject, and would beg to be excused from taking such an oath, till the assembly has reconsidered, whether the inhabitants are to be good and faithful freemen, or good and faithful subjects, betwixt which two expressions I conceive a most alarming difference.







Next we are to swear “I do acknowlede the thirteen united states of America “to be free and independant states, and will to the best of my ability when “called upon, support and maintain the said independency.
Here a confederacy of thirteen states is to be acknowledged upon oath, but the Hon. Mr. Drayton in a printed Letter to our Governour and Council, calls this is an “imposition on the people of Georgia, which no other state ratified or considered of the Congress ever
who have not eve
r
concluded upon such a

thing themselves.” After evidence under such authority, publickly printed and never offered to be contradicted here or elsewhere, I think a man may justly have some doubts to take an oath to the contrary. I apprehend that in reality this oath amounts to no less than an oath of allegiance not only to the state of Georgia, but equally where every state preserves its distinct independency; the independency

as this state is actually given up, and this state rendered dependent on any other seven states that may in any case outvote it in the general meeting. A thing never proposed by Congress, and deserving the most serious consideration of every state or individual before it be established. By this, Georgia, and every man that takes this oath, may be called upon in virtue of it to support the Independency of New York, New-Hampshire or any other state, though none of these have bound themselves by any other oath to support the Independency of

to the 13 states contrary to what obtains in Switzerland & Holland

Georgia.
I shall barely mention that this looks like swearing to a matter which at the time of swearing no man can be certain of that it is true, for who can now at this distance, positively swear that New-York, the Jerseys, Rhode-Island, the Delaware Counties or the greater part of them, are at this time independent states, and not in the Hands of the King of Great Britain.
Not even a hardened villain will publickly take an oath to what he knows every by stander must know to be h?rridly false; an oath required or taken in such circumstances, is a nullity in itself: how then can any one be required contrary to every man's knowledge and conviction, to swear that we have received no protection from the King of Great-Britain. Do we not all hold our landed pro-property in this state by no other title but what is derived from him? and what end can it answer but to fill the land with perjury, and bring on it the curse of God, to oblige people to swear to a proposition the falshood of which is notorious and most undeniable, would the Speaker, would the Assembly, will this Committee swear that they have received no protection from George the Third? nor can those in my opinion expect the blessing of God, or the approbation of impartial men, who will not suffer their fellow creatures to enjoy their liberty and property unless they would take an oath equally known to be false to those who who force and those who take it.
Natural justice requires that no man should be punished (and banishment &c. must be called a punishment) but for some crime clearly ascertained and proved, and that he should be judged by impartial persons sworn to execute law and justice. This act I conceive is to operate, not against persons duly accused, nor any crime actually proved, but against persons taken up at pleasure, and without
002


any previous accusation upon oath, suspected without any cause alledged for the suspicion. It seems no man whatever can be in any state of safety if his professed enemies, his debtors, persons who may have interest to with him out of the place may not withstanding be his judges.
If judges are not to swear to judge impartially and do justice between man and man, or even justly to execute an act, but only not to shew any favour and affection, they may shew as much rigour and severity as they please, consistent with their oath, but should any man's case appear to them deserving of favour it seems designedly guarded against, and all justice and mercy seems excluded by the oath. A strange oath in a christian country!
Neither can I possibly reconcile this act with the fundamental parts of the constitution of this state. The constitution declares.
“The legislative, executive, and judiciary department shall be separate and distinct, “so that none exercile the powers properly belonging to the other.”
But here is established an authority hitherto unheard of, a judiciary power entirely distinct from the judiciary department, and upon principles that never yet obtained among us.
The persons sitting in this Court of Commerce, in manifest opposition to the constitution, are some of them members of the legislative and others of the executive department.
The constitution solemnly ascribes us TRY ALL BY JURY SHALL REMAIN INVIOLATE FOREVER, but this act takes away the trial by Grand Jury altogether, it puts liberty and property into the hands of seven men, who need not be freeholders (as in juries) nor men of property bearing any part of the publick expence, who at their pleasure cite or let alone whom they please, none of whom can be challenged, though he be a processed enemy, and have publickly prejudged the matter and person.
I appeal to every man in this state whether trial by a jury to remain inviolate forever is not a clean undeniable essential part of the constitution, and if the first and most important of all privileges is done away, is the most material alteration are made in a constitution by those who derive all their authority from, and have sworn to support, in what security can a people have for life, liberty or property, or what possible motive to swear allegiance?
Very heavy accusations have been in publick print exhibited against our ruler by the Chief Justice of South Carolina, the Continental General and one of ous Assistant Judges, they have gone unanswered and even uncontradicted, I confess I should be loath to swear an oath of allegiance to persons who submit to such charges.
As to myself I hold it clear, where no protection is granted, no allegiance can be required.
Twice have I been legally imprisoned once legally set at liberty in open Court, and the second time, in consequence of a message sent by the Congress to the President, without my enemies being able even to trump up a lie, or fasten the shadow of a suspicion upon me. My property has since been continually destroyed in the most provoking and wanton manner, and when the assembly ordered my damages to be ascertained, they were rated at eighty-

(though they could not be repaired for six hundred) and even this,

sum I never received. I have felt no other effect from the exchange of government, than being deprived of my liberty without cause, seeing our house of worship scandalously turned into barracks, and my houses and buildings around me cruelly reduced to ruins. It has been observed that no man is suspected unless he hath ten negroes. I look upon my estate to be my only crime, and if after serving this province upwards of thirty years, chiefly at my own expence I am most likely to be banished in my old age, and my congregations deprived of hearing what some men mortally hate, the preaching the truth and the Gospel. If because I scruple to take an oath which I am told some of the representatives in the house declared they would not take themselves nor advise others to take it, part of which no man can possibly know whether it is now true, and part of which every man in America, and in this committee, knows to be false. I must be torn from every endearing connection, THE WILL OF GOD BE DONE. He has declared he will make a difference between him that sweareth and him that sweareth and him that feareth an oath. And perhaps the people now declared to be subjects, deprived of the rights of mankind and the constitution, a trial by a jury of their peers, may daily fee clearer and clearer into the true, state of things.
Every state may think it necessary to prevent those with whom they are at war from getting intelligence, and I should not have hesitated to have taken an oath which a great majority within this state would think reasonable and sufficient, and the banishment of any man willing to take it an act of violent injustice and cruel hardship, and this form I may produce whenever properly thereunto required.
I shall only add, that after all it may be doubted, whether the words prescribed in the eye of the law amount to an oath at all, the essential and constitutive part SO HELP ME GOD being omitted, and without the legislature can dare?o after or supply the most solemn act in Legislature, the prescription of an oath.

14/13