This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1868 Excerpt: ...of the State to have extended the exclusion so as to deprive the parties who were unable to take the oath from any avocations whatever in the State. Suppose, again, in the progress of events, persons now in the minority in the State should obtain the ascendency, and secure the control of the Government; nothing could prevent, if the constitutional prohibition can be evaded, the enactment of a provision requiring every person, as a condition of holding any office of honor or trust, or of pursuing any avocation in the State, to take an oath that he had never advocated or advised or supported the imposition of the preeent expurgatory oath. Under this form of legislation the most flagrant invasions of private rights in periods of excitement may be enacted, and individuals, and even whole classes, may be deprived of political and civil rights. A question arose in New York, soon after the treaty of peace of 1783, upon a statute of that State, which involved a discussion of the nature and character of these expurgatory oaths when used as a means of inflicting punishment. The subject was re garded as so important, and the requirement of the oath such a violation of the fundamental principles of civil liberty and the rights of the citizen, that it engaged the attention of eminent lawyers and distinguished statesmen of the time, and among others, of Alexander Hamilton. We will cite some passages of a paper left by him on the subject, in which, with his characteristic fullness and abihty, he examines the oath and demonstrates that it is not only a mode of inflicting punishment, but a mode in violation of all the constitutional gaurantees secured by the Revolution of the rights and liberties of the people: "If we examine it" (the measure requiring the oath), ...