Weighty Consideratons.
"COME, LET US REASON TOGETHER."

PEOPLE OF KENTUCKY:

One who regards religion, humanity, the constitution, the laws, and the obligations of an oath, begs leave to submit to you a few facts before you give your votes at the approaching elections.

The Constitution of the United States, Art. I. Sec. 6, declares in relation to members of Congress, that--

"For any speech or debate in either house, they shall not be questioned in any other place."

After the last Presidential election, Henry Clay was appointed Secretary of State. In accordance with the constitution and laws of the United States, vol. 2, page 1, he took the following oath:

"I, HENRY CLAY, do solemnly swear, that I will support the Constitution of the United States. So help me God."

Thus, in the presence of men and Angels, calling on God to witness, he swore that he would not 'question' any member of Congress, "for any speech or debate in either house." Yet, he did, after taking this solemn oath, question John Randolph, for 'a speech or debate' in the Senate, challenged him to the field, and attempted to shoot him to death!

In the year 1812, the Legislature of Kentucky passed "an act more effectually to suppress the practice of duelling." Its preamble reads as follows:

"Whereas, the Commonwealth has repeatedly sustained great and irreparable injury in the loss of some of her best and most valuable citizens--inroads have been made in private families-- their peace, happiness and domestic felicity destroyed, by the present inhuman practice of duelling, a practice contrary to the precepts of morality, religion, and civil obligation; which originated in a barbarous age, fostered by a savage policy, and only perpetuated in this enlightened era by mistaken ideas of honor." See Digest, page 449.

To suppress this horrible practice, it is then enacted, that every officer of the government shall, on entering upon the duties of his office, take a solemn oath, that he has not within a certain time, and will not during his continuance in office, give, accept, or carry a challenge. With the amendments since adopted, the oath which General Metcalfe will have to take, if elected, reads as follows:

"I, THOMAS METCALFE, do solemnly swear, that I have neither directly nor indirectly, given, accepted, or knowingly carried a challenge to any person or persons, to fight in single combat or otherwise, with any deadly weapon, either in or out of this state, since the first day of November, 1824, and that I will neither directly nor indirectly give, accept or knowingly carry a challenge to any person or persons, to fight in single combat or otherwise, with any deadly weapon, either in or out of this state, during my continuance in office. So help me God."

For the act which originally prescribed this oath, the following gentlemen voted, viz: in the House of Representatives:--

Messrs. James Alexander, Chilton Allan Thomas W. Atkinson, W.B. Blackburn, Abram Boyd, F. Bradford, James Chambers, Charles Cocke, H. Davis, J. Daveiss, Joseph Eve, -- Ewing, William Farrow, John Field, C. Gooding, Ben. Hardin, Tho. G. Harrison, Jameson Hawkins, John Hawkins, Charles Helm, John Hunt, John Huston, Robert Johnson, William Kerley, James King, Virgil M'Cracken, William M'Millan, D. Miller, N. Miller, Willis Mitchell, Wm. Owsley, Aquilla Parker, George Pickett, Jonathan Rumsey, William Reed. Geo. Scott, William Shackleford, Solomon P. Sharp, Samuel South, B. Spalding, John Sterrett, John Withers, Matthew Wilson, William Wood and Joel Yancey.--House of R. Journal, session 1811, page 157.

In the Senate--Messrs. Thomas Buford, A. Chaplin, Robert Caldwell, E. N. Cullon, C. Chinn, Robert Dougherty, Michael Dougherty, Robert Ewing, Young Ewing, John Griffin, Richard Hickman, William Pope, James Robertson, David Thompson, John Williams, and Daniel White.--Senate Journal, page 164.

Gen. Metcalfe himself, has been a member of the Legislature several years since the passage of this act; and so far from attempting to repeal it, because it was either impolitic or unconstitutional, he has recognized its validity, by taking the oath prescribed by it without objection.

You, people of Kentucky, have recognized it as a valid law; for although it has been on your statute book for sixteen years, you have never instructed your representatives to repeal it, although it has often been amended. The last Legislature so recognized its validity by an unsuccessful attempt to amend it, so as to exclude from its provisions the case of General Metcalfe.

Upon the authority of the leading friends of General Metcalfe, of the General himself, of the people of Kentucky and the Statute book, the law requiring the Governor elect to take an oath,before he enters upon the duties of his office, that he has not, since the first day of November, 1824, and will not during his continuance in office, give, accept, or knowingly carry a challenge, is a good and valid act, obligatory upon every man in Kentucky.

At the December session of Congress, 1826, General Metcalfe did "accept a challenge to fight in single combat" with the Hon. Geo. M'Duffie, and the duel was prevented only by the inability of the parties to agree upon the kind of 'deadly weapon' which should be used. If elected Governor, he cannot, therefore, take the oath prescribed by law, or if he does, he is a perjured man!

CHILTON ALLAN--You voted for the act which prescribed this oath; you declared upon the Statute book, that the practice of duelling is "inhuman, contrary to the precepts of morality, religion, and civil obligation," the offspring of 'a barbarous age,' the foscer child of 'a savage policy,' which had robbed the state of "some of her best and most valuable citizens;" to put an end to these evils and horrors, you prescribed an oath to all men coming into office: you knew that General Metcalfe could not take that oath; yet, in the Convention, you supported his nomination, and you now support his election! What can you say? Is your own act unconstitutional? That you cannot say, without acknowledging a violation of your own oath when you passed it. In your estimation, the oath must be constitutional; if so, Metcalfe cannot take it without perjury, and without taking it, he cannot be Governor!

THOMAS G. HARRISON--You stand in the same predicament; you voted for this oath, and you aided in nominating General Metcalfe.

WILLIAM B. BLACKBURN--You voted for this oath; you support General Metcalfe for Governor, when you know he cannot take it.

JOSEPH EVE--You are a judge; it is your special business to cause the laws to be observed, and your peculiar duty to obey them yourself; under a solemn oath as a legislator you voted for an act according to which General Metcalfe cannot enter upon the office of Governor, without taking a false oath, yet you are actively engaged in his support!

BEN. HARDIN--The conduct of many of your political associates excites surprize, but not yours. It might be expected that the man who boasted before the nation, that "he had never bowed before his God," would not hesitate to support a candidate for Governor who stands disqualified by the act for which himself had voted, and even advise him to enter upon the office by 'taking the name of God in vain!'

WILLIAM M'MILLAN, WILLIAM OWSLEY, AND DAVID THOMPSON--You voted for this act, and yet support General Metcalfe. From you, better things were expected. You must act without reflection. One or more of you belong to the visible Church of the living God. You cannot believe the act unconstitutional after giving it your support. You must consider General Metcalfe bound to take the prescribed oath, if elected. Yet, if he does take it, you know he will be guilty of perjury. Do you wish him to enter the office, in contempt of law? Surely not. Do you wish him to swear falsely? Impossible. Yet, one or the other, he must do, or he can never be Governor of Kentucky.

Ministers and professors of religion, friends of morality, humanity and law, I would awaken you to reflection. Do you believe that General Metcalfe will take the oath which the law prescribes? If he does, he will swear falsely. I have been told that Mr. M'Farland, a Presbyterian preacher in Paris, some years ago, charged him with being an Infidel or an Atheist. His charges were published in the Western Citizen. I have not access to the files of that paper; but I call on the Editors, as an act of justice to the country, to republish Mr. M'Farlands communications, that the people may see, in this emergency, what are the General's opinions on these interesting subjects. In another instance, I have been informed, and believe it to be a fact, that for some allusion to him in a publication, he threatened Mr. Rankins, a preacher of the Gospel in his own county, with personal violence. The ministers of religion, in his section of the country, I know, did, some years ago, charge him with hostility to the cause of Missions and the Christian religion. An oath is an appeal to the highest sanctions of religion. If General Metcalfe denies its authority, and disbelieves the existence of a Deity, he feels not the obligation of an appeal to Heaven. He may again take the oath, as he has often before done, and, although it would now be false, he would not be conscious of the awful responsibility he would incur. But I am not among those who believe that General Metcalfe would take a false oath, even though he may be an Atheist. I believe he would refuse to take the oath prescribed by law. The interesting question would then arise, can he act as Governor?

It must be the opinion of those who voted for that act and all those who believe it constitutional, that he cannot. William Owsley, a judge of the Court of Appeals; Joseph Eve, a Circuit judge; Chilton Allan, W. B. Blackburn, Ben. Hardin, eminent lawyers; Thomas G. Harrison, David Thompson, respectable citizens; all who believe the law valid, must believe he cannot. All men of this description, constituting, as the existence of the law during sixteen years proves, a large majority of the state, must look upon General Metcalfe's refusal to take the oath as a refusal to qualify. What must be the consequence? Hear the Constitution, Art. III. Sec. 18.

"In case of the impeachment of the Governor, his removal from office, death, refusal to qualify, resignation, or absence from the state, the Lieutenant Governor shall exercise all the power and authority appertaining to the office of Governor, until another be duly qualified, or the Governor absent or impeached, shall return or be acquitted."

If General Metcalfe and Mr. Underwood be elected, and the former refuses to qualify by taking the prescribed oaths, the latter will instantly become acting Governor. Mr. Robert Wickliffe in his speech on Monday last, boasted that he had been the cause of Gen. Metcalfe's nomination. Mr. Underwood studied law with Mr. Wickliffe, and imbibed his principles, particularly in relation to the laws concerning Occupying Claimants of Land. Mr. Wickliffe could have had no affection for Gen. Metcalfe, who has been in favor of the New Election, the Independent Banks, the Relief measures, and as his neighbors say, even of the New Court. Is it not possible that he caused him to be nominated for the sole purpose of availing himself of his friendship to the Occupants, his stone hammer, and his character as a farmer, first to carry the election, and then, by a refusal to qualify, gives us his student, Joseph R. Underwood, a lawyer, and an enemy of the Occupying Claimant Laws, for our actual Governor? According to the principles long maintained by many of the General's leading friends, by himself in frequently taking the oath, and by a majority of the state, this must be the inevitable result. If Gen. Metcalfe and Mr. Underwood be elected, the latter must be our Governor. Will honest, plain-sailing, fair dealing men vote for Gen. Metcalfe under these circumstances? I think not.

But let us suppose that Gen. Metcalfe and his leading friends, in contempt of law and their own principles, intend that he shall administer the government after refusing to take the oath against duelling. Will the Ministers and professors of religion, the lovers of morality, order, and law, vote for him with that view? Think well what you are about to do. If you elect and suffer him to act as Governor without taking the oath against duelling, the acts which prescribe it, are from that moment virtually repealed! Who will take the oath after you have excused the head of your government, the Governor of your state? It will, thenceforth, be abolished. No man will consider the law as binding. Again the monster now restrained by laws and oaths, will stalk through our state with bloody hands. The blood of many a brother will cry from the ground against his brother. Again the state will lose many of her 'best and most useful citizens;' again "the precepts of morality, religion and civil obligation" will be set at naught; again the young widow, in misery and distraction, will weep over her desolate orphans.

Will scenes like these delight you? Do you wish to encourage duelling? Then vote for Gen. Metcalfe; let him enter the office of Governor without taking the prescribed oath; the law will thenceforward, be considered void; and on your heads will rest the blood which may be shed in consequence of its abrogation. If you vote for him, you vote to encourage duelling. The fact cannot be palliated nor concealed. You vote to license THE PISTOL, THE RIFLE AND THE SWORD, to destroy your best men, and carry lamentation and woe into the most interesting of your families.

Who is Gen. Metcalfe, and what has he done, that any party in Kentucky should support him at the expense of their laws and the blood of their fellow citizens?

Old Court men, do you find in his standing aloof from the terrible conflict in which you were lately struggling; in his making one side believe he was a New Court man, and now asserting that he was an Old Court man, that devotion to the constitution and his country, which can require of you to sacrifice your laws, and endanger the lives of your fellow citizens, to load him with the highest honors of your government?

New Court men, do you find in his persuading you that he was with you while {Omitted text, 3w} of success, becoming silent upon your defeat, and now denying your faith, reasons why you should vote for him at the expense of the most important of your laws and the safety of your fellow citizens?

Administration men, does Gen. Metcalfe's vote for John Quincy Adams authorize you, for his sake, to trample on the laws of your country, and let loose the hand of the duellist to murder and destroy?

Jackson men, do you find any thing in General Metcalfe's character, acts or principles which can justify you at this immense sacrifice, in giving him your votes?

For myself, I must, for this single cause, whatever were my political faith, withhold my vote from Gen. Metcalfe. If I were to vote for and elect him, I see that one of three consequences must inevitably ensue: Gen. Metcalfe must take the oath and enter the office a perjured man; or he must refuse to take it, and Mr. Underwood (if elected) will become our Governor, which would be a cheat upon the people: Or, he must refuse to take it, and yet go into the office, which would virtually repeal the law, again let loose the hands of the duellist, and fill our state with blood and grief. It does not seem to me, that a good man ought, by his vote, to aid in producing either of these his vote, to aid in producing either of these consequences.

There is another thing to which, in a few words, I wish to call your attention. Richard D. Gholson, Esq. a respectable man, and Post-Master in Graves county; has written as follows to a gentleman in Frankfort, under date of June 22, 1828:

"Gen. Metcalfe has authorized John Anderson by letter, to say, that if he is elected, he will recommend to the Legislature a law giving the actual settler below the Tennessee, the land on which he resides at 25 cents per acre, but to all others at the present price, (50.) This is little short of a direct bribe offered to the settlers."

Every freeman in the state has an interest in the lands below the Tennessee. The legislature have fixed the price of this common property at fifty cents per acre, and given to actual settlers the exclusive privilege of buying the quarter sections on which they live, at that price. By settling on the lands, they perverted a sale to others, and became justly indebted to the state 50 cents for each acre, or $80 for a quarter section. If there are 500 such settlers, the debt thus due is $40,000. If the price be too great, it ought to be reduced, and there would be no impropriety in General Metcalfe's declaring to the people in his circular and speeches, that he would be in favor of reducing it. But he does not take this open course. Concealing from the people who own the lands, his objects and intentions, he writes private letters to his friends, giving them authority to tell the settlers, that if elected, he will use his influence to give up half the debt they owe. Through his friend, he privately says to the settler, "make me Governor and I will use my influence to give you $40 of ihe public money." The object cannot be mistaken. It is to get votes by appealing privately to the personal interest of the settlers--by promising them--not his own money, but the money or property of the People. He would give them half the debt, probably $20,000 in all. Let any man ask himself, whether this be not, in effect, an attempt to bribe. What says the Constitution? Art. VI. Sect. 3:

"Every person shall be disqualified from serving as Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Senator or Representative, for the term for which he shall have been elected, who shall be convicted of having given or offered any bribe or treat, to procure his election."

An act passed at the late session of the Legislature, subjects to indictment, and imposes heavy penalties on any candidate for Governor, &c., who shall offer a bribe.

Considering the private offers of Gen. Metcalfe to the settlers as coming within the spirit, if not the letter of the constitution, and laws, I could not, on that account, give him my vote.

Fellow-Citizens, having now done my duty, I leave it to you to determine whether you will vote to encourage the violation of law, the shedding of human blood, and the bartering of your rights and property for offices and votes.

A FREE CITIZEN.

July, 1828.

Let's see now, “A Free Citizen” desired an end to the practice of dueling. Which, of course, would bring one to believe that the tools for dueling were easily available. A fact, which is indicated above, with the words “THE PISTOL, THE RIFLE AND THE SWORD”.....

2006 GunShowOnTheNet.com