Chapter V: Part 5

These were the ostensible reasons for not accepting the Chief Justiceship, and taking the oath of office; but an oath of another kind, no doubt, induced him to decline this appointment. He had not taken the oath of allegiance which the law, (passed the 13th June, 1777,) required of every male white inhabitant; nor did he take it, as appears by the publication signed Sidney, in the Pennsylvania Journal, No. 1565, 12th February, 1783,) till the 9th of October, 1778, which was the very day he was elected a Councillor for the County of Philadelphia. And though disfranchised of all the rights of citizenship, and incapable of being elected into, or serving in any office, place, or trust, in this commonwealth, Mr. Reed dared to disregard the voice of the people, and violate the law, by accepting the Presidency, and exercising the powers of government annexed to that office. If he had taken the oath of allegiance, agreeable to law, why did he take it _again_, on the day he was elected a councillor? as the mere oath of office only, upon that occasion, would have been required of him.

As Mr. Reed has not touched this point in his pamphlet, or furnished his friends with a single argument to defend him, against a charge supported by authentic proofs from public records, the public have very justly pronounced him guilty. If certificates can be produced of his oaths of abjuration and allegiance, agreeable to law, why have they not been published? If he is not defranchised[TN] of the rights of citizenship, why was his vote refused at the last election? or is this one of the subjects reserved for "_legal examination_?" and if so, why does he not suspend the public opinion by such information?

[M] _By the "dispensation from this engagement," above mentioned, is meant, that the oath prescribed by the constitution was dispensed with, and many members of Assembly were permitted to take another oath, in which they were not bound to support the constitution._

[N] That this opinion was not entertained by Congress, may reasonably be inferred from the following letter:

_"Philadelphia, 12th September, 1778._

"SIR,--His excellency, General Washington, having recommended
to Congress the appointment of a General of horse, the House
took that subject under consideration the 10th instant, when
you were unanimously elected Brigadier and commander of the
cavalry in the service of the United States.

"From the general view above mentioned, you will perceive, sir,
the earnest desire of the house, that you will accept a
commission, and enter as early as your convenience will admit
of, upon the duties of the office; and I flatter myself with
hopes of congratulating you in a few days upon this occasion.

"I have the honour to be, with particular regard and esteem,
sir, your most humble servant,

HENRY LAURENS,
"The Hon. Brigadier-General Cadwalader. "President of Congress,"

But not wishing to have it suggested, that I entered into the service at so late a period of the war for the sake of rank, as the French treaty had taken place, and I had conceived all offensive operations at an end, I declined the appointment in these terms.

_Maryland, 19th September, 1778._

SIR,--I have the highest sense of the honour conferred upon me
by Congress, in appointing me a Brigadier in the Continental
service, with the command of the cavalry, more particularly as
the voice of Congress was unanimous.

I cannot consent to enter into the service at this time, as the
war appears to me to be near the close. But should any
misfortune give an unhappy turn to our affairs, I shall
immediately apply to Congress for a command in the army.

I have the honour to be, with the greatest regard and esteem,
your excellency's most obedient humble servant,

JOHN CADWALADER.
His Excellency Henry Laurens, Esq., President of Congress.

End of Project Gutenberg's Nuts for Future Historians to Crack, by Various