April 23, 2008 5:39 PM

The Cool Old Books Department

I've owned the book on the right for some time, but did not think to consult it until I decided I had to check out oaths in the early republic, and I picked up my very antique copy of "New-Hampshire Justice of the Peace," by William M. Richardson.

As you can see, this was one was owned, in 1837, by someone in the Young family.

This book is special to me, for two reasons: one, GoogleBooks hasn't caught up with it yet, (no full text version), and two, it is an incredible insight into the profoundly Judeo-Christian world view of Early Federal America.

To wit:

In matters of Treason, the following is the form of a complaint:

David Carr, of Colebrook, in said county, gentleman, complains and gives the said justice to understand, that John Burr, of said Colebrook, husbandman, a citizen of the State of New-Hampshire, owing allegiance to said State, not regarding the duty of his allegiance, nor having the fear of God in his heart, but being moved and seduced by the instigation of the Devil...

Under "Rules of Evidence" (page 153), the author describes who is capable of giving evidence and who is not:

4. Atheists, and such infidels as profess not any religion that can bind their consciences to speak the truth are excluded from being witnesses. But whoever believes in the existence of a God, the avenger of falsehood, may be admitted as a witness.

Chapter XIV, "Profanation of the Sabbath"

Complains I.K., of Raymond, in said county, yeoman, and gives the said justice to understand, that E.F...., laborer, on the thirteenth day of July, in the year of our Lord eighteen hundred and twenty-three,... being the first day of the week commonly called the Lord's day, at said Raymond, with force and arms, worked at his business and kept about his work of secular calling, to wit...the said work and business not being any work of necessity or mercy; all which is against the peace and dignity of the State, and contrary to the form of the statue in such case made and provided. Wherefore your complainant prays, that the said E.F. may be held to answer to this complaint, and that justice may be done in the premises..

You can disagree all you want about the wisdom of rooting law in the ancient Judeo-Christian texts, but it would be difficult to argue that early America was not profoundly oriented towards the Biblical standard. A correspondent at Williamsburg recently wrote that the conviction rate in Virginia courts was not very high, because the courts depended on the standard of two witnesses to prove a crime. Well, of course, that's a Biblical standard--and that has been replaced by expensive, and trial-delaying, techno evidence (finger prints, DNA, lie-detector tests) and a decidedly difficult burden for the accused--that of not being able to face his/her accuser.

It might just be me, but I'm not sure we should be proud of all our innovations.

 

More of the Farm Journal -- April 22, 2008