ut he shall think it his duty to acquiesce, and support the
government,--if confirmed and sanctified by the voice of the people." How
inconsistent, then, must his conduct appear, when it is notorious, that he
took a decided part in support of government, accepted of his seat in
Council, and afterwards the Presidency, long before the sense of the people
was expressd[TN] by the _fabricated instructions_ to the members of Assembly,
requiring them to rescind the resolution for calling a convention for the
purpose of revising the constitution. And yet he says, in the 27th page of
his pamphlet, he "so effectually vindicated every part of his conduct, that
every gentleman present, (myself excepted,) acknowledged his mistake."

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