Under these impressions, the general assembly of that state passed a law on the 13th of October (only seventeen days after the British forces entered Philadelphia,) entitled “An act for constituting a council of safety, &c.” By this act, twelve persons therein named, of whom David Rittenhouse was one, were constituted that council: and to this body, jointly with the supreme executive council of the state, great and extraordinary powers were given, to punish (even capitally) offenders, “traitors or others, who from their general conduct, or conversation, should be deemed inimical to the common cause of liberty and the United States of North-America.” The irritation, that could have provoked such a measure, must have been extreme! for, surely, nothing less than an extremity of necessity could be urged as any sort of justification, in a free country, of a legislative act, whereby the constitution was grossly violated, laws were dispensed with, and a summary authority of the highest nature, vested in a tribunal unknown to the laws and unwarranted by the constitution.[187] It is believed, however, that no proceedings were had under this strange legislative act: and the writer is firmly persuaded, that neither Mr. Rittenhouse, nor some others of the gentlemen who constituted the tribunal erected by that act, would have undertaken to exercise some of the powers required of them, thereby. ----- Footnote 187: “War never fails,” as Dr. Ramsay has justly observed, “to injure the morals of the people engaged in it. The American war in particular,” continues that historian, “had an unhappy influence of this kind. Being begun without funds or regular establishments, it could not be carried on without violating private rights; and in its progress, it involved a necessity for breaking solemn promises, and plighted public faith. The failure of national justice, which was in some degree unavoidable, increased the difficulties of performing private engagements, and weakened that sensibility to the obligations of public and private honour, which is a security for the punctual performance of contracts.” This is a melancholy but faithful representation of some of the injurious impressions made on the moral sentiments and feelings of the people of this country, by the revolutionary war: evils inseparable from warfare; and such as necessarily spring from a state of things, alike destructive of social order and the refinements of society, as repugnant to the precepts of religion, the dictates of natural justice and the mild suggestions of benevolence. -----