Vermont telegraph. [volume] (Brandon [Vt.]) 1828-1843, 1837-03-08

were allowed 10 testify, the jury knowing
them to be atheists, what mischiefs would
result therefrom2
We cannot see that such an alteration
OF the law would work out any inevitable
evils.
Men, as general rule, will speak the
truth, rather than falsehood, where their
own Interests are not affected, whatever
be their religion. They naturally prefer
truth to untruth. If there ever be an
exception to this rule, if there ever be an
individual, who prefers to lie, as a matter
of taste, that exception, that individual,
being moral monster, becomes at once
notorious, and it is as impossible to pre-
vent him from being an object of general
wonder and curiosity, as it would be to
prevent people from marvelling at physi-
cal monstrosities, like the living skeleton,
or the Siamese twins, or the fire king.
In the vast majority of cases, if there
be any circumstances calculated to bias
the witness and lead him aside from TRUTH
those circumstances are developed in the
process Of trial, and brought to bear, with
all due weight, upon bis testimony. If
the temptation to falsehood be very strong
whether it arise from relationship, pecu-
mary interest, evil passions, or any other
source, the jury can allow it full influence
upon their confidence in the testimony,
Very few instances can occur, in which
witness is DESTROYS of testfying falsely,
without any discovery to the jury of that
The very manner of the
man becomes a language, more eloquent
than words. He may seem reluctant to
disclose what he knows, and thus prove,
that he is anxious to suppress the facts.
He may testify with downright eagerness
and jealous forwardness which show,
that his passions have taken sides in the
case. Rarely, very rarely, does it hap
pen, that an important witness can lean to
the one hand or the other, unobservcd =;
and still more rarel y can such witness
perjure himself, without detection by cross
examining counsel.
There may, now and then, occur an
instance, in which the disposition to falsify,
and the act of falsifying, may both escape
the observation of a court and jury; and
in which the only safeguard against per-
jury is, that belief in the judgments of
God upon sin, which an oath implies
But, for such uncommon occurrences, it
is impossible to provide; and to provide
for them by the adoption of a rule, which
is every day shutting the mouths of i'm
Portant, veracious and disinterested wit
nesses, is doing an absolute evil, to pre-
vent one that is contingent and improba-
Bile.
Again.-it should be borne in mind,
especially by those who value the right of
a jury trial as Of fundamental consequence,
that if the religious belief of witness do
indeed affect the value of his testimony,
the jury themselves will be as quick to
discern that fact as any one else; and that
if, in the opinion of jurors, the fact be 9TH
erwise it is wrong to adopt the rule of
exclusion.
Are jurors fit to estimate the value of
testimony? Are they competent to Judge
who shall be believed, and how far? Is it
safe, to confde to their verdict, the proper
ty, the reputation and the life of the par
ties to suits and prosecutions? In short,
is the right to trial by jury of any val
ue? If so, then why bestow upon them
an imperfect power and opportunity Of
hearing and Judging the facts? Why not
leave to their arbitrament the whole of the
evidenced
That the proposed change would more
fully meet the ends of justice in all cases ;
for Jurors could vary the rule, according
to the circumstances of the case, award
ING to each witness, and each fact, it's due
value and importance But the rule itself
is now MISUNDERSTANDING all as Of
equal worthlessness, who do not happen
to conform TO its requirements.
The safety of such an alteration appears
from the operation of similar rules. If
it be right and safe to allow person of
known bad character, a common and no.
torous liar, to testify, and to permit a jury
to place such confidence as they choose
in his statements, and if no serious mis-
chiefs are found to follow from this course,
why should not the same course be pur-
sued in relation to infdels or atheists
Most manifestly, there is less danger to
be feared from the admission of lespecta-
bic individuals of this description, than
from the admission of open and infamous
liars. And yet does the"law persist in
stralnlng at the gnat, while the camel is
swallowed without an effort.
The truth is, that he who maintains the
propriety Of that law which forbids man
of certain opinions to testify, at the same
time virtually asserts, that juries are in
competent to estimate right the testimony
of such man, and that, to prevent them
from making the mistake of giving undue
credit to such witness, they shall, by
rule Ct law, be forbidden to hear him
speak.
1t is also true, that the advocate Of this