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

be admitted, otherwise you will not be
heard but on the contrary, you shall be
branded as unworthy of credit and dis
graced by being expelled from court
Having made these promises and threats,
the judge then gravely proceeds to in.
quire, "What is your religious BELIEF"
In such an event, the witness perceives
that by. giving an honest answer, he shall
be punished with legal degradation, and
that by answering falsely he will escape
disgrace, and be considered credible
witness If his feelings are at all inter
ested in the case, if his interests are in
volved, the temptation to lie in regard to
his creed is greatly strengthened He
knows that his testimony is important; he
feels that it ought to be heard he is aware
that he cannot be contradicted in the mat
ter ofbelief-the needful falsehood will do
no harm-and why should he not tell it!
Thus might such witness reason with
himself, and thus must such an one be-
tempted. If he give way to the tempta-
ton, and lie, the law receives his testimo-
ny; but if his principles be stanch, and
be speak the words oftruth and soberness,
then does the law declare him unworthy
of credit
Or suppose that the witness is fully &C.
quilted with all the facts in the case, but is
DESTROYS Of .oncealing his knowledge
He may desire such conceanent from a
hundred different motives. His own safe
ty or interests, or the interests and safety
Of one Of the parties to the suit, may de-
pend upon his escaping from the duty of
testifying, At the trial, therefore, or at
some previous period, he takes care to
make (false) profession Of in6delty, for
the express purpose of being driven from
the witnesses stand. And thus the truth is
both violated and suppressed, and the
criminal is suffered t escape the penalty
OF the outraged law.
9Th. A more full exposure of the er-
rors and absurdities of this unfortunate
rule Of law will vindicate our attack upon
its principles.
Let US look at the application of the
rule. A witness is brought forward by
one party. and by the other party to the
suit is objected to, as not believing what
the law requires. In what manner shall
the objection be proved2 1t must be done
in one of two ways, viz:
LIST. BY interrogating the person him
self in regard to his belief; or,
I'd. BY inquiry of others as to what
they know in regard thereto.
Let US examine both of these methods.
BY the. FIRST, the witness is subjected to
a preliminary examination, put upon his
rOir dire, or oath, 10 answer truI y.
What a contradiction is this Put a
man upon oath, and take his testimony in
a preliminary examination, admit his an
swer to be true, and then, because they
prove him 10 entertain certain opinions,
refuse to hear or believe another word he
utters You begin, by admitting his We
racity, but at the first truth he speaks, you
turn about and spurn him, denounce him,
and brand him as liar ! Now, he is a
credible man; in the next moment, by
reason of his declaring the truth, he is
discredited You believe him as you
inhale, and doubt him as you exhale, your
breath; and you doubt him, upon the
truth of his own statement You pro-
pound to him the most delicate and trying
questions, and because he returns a vera
cious answer, in defiance of temptations,
growing out Of threatened disgrace, fore
seen reproach, legal disability, and the
facility Of talsehood and concealment, you
declare him unfit to answer the simpIes
question, in cases where he has no earth
ly inducements to faIsify
Besides the folly and contradictions O
such course as this, it is liable to the
further objection, Of being at variance
with a fundamental principle Of the law o
evidence and Of humanity That princi
pie declares, that no person shall be call
ed upon, as a witness, to criminate, dis
grace, degrade or disparage himself; an(
If there be, in the whole code of law, I
just and wholesome. a humane and noble
a clear and infexible rule of principle
this is that very one. And yet, it is mos
grossly and constantly violated by tina
other rule against which we are arguing.
The second method ofascertaining wha
is a mans belief, is by inquiry of othe
witnesses in other words, by collecting
at second hand, his own former decIara
tions.
One well-senled rule of law, founde!
on common sense, provides, that, IN al
cases, the best accessible testimony In re
gard to any fact, shall be required tor 1t
4 proof. Now, let US ask. which IS tn
: better proof of my present belief, my o."
I Uiiua roce assertions at this moment, or m
kneighbor's imperfect recollections OF VIVA
l have heretofore said about my OPINION
, at that time q The answer is obvious
: In fact, no one but the witness can stat
what his present belief is. His torme
declarations. even if clearly understoo
and correctly related by others, refer,
! [course. to a former neriod. Since tkeI