Vermont telegraph. [volume] (Brandon [Vt.]) 1828-1843, 1837-02-08
II 1 "A M bVE
Washington, Dec. 9, 1886.

QUALIFICATIONS OF WITNESSES
Inc Christian Review, an able Baptist
Quarterly y, published at Boston, and edited
by the professors of the Newton Theo-
logical Seminary, contains an able article
on this subject, arguing with much force,
and as we conceive with entire conclusive
ness, against that rule of the Common
Law, which allows man to be examined
as to his religious belief before he can tes-
thy IN a court of justice, and forbids his
testlfying in any form, unless he believes
IN the being of God, and future state of
rewards and punishments. We grant that
1t is absurd to put such man under oath,
because it is idle to think of gaining any
security by swearing him upon what he
does not believe. But the Quakers are
now permitted to testify without an oath,
on their mere solemn affirmation, to tell
the truth, under the pains and penalties
of perjury" And why should not every
other citizen, who either believes oaths
unlawful, injurious, or who does not be-
lleve In their sanctions, be permitted to
testify in the same way, leaving of course
his credibility 10 be determined by the Jury,
upon the evidence that may come before
them, as at PRESENT. The Boston Advo-
cate mentious the following recent case,
illustrative of the absurditv of the present
rule IN Y. Evangelist.
The absurdity Of this rule of Common
Law, as applied in our courts, was forci-
o1y exhibited the other day, in trial in the
supreme Court before Judge Morton. A
witness was called, Mr.. J. @. Adams, the
publisher of the Investigator, an infdel
paper. Mr.. Parsons, counsel in the case.
objected to Adams, on the ground that he
did not believe in God. The Judge ask
ed him how he proposed to show it. The
answer was, by putting him on his oath
10 make true answers. Judge Morton
Then you object to his taking the oath as
witness, and propose to administer the
oath to him, to prove his incompetency {!
Undoubtedly you have a right SO to do.
The absurdity of the thing, which seemed
to have been stated by the Judge, as if pur-
Posely to point out that absurditv, al
though he was, as aJudge, bound to follow
the precedent, SO forcibe struck Mr.. Par
sons, that he offered to question the wit
ness withoutthe oath. To this the coun-
Sci on the other side objected, and the wit
ness was sworn to make true answers,
Question by Mr. Parsons-Do YOU be-
lieve in future state ofrewards and pun
ishmem2 Ans.-Yes. Question-Do
you believe in God? Aus.-I do
Judge Morton-The last was the proner
question, and onl y one that ought to be
put. Mr. Parsons-I will go no further
Judge, let the witness be sworn in chief
Here is specimen of what the Com
mon Law lawyers call "the perfection of
reason" The witness suspected ofbeine
an in6del, is first sworn to tell the TRUTH
in order TO show that he ought not to be
sworn at all. If he tells the truth, and adj
mits that he is honestly an unbeliever
that proves that he can't tell the truth at
all. If to avoid accusing and bringing
odium upon himself, he lies, and declares
that he does believe when he does not
then he is qualified, according to The
perfection OF reason,' to tell the truth"