Constantine republican. [volume] (Constantine, Mich.) 1836-1838, 1838-04-18
Frsm the pc,roit Daily Free Press.

ffem the Dcuot Daiiy Free rfcss
DEBATE in the Senate, February 7th,
1888, on the final passage of the bill rel.
atipe to the rights and competency Of ,cit-
nesSeS.
REMARKS OF Mr.. BARRY.
The bill, relative to witnesses. and evil
dence, being on its final passage,
Mr.. BRADFORD moved that the bill
be referred to the committee on the judca.
ry, with instructions to strike out the tenth
section, which provides that "no person
shall be disqualified from giving evidence,
under affirmation. on account Of his opn-
ions respecting the subject of religion"
Mr.. BRADFORD remarked, that he felt
il due both to himself and his constituents,
that he should assign his reasons for differ
ing from his colleague (Mr. Barry,) on so
important topic as that embraced in the
tenth section of the bill, which he proposed,
in the resolution he had just offered, to re-
commit to the judiciary committee with In
structions TO strike out. He knew, that, to
carry the tenth section Of this bill, had long
been favorte measure with his colleague.
and he took no pleasure in opposing him on
this subject, for he regretted its introduc-
ton but his sense of duty compelled him
strenuously to resist the innovation upon
the settled rule Of evidence contemplated
by the section in question-that rule Of evil
dence affected the competency Of none but
absolute atheists to give testimony. Ii was
a sanction and safeguard placed by the wis.,
dom of mankind, in every age, around the
rights of parties litigant. ltrequires only,
that he who appeared to bear witness a.
gainst his neighbour, should recognize this
solemn obligation, not to bear false witness
more is not required-less should not be.
Until he heard some reasons alleged agans
this plain and reasonable principle OF right
he thought further argument on his part un.
necessary.
Mr.. BARRY addressed the Senate tc
the following effect:
Mr.. PRESIDENT am opposed TO the
| proposition now made 10 re.commit this bill
: with instructions to strike out the tenth sec
ton. | am opposed to such proposition
because | am in favor Of the retention o
that section. am, sir, in favor of its re
: tention, because it embraces a sentiment IL
accordance with the great mass of the PEG
: pie, and because it is founded on princi
|. pie in conformity with the genius of GU
civil institutions. By permission of tn
e Senate, will attempt to give my reason
s somewhat in detail.
There is, sir, maxim, which, from II
universal acceptaton, need not now be al
tempted to be proved, and that maxim il
a that when the reasons on which is based q
5. nv law or custom, shall have ceased, the
II should that law or that custom also cease
l. The writer's of our law books express th
idea more concisely, and with more prec
sion, when they say cessante rahone' cess'
ct lea. When, sir, the common law do
g. trine in relation to Witnesses was establish
= ed in England, there might have been ROT
lie sons for requiring Witnesses TO possess &c
t. tain religious faith-reasons which IN tn
- age and in that country might be very sa
III sfactory, but which in this age and IN tn
country may not, upon examination, po
sess the same force.
. An abstract of the history of the cor
ny mon law, in this respect, may be given In
n few words. Some two hundred years ag
Lord Coke ruled, that any person no: b
lieving in the christian religion, could
be witness. This decision was the pr
valing doctrine, and, consequenty,the col
mon law for the period Of about one hu
- dred years. AT various times, attem
were made to get from the courts mo
fication of this rule, but always without
fect.-TNorris Peak, 206.] About @
- hundred years ago, tine case of Omichu
VS.. Barker, came up for trial before Lie
Harwicke, who, assisted by Chief Just
Willes and other Judges, decided, in efft
that any person who believed in God
a future state of rewards and punishmeI
should be competent witness. This G
was, at that time, fully reported by Atk
and so, about thirty years after, by VIII
one of the Judges before whom it was trl
% If there be any modification of the doctr
49,, contained in this case, have not been
e e BILE to find it. Indeed, | believe it to
ado the common law to this day. True
tail some of the states of this Union, will
. found decisions, in some degree, modify
this doctrine; but those decisions. so
as am informed, are founded on statu
provisions.
If not at the time, Immediately prece'
s'"' the time, of the decision OF the case
;o; !. Omichund VS. Barker, the courts OF Jus
the in England took cognizance OF crim
, be. witchcraft. Sir Matthew Hale tried,
} the sentenced to execution, many persons
rise that supposed offence; and even Sir
tate liam Blackstone, at a much later oay'
n the in his confession of faith to its exlste
as SO because to deny it, he says, would b
lisde- deny the word Of God. At the tim
, ,han the decision of this case, and belize
this day, all persons appointed or chos'
ident office in England are required to be nc
been " of particular religion, but also OF
aI :as ticular sect of that religion. Some
u, J'' to cessions have, herhaps, recently been
,repa- to the Catholic, permitting persons OF
yainst faith to sit in parliament. 1t was u Y
United ceived opinion of that day, among al
tending to be statesmen, that no s'ate
, view, view exist without an established religion
in the These doctrines and opinions are
i, do dnv. in this country, generally repud
ID cit We do not now believe in wlthcratt.
Srdor, do not require of civil officers rel
ion Of test. We do not approve OF or perm
violate connexion between church and state.
lrb the therefore infer that, at least, some
'e c Peo, reasons for requiring certain religious
~ as test Of competency in witness
enjoin ceased in this country to have iorc'