Constantine republican. [volume] (Constantine, Mich.) 1836-1838, 1838-03-28
PUBLIC MEETING IN BERRlEN coUN.

PUBLIC MEETING IN BEkklEN COUN.
TY.
A Public Meeting of the citizens of Berrien.
county, without distinction Of party or sect, ei.
th,r religious political, was held recently, for
the purpose of taking into consideration the pro-.
ceedings of the Hon. the Senate, on the bill rel.
alive to the rights and competency of witnesses.
We published the proceedings of the meeting in
our last. A committee. consisting of Messrs j..
Y. James. E. Morton, T. b. Willard, J. Sullivan.
and M. Sel,gson, were appointed to prepare an
address TO the people of Michigan.
We copy, below, the Address:
FeLow. Citizens
The meeting at which the foregoing res.
olutions were adopted. was composed Of
men Of various parties both in politics and
religion. twas convened, not for the pur.
pose of defending or opposing any partjcu-
lar religious opinions, but to secure so far
as they had power to do it, the sacred char.
ter of our liberties from violation TO ex.
press our attachment to free enquiry and
religious federation. To exclude an indi.
vldual from testyfying in court Of justice
on account of his opinions in regard to met.
ters of religion, would, in the opinion of This
committee, be manifest infringement Of
the sixth section Of the first article Of tho
constitution, which declares that "the civil
and political rights, privileges and capaci.
ties of no individual shall be diminished or
enlarged on account Of his opinion or be.
lief OH matters Of religion" In our opin.
ion, no ingenuity of construction can mar.
row the meaning OF that section in such
manner as TO make !. constitutional to ex-
clude disbcllever in the existence Of God
from giving evidence by affirmation in a
court of Justice. The idea has been ad.
vanced that all testimony is the privilege Of
a party and not ola witness. The language
of Mr.. Bradford in his address to the Sem
ate, is "what my colleague calls the rights.
privileges and capacities of witness, are
those Of the party who produces him, and
therefore not persona, or political, but mere
ly legal" In our opinion, the fact is diff
ferent. Where offenders against the law
of the land, as the thief or murderer, are
abroad upon the community, it is the privi-
lcge Of every individual, for the security Of
his property and life, to be permitted by his
testimony to bring those offenders to justice.
Where personal assault is made upon a.
ny member Of the community, is it no priv.
ege that he may be allowed to testify and
secure his person from future assaults p
Suppose the wife and children Of man arc
bu,chered in his presence, is it no privilege
that by his testimony, the guilty peron may
be punished? In addition to this, not mere.
ly the "priveges," but the "rights" and
capacities of individuals are not to be
affected by their religious opinions. Will
it be conte"ded where an individual is made
incapable Of testifying purely on account
Of his religious opinions, that his "capaci.
ties " arc not diminished in consequence Of
I +" his bclefconcerning matters of religion 7"
II is also well understood tina: in many in.
stances an individual may testify in his own
case. In Chancery suits for example, the
most manifest injustice would be done, if
Atheists should be denied the common pri-
vilege Of testifying. In the common law
courts, the evil would often be equally great.
By the law Of this state, where an individu.
al wishes the continuance Of an action, on
account OF the absence of material wit.
ness, il must appear from his testimony that
he cannot safely proceed to trial for that
reason. If the Atheist is excluded from
giving evidence. the inevitable consequence
must be, tibet he is hurried TO trial without
the aid Of Witnesses, and his rights are un-
Justly wrested from him. From the multi.
tude Of examples Of similar injustice which
might be cited, we will mention ono only in
addition to those we have already named.
Where a note is lost, before testimony can
be introduced to prove the signature and
contents of tho note, an affidavit must be
furnished by the owner that the note cannot
be found, unless the loss can be proved by
other evidence, which is rarely the CASE
The Atheist being excluded from testifying,
his note in such case cannot be proved, or
his money recovered, and he is in conse.
quencc, perhaps, reduced TO beggary. Il
appears to this committee that these exam.
pies are sufficient to show conclusively, that
the civil rights" privileges and tea.
pacites of an individual who is excluded
from testifying on the ground that hei is an
Atheist. are all diminished on account of
his religious opinions.
Another position which has been taken
for the purpose Of narrowing the meaning
Of that section is, that it is to be understood
in political sense, and means simply tina,
an individual shall not be derived OF pOlit.
ical privileges in consequence Of his refigio!fs
belief. The words Of Mr.. Bradford's speech
are, "the constitutional provision referred to
manifestly does not relate 10 the subject.
Il relates to the civil and religious rights,
privileges and capacities Of the citizen in a
political sense for il is the organic law of
tho body polic." The meaning Of this Ian.
guage we understand TO be that an Atheist
may vote, may hold Offices. may enjoy 9th
er political privileges and he will be protect
ed but the shield of the constitution extends
no farther. 1t is singular that this construc.
ton should be commended for when the con.
stituiion in express language guards moi
merely political but civil rights and privile.
ges. In an instrument so SACRED as con.
sttution of government every word must
have its distinct and appropriate meaning.
II, however, the construction Of the advo'
Gates OF exclusion be correct, il follows that
the word civil is entirely useless--thero is
no distinction in meaning between that word
and the word political, and ono or the 9th.
er might be blotted from the constitution,
with cut in any manner affecting that instru
| ment