Constantine republican. [volume] (Constantine, Mich.) 1836-1838, 1838-03-28

Again, if the construction commended for
be correct, if the design of the constitution
was merely to secure political privileges il
has miserably provided for religious tole'
ration. According to this construction, an
individual might be thrown into prison or
roasted at the stake on account OF his rel'-
gious belief, and yet the constitution mol DC
invaded.
Again, upon what principle is it that the
affirmation Of a witness can be considered
worthless while the affirmation of the same
individual that he will discharge faithfully
the duties of a particular office, must be re-
ceived as deserving Of creditor who can
suppose the trainers the constitution would
be guilty of such strange absurdity as to de-
clare that an individual who was unworthy
of credit in court Of justice, might enact
laws, or administer or execute them-'nat
the man who could not be entrusted with
the rights of single individual, might have
the guardianship of the interests OF the
whole community--that an individual
might preside in court Of law, while he
should be incompetent to testify in his own
court. -.
II is asserted by Mr.. Bradford, that II
there had been any intention on the part oil
the trainers Of the constitution 10 alter inc
common law rule as to evidence, It would
have been done in express terms and not
have been left TO implication. His precise
language is, "if the constitution in so lmpor-
tant matter does not expressly provide for
this as a case of civil or religious liberty, the
inference is irresistible, that il does not con-
slider the existing RUE of evidence, TO which
my colleague objects, as an Infringement
of any of those rights which IT seeks TO
guard"
the common law rule in regard to the com.
peteney of Witnesses. 10 render them com.
petent, the common law required not merely
a belief in the existence OF God, and his
experimenting providence, but also future
state of rewards and punshments. Inc IN
dividual who believed that punishment fol-
lowed on the very heels of crime. that guilt
and suffering were inseparably connected,
was incompetent to testify. while the lndI-
vidual who supposed that his punishment
would be pro:racted for thirty or forty or H.
-ty wears, or that he might in the mean time
repent and avoid any suffering, was perfect.
" competent. And yet it is not pretended
by Mr.. Bradford that such is the law at the
present time. If, however, the common law
in that respect is changed, It has been al
cred by tie constitut on by the general pro.
vision 10 which wehavc referred by implica.
ton andircrence, and not by express words.
What then becomes of the argument IL
the circumstance that this is not mentioned
as a case of liberty proves any thing, 1t rem.
ders the whole section idle and nugatory,for
ne case of civil liberty is specified in the
instrument.
To permit an Atheist to testify 1t has
been said would Leiexclusive and partial
legislation. Why is it partial Legislation
Because we are told others are required to
make oath. And yet nothing is mare Ger.
tain than that numbers are daily permitted
in courts of justice, TO make affirmation.
But an affirmation it is said is an appeal tc
heaven. No, in form sure.y--and no rea.
son occurs to this committee why It should
be considered so in fact, except that false
affirmation will in the opinion ofthe witness
be punished by heaven. And yet the
same individual would believe that false
hoods at any time or in any place would be
also punished. If the affirmation OF an In
dvidual who believes in experimenting
providence, can be considered an appea
to heaven, we may with equal prophet,
regard his whole conversation in the same
light. In all courts Jew is permitted to
swear upon the Old Testament alone, o.
the Mahomedan upon the koran-but OF
the same principle that it would be exclu
sive to PERM, an ATHEIST to affirm, this il
also exclusive, because either is a depar
ture from the most usual course Of glvin
testimony.
1t is stated by Mr.. Bradford, that "no on
acquainted with human nature as it is, or
all observant Of transactions Of court {
justice can deny the efficiency OF this chez
or the danger Of its removal" The answe
to this is-we do not contend Cor the entir
abolition of oaths to individuals who believ
there is God that Furnishes falsehoods The
operate as q check, a restraint. Upon sue
individuals, let the restraint be continued
Let US have the strongest security we ca
have, that witness will tell the truth. 3,
it is by no means true, that other and pow
erful restraints do not exist; and man
conversant with courts Of justlce, and so We
acquainted with the human character
Judge Livingston, firm believer in Il
truth of the Christian religion, has r
commended in his celebrated code, that q
who do not believe in the existence of
God should be permitted to give test
mony unaccompanied by the sanction of 0
oath.
Mr.. Bradford draws a dark picture
france at the period of her first revolutio
ne states that "the voice of lamentation ar
woe Was heard throughout her borders. al
the ground smoked as it were with the bloc
OF Innocent citizens" He goes on TO S;
"the only test of evidence then was VIII
my colleague in substance proposes
assertion upon the honor Of witness"
1here then really any analogy between
assertion upon honor made during q
bloody period Of the French revolution,
the tools Of power the minions Of autho
! ty, and the solemn affirmation Of W
ness in our courts under the pains a,
penalties Of perjury. We think there
none.
II is asserted by Mr.. Bradford Il
fhe number Of Atheists i'm this comm