Vermont telegraph. [volume] (Brandon [Vt.]) 1828-1843, 1838-05-16

shall true answer make to all such questions
as shall be asked of YOU" is the form when
a person is sworn upon Uotr dire; and il
this is all that the law expects when he is
| giving evidence, why not use the same form?
II, however, in difference to the reasonings
against the use of any oaths, the oath in
evidence were abolished, no difficulty could
remain: for to promisein any form to speak
the truth, is, as we have seen, absurd.
| Whilst the oath in evidence continues to
be imposed, it is not an easy task to deter
mine In what sense the witness should un-
derstand it. If you decide by the meaning
of the Legislature which imposed the oath,
it appears manifest that he should tell all
he knows, whether asked or not. But what,
it may be asked, is the meaning Of law,
but that which the authorized expounders of
the law determine? And If they habitual
ly admit an Interpretation at variance with
the terms Of the oath, is not their sanction
an authoritative explanation Of the leglsla-
lures meaning? These are questions which
pretend not with confidence to determine.
The mischiefs which result from the uncer-
lures which do not remove the evil. |
of form in such cases is to be sought, not
mposers, as in that of those who now sane
ton the form by permitting it to exist This
doubtless opens wide the door to extreme
RIGHTEOUSNESS of Interpretation. Nor can
that door be closed. There is no other
remedial measure than an alteration Of the
forms or an abolition Of the oath.
The EFFECTS OF OATHs.-Ihere is
power and efficacy in our religion which
elevates those who heartily accept it above
oath can even be opposed to be of advan-
tage It's the testimony even of lnfidei
| ty, that, "Wherever men of uncommon
energy and dignity of mind have existed,
they have felt the degradation Of binding
their assertions with an oath. ~ This de-
graduation, this descent from the proper
ground on whlcha man of integrity should
stand, illustrates the proposition that what
ever exceeds affirmation "cometh of evil. !"
The evil origin is so paIpable that you can
not comply with the custom without feel
ing that you sacrifice the dignity Of virtue.
1t is related of Scion that he said, "a good
man ought 10 be in that estimation that he
needs not an oath because it is to be re-
puted Iessening of his honor if he be
forced to swear't If to take an oath, les
sened pagan's honor, what must be lis
effect upon Christians purity?
Oaths, at least the system of oaths which
obtains in this country, tends powerfully to
| deprave the moral character. We have
seen that they are continually violated, -
that men are continually referring to the
most tremendous sanctions treligion with
the habitual belief that those sanctions i'm
pose no practical obligation. Can this
have any other tendency than to diminish
the influence Of religious sanctions upon
other things! If man sets light by the
divine vengeance in jury-box today, is
he likel y to give full weight to that ven
geance before a magistrate tomorrow?
We cannot prevent the effects of habit
Such things will infaIlibly deteriorate the
moral character, because they infallibIy
diminish the power of those principles up
on which the moral character is is found
ed.
Oaths encourage falsehood. The ef-
feet of institutlng oaths is to diminish the
practical obligation of simple affirmation.
The law says, You must speak the truth
when you are upon your oath: which is
the same thing as 10 say that it is less harm
to violate truth when you are not on your
oath The court sometimes reminds wit
ness that he is upon his oath, which is E.
quvalent to saying, If you were not, we
should think less your rnendacitv. The
same lesson is inculcated by the assigna-
ton of penalties to perjury and not to false
hood. What is man to conclude, but
that the law thinks light Of the crime
which it does not punish and that since
he may lie with IMMUNITY, it is not much
harm to lie? Common language bears tes-
timony to the effect The vul gar phrase,
[ will take my oath 20 it, clearly evinces
the prevalent notion that man may lie
with less guilt when he does not take his
OATH No answer can be make 20 this re-
mark, unless any one can show that the
extra sanction of an oath is SO much added
to the obligation which would otherwise
attach to simp affirmation. And who can
show this! Experience proves the contra
ry: "Experience bears ample testimony
10 the fact, that the prevalence of oaths a
mong men christians not excepted) has
produced very material and very general
effect in reducing their estimate ofthe obi
CATION of plain truth, in its natural and sim
pie forms. There is no cause of insin-
cerity, prevarication, and falsehood, more
powerful, than the practice of administer
ing oaths in court of justice.''4
Upon this subject the legislator plays a
desperate game against the morality Of a
people, He wishes to make them speak
the truth, when they undertake an office
or deliver evidence. Even supposing him
to succeed, what is the costa That Of d.
l. :.