The daily national Whig. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1847-1849, 1849-05-26
Athsi.n. 4 Dlsau .llneatlon Or . wl,ne...

DIRE, but witnesses disbelief may be proved BY
,u Witnesses ..,,,. o,.. Ell. i
existence constitutes an objection 10 his eompe-
tency ifhc believes u accountability 70 God, and
Ina o ~ m ~ ~ '''s me '0' muse '"e'
The provision Of the constitution of Massachusetts.
At za ina 20 subject n' shaloe nT %o or
worshiping God In the manner and season most
agreeable 70 the dictates Of his own conscience Or
rer 10 nbess ans rs heir oi s
nesses
AT the trial Of this case in the court Of
common pleas the defendant called one U.
T. Haven as witness. Before. he was
sworn, the plaintiff objected that he was an
incompetent witness, because he did not be-
lieve in the existence Of God, or in state
of future rewards and punishments. The
plaintiff offered to produce witnesses to sus-
tain this objection. But the court Mer-
rick, declined to hearthe testimony offer
ed BY the plaintiff, and admitted said Haven
to be swon. lie was accordingly sworn,
and testified on the trial. The jury found a
verdict for the defendant, and the plaintiff
filed exceptions to the ruling Of the court
Dewey, for the plaintiff.
Wood for the defendant
Wide, AT the trial Of this cause the
defendants called witness, to whose compe-
tency the plaintiff objected, on the ground
that he did not believe IN the existence Of a
God, or in state Of future rewards and pun
ishments, and offered to prove the same by
witnesses.
1t has been argued that this mode Of proof
was not admissible, the general rule Of evil
dence being, that witness shall not be ad-
mitted to dsqualfy himself by declarations,
not under oath, made out Of court, as they
might be untruly made for that purpose. But
thas been frequently held, that this mode Of
proof is admissible, and is an exception to
the general rule, from the necessity Of the
case, il being deemed unreasonable tina: the
party directing should be restricted to the
testimony of the witness on the p0ir dire, as
the objection supposes he has no regard to the
sanctity Of an oath; and, If SO, his declarations
made under oath are Of no more weight than
those made seriously when not under oath. L
Greenl. Ev. S $40. But the evidence Of
such declarations should be received eau
tiously. Remarks and avowals Of belief or
disbelief, may be made in the heat ofargument,
and for the purpose Of discussion, which may
be no sure indications Of the real belief or
disbelief Of the party.
So the witness after having made such
declarations. NAV have changed his opinions,
which perhaps could not be proved unless he
should be allowed to testify But notwith-
standing these objections, which have weight,
it is well settled that the avowal of wit
ness Of his religious belief NAV be proved,
like any other fact
II has been also argued that the disbelief
Of a future state Of existence after death is
no objection to the competency Of a witness,
he believes in his accountability to
God, and that he will punish him in this life
for false swearing or other evil deeds. In
Hunscom v. Hnnscom us Mass. 1914, It
was held that mere disbelief in future
existence went only to witnesses credibility.
Whether such was the evidence offered in
This case does not distinctly appear sit
might be that the witness could be proved
10 disbelieve future state Of rewards and
punishments in this life. But however this
may be, it is immaterial in the decision Of
this case, for If such disbelief would not dis
qualify the witness, the plaintiff should have
been permitted to prove that he disbelieved
the existence Of God. On this point the
law is extremely clear and SO il has been
held from time immemorial.
Lord Coke held that an infdel, meaning
person not believing the scriptures Of the
old or new testaments, was an incompetent
witness. But this opinion Of Lord Coke has
not been sustained by later authorities, and
seems never to have been well founded.
The question was very fully considered in
the case of Omichnnd v. Barker, Il AK.
81, S. G. Willes, 545.) And it was settled
in that case that an infdel in general could
not be excluded from being witness, if he
believed in God and future rewards and
but il he did not so believe, he
ought not to be admitted as witness. And
all the authorities agree that an atheist, who
disbelieves in the existence Of God, who is
{ Al. r Al 4 4 I