New-York daily tribune., 1851-07-29
if entertains against innova,ing ideas in gea-

To advise as to is course. But we may Oe
permitted to suggest u our cotemporary
that if his reading of The Tribune and OF
modern doctrines had been as thorough
and little more correct than his
studies in the Partisan Globe and ST. ST.
uonism, he would have known that this
charge of constructive atheism and hostlli-
tv to Christianity, which he launches against
US, has ceased to have an effect with the
public, and especially with the religious por-
ton of it. Too many IDEAS on which time
has since conferred It's brightest approval
have been branded as atheistic, too many
measures of unmixed benefcence have been
set down as intidel for the world to be again
deceived by such ePithets. Calico, Colum-
bus, Jenner, Harvey, were condemned as
infidels bv the leaders of conservative opin-
ion in their day, not to mention the
examples from the history OF theology
and philosophy,-and the facts about
them have been widely read and pom
dered. And now the yelping of puppies
or the screeching of owls can frlghten mer
about as easily as the shout of lnfdel and
anti-Chistian can alarm sensible persons
whose habit is to investigate and think for
themselves That shout was long since
raised against The Tribune In vain, and we
presume that at this day the considerable
and increasing body of readers who believe
with us that the essential principles of
Christianity ought to be applied to the dis
trlbuton OF land, Qand monopoly being
abolished) and the organization of produc-
tive labor, of commerce and of domestic
industry and consumption, as well as that
other large body of readers who take The
Tribune that they may know what IS going
ON in the world, will not now be seriously
diminished.
Accordingly, if The Register has any
thing TO say to US, we invite it to the manly
arena of discussion, which it will find much
more useful and credltable than the liinging
about of epithets and false accusations.
In order to show that we are not alone
in our view of the question Of admitting IN
fdels to testify in Courts ofJuStlce, we make
the following extract from an article IN the
Utica Obscrrer of Saturday:
The Regasfer. If II VIII brush up its memory will
find that IN Its unmanly and unworthy treatment OF
t.a1fp fh., Af
ITS own Millard Fillmore As early 1884, the a.
tenton of Mr. Fillmore, then as now. Juilclous,
sound and practical thinker, called 10 the mani
fest Injustice OF the religious test and bill INTRO
duced (by him | belleyel Oh the lSt OF February,
1892 III the following words, No person shall be
deemed incompetent as a witness III any court matter
or proceeding on account OF hls or her belief or Tor
the want of any religious belief nor shall any W.T.
ness be questioned Us TO his or her religious belief
nor shall any other testimony be rece we'd thereto.
either before or after such witness may be sworn
The press OF Other important business when ndd
prefeTence prevented the wise and JudicIOuS pro-
visions of that bill from becoming law But the sub
lect was not dropped, and Mr.. Fillmore IN series
OF able papers, over The signature OF "Jurlilcus,
published in the Buffalo Parrot IN the winter OF 1881
ably advocated and invoked public attention 10 the
necessity OF such provision. lhe hmlls oi 'his
paper VIII not permit the making oil copious e1-
tracts from 1.-THE able pen OF JurdltuS, but VIII
eudeayor TO give an outline of his argument. Aiter
tracing the history Of the religious test from the
:" dark ages hen men were punished for opinions
sake, ana wien lilt Iit Ol tA'luSlhh 'AttlbtN ~
AL who were not under the obligations Of oar r.
hgoR," down TO the present time he says, II IS not
lltt remarkable jRal every change has Deen IN Ia
Yor of admitting persons TO testify who were before
excluded. The narrow feelings of prejudice ana
bll Olry have gradually gwen way 10 more eHlshl-
cncd ana liberal views and since the doctrine mas
received the assent OF ali intelligent minds. that men
DO not deserve TO be punished account of the pc
cuharlty of their religious ia i l. strange lha hey
continue 10 deprive themselves OF the Dene oi their
nclehborS testimony merely because ms aith ncer-
tks 80 b
tnan theirs.
The fear OF future puniShments for false swear,
ing has much less influence on the great majority ol
the people than may be al hrst imagined No speche
punishment for the breach OF an Official oaIh Is pre-
scrbed BY law -SherfS, Judges Justices Consta-
bleS and other officers take oath faithfully to DIS
charge the duties OF their respective ohices-a WOLF
ton Of their oath Is moral perjury let IN the sItat
majority of cases II Is taken than forgot
tent Is scarcely thought OF as an obllsnion-tlS Is
taken by the recipient as mere ceremony 10 sno"
that he intends 10 enter upon the duties OF MS once
Custom House oaihs and test odhs are still stronger
instances OF the almost perfect indifference win
which false swearing Is regarded, where there Is no
other penalty than the punishment 10 be inflicted oy
the Supreme Being for false swearing IL Is cIedr
that by the Constitution, the most stubborn lhhdeI -
eligible to the highest office III the state lie may DC
elected Governor, or appointed TO the once oI ,@i
cellOr, or Judge OF the supreme court, ana NJ mn
deity no disqualification whatsoever And IN times
of war when not only the property OF one man Ou,
the lives and property and happiness OF million ana
a nan Ol souls may depend upon the lh'esiis) or
patriotism Of that who has the direction and com
mand of the public force, | say II that perAouS
crisis this same man who would not be permitted 70
testify IN Justices Court Is by the Constitution
commander nchle OF our arms and admiral OF our
But again. BY the Constitution OF the STATE,
your Governor may be profeSsed atheist whose
oath by the laws Of the State would not be received
to convict man of an assault and battery or petI
larceny. and yet by the same Constitution the same
Governor has the power opardoning the criminal Tor
the highest crimes after conviction.
But how are you to know what witness re-
lglous opinions are You must find II IN the de-
claratlons of the witness A. Is introduced W.T.
ness,-he stated without being under oath or feeling
any apprehension of having inflicted upon hlm the
pains and penalties opeury that ne did not oeAese
In ii Supreme Bang" The Court concluded that he
had spoken the truth and that the fact established
that ne did not believe. and he having spoken the
truth IN this instance with strong temptations 10 tell
falsehood and restraints 10 prevent H. therefore
they arrived al this natural and logical conclusion
that he should be put under oath and thereby