The Hillsborough recorder. [volume] (Hillsborough, N.C.) 1820-1879, 1857-02-04

counsel in the long and full arguments made
on both sides; nor is there any intlmatiOn
or allusion to such distinction in the opin-
ion of Chief Baron Parker, Chief Justice
Lee and the Lord Chancellor. The only
thing throughout the whole case, which sug-
sests to the mind the existence of such a
distinction, is an expression ascribed to
Chief Justice Willes, by Atkins in his report
of this case, viz; !" | am clearly Of opinion,
that if they (inidels) do not believe in
God, or future rewards and punishments,
they ought not to be admitted as witnesses"
This expression is inconsistent with the
decision of the case in which Willes and
others all fully concurred, for there was no
allegation or proof that the witness believed
in future rewards and punishments so there
must be a mistake. The Chief Justice Ell
Their used the word I. future" inadvertently,
and without, in his own mind, attaching any
force to it, or Atkins misconceived his mean
ing; and yet this expression is referred to
by most Of the English writers who treat Of
evidence, and is the foundation of all the
error on this subject. Some fifty years after
the case was reported by Atkins, the opinion
Of Chief Justice Wiles, drawn out at length,
in his own handwriting, was found among
his manuscripts, and is reported in WIlles.
The words in this manuscript are " am
clearly of opinion. that such infdels, CIT such
there be,) who either do not believe a God,
or il they do, d not think that he will re-
war,l OF punish them ia this ,corid or in the
nsri. cannot be witnesses in any case, or
under any circumstances, for this plain rea-
son. because an oath cannot possibly be any
lie or obligation upon them.' This proves
either that Atkins Inexperienced the words
Of the Chief Justice, that, upon reflection,
he thought proper TO alter the expression, so
as to make it consistent with the decision.
The great case of 0michund vs.. Barker.
Git may well be called "great. for il relieved
the common law from an error that was a
reproach to it, establishes the rule To be,
that an in6iel is a competent witness. pro-
ylded lie believes in the existence Of Su.
preme Being, who Furnishes the wicked.
without reference ~ the Time Of punishment.
The substance Of the thing i. euery oath
must hare religious sanction. Such being
the common law in regard to iniidels, il
follows. a fortiofi, that the same rule is APP
pIiCable TO a witness who is a ChriSiidn aud
the fact that this Christian believes that the
divine punishment will be inflicted in this
world, aud not in the world to come, is i'm
material. and in M wise affects the principle
Of lie rule. II i mere difference 81
opinion" as to tile true teaching Of the gus
pei. This we find is the conclusion OF the
Courts in most. il not all tine States Of the
Union. where thequestiOn has been presente,l
for adjudication. Is Massachusetts Reports
IL. Gushing l04, Is Johnson 95. ) Mason
Is. ? Alabama sol. South Carolina Law
journal 202. Is Vermont 500.
II was insisted IN the argument. that al
though this NAV have been the rule Of the
common law. il is changed BY our statutory
provisions drescribing the forms Of oaths,
chapter &c Revised Cnde.
We think il manifest, by pcrusal of the
Statute. that il was not intended to alter any
rules of law. but the sole object was to pre-
scribe forms, adapted 10 The religions belief
ct the general mass Of the citizens, for the
sake 0i convenience and uniformity. Ac.
cordingly. the first section prescribes form
81 oath as = general form, suited 10 such as
hold the ordinary tenets Of the Christian
/ religion that i. an oath. LAYING the hand
upon " the Holy Evangelists." Sc. The
seynnd section makes an exception in favor
1T those Christians who have consideration.
scruplrs against taking an oath on the HOLY
i Eyangelis,s. and the form Of oath is framed
% reference to their belief, as 10 "greai
day Of judgment, when the secrets Of all
hearts shall be known" The third section
makes an exception ~ favor 0f those Chris.
tiaHs who are Qlaker-, &C., and the forin j.
framed in reference 10 their peculiar belief,
/" swear not. This satisfies the words oi
the Statute, and the argument that il was
also intended TO change the law by prollibi-
ting any one from being sworn except IN one
OF oiher OF the prescribed forms, proves tpu
much for, il would exclude bpth Jews and
infi'lels who believe IN GDd. We think il
indecent 70 suppose that tie Legislature in
tended ia an indirect and covert manner 10
alter well settled and unquestioned rule ii
law, aud 10 despite Of the progress Of the
age, TO throw the country back upon the llibe.
ral and intulerant rule which was supposed
TO be the law in the time 81 bigotry; for, il
was every days practice 10 swear Jews upon
The Old Testament, and OnichDnd VI. Barker
had settled tie rule that inidels are to be
sworn according 10 tie iDrm INST sacred and
oblig story an their c0nscieneps.
/ u Il be admitted. Tor the sake of argument,
that besides prescribing forms for general use.
the Legislature bad the purpose Of altering
the common law, 80 as 10 exclude Jews and
Infdels, Hho believe in God, and Christians
WIN 10 not believe in future reward. AMI
panishments, iron The priviiege % taking The
oaths which are required, to enable them to
testify as witnesses. or To take any office NJ
place Of trust or pio6t; in other words, To
degrade and prosecute them for "opinion'
sake" then il Is clear, that the Statute, 81
Ia a. this purpose IS involved, is void and
q no effect, because i is 10 direct contra.
scniiOn u the 10Th section uf the Declaration
Of Rights: " That all men have d natural
aud unalienable right to worship Almighty