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

tions, and representing aconstituency almost
every one Of whom are freehelders, feels 1t
his imperative duty to report the bill back
to the house, and most earnestly recommend
its passage.
Respectfully submitted,
GEORGE n. FOLK.
January 9, 1857.
Is A UNIyERSALIST A COMPETENT
WITNESSF
Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of NDssd Carolina,
in NE case Of Slaw Us. Moore Decided al Decem-
Der Term, 1856.
The only question in the case was whether
a person protesting the religious faith of the
denomination called the Universalists (Which
is explained by the witness himself to be as
stated in the first paragraph of the opinion
of the Court is competent witness in a
judicial trial. The opinion of the Court
was delivered BY his Honor Judge Pearson.
1t is document Of uncommon ability, and
as liberal as the professors Of any religion
could desire. 1t comedies to the members OF
all religious denominations equal privileges
in our courts Of justice. The opinion of the
court is as follows:
The case presents this question Is per-
son who "believes in the obligation of an
oath on the Bible-who believes in God and
Jesus Christ, and that God will punish Ia
This icorld, all violators Of his law, and that
the sinner will inevitably be punished ia fiis
worid for each and every sin committed, but
that there will be no punishment after
death, and that in another world all will be
happy and equal to the angels" a competent
witness!
The law requires two guarantees Of the
truth of what witness is about TO state-he
must be in the fear OF punishment by the
laws OF man, and he must also be in the fear
of punishment by the laws Of God, If he
states what is false; in other words, there
must be temporal and also a religious sane
ton to his oath. In reference to the first,
no question is made; but il is insisted, that
the religious sanction required. j. the fear
Of punishment in a future state Of existence.
This position is not sustained by the rea-
son of the thing, for, il We di,est ourselves
Of the prejudice growing out of precon-
ceiyed opinions as 10 what we suppose TO be
the true teaching Of the Bible, il is clear,
that in reference TO a religious sanction.
there j. no ground for making distinction
between the fear q punishment BY the su-
preme Being in this world, and the fear Of
punishment in the world to come both are
based upon the sense of religion. II, on the
one hand, it be said, that there is in the fear
of punishment in future state Of existence
an awful, underlined dread, and on the other,
that from the constitution Of our nature, We
fear more that punishment which Is near
at hand, than that which is distant, the reply
IS. this Is matter Of speculation merely, and
has no bearing upon the question. because
the efficacy Of the fear Of punishment in
either case, depends upon the degree Of the
belief as TO the certainty Of that punishment;
20 that. there can be no reason, no ground
for making distinction. The rule Of Law
which requires distinction j. satisfied ii
either case.
II is true, that in the old cases il il held
10 be the common law that no infdel, Gin
which class Jews were ineluded,) could be
sworn az witnesses in the courts Of Eng
land, which was Christian country, and
Lord Coke gives this a. his opinion, 10 which
lie SAYS all the cases agree, and he assigns Il
the reason on which the law il based, " All
infdels are in law pepeim inhmici; for, be-
tween them as with the devils, whose sub.
iecis thew be, and the Christian, there j.
perpetual hostility This reason. 20 say
the leas, Of il, is narrow. minded, illiberal,
bigoted and unsound.
One excellence If the common law, i,
that II rOrky hsey pure, BY drawing from
the fountain u reason. 80 that il errors creep
into ii, upon reasons, which more enlarged
views and higher state Of enlightenment,
growing out Of the extension Of commerce
and other causes proves 10 be iallacious, they
may be worked out by subsequent decisions.
Accordingly. il is laid down By lord Hale,
notwithstanding the opinion Of Coke and the
old cases, to be the common law, that Jew
i competent witness, and may be sworn
on the Old Testament. and such has ever
since been taken 10 be the law.
Afterwards, in the case Of Omichund ss.
Barker, | Aik. 10, and also in Willes' Re.
ports, $50, il was decided by the Lord
Chancellor. with the assistance of Chief
baron Parker, Chief Justice Willcs and
Chief Justice Lee, that Gen,OO, who was
an infdel, and did not believe ID either the
Old or New Testament, but " who believed
in a God. a. the Creator Of the universe,
aud that be is a pe1cardep Of those icho DO Weil,
aud an dUager Of those rho do H." is, &C.
eoding to the common law, competent
witness, and may be sworn IN that form
which il the most sacred and obligatory
upon his religious sense. The case does
not show whether, according 70 the Gentoo
religion, rewards and punishments are 20 be
10 this world or 10 he vnrld 70 cone. The