The western Democrat. [volume] (Charlotte, N.C.) 1852-1870, 1857-02-24


case discussed some time ago, no decision
was made, but in this instance the matter
came directly before the Court. We pub
lish the opinion below, from which it will
be seen that persons of that denomination
are recognized as competent Witnesses:
OPINION of the Supreme Court Of North
Carolina, IN The case of Shaw rs. Moore
de[ircred at December Term, 1856.
The only question in the case was wheth
or 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 wit
ness in 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 t"
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 a
person who believes i'll the obligation of
an oath on the Bible-whO believes in God
and Jesus Christ, and that God will punish
in this ,rorId, ali vioIatnrs of his law, and
that the sinner will inevitably he punished
an this trOrid for each and every sin commit
ted but that there will be no punishment
after death, and that III another world all
will be happy and equal to the ungels''-a
competent witness
The law requires two guarantees of the
truth of what IL witness is about to state
lac must be in the fear of punishment by the
laws of man, and he must also be i'll the fear
of punishment by the laws Of God, if he
states what is false in other words, there
must be Il temporal and also religious
sanction. to his oath. In reference to the
first, no question is made; but it is insist
ed, that the religious sanction required, is
the fear of punishment i'll Il future state of
existence.
This position is not sustained by the
reason of the thing, for, five dvcst ourselves
of the prelude, growing out of precon-
crivcd opinions to what we suppose to
be the true teaching of the Bible, it is clear,
that in reference to religious sanction,
there il no ground for making distinction
between the fear of 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. If. on
the one hand, it be said, that there is in the
fear of punishment in II future state of ex-
istrnce an awful, underlined dread, and on
the other, that from the constitution of our
nature, we fear more that punishment which
Is near Mt hand, than that which Is distant.
the reply is. this is matter of speculation
merely, and has no bearing upon the ques
ton, because the efficacy of the fear of
punishment i'll either case depends upon the
degree of belief as to the certainty of that
punishment: 80 that, there can be, upon
reason no ground for making a distinction.
The rule of law which requires religious
sanction, is satisfied in either case.
1t is true, that in the old cases it is held
tn be the common law that no infidel, lin
which class Jews were includcd.) could be
sw"rI as IL witness in the courts of England,
which was Il christian country, and Lord
Coke gives this Us his opinion, in which he
says all the cases agree, and he assigns as
the reason on which the law is based, "All
infdels are in law Perpefui inimici for,
between them, as with the devils, whose
subjects they be, and the christian, there
is perpetual hostility" This reason, to say
the least of it, is narrow minded, illlberal,
bigottcd and unsOund.
One excellence of the common law is,
that it corkS itself pure. by drawing from
the fountain of reason, so that if errors creep
into it, upon reasons, which more enlarged
views and higher state of enlightenment,
growing out of the extension of commerce
and other causes proves to be fallacious,
they may be worked out by subsequent de-
cisions. Accordingly, it is laid down by
Lord Hale, Notwithstanding the opinion of
Coke and the old cases. to be the common
law, that Il jew is II competent witness, and
may be sworn on the old testament, and
such has ever since been taken to be the
law. Afterwards, in the case of Omichund
VS.. Barker, Atk., 10. and also in Wiles'
report, 53S. it was decided by the Lord
Chancellor, with the assistance of Chief
Baron Parker, Oh. j. Willics and Chief JUS
ticc Lee, that a Gcntoo, who was an infidel
and did not believe in either Old or New
Testament, but ''who believed in God, as
the Creator of the Universe. and that he is
retrarder Of those who do ,ceH, and an
arengcr ot'hhOSc ,cho do ILL.," is, according to
the common law, competent witness, and
may be sworn in that form which is the most
sacred and obligatory upon his religious
sense. The case does not show whether
according To the Gentoo religion rewards
and Punishments are to be in this world OF
in the world to GENE. The decision was
made without aScertaining how the fact
was 50, it must have been considered by
the court to be immateral; no reference is
made to any distinction in regard to the
time of punishment by any of the counsel