Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1857-01-23
C,,ston of the Supreme Court of North Carolina,
In the case of Shaw Moore.
nEC1DED AT DECEMBER TERM, 1886.

o called The Universalists (Which is explained by
tho witness himself be stated IN the first para
graph of the opinion OF the Court is competent
STgiIppss 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
n the members of all religious denominations equa
nr;yileges in our Courts of Justice. The opinion OF
The Court is as follows:
The case presents this question Is person who
believes N the obligation Of an oath on me bible
who believes in God and Jesus Christ and that TOD
will punish in this tyorld all vioators OF bis law and
that the sinner will inevitably be puhSoeo m Mts
uorld for each and every SIN committed Out mat
there will be no punishment after death, and thai IN
another world ali wi be happy and equal to the an
gels "a competent witness
The law REQUIRES Two guarantees of the truth OF
Whit = witness is about TO stae-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 a temporal and also a religious sanction 10
his oath. In reference to the first, question Is
made: but it is insisted, that the religious sanction
required is the fear of punishment in future state
of existence.
The position is not sustained by the of the
thing for if We divest ourselves of the prejudice
grow ing out of precOnceived opinions TO what we
suppOse to be the true teaching of the blble It is
clear, that in reference TO a religious sanction, there
is no ground for making distinction between the
fear of punishment by the Supreme Being IN this
world and the fear of punishment in the world to
come both are based upon the sense OF religion.
IT, on the one hand, it be saId that there IS IN the
fear Of shment in future state OF existence an
awful underlined dread, and The other, that from
the constitution Of our nature, we fear more that
punishment which is near at hand, than thai which
is distant the reply is, this Is matter oil speculation
merely, and has no bearing upon the question, be-
cause the efficacy Of the fear of punishment in either
case depends upon The degree Of the belief as 10 the
certainty of that punishment; SO that there can be-
upon reason ground for making 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 to be the
common law that infdel, Gn which class Jews
were inCluded,) could be sworn as witness in the
courts of England which was Il christian country,
and Lord Coke gives this as his opinion, in which he
SAYS all the agree, and he gns the
on which the law is based, CAL infdels are in law
perpet,l ilimicl for, between them, as with the de-
wills whose sub ecs they he, and the christian, there
is perpetual hostility This reason, to say the least
of it, is narrow. minded illibera bigotted and un-
sound
One excellence of the common law is that II rorks
itself pure, by drawing from the fountain of
so that il errors creep into it, upon reasons, which
more enlarged views and higher state of enghten.
ment, growing out of the extension of commerce and
other pIoves to be falaCiOds they may be
worked out by subsequent decisions. Accordingly,
it is laid down by Lord Hale, Notwithstanding The
law, that Jew is a competent Witness and may be
sworn on the old testament, and such has since
been taken to be the law. Afterwards, in the case
Of Omichund VS.. Barker, AK, 10, and also in Vii
les report, 538, it was decided by the Lord Chan
ceIlOr, with the assistance of Chief Baron Parker,
Oh. J. Willes and Chief Justice Lee, that Gentoo,
who was an infde and did not believe in either the
Old or New Testament, but " who believed in God,
as the Creator of the Universe, ard that he is ne
garder OF those 2ro do peH, and an arenger Of those
qrhO do ILL.," Is, according to the common law COM
petent witness, and may be in that form which
is Il most sacred and obligatory upon his religious
sense. The case does not show whether according to
the Gentoo religion, ards and punshments to be
in this world in the wOrL 10 come. The decision
made without asce. tanning how the fact was; So
it must have been cOnsidere ed by the court to be i'm
material no reference is made to any distinction in
regard to the time of punishment by any of the
sci in the long and full arguments made on both sides
IS there any IntmauOn or aIluslOn to such dis
tnction in the opinions Of Chief Baron FaTker Chief
Justice Lee and the Lord Chancellor The only
thing, throughout the whole case, which suggests 10
the mind the existence of such distinction, is an
expression ascrbed 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, future and punish
ments, they ought not to be admitted as Witnesses
This expression is Inconsistent with the decision Of
the in which Wies and the others all fully con
cured for, there was no allegation proof that the
witness DeIleVeQ IN }utTe rewards and punlShments
so there must be mistake The Chief Justice either
used the word future" inadvertently, and without
in his own mind, attaching any force TO it, or Atkins
miSCOnCeVed his morning and yet this expression
is referred to by most of the English writer's wht
treat Of evidence aid is the foundation Of all tn
error on this subject. Some fifty years after III
case was reported by Atkins, the opir ion of Chic
Justice Willes, drawn out at length in his owl
handwriting was found among his manuscripts
and is reported IN WiIIes. The words in tn
manuscript are clearly of opinion, tina
infdel 8, (if such there beO who either do nc
believe in God, if they do, do not think that b.
will reward or punish them IN this acOrld or IN til
neat, cannot be witnesses in any case, under an
circumstances, for this plain reason because an oat
cannot posi- bly, be any tie obligation upon them
This proves either that Atkins misapprehended tb
words of the Chief Justice, that upon reflection
he thought proper to alter the expression, so as
make it consistent with the decision.
The great case of Omichund V. Barker Git ma
well be called great" for it relieved the commo
law from an error that a reproaCh 10 1t, estab
fishes the rule to be, that infdel is cOmpeer
witness, provided he believes in the existence OF
Supreme Being, who Furnishes the wicked, withou
reference to the time of punishment. The substanC
of the thing is, every oath must haze religious SAM
tion. Such being the common law in regard to inf
des, it follows to1tfOrl, that the same rIe is az
phcable TO witness who is Christian; and tn
fact that this Christian believes that the divine pun
shment will be inflicted in this world and not in tn
world to come, is mmaleral, and in no wise affect
the principle of the rule 1t is Z" difference
opinion as to the true teaching of the gospel Thi
we find is the conclusion of the Courts in most If nc
all, of the States Of the Union, where the questlo
has been presented for adjudication. Is Massachu
sets Rep. III, 2 Gushing 104, IL Johnson 90,
Mason l8, 2 Alabama 354, South Carolina Law
Journal 202, 13 Vermont 1862.
Ii was insisted, in the argument that although thi
may have been the rule Of the common law, it
changed by our statutory provisions prescribing tn