New-York daily tribune., 1858-02-08

| TIE Massachusetts House OF Representatives has
BY large msjority passed bil, By which persons
usually styled Atheists are permitted TO testify
IN courts Of Justice. UpC0 the question Of recon
sideraton, Mr. Caleb Gushing opposed the mess
ure as forcibly as he could, but without affecting
the final result, for the bill has gone 10 the Senate
similar bill was passed by the House duringa pre-
| v.ous session, aud was thrown out by .he Senate by
a very small majority. This would seem 70 Indicate
decisytly thot the popular feeling in Massachusetts,
as expressed by the popular bresch of the Legsla-
ture, s in favor of the abrosaton of an ancient test
| Of competency which has been applied by the courts
| Of that State with the utmost rigidlsy. Indeed,
there has been a period Of New-Ensland history
when person who should avow bis disbelief in the
existence of Supreme Being would have been
speedily transferred from the witnessstsnd to the
dock, and from the dock to the scafold. This was,
however, when the government was CalTinistc
the0cracy, and when tolcrstiou was unknown.
Great changes have since that time occurred.
Religious opinion has undergone thoNsand modih-
cations Liberty ofthoueht can never BE- rcstrainedi
but the century has alsO vindyoted liberty Of
speech.
The main terror which the judicial oath seeks to
inspire is that of punishment in eternity Of sperjury
committed in time. II IS urged that TO permit
witness 70 be addressed so help you God" when
he does not believe in God would be Inconsistent
with the decorum of judicial tribunal, snd incon-
sistent with It's selfrespect; and Nat it is mere
farce to evoke retribytioh Of his crime, when he
does not believe that there is to be anJ such reri.
button II muSt be conceded 10 this srge nent that
when witness with 1nbushng ribaldry dsayOws
oil respect for moral obligations for honesty and for
veracty and asserts that there is no such thing as
truth no such thing as falsehOOd, whstever may be
said of his competency given ease, his crcdbility
would not be worth much to the side which called
him. But, on tie other hand, it is urged that those
to whom the Common Law test l@s been applied
have been menwhO, whatever may have been the re-
suits their sOnng, earnest and hoBestseek
ers after truth yaluing it shove al things and being
willing to encounter whsteyer civil and social dis
abilities its profession, as received by them might
entail-that they were usually men of pure live
lust as much trusted in the ordinar) transactions Of
society as if they were Christian believers, and that
the pains and penalties Of perjury are sufficient to
protect us agaiD,t even the worst of this class, if
they are sufficient to protect US against any class.
II is also urged that there is very small number
in any community who positively reject the doc.
trnes of great First Cause and Of future state;
although the opinions respecting these are various.
Tie law asit now exists in Massachusetts, of course
refers to Triune God and yet under it Unitarians
are permitted to testify. So also are Unversalists,
| although many Of them do not believe in eternal
future punishment and many Of them do not be-
| ieye in any punishment after death. So also are
| tie Swedenbors!ans whose idcas Of future state
are certainly Lot those which were entertained by
the trainers of this rule. Where then, it is asked,
| il the limitation to begin Very few men would
have the audaciiy, even if they had the desire, to
declare in open Court that they believed in no God
at all. They 30 believe in such Beirg but He is
not the Being wor,hiped by their nterrogators.
The advocates of this measure also urged that
sometimes valuable testimony is Lost to the com.
mon wealth and to citizens litigant by the sppl-
cation Of the rule; and clear case Of arson was
cited in which the respondent was discharged. sim
ply because the main witness was skeptcal in his
| RELIGIOUS notions. The NARROW IulS as TO the COM
petsncy Of illnesses has been essentially modified 10
| massachusetts, Nucic P1ilACs Au iua. oci
ard are frequently called, and where theEe is no
limit TO cross-examination, except the good sense
Of counsel The friends Of the repeal Of the rule
in question contend that this should be followed up
aud that plsintif or defendant is thousand times
more likely to testify falsely in his case, than
il an Indifferent person to tell falsehoods when he
has no possible motive for doing so. They show,
too that the character of the unbeleving witness
| for truth and veracity can always be pat ia; aud
that such testimony is frequently found more than
enough to invaidate that of persons who had taken
the oath with alaerity, and who would have been
very indignant if they had been charged with inf
delty. II is urged too that the rule has been prac-
ticaliy abrOgated that the question OF religious
faith is rarely raised except in sharply contested
cases when il is thought necessary to get nd Of a
formidable witness; that it affords sn opportunity
for designing men to save themselves from eximna-
,iop or TO sell out TO the other side; and that words
uttered ha,tily in he heat Of debate are sometimes
received a, conclusive evidence OF the .ncOmpe-
t,ncy of the witLess.
Mr. Caleb Gushing opposed tie passage Of The
bill IN an elaborate speech We 10 not know how
| th;, q II n ref,hei By Ii. present 1a+y which