Saint Mary's beacon. [volume] (Leonard Town, Md.) 1867-1983, 1872-11-07

4 TExr cvEsrr I'm the Court Of
Common Pleas on Thursday. Judge Ga
rey made ruling upon point which. SO
FAR a. VIC know, has never before been
raised in the Courts Of Maryland. The
case was that Of Se:sz vs.. Seisz, an action
for debt.
The defence objected TO witness that
was offered BY the prosecution on the
ground Of incoapcsency because OF want
OF religious belief. The objection was
founded upon the we'll established rule of
the common law excluding the testimony
Of such persons. as we'll a upon the pro-
vision in the Constitution Of Maryland
Declaration of Right. Art. 36) which
says: Nor shall any pcrson otherwise
compcten. be deemed incompetent on ac-
coun, Of religious belief provided hc be-
licves in the existence OF God. and that
under His dispensation such person will
be held morally accountable for his acts
and Be rewarded or punished therefor.
either in this world o. tho world to come.
1t was shown BY direct testimony in
support of the objection that the party Of
fered rs a witness had. as far IS could be
aseer.ained, been disbelievcr in the cx-
istence Of God and state Of future re-
wards and punishments during his whole
life Ills own son. a man Of perhaps for
ty years of age. stated on oath that he had
known his father to entertain, and express
his debelief in the existence OK i:1 ,u ron ~
h,s che .. ses 8 four years past. siEce which
| time the intercourse between Che father
and son had ceased. Another witness tes-
tiled that she bad repeatedly heard him
express his disbelief in the existence OF
God and Of a future state of rewards and
punishments. She had heard him say.
''there is no God they are fools who be-
lieve there is God /; nature is God,' and
similar expressions. liz answer to the
question whether she had heard him say
how he would be punished, if punished at
all. for his misdccds, her reply was, The
thought his conscience would punish him;
she had heard him say his conscience was
his God"
In rebu:tal of the testimony offered to
impeach the witness it vas given in evil
dcnce that the witness did believe in G cd
in nature, a vital principle in matter by
which all things are governed that there
is soul in nature. inseFarable from it. yet
directing its economy. The party himself
vas Intercepted by the Court as to his re-
ligious belief and stated in substance that
he believed in the existence of Great
Spirit in nature, "in the grass, in he
moon, in the snow fakes and in ;he earth
that controlled all things. His views, as
accurately as can be stated were, that there
is no God, but spirit, LAW in nature BY
which all matter is governed. lie did not
believe in personal God, who is the ma
ker and judge Of oil things, and who re-
wards and Furnishes in accordance with a
law which He-IIimself has established for
the moral government of mankind He
could not be convinced of n God or believe
in one as distinct from and independent OF
f, nature.
On this testimony the Court held that
while the article in the Constitution, which
/ has already been quoted speaks Of the Eek
istcnce Of God" and of His dispensation, !"
| yet these terms do not necessarily mean n
personal God in theological sense. They
would as we'll include a Great Spirit, iu-
hcreut in and controlling all matter. The
personal pronouu Ellis" in this article in
the Constitution should not therefore be
interpreted as having exclusively its usu-
al and proper Specification. Inasmuch
therefore as the party offered as witness.
while not believing in personal God. in
dependent of nature, did believe in Su-
preme Spirit pervading nature; and mas
much as said party had shown himself to
be man of more than ordinary intelli
gence and culture for his rank in society.
his Honor thought be was competent
witness, and would order him to be sworn.