The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1881-11-27
SHALL WE CHANGE THE LAW?

States not so very far away, an interesting
and important case was on trial. In the
course of the investigation of the cause, it
was necessary to call reputable citizen to
testify, and one, too, by whom it was alone
possible to prove the most important facts
perhaps of the trial. The counsel upon the
opposing side objected to the competency
of the witness, on the ground that he, the
witness, had no orthodox belief on the sub
ject of a future state Of rewards and punish
ments. The witness was thereupon exam
ined upon his "vOir dire" and stated h.
believed that the shortcomings of the man
in the different derelictions of duty were
fsnished in the present world in the flesh,
though he could not discard the idea or
faith in aSupreme Being. He was, by the
court adjudged an incompetent witness
and his testimony therefore, though valua-
bic, was lost to the case We all remem-
Der how, a few months since, the House of
| Commons in England refused to admit Mr.
Bradlaugh on the alleged ground, whatever
the true one may have been, that he was a
| disbelieyer in the Christian religion, and
refused to take the customary oath admin
istered to the members of that body.
These cases. under the peculiar circum-
stances Of the times, demand particular
attention and especially the matter touch
ing the competency of witnesses in courts
of justice. A few years back no question
could have been raised in the premises, but
ii has become patent fact to the reading
public of America that as the times have
changed the men Of this country and Europe
have changed with them. There are now in
this and other nations thousands upon
thousands of the most intelligent and patr-
otto citizens, however correct their belief,
or want of belief, more properly, may be-
who do not adopt the provisions or creed
OF the established beliefs, religiousy, ofth
day. 1t is not our purpose to discuss the
truth Of any faith in this article. That is
matter ofpersonal preference We only desire
to direct public attention to the polit:.
cal and practical aspects OF an exceed
ingly intricate. but interesting subject.
We have the popular and proper apprecia-
ton Of the authenticity of that old religion
which has civilized the world and softened
the asperities of a life that is at best bitter
conflict with circumstance and accident,
and anything that we may say is not in
tended either as an attack upon, or thrust
at the faith that has gladdened the heart of
toiling millions, or will continue so to do. But
the greatest provision and the wisest that
has been incorporated into the political or
ganization of this new world is the one that
lifts religion out of the sphere of politics, a
measure or provision indeed that prccludes
tho possibility of q clash between sects such
as have time and again made the Old World
a house Of slaughter and discussion. Ifthe
constitutional safeguard relative to the
freedom of views on religious topics is to be
enforced at all, why not carry the matter TO
its legitimate conclusion? Why allow the
peculiar forms of any one belief to be intro
duced into any of the departments of gov
ernment' Is not the judiciary most
| important portion of the governmental ma
chinery, and is there any reason why man
when called as party, or Juror or witness
IN Judicial proceeding, should have his
truth, or honor, or competency tested by
| the rules and regulations of any special re.
| ligion, that is paramount to any other rea-
son for forcing upon him in his everyday
life q faith in that identical form of belief?
We think not, and therefore feel that such
UNCONVENTIONAL regulations should be re-
moved from all departments or portions OF
the body polite. AS we look ut this SUBJ
ject, ii is neither a religious or political
question purely, but one that dire city affects
both the sacredness and purity of religion
| on the one hand and the freedom and inyio-
liability OF the political institutions of the
land on the other. The great fact stares us
i'll the face that no citizen acting in any ca
pacity as such, when called upon so to do
| by the Government, can be challenged by
reason OF his views as to the truth or falsity
OF any religious creed. And yet, speaking
politically and in behalf of the great body
OF our citizens who have practically no
creed, we must say that this feature of our
Constitution is continually violated in
both the Federal and State administrations,
and should provoke at least pro.
test from that guardian of the
public's privileges and immuniues, the
press. Any citizen of this country has n
right TO be heard in the courts of Justice, a
right to sit on iuries, to hold office, to en-.
10y in short, all the advantages of Ameri.
can citizenship, provided he be reputable
and competent man, exclusive ofany article
or want of such, of his religious belief. The
statutes of various States providing pains
and penalties for perjury are amply sufl.
cient to procure the necessary regard for
and sanctity of the oath, whether in Judi.
cial proceedings or otherwise and do moi
interfere with the private predilec.
tons or preiudioes of any one
1t is q boast that our form
of government is sufficiently elastic
to meet all changes in public sentiment
and ifso 1t should look after matters of th,
character referred to as closely and con-
scientiously as to the varied indications OF
the popular pulse on political or material
questions. Let some orour wido.awakc and
progressive statesmen reflect on these eur
sorry suggestions, and inaugurate reform,
that will more clearly meet the advancing
views, and more cosmopolitan beliefs OF the
are. Not. indeed ln M o1xiea ov,.tli,,