Butler citizen. [volume] (Butler, Pa.) 1877-1922, 1883-03-14
AN INFIDEL'S OATH.
Judge Briggs Defines What
Belief is Necessary to Quail
ify Witness.
From the PHILADELPHIA Times

opinion, ruled that atheists and all
others who do not believe in a Divine
Being and Divine rewards and punish.
ments are incompetent as witnesses
The matter was brought up on mo.
ton for a new trial, in t.. suit OF
Lucas against Piper, the ground fol-
the motion being that Judge Briggs
had admitted the testimony of Robert
Becker, who said that though he be.
lieved in a Creator of the universe and
in Supreme Power which would pun.
ish Lin here for false swearing, he did
not believe in God as commonly un-
derstood by the people, nor in per.
soIal God, nor God as an entity
There was no other evidence in sup
port OF the objection to the witness.
In his opinion the Judge said
"With some doubt | admitted the
witness. Was this proper in the light
of the law? Something more is requir-
ed 10 render one competent as wit
ness IAN belief in Supreme Power,
simply as power or principle which
may be the restless, natural laws, as
exhibited by the motion and operation
of Tie elements, and to violate which
VIII surely bring punishment to the
transgressor. The belief required by
our laws is belief in the existence of
an omniscient Supreme Being, who
will impose divine punishment for per-
jury either in this world or in the
next. If the belief be short of this it
falls under the ban of legal condemna-
ton. Mr.. Greenleaf On Evidence
thus expresses himself in discussing
the point under consideration: The
third class of persons incompetent to
testify as witnesses consists of those
who are insensible to the obligation of
an oath from defect of religious senti-
ment and belief. The very motive of
an oath, it being a religious and most
solemn appeal to God as the Judge of
all men, presupposes that the
witness believes in the existence of an
omniscient Supreme Being who is the
rewarder of truth and the avenger of
ialsehood, and that by such formal
appeal the conscience of the witness is
affected. Without this belief the per-
son cannot be subject to that sanction
which the law deems an Indispensable
test of truth. 1t is not sufficient that
the witness believs himself bound to
speak the truth from regard to char
acter or from fear of punishment which
the law inficts upon persons guilty of
perjury
WHAT IS REQUIRED OF A WITNESS.
"Such motives have, indeed, their
influence, but they are not considered
as afforGing o sufficient safeguard for
the strict observance of truth. Our
law, in common with the laws of most
civilized countries, requires the addi-
tional security afforded by the relig-
ious sanction implied in an oath, and
as necessary consequence rejects wit
nesses who are incapable of giving that
security Atheists, therefore, and all
infdels-that is, those who profess no
religion that can bind their consciences
to speak the truth-are rejected as in
competent to testify as witnesses.
In the Law Reporter this view is
expressed: The law is sure in requir-
ing the highest attainable sanction for
the truth of testimony given; and is
consistent in rejecting all witnesses in-
capable of feeling this sanction or of
receiving this test, whether this inca
pacity arises from the inability of the
understanding or it's perversity. 1t
does not impute guilt or blame to eth
er. If the witness is evidently intoxi-
Gated he is not allowed to be sworn
because, for the time being, he is in
capable of feeling the force and obliga-
tion of an oath. The non-comp. and the
infant of tender age are rejected for the
same reason, but without blame The
atheist is also rejected, because he, too,
is incapable of realizing the obligation
of an oath, in consequence of his un-
belief The law looks only to the fact
of incapacity, not the cause or the man.
ner of avowal. Whether it be calmly
insinuated with the elegance of Gibbon
or worded forth with the disgusting
blasphemies of Paine, still it is athe-
ism, and to request the mere formality
of an oath from one who avowedly
despises or is incapable of feeling its
peculiar sanction would be but mock,
cry ofjustice.
RELIGIOUS BELIEF NECESSARY.
Mr. Starkie says: 1T seems that the
witness ought to be admitted if he be-
lieves in the existence of a God who
will reward or punish him in this
world although he does not believe il
future state. But it is not sufficient
that he believes himself bound to speaI
in truth, merely from regard to char
acter or the interest of society VI
of fear of punishment by the tempora
law
1t is useless to multiply authorities
for those already referred to exhibit
the law as recognized by all civilized
countries, except in those States where
it has been modified by express legisla
tion.
1t hence follows that the faith of {
witness should be religious belief o
some kind in the existence of an ON
niscient being who will reward ant
tlIllpi lsOiC vi lOI
good and evil deeds. A belief in 9
power, as exhibited in the forces of ma
ture, and call it supreme, and yet ig
more that that power is the handiworb
of the omniscient and omnipotent God
is totally insufficient to meet the laws
requirements. Nor is any advance
gained by asserting that he who vic
lates the law of nature will be punish
ed, for admittedly such punishment
will follow with unarring certainty
If one jump over board in mid-ocean ol
thrust his hand in a raging fire, or vi
olate any law Of his natural existence
he would be Immediately punished just
in the proportion that he violated these
natural laws. 1t is in this sense that
| Shelly. with his charming grace and