Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1883-01-10

From the Philadelphia Times.
| Judge Briggs, in q comprehensive opinion de-
livered yesterday, ruled that atheists and all
| Others who do not believe In a Divine Being and
| Divine rewards and punishments are incompe-
tent as witnesses. The matter was brought up
on motion tor new trial in the suit of Lucas
| against Piper, the ground for the motion being
that Judge Briggs had admitted the testimony
of Robert Becker, who said that, though he be-
lieved In the Creator of the universe and i'm a
Supreme Power which would punish him here
for false swearing. he did not believe in God as
commonly understood by the people, nor In q
personal God, nor God as an entity. There was
no other evidence in support 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 re-
quired to render one competent as a witness
than belief in Supreme Power. simply as a
power or principle which may be the restless.
natural laws as exhibited by the motion and
operation of the elements. and to violate which
will surely bring punishment here to the trans
gressor. The belief required by our laws is a
belief in the existence Of an Omniscient Su-
preme Being who will impose divine punish
ment for perjury either in this world or
IN the next. If the belief be short of
this 1t falls under the han of legal con-
demnatiOn. Mr.. Greenleaf .0n Evidence
thus expresses himself i'm discussing the point
under consideration: The third class of per
sons incompetent to testify as witnesses con-
ssts of those who are insensble to the oblga-
ton OF an oath from defect of religious sent-
ment and belief. The very motive of an OATH
| it being religious and most solemn appeal to
God as the Judge of all men. presupp0ses that
the witness believes i'm the existence of an
Omniscient Supreme Being who is the rewarder
of truth and avenger of falsehood. and thSt by
such formal appeal the conscience OF the wit
ness is affected. Without this belief the per-
son can not be subject to that sanction
which the law deems an indispensable test OF
truth 1T is not sufficient that the witness
believes himself bound to speak the truth from
regard to character or from fear OF punish
ment which the law inhicts upon persons
guilty of perjury
WHAT Is REQUIRED OF WITNESS.
''Such motives have. indeed, their influence.
but they are not considered as affording a suf-
ficient safeguard for the strict observance of
truth. Our law, IN common with the law of
most civilized countries. requires the additional
security afforded by the religious sanction i'm
piled in an oath. and as necessary consequence
rejects witnesses who are incapable of giving
that security. Atheists, therefore, and all in
ffdels-that is those who profess no religion
that can bind their cOnsciences to speak the
truth-are rejected as incompetent to testify as
witnesses.
lin the l. Law Reporter this view is ex-
pressed: The law assure in requiring the high
est attainable sanction forthe truth of testimony
given.and is consistent in rejecting all witnesses
Incapable of feeling this sanction or OF receiving
this test. whether this incapacty arises from the
inability of the understanding or from its per-
m fn oril 70
either. Ii the witness is evidently intoxicated
he is not allowed to be sworn because for the
time being. he is incapable of feeling the force
and obligation 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 ar oath. in conse-
quence of his unbelief The law looks only to
the fact OF the incapacity. not to the cause or
the manner of evowal Whether it be calmly
insinuated with the elegance of Gibbon or
wOrded forth with the disgusting blasphemies
or Paine, still 1t Is atheism, and to request the
mere fOrmality OF an oath from one who ayOw-
eddy despises or is incapable Of feeling its pecu-
liar sanction would be but a mdckery Of justice
RELIGIOUS BELIEF NECESSARY.
'Mr. Stake says: 1T seems that the witness
ought to be admitted II he believes in the exist
ence of a God who will reward or punish him
in this world, although he does not believe In a
future state. But it is not sufiicient that he be-
lieves himself bound to speak in truth, merely
from regard to character or the interest of
society, or fear of punishment by the temporal
law
sit is useless to-multipy authorities. for those
already referred to exhibit the law as recognized
by all civilized countries, except in those states
where 1t has been modified by express legisla-
ton.
ut hence follows that the faith of witness
e1,1 ,,1l H.. LII
existence of an Omniscient being who will re-
ward and punish, either here or hereafter for
good and evil deeds. belief in a power as
exhibited by the forces of nature and call it SUI
preme and yet ignore that the power is the
handiwOrk of the omniscient and omnipotent
God. Is totally insufficient to meet the laws re-
quirements. Nor is any advance gained by as
sorting that he who violates the law OF nature
will be punished, for admittedly such punish
ment will follow with unerring certainty If
one Jump overheard in mid-Ocean or thrust his
hand into raging fire. or violate any law of
natural existence, he would be Immediately
punished just in the proportion that he violate
these natural laws. 1t is in this sense that
Shelley. with his charming grace and eloquence
of STYLE and sublime poetic conception, wrote
his Queen Nab He assumes that
''All-sufficing nature can chastise
Those who transgress her laws She only
knows
How to proportion to the fault
The punishment it merits.
AN INSUFFICIENT BELIEF.
''The sentiment running through this master
piece of the poet, and which has been said to be
his honor as poet and disgrace as a man. to-
tally ignores the existence Of God, and yet he
maintains the doctrine of punishment
happiness and misery and rewards and punish
ments are alone the sequents of human action
without divine interposition. and that death is
an endless sleep. A belief in such punishment
is not belief in divine punishment. and is
clearly insufficient to render one entertaining it
competent to testify under our law.
''While the witness Becker said he believed In
a Supreme Power that would punish him here
for false swearing, he would not say that he be-
lieved that power was divine. and he totally
denied the personality of God and OF God as
generally understood by people With such a
belief how can he be said to be i'm fear of divine
punishment for testifying falsely? His belief
being defective in this respect. Il falls short of
one of the legal requirements which is indis-
pensable to exist to entitle him to be examined
as witness in the courts of this state. 1t fol-
lows that erred in receiving his testimony. and
that a new trial shonld be ordered"
Too Many Churches for a Small Town
From the Yonkers Statesman.