The semi-weekly miner. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1882-1886, 1885-12-30

An agnostic's evidence was admitted in a
criminal trial at Chicago last week. I'm
der the common law no one was
permitted to testify unless he be-
lieved in the existence OF a Su-
preme Being and a future state OF rewards
and punishments. The witness produced
was Eugene Prussing, upon whose testl-
mony the prosecution relied for a convic-
tion. The defense objected to him on &C
count OF his known agnosticism. The usual
questions were propounded, to which ne
gave negative The defense con-
tended that he was Incompetent, and the
case went over until next morning for argu-
ment. Upon reassembling OF the court the
question was argued by both sides. When
the lawyers were through Mr.. Prussing
made an argument in his " behalf.
He said that the Constitution OF ILL
nois of 1918 and 1S4S guaranteed religious
freedom. This was opposed by the COM
mon law. The Pilgrim Fathers came to
this country because they wished to be
freed from the exactions OF the common
law. They wanted freedom to worship as
they deemed best. The development OF
knowledge and science produced atheists,
and q form of affirmation was made to
suit their cases. In the last fifty years
there had arisen a large class who were
called agnostics. They did not know
whether there was any God or not. but he
there one or be there none, they would act
in accordance with the dictates OF their
own conscience.
After showing that all the cases cited
were decided under the Constitution OF
1s4s, which, without any doubt. refused
the testimony OF those who did not believe
in a God, Mr.. Prussing said:
"In 1868 Robert G. Ingersoll was the
chief law officer OF the State Of Illinois-its
Attorney General. He made the remark
that if he wal the sole witness OF a most
~diaholical murder the assassin would go un-
hung ana unpublished, because under the
laws of the State it's Attorney General
would not be a competent witness because
he did not believe in Il God. The effect OF
this remark and the wide discussion which
followed was seen in the Constitution OF
1870, and the blot was forever effaced from
the statutes OF the State. The Bill OF
Rights in the Constitution of 1870 says:
And no person shall be denied any civil or
political right, privilege or capacity on ac-
count Of his religious opinions In his
capacity as a witness lie was protected by
the Constitution"
Judge Shepherd said the question was
one OF great Importance and should receive
longer study. If the position OF the de-
iencs was correct a large number Of people
would be incapacitated rs witnesses. He
was inclined to believe that the Constitu-
ton OF 1870 stepped in to aid this class OF
persops. He would decide that Mr.. Prus-
sing was competent to testify. The de-
fence noted an exception. and the question
will 90 to the Supreme Court Of Illinois.
There is a growing disposition, every
where, to break down the strong barriers
erected under the common law in England,
when it wasin great measure subordinated
to the ecclesiastical law, having for their
object the persecution and prescription OF
all Who refused to accept the canons, and
subscribe to the dogmas OF the church as
laid down by the priesthood. Mr.. Prussing
said he considered the oath he was about
to take binding upon his conscience, be-
cause it was prescribed by law and the
statutes OF the State. This IL the only test
that should be required anywhere as to the
competency Of q witness. Under the