The daily morning Astorian. [volume] (Astoria, Oregon) 1883-1899, 1888-10-14
THE BASIS OF CREDENCE.


the statement does not seem incredi-
BILE, or the person making it has no
apparent motive for deceit or is known
to be trustworthy, the statement is
accepted. If, on the other hand, the
statement is astonishing. if it is calcu-
lated to benefit the person making it,
or if the latter is not known to be
trustworthy, his word is doubted or
rejected. And whether it be accepted |
or doubted or rejected, the question
of his religious or theological belief
does not enter into consideration once
in million times. The idea that only
those can be believed who hold a
particular theory as to mans origin
and destiny, or that the fear of fu-
ture punishment is the only thing
which insures truthfulness, has no ex-
istence in ordinary social intercourse.
Yet this is the idea that has for
ages been dominant in the admins
tration of justice, SO called; and in
spite of all the arguments which COM
mon knowledge Of men have brought
to bear against it, it is clung to as per-
sistently as if it were believed that
the foundations of justice depended
upon it. In the city of Chicago, only
last week, the question was raised
whether witness was competent to
testify in court who avowed his dis
belief in God and in future punish
ishment. The witness was not an
atheist in the ordinary sense of the
word. He did not deny the existence
of God. His faith or unfaith con-
sisted in having no positive belief in
the existence of God. He did not
know, he, said, whether God existed
or not. He would neither affirm or
deny the proposition. His position
as to a future state of existence in
which he might be punished for the
Sins or crimes committed in this
world was the same. He neither
affirmed nor denied such state. He
declared, however, that he was ready
to take the oath because it was re-
quired by the statutes Of the state and
that it was binding on his conscience
for that reason.
1t was claimed by the prosecution,
whose witness the agnostic was, that
under the constitution of the state oi
Illinois his testimony must be re
ceived. That instrument provides
that "no person shall be denied any
civil right, privilege or capacity on
account of his religious opinions" +"
The court held the witness competent
and admitted his testimony; but the
defense took an exception and will
carry the question to the supreme
court of the state for final decision.
That decision will be awaited with
interest, but there can scarcely be a
doubt as to what it will be. With
such a constitutional provision as
that referred to, the court will have
no excuse for evading the teachings
OF common sense as to the real
grounds Of belief in human testimony.
II there ever was any foundation for
the theory of the defense in this case
there is none now. Common expert
ence is wholly opposed to it. Intelli-
gent men no longer believe that a
witness is trustworthy because of faith
or profession or Enthusiastically be-
cause of lack of faith. Juries never
hesitate to discredit testimony Just as
people judge in ordinary intercourse
of the weight of what is said to them.
The " solemnity of an oath" still goes
for something, but it goes for far less
than it used.
REGARDING the election in Wash
ington territory, THE AsToRIAN has
this to say: Apart from the presumed
desire Of American citizens to aid
American interests, the citizens OF
Washington territory have a direct
personal interest in the election fol
congressman. Residents of Washing.
ton territory who want that section to