New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1889-08-18
TIE RIGHT TO TESTIFY.
NOT INyALIDATED BY ONES BELIEF.
AN IMPORTANT DECISION BY THE SUPREME
COURT or NEw.JERSEY

AN IMPORTANT DECISION BY THE sUPREMa
COURT or NEw.JERsEY
TIeuton. y. j., Aug. Il (spec.al. Judge Dixon. Of
the supreme Court Of This Stale. has recently delivered
opinion that is decidedly OF National interest
~ is probably the first instance Of supreme Court
or any high court, in this country deciding that a
mans civil rights set forth IN the Constitution
are mono important than the common law rule thai
no person can be witness in a judicial proceodn.
who denies that God will punish perjury. AlihougI
Judge Dixon deliserel the opinion, it must be cm6n
bored that it the opinion OF the entire suprm,
Court Of New-Jersey, with the exception Of Jua,.
Dcpue, Of Newark. who dlssented.
The case came before the court IN tie shape Of az
appeal from the Essex County Court Of Common
Pleas. That tribunal, through Judge kirkpatrick
refused TO allow man 10 testify on his behalf in az
action for debt because OF his denial Of punishment
for perjury by the Almighty. lie stated that he be
ieved IN the existence Of a supreme Being and die
not deny future state. but he believed the penau
prescribed by the stae would be the only punish
ment he would receive in no gave false icsmoa,
while under cath. The witness was deemed incom
peent and because he could not give his evidence b,
lost his suit 1t was the appeal lrom the decisio,
Of the lower court that the supreme Court rendcra
the opinion IN question aud oveTuled the orlgins
decision
AT the time the supreme Court rendered rs decision
the bare fact mentioned in some Of the papers
But only this week has the full text been obtained
Tho following is what Judge Dixon. speaking ia
the court, sad Assuming the common law rul
to be that no person can be witness in iudca
proceeding unless lie believes that God Will punis
perjury, ID becomes necessary to consider the enec
Of that clause in the first Article OF our State Con.
sttutlon which declares that no person shall b
denied the enjoyment Of any civil right merely o.
account Of his religious principles by statutc
parties In suits generally competent witnesses
their own behalf, and when the prosecutor tendcro<
himself as a witness in his behalf before TIT
Common Pleas his right to testify would have beef
conceded had he believed that God would punish per
Jury His right denied merely because he dk
not 50 believe II was not that lie did not tinl
himself bound to tell the truth according to his oath
but only that he had not an affirmative faith that TN
Divine Being would inhict some penalty upon hin
If he violated his obligation. Two questions there
fore arise: First. Is the right Of party to testify
in his own behalf civil right? secondly, is M
belief of a person as To whether God VIII punS
perjury to be ranked among his religious princPesi
BY clvu rights | understood those rights whii
the municipal law will enforce at the instance
pryate individuals, for the purpose Of securing
them the enjoyment Of their means OF happiness
They are dlstlngulshable from natural rights, which
,rould evist if there were no municipal law some q
which are abrogated by municipal law, while other
lie outside of its scope, and still Others an
enforceable under il as clvH rights Inc!
are also dstlngulshable from political ngns
which are directly concerned with the Institution sn'
administration OF government. Among civil right
IS the right to prosecute and defend actions In t
courts Of the Commonwealth according 10 the estaa
lIsbed rules of practice. This proposition Is sum
GENTLY vIndcated by reference TO the Civii klghq
cases in the supreme Court of the United States whe1
# IS assumed true by all justices OF that uounat
Thus i'm 'stIauder VS.. West Virginia, 100 T. D. oo'i
Mr. Justice Strong expressing the opinions OF hlnsol
and all hts associates, except Justices ChHoro aia
Field says that the Fourteenth Amendment OF tnefol
eral Constitution intended to secure to thecoofd
race all the civil rights which the white race enjoy
and speaks of Section 1,0.7 Of the Revised Staup7l
of Congress (Which enacts that all persons within u
Jurisdiction Of the United States shall have the sam
right TO sue be parties and give evidence> as putnnH
I'm the form of a statute what had been substantially
ordained by the Constitutional Amendment Ana
tx parte Virginia, 100 L. s., 339, $685. Mr. Jusnq
Field speaking for himself and Mr.. Justice Clifford
SAYS The equality Of protection secured (by IN
Fourteenth Amendment extends only 10 CIVIL rsns
as distinguished from those which are political, Q
arise from the form of the Government and us n0u
of administration; and yet the reach and influence
the amendment are immense. 1t opens the cours
of the country 10 every One on the same terms, 10
the security of his person and property, the peVenuo
and redress Of wrongs. and the enforcement Oh coz
tracts II TO every one the same rules OF e'l
dence and modes Of procedure. etc. in the hght
these statements IT clear that the statutory HSa
of a party TO testify in his own behalf IS civil right
d" The next question is whether persons be!ei
TO the punishment of perjury by the Deity Is to
classcd among his religious principles. This IS
think. equally clear. Religious principles are mos
sentiments concerning the relations between col am
man which may influence human conduct or thess
perhaps the most influential hitherto has been 10
View entertained to the probability that Coz WvuH
must be deemed part Of his religion, pllhclplts
4. urged HAT disbelief cannot Be called feHEOu
principle. Perhaps, If one denied m" oAst-hSo a
supreme Being II might IN proper stuso NC Ill
that he had no religious phciPtS, NC t relations b9
NOT entertain any opinion touching 'le rcb ~
tween God and man. unless a denla Oh any -,
latious might be 10 deDOminated: but 10 :" fTeine
who believes I'm the existence OF "uPitNanIr sor1
there pertain, necessarily o a. et,v.en Him an,
views with regard to The lrldol.1, 11e mr.
NJ which modiy the life of the indlV dua IHc IL
fact that in those relations ne has docs no
vino purpose of punishment loF ,PooiuI -, rincfns.
nh ar,on, tbem are his belief. his disbelief anu ~
dnubt concerning those relations fInn uI,g ~ ~
Scs 4, seems IN follow that, when parry claims ~
statutory right testify In MS own peha' n co
be denied on the gIouDu 'h"' NV w.
VII said the case will be appealed from the -
,,n,a Cnrrt az New-Jclsey 10 the nl'el S'ates ,.
Prae Court ON The ground that an underlying GOV
Pi ''IaI question is involved, which the hlghes
sshrnsi Of the NaIon should determine once ~
for all.
~ OID-TINE FIRE.ENGINE.