The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1889-11-13
THE RIGHT TO Testify.
Nor 1nvalidated by 6t5ibg's Belief.

IereSL. IL Is PROBABLY the HFSt instance
of Supreme Court, or any high court,
in this country deciding that a mans
civil rights as set forth in the Constitu-
ton are more important than the COM
mon law rule that no person can be a
witness in judicial proceeding who de-
MES that God will punish perjury. AL
though Judge Dixon delivered the
opinion, it must be remembered that it
was the opinion of the entire Supreme
Court of New Jersey, with the exception
of Judge Depue, of Newark, who dis
scented.
The case came before the Court in the
shape of an appeal from the Essex
County Court of Common Pleas. That
tribunal, through Judge Kirkpatrick, re-
fused to allow a man to testify on his
behalf in an action for debt because of
his denial of punishment for perjury by
the Almighty. He stated that he be-
lieved in the existence of a Supreme
Being and did not deny future state,
but he believed the penalty prescribed
by the State would be the only punish
ment he would receive in case he gave
false testimony while under oath. The
witness was deemed incompetent and
because he could not give his evidence
he lost his suit. 1t was on the appeal
from the decision of the lower court that
the Supreme Court renders the opinion
in question and overruled the original
decision.
The following is what Judge Dixon,
speaking for the Court, said: "Assum-
ing the common law rule to be that no
person can be witness in a judicial pro-
| ceeding unless he believes that God will
punish perjury, it becomes necessary to
consider the effect of that clause in the
first article of our State Constitution
which declares that mo person shall be
denied the enjoyment of any civil right
merely on account of his religious prin-
| ciples' By statute parties in suits are
generally competent witnesses in their
own behalf, and when the prosecutor
rendered himself as witness in his own
behalf before the Common Pleas his
, right to testify would have been conceded
had he believed that God would punish
perjury. His right was denied merely
because he did not so believe. 1t was
not that he did not think himself bound
to tell the truth according to his oath,
but only that he had not an affirmative
faith that the Divine Being would inf1ict
some penalty upon him if he violated his
obligation. Two questions, therefore,
arise: First, is the right of party to
testify in his own behalf civil right?
Secondly, is the belief of person as to
whether God will punish perjury to lie
ranked among his religious principles?
"By civil rights l understand those
rights which the municipal law will en-
force, at the instance of private indivi-
duals, for the purpose OF securing to
them the enjoyment of their means of
happiness. They are distinguishablef from
natural rights, which would exist if there
were no municipal law, some of which
are abrogated by municipal law, whilst
others lie outside of its scope, and still
others are enforceable under it as civil
rights. They are also distinguishable
from political rights which are directly
concerned with the institution and ad-
ministration of government. Among
civil right is the right to prosecute and
defend actions in the courts of the Com
monwealth according to the established
rules of practice. This proposition is
sufficiently indicated by a reference to
the Civil Right cases in the Supreme
Court of the United States, where it is
assumed as true by all justices of that
tribunal. Thus in 'Strauder VS.. West
Virginia, 100 U. S. 303, Mr.. Justice
Strong, expressing the opinions of him
self and all his associates, except JUS
tees Clifford and Field, says that the
Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal
Constitution was intended to secure the
colored race all the civil rights which
the white race enjoy and speaks of Sec
ton ,977 of the Revised Statute of Con-
gress (Which enacts that all persons
within the Jurisdiction of the United
States shall have the same right to sue,
be parties and give evidence) as putting
in the form of a statute what had been
substantially ordained by the Constitu-
tional Amendment. And it 'Ex parte
Virginia, 100 U. S. 339, $780, Mr.. JUS
tice Field, speaking for himself and Mr..
Justice Clifford says: The quality of
protection secured (by the Fourteenth
Amendment extends only to civil rights
as distinguished from those which are
political, or arise from the form of the
government and it's mode of admins
tration; and yet the reach and influence
of the amendment are immense. 1t
opens the Court of the country to every
one, on the same terms, for the security
of his person and property, the preven-
ton and redress of wrongs, and the en-
forCements OF contracts. 1t assures to
everyone the same rules Of evidence and
modes of procedure, etc. In the light
of these statements it seems clear that
the statutory right of a party to testify
in his own behalf is a civil right.
'The next question is whether per-
sons belief as to the punishment of per-
jury by the Deity is to be classed among
his religious principles. This is, think,
equally clear. Religious principles are
those sentiments concerning the rela-
tions between God and man, which NAV
influence human conduct. Of these per-
haps the most influential hitherto has
been the view entertained as to the prob
ability that God would punish vice. A
PERSONS sentiments on that subject must
be deemed part of his religious
principles. It is urged that disbelief
cannot be called a religious principle. |
Perhaps, if one denied the existence of a
Supreme Being, it might in a proper
sense be said that he had no religious |
principles, because he could not enter |
tain any opinion touching the relations |
between God and man, unless denial |
of any such relations might be SO de- |
nominated. But to a person who be- !
lieves in the existence of a Supreme |