The Monitor. [volume] (Woodstown, N.J.) 1884-1892, 1889-08-09
THE RIGHT OF INFIDELs TO TEs.
THY.

THE RIGHT OF INFIDEL.S TO TIES.
THY.
Judge Dixon has recently delivered in
the Supreme Court of the State an import
ant and highly interesting opinion concern
ing the competency of a witness to testify
in his own behalf who does not believe that
God will punish perjury. The case WAS
that of the State Percey, Prosecutor)
against Ponces and another, and was on
certiorari from the Essex Common Pleas,
The plaintiff whose Administrative is de-
PENDANT in certiorari. was sworn as wit
ness in his own behalf, and subsequen tly
the defendant, now plaintiff in certiorari,
offered him as witness in his own behalf.
The plaintiff objected to the competency
of the defendant on the ground that he
didn't believe in Supreme Being or In
future state of rewards and punishme nts.
The defendant denied the plaintiffs asser-
ton, but added that he believed the pun
ishment prescribed by State laws to be the
only punishment lie would receive for false
swearing. The Common Pleas, on this
ground, excluded him as incompetent and
gave judgment for the plaintiff Judge
Dixon takes an opposite view in an exhaus-
tive decision, which will prevail in all the
courts of New Jersey unless revised by the
Court of Errors and Appeals.
Assuming the common-law rule the
Judge said, ITO be that no person can be .
witness in a judicial proceeding 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 per-
son shall be denied the enjoyment of any
civil right merely on account Of his ne
ligions principles By statute in this
State, parties in suits are generally COM
petent witnesses in their own behalf, and
when the prosecutor rendered himself as .
witness in his own behalf before the Com
mon Pleas, his right to testify would have
been conceded had he believed that God
punished 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 infiict some
penalty upon him if be violated his obliga-
ton. Two questions, therefore, arise !:
First is the right of party to testify in
his own behalf a civil rights Second, Is
the belief of a person as to whether God
will punish perjury to be ranked among
his religious principles?
s'By civil rights understand those rights
which the municipal law will enforce at
the instance of private individuals, for the
purpose of scouting to them the enjoyment
of their means of happiness. Among civil
rights is the right to prosecute and defend
actions in the courts of the commonwealth
according to established rules ofpractice.
Judge Dixon cited opinions Of United
States supreme Court Justices to the effect
that the statutory right of a party to testi-
fly in his own behalf is civil right.
1.-THE next question, +" he continued, 'sis
whether PERSONS belief as to the punish
ment of perjury by the Deity is to be class
ed among his religious principles. This is,
I think, equally clear. Religious princi-
pies are those sentiments concerning the
relation between God and man which may
influence human conduct. OF these per-
haps the most influential hitherto has been
the view entertained as to the probability
that God wonld punish vice. A persons
sentiments on that subject must be deem
ed part of his religious principles. It is
urged that disbelief cannot be called re-
ligious principle. Perhaps, if one denied
the existence of Supreme Being It might
in proper sense be said that he had no
religious principles, because he could not
entertain any opinion touching the rela-
tions between God and man, unless de-
NAL Of any such relations might be % do
nominated. But to person who believes
in the existence of a Supreme Being there
pertain necessarily, or at least probably,
some views with regard to the relation be-
tween him and us which modify the life Of
the individual. The mere fact that ia
those relations he has discovered NO divine
purpose of punishment for specific acts
does not initiate against bis possession Of
religious principles. and among them are
his belief. his disbelief and his doubt o0n-
cerning those relations. From these prom
ises it seems to follow that when party
claims the statutory right TO testify IN his
own behalf be cannot be denied on the
ground that he does not believe God will
punish perjury.
ssMy conclusion is that the defendant b.
low should have been admitted - Wit
ness, and that consequently the Judgment
Of the Common Pleas must be roversed.