The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1898-10-26
ADMINISTRATION OF oATHs.
UTTERLY DEVOID OF soLEMNITY
AND OFTENTIMES RIDICULOUS.

tesdueness in Which the Chinese
Oath Plays a PRrt-How an Italian
swore-RiGidity of Form of Oath
Relaxed in Recent Years other
observations,
From tie Chicago Chronicle.
In origin and intent no proceeding in
court OF justice is so solemn and inn
pressive as the administration and TAX
ing of an oath-in actual practice as
manifested every day nothing is so utter
~ devoid of soiemnny nor so utterly ridic-
ulous
The foregoing declaration applies to the
formal oath prescribed by the Jaws OF the
| commonwealth. as well as TO the forms
which witnesses insist upon because of
| religious differences. Clerks grunt out the
statutory form of the oath in an unnlel-
hgibie humble, while the witness stands
with barred head and uplifted hand. The
latter mods a careless head to something
he has not understood, unless he be a
familiar of courts and the process is al
an end. 1t may be that for reasons sufn-
cient to himself he refuses to take the oath
as set out in the laws. Then some strange
scenes may be enacted.
| Probably the best illustration of this
was the scene enacted in Judge Freeman's
court a few years ago in the trial of the
"H.ghbinder" cases. The law permits a
winess TO take any oath which under his
religious convictions may be binding on
his conscience. This is the supreme test.
In the cases mentioned the defendants and
prosecuting witnesses were Cinnamon. All
the five defendants united in the demand
| that the true Chinese oath be administered
| TO the witnesses for the state. This was
| done and a scene unequaled for grotesque-
! ness was the result The witnesses were
| ell from the same province, and, there
| fore, would be bound by the same pro-
| ceeding.
living chicken was carried squawkng
| into court and placed before the witnesses.
| The bird was then decapitated and bisect-
| ed right there. Then the witnesses were
| required to dip their fingers in the blood
| of the bird and call upon their gods to
| dispatch their souls as the chicken had
| been dispatched if they failed one particle
| in telling the truth. This they all did
! with degree of awe and solemnity not
| usually part of oath-taking in any court.
| Presumably they told the truth, for all
| of the defendants were convicted and sent
| TO the penitentiary.
/ IN dGOEiGF case an Italian asked 10 De
| sworn according 20 the rites in use in the
! province whence he came. This consisted
| OF bringing into court a holy taper. 1t
| had been duly blessed by the priest and
when taken before the witness was lighted
and placed in his hand He gravely
crossed himself and then blew out the
light, praying that his soul might be
blown away as had been the light of the
taper If he spoke not the truth. This sat
! isfied his conscience and was accepted as
| a binding oath.
Oaths and the taking thereof are more
| ancient than the common law. They are
more ancient than Christianity, for the
! ancient Persian took oaths, the rulers of
! Babylon caused solemn oaths to be adj
! ministered that truth might be sifted from
falsohood.
The ancient Roman, pagan as any Chi
| naman, swore upon the altar of his god.
! The ceremony was impressively solemn.
| This practice of swearing on the altar was
| transmitted to the Christians, and for
| many centuries before the institution Of
! regularly constituted tribunals disassoci-
| ated from the church was practiced in all
| controversies. Then the contradictions
! and anomalies commenced TO crop out.
| They have Increased and multiplied since
| until the whole system is reduced TO al
| most farce, especially in courts of JUS
| tice.
Later the cruel test oaths were made
! law Unless the witness held the same
| Views IS the lawmakers he could not tes-
ufy. The extent to which this outrageous
| practice was carried in England is apuy
! illustrated in a paper by Judge Edward
| A. Thomas of New York Judge Thomas
says:
THE only practical use Of an oath Is 10
| increase the moral responsibility Of the
| person to whom 10 is admins tered. 1t
| has, however during the ages, been en-
ployed for other purposes. Had
| the philosophers Confucius or Plato or
| Pascal lived in or been natives Of Eng
| land or some portions of America at a re-
| cent date they would have found them
| serves little better than outcasts from
heir inability to take certain oaths ac-
cording to established form. At the same
time a ward politician, who cared no
more for the sanctity of an oath than n
| puff of tobacco smoke, would have been
! permitted to swear as rapidly as an OFF,
Ger could administer the cath. How pow
erful an influence would the ceremony ex-
ert on such MANI
Laws which once were rigid on the
| forms of oaths have been greatly relaxed
| in recent years. Once no man could have
rights in court IL he would not take the
oath in prescribed form; now, he can
take any which will be binding on his in
| divdual conscience or take none If he has
| conscientious scruples. Atheists until
very recently were not permitted 10 tes-
| tify. because, lacking a belief in God,
they were held to have no consciences.
Yet In many cases men holding such
opinions have been eminent for the cor
rectness of their lives and the high sense
OF personal honor.
Many OF the states have dropped the
habit of Juggling IN the Bible in this cere-
monial. Kissing the book is practced in
few courts to-day. In England this prac-
tice has been recently and strongly con-
demned by physicians because Of the dis
eaes-producng dangers of the practice
In a London police court doctor eml-
nent as a germ doctor fatty refused 20
kiss the book. which had been In use
there for unnumbered years.
Z He was committed for contempt by the
magistrate when ordered to do So He
had no conscientious scruples as legally
defined, but had as medically defined
There was a great hullabaloo over the al
fair, a great searching for precedents for
they are great on precedents in England
as well as here. The result was the doc
tor swore by lifting up his hand and was