The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-10-05
AMISH SECT SUSTAINED
ATTORNEY GENERAL TAYLOR SAID
THEY STOOD on THEIR RIGHTS.
cuted for Refusing to Take
an Oath.

Fred Rohrer, of Berne, Ind. has brought
TO the attention of Attorney General Taylor
the prosecution Of certain members Of the
Amish religious sect of that town last
spring for refusal to affirm that their tax
lists were correct. The matter has Gre
ated quite a stir in that part Of Indiana,
and local papers have been ''carded' fire.
quently by Amish clergymen and others on
the subject. TIL reason given for the re-
fusal TO affirm is that the members of the
quaint sect were informed that an affirma-
ton is equivalent to an oath. they declare
that the Bible expressly forbids taking an
oath, quoting Christ's declaration, Swear
not at ALL"
Mr.. Taylor yesterday sent Mr.. Rohrer a
formal opinion on the matter, in which he
says that the officers who prosecuted these
people nave evidently mistaken the law. 1T
is entirely competent" says the attorney
general, for any one to affirm instead OF
taking an oath, either as a juror, witness
or affiant." Section S, Article l or the In
diana Constitution is cited as follows: The
mode OF administering an oath or afhrma-
ton shall be such as may be most con-
siStent with and binding upon the con-
science of the person TO whom such oath or
affirmation may be administered. Section
quoted, as follows: mo law shall in any
case whatever control the free exercise
and enjoyment of religious opinions, or In
terfere with the rights of conscience.
The remainder of the attorney generals
opinion follows:
There is no formal statute for an oath
with the usual form of oath. Affrmatlons
are of recent origin. They did not exist
under the old English law. but are entirely
the product of the statute. Affirmatlons
came into English law through the ..Toler-
alton act Cunder William and Nary.
which allowed the Quakers who refused 10
80 tho raN~nllf-
ton in England in 1888 the Quakers were
subjected to severe penalties because they
refused to take oath.
Being Of Quaker origin on my mothers
side L would naturally favor the night 10
affirm, wherever the person requests IL, on
account of religious scruples.
Al Affirmation is not an oath at all.
The very object of the affirmation was to
avoid making an oath. 1t has not any OF
the qualities of an oath. 1t Is not necessary
to saw. after each affirmation. so you do
under the pains and penalties OF perjury,
or any similar expression. i know this Is
used sometimes by clerks and officers, but
ii is not necessary.
"Of course. If one should afflrm on the
witness stand, and then testify falsely. he
would be subjected to punishment on &C
count Of perjury the same as IL he had
made an oath. II, however, has nothing TO
do with those who tell the truth and does
not come by reason of the affirmation,
and the charge of perjury would not result
because of the affirmation, but because the
witness testified falsely.
THE whole question is fully discussed in
Volume 1. encyclopedia of Pleading and
Practice, P. S77. The law dictionaries also
treat of the subject. and many decisions of
the Supreme Courts of the States have
passed upon the question, so that in max
ing a tax return the taxpayer has the right
to affirm if he has religious scruples or OBJ
jectiOnS to taking an oath, and 1t is not
necessary to add anything TO the aftirma-
ton by way of pains and penalties of
perjury This is a country where re-
ligious freedom is one of the very stones
on which our free institutions are based"