The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-01-30
TIE BIBLE IN COURT.

8s4~&A& The Richmond Dispatch was somewhat of stickler for the oid-time kss-the- Bible practice. and was glad that the Legislature has turned down the bill of Mr. McIlwaine. The Dispatch said: There is no excuse for any courts using a dirty Bible: q clean one can be eas " obtained. and at small cost. ana judges and Justices should see to 1t that IL IS done. and that oatns are reverentiy ao- ministered The man who objects to be- ing sworn on the Holy B-pie can, or course, make affirmation by holding up his right hand. That is his priviiege, and long has been. NO one wishes to de- prfve nm of it.
 We fail to appreciate the posi- tive assertion that there is no use for any courts using a dirty Bible.' on the theory that "a clean one can be cas- fly obtained" Would our contemporary advise that a clean book be provided for each witness, as host provides clean napkins for each guest? When a filthy. perspiring negro handles and kisses the Bible is the clerk to chuck 1t into the If not we fail to see now he is to pro- ceed.
 The paper gave it's case away when 1t assumed or asserted that any man who objects to being sworn on the Bible can make affirmation by holding up his right hand. If such an oath is valid and bind ing in one case it must be in all others, and if one witness can be legally sworn without touching or kissing the Bible all others can. That argument is an admis- sion that there is no need of the books. If there is anything in a State Consti- tution making an oath invalid and of no force unless the Bible is held and kissed there Is no more to be said. but we know Of no such requirements in any State Constitution.
 We freely admit that there is great deal of unnecessary discussion abroad on the subject of microbes. For small things they are required to fill more than their share of the public mind and attention. No doubt there are many microbes of many kinds, but we are not giving them all the credit or the blame for all the ills that flesh is heir to. If they were as numerous, as ubiquitous and as fiendish as some try to make them appear. the human family ought to go out of busi- ness in a few years. for no human life would be safe. There are many of them, beyond a doubt. but they are not quite in control of humanity just yet.
 At the same time. while we do not attach 90 much importance to the mil crobes as some are doing. we fully agree with the scientists that many, most. or all diseases depend on germs of some kind. and that these germs are transmissible from one person to another. If we admit this we must admit that there is at least a probability that one person with dis eased hand or lips who touches or kisses a Bible may leave to the next witness a legacy which the latter could easily dis pense. Further. it must be admitted that it is hardly probable that in the mu.ti- tude of witnesses using the Bible no one is likely to leave germs of disease on the sacred volume.
 But. leaving the question of disease out Of the argument does not affect the other question of decency. The continual use of one book by all sorts of people must of necessity be unpleasant anddisgusting to sensitive and delicate people. The Dis patch begs to let's hold on to the Bibles in the courts but have clean Bibles there for witnesses lips to touch," but that is impracticable. It is impracticable to have q cuean Bible for each witness, So we must go on in the old way or change the method of swearing witnesses.