The Prince George's enquirer and southern Maryland advertiser. (Upper Marlborough, Md.) 1882-1925, 1904-02-12
DO WE SWEAR TOO MUCH?

This query does not mean ordinary
profanity, but ordinary oath-taking
of legal nature. 1t goes without
saying we have entirely too much Of
the former, and possibly more than
we need of the latter. In the first
place, let US ask what an oath means,
or rather its nature. It has been said
that when one makes an oath to any
thing which is not true he commits
perjury and is subject to the punish
ment provided in the statutes. This
is not quite the case, as the penalty
does not necessarily attach TO the act
bnt to the conditions of the act Sup.
pose John Jones takes an oath that
he owns our court house, including the
unknown statues on top, and should
post his affidavit on an opera house
billboard, he could not be convicted of
perjury. He has violated no law unless
be has trespassed on the billboard and
nothing has hinged or his statement.
Usage and sentiment have given to IN
oath its formidable character, but yet
it is hard to see why an oath should
be particle more sacred than q
plain statement 1t is said the oath
is made in the sight of God, but for
that matter everything we do is in
His sight. We are taught that there
is nothing old that shall not be reveal
ed and that our every act is recorded.
The man then, who says thing is 80
when it is not is just as certainly =
liar as the man who takes an oath to
the same thing. A liar is liar, no
difference under what disguise he
acts.
In saying this we do not mean to
infer that the oath should be abolished,
but rather to show that its sacred na-
ture is really fear Of man, in some
cases of the law, in others Of the here
after. 1t is the truth that is sacred,
not the oath. Now comes the ques.
tion-would not the oath be held in
higher estimation if not 80 frequently,
carelcssly or perfunctorily admins
tered? People are sworn to 80 many
little things that in time they assume
that an oath is a form or ceremony
and not something in which conscience
has part. For instance, how many
who take an oath as an executor, ad-
minister or as an official, high or low,
ever think what they are swearing to
perform? They know no one has ever
been punished for not living up to his
official oath, and therefore it must be
only ceremony to administer it: as
it involves no danger or moral obliga-
ton. Next, how common it is for
suitors to swear out appeals simply
for delay and not because injustice
has been done them! This is perjury
of a kind, but as it is looked upon as
a customary means of defence it pass
es without comment and the man will
ing to take it is thought none the less
of by his lawyer or the public at
large. Lastly, oaths are administer
ed with no degree Of dignity or i'm
pressiveness in the great majority Of
cases. 1t is simply humble, humble,
humble, kiss the book, please-twen-
ty-fve cents. Butas we have said, the
oath cannot be abolished. Its use might
be lessened in some minor cases-in
other words, it should not be made 90
common. Theu if administered in 3
solemn manner that suggests its
seriousness it would indeed be more
sacred and perhaps fewer would
commit perjury.-Lancastcr Pa.) E.x-
aminer.