The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1911-02-09
ABUSES OF
 THE OATH
(By c. B. Moore of the Arkansas Bar)


 The abuses of the oath are reduc-
 ible to two general classes, namely:
 First, the extrajudicial employment
 of the ordinance; and, second, the
 perversion or violation of judicial
 oaths, or perjury.
 Under the first of these classes
 comes the crime of profane swearing,
 as it is generally termed, and oaths
 taken before a magistrate or other
 person, authorized to administer Ju-
 dicial oaths in cases where no judi
 cial proceedings are instituted, or ex-
 pected or intended to be instituted.
 As to the first of these, it is not our
 province at this time to speak. And
 cial oaths we need only remark that,
 though rare cases may occur or may
 be imagined when such oaths are
 justified and altogether proper, as, e.
 g., sworn dispositions de bene esse for the perpetuation of testimony, etc,
 we are inclined to coincide with the author just quoted where he says: ''If
 the case be of such character or so unimportant as not to require the in- deposition of the civil authority. the officer who administers the oath transcends his powers, and the juror makes an unlawful use of the ordi- nance. For example: A man goes before a magistrate and swears to ab- staain from drunkenness. This is in the nature of a religious vow, and pertains rather to the church than to the state; but neither is authorized to administer the oath for any such pur- pose.'
 ; It may be remarked in regard to all extrajudicial oaths that they are : binding in foro cOnscientiae, when ta- ken in reference to things of a lawful nature, or not involving moral wrong; but the great objection to them lies in the fact that they are not cognizable by the law, and violatio of them is not punishable by the law,
 and that the too frequent and unau- thorized use of the ordinance tends to degrade and weaken it's force and usefulness, and in many instances to induce the commission of moral, If not legal. perjury, or in the language l of Blackstone, "incur the guilt, and at the same time evade the temporal penalties, of perjury
 Under the head of perversions of the oath, we will mention only one, perhaps of not very frequent occur renee, to wit, swearing with a mental reservation, or placing a false inter- pretation on the terms of the oath. In general, it may be remarked that d faithful and honest performance of the terms of the oath requires that it should be interpreted by the juror according to the meaning of the one administering it, or, as the law books l say, in animum imponentis, and with | out any mental reservation or equiv
 ocation.. Any other construction is | in effect perjury. It is by far the | most fragrant and pernicious violation of the oath, crime perhaps more frequently committed than any other, and in the vast majority of cases | committed with impunity.
 No one who is the habit of attend l ing upon the courts of the country, and is at all observant, but must have | noted almost inhumerable instances I in which it is evident to the court the
 jury, and the bystanders that the evil dence as 1t falls from the lips of the
 witness is falsely colored, and is not
 ''the truth. the whole truth,and noth- 1 ing but the truth And how pain
 fully often it is palpably plain that 1 juries do not render verdicts (though
 and the evidence" Sometimes,
 doubtless. this is owing to the igno-
 rance and stupidity of the witness, or the 5urymen; but in very many in-
 stances no doubt can exist but that
 the perjury is wilful and committed
 unblushingly either through fear, fa-
 vor. or affection" So frequently is it
 committed that an eminent American
 writer, not so very long since, utter
 ed the startling truth. Cbut 1t is a
 nowadays as lying" So common and fragrant is the crime that some are
 ready to advocate the abrogation of | all oaths in our courts of justice, and | to substitute in their place only the
 statements of witnesses, leaving the
 court or the jury to judge of their
 truth or falsity.
 This we are not ready to admit as | the proper remedy. Believing that | the ordinance of the oath is of di- vine appointment, just as much, e. g.. as the institution of marriage or the l organization of civil governments are, we do not believe that it would be l right to abrogate and dispense with l the one any more than the others, | simply because We find them abused
 and violated.
 The oath was instituted in infinite wisdom, for the promotion and main l tenance of truth, and the confidence I and security of society, and in order ] to correct its abuses and make it sub serve all the ends for which it was | instituted it is necessary that it's vio- | lation should be more frequently and summarily and vigorously punished, and that public sentiment be intelli- gently educated in regard to it, by the | courts, the press, and the pulpit, and 1 in our schools and seminaries of | learning.
 | When this is done we will find that | there is no necessity for the abroga- | ton of the oath, and that it is a DOW
 CT for immeasurable good, always a | blessing, and an indispensable aid in 1 eliciting the truth.