Year: 1874

In the District Court, First Judicial Dis trict. Chief Justice Dunne, Presiding.

 Refugio Rivera being on trial for mur- der, a witness was sworn in the usual man. ner, when one of the counsel in the case asked the question whether the witness ought not be sworn on cross, stating that it was believed by some that there were many persons in this Territory who did not consider an Oat.I binding unless it was administered upon cross, and claiming that if witness believed that an oath was not binding unless administered in a peculiar way, the witness should be com pelled to take the oath in that man. ner. The legislature of this Territory has made distinction as to the man. ner of administering oaths. It has pro- vided in Section 4i6. page 45l of Com piled Laws, that "when person is sworn "who believes in any other than the Chris "tian religion, he may be sworn according to the peculiar ceremonies of his rellg- "iOn, if there be any such." The court inquired whether it was claimed that the witness believed in any other than the Christian religion. Counsel replied that it was not. The court then ruled that the legislature has drawn the line at the point of beliefin the Christian religion, and had prescribed one uniform manner for ad- ministering oaths to all persons who be- lieved in the Christian religion, making only one exception. generally supposed to be in behalf of the sect known as Qua kers; namely, that any witness who de- sireS it may, instead of taking the usual oath, make his solemn affirmation or declaration in lieu of an oath.

 The court ruled that the form of oath for all persons, not believing in any other than the Christian religion, having been prescribed by the legislature, and it hav- ing admitted only one exception thereto, and it being admitted that the witness did not believe in any other than the Chris tian religion and was not within the eX- ception provided by law, it was beyond the power of the court to order the witness to be sworn on a cross as suggested by counsel or in any other manner not war ranted by law.

 The court then, for it's own information, inquired what class of persons 1t was of whom it was believed hy some that though belonging to the Christian relig- ion they did not consider an oath binding unless administered upon cross. Coun- Sel replied, Roman Catholics. Upon which the Chief Justice remarked that if any persons in this Territory protesting to be Roman Catholics say they have such a belief, they are either wOfully ignorant of the teachings of the Catholic church or else deliberate f2lsitiers of it's doctrines; that he was a member of that church him. self, and that there was no such doctrine taught, held or cOuntenanced in that church; but that on the contrary, the sane tity and binding force of an oath admins tered in accordance with the laws of the land, was nowhere so fully maintained as

 in the teachings of that church.

 His Honor added that if it was a fact that there were persons in this Territory protesting to believe in the Christian re- ligiOn, who do not believe in the binding force Of an oath as at present prescribed by law, whether from any peculiar mo- tions they might ignOrantly or advisedly have, or from lack of any firm belief in the existence of a God, or of a future state, or from any other cause, it was a matter for the legislature to consider and make provision for, if deemed advisable, but that the power and duty of the cOUrt was limited to compliance with the law as it existed and not as the court might think it ought to be.