TAKING THE OATH.

Evening Star, Issue 4053, 22 February 1876, Page 3

TAKING THE OATH.

To the Editor, Sir, —Of tne thousand and one reforms which requires to be instituted or customs to be abolished there is one custom which, I think, calls for our very serious consideration, that is, tbe lega'ised custom of giving and taking oaths in our Courts of Justice, *&c, To anyone who may be in the habit of visiting these p’aces it canuot have escaped tht.ir notice that aj ei sori’s word or evidence is of no le-jal va’ue unless an o»tb has been first administered and taken. Now, sir, there se ms to me to be something not only of the illigicul about this, a something whkh does not affect the value of the evidence often given ; but ifc is a’so, I think, a direct vi l»ti »n of the Third t’ornmandeient. In the first place, it puts the evidei-ce of the iramor, 1 I erson on an equality with the moral person by an unequal process, by giving the first a 1< gal quality which, alas, in a moral sense, it too often does not posses?. A man who has a regard for his. character religiously or morally, generally does not require to take an oath to prevent him from sp akin# an untruth, cr in other words, he will not consider h'msrlf tew under an ob igation to soeak the truth under or "inary circumstances than he would after taking an oath ; wheieas, the other party’s life and actions are not in ac cordance with the best inte ests of s ciaty or .God’s Holy Word, by which he profe-sedly b’nds himself. It should not b-j imagined that a tempo: ary respect by thi latter person for that Book or the truth wi'l be instituted by merely administering an oath, if it is necessary for bii to tell an un ruth. In the se ond place, what are the probable resu’ts ari-ing fo. m the iaducrimimte and universal custom of giving and taking oaths ? Why, we sea and hear the most sacred things handled and used by many who have litt'e or no reverence for such'things, and therefore cn-ot influence them in their statements. My humble opinion is that a i we cannot take cognisance of ma'-teis between God and m?n we should confine ourselves to man and man and sbolish all prevailing forms . of oaths, and instead introduce the cns'om that when a per on attests a document by hir or her signature, or is called to give evidei ce, 1o make and consider such as binding on him or her, as is IX' /w done in certain cases; or if it is thought necessity to have some form, introduce a mode of declaration that the promise made will be

fulfilled or the evidence given is true or if untrue, wll be con-idcred as f an 1 or otherwise ac.-oidng to the nature of the c so, to be punishable as the law di ect a d such offences should not be ovo looked a-s at pro e t. As it i°, law breake s are influenced more by the punishn ent hj. re than that hfreafo. r. Hoping that some «b’er pen than mine will take up the subject.—l am «c., M‘P. Dunedin, Febm ry 17.