THE Grey River Argus. PUBLISHED DAILY. FRIDAY, MAY 3, 1872.

Grey River Argus, Volume XII, Issue 1174, 3 May 1872, Page 2

THE Grey River Argus. PUBLISHED DAILY. FRIDAY, MAY 3, 1872.

Thai- the oath usually administered in the Courts of justice throughout the British empire has to a great extent lost its virtue, as far as being a means of compelling witnesses to speak the " truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth," must be patent to all who take the trouble to peruse the contradictory evidence, on matters of fact, that is constantly being given, whether in the highest or lowest Courts of judicature. Constantly we find judges and juries, magistrates and wardens, administrators of justice whatever their titles maybe, confounded by what is euphonised as 1 ( contradictory testimony," but what really is straightforward perjury on the one side or the other. The dispensers of the law have from time immemorial regretted the patent fact, and their decisions have been often hung up in consequence, unless corroborative evidence of some kind has been forthcoming. In cases where oath has to meet oath, however morally convinced the arbiter may be as to the side on which truth is spoken, he or they are powerless. The variety of paths that are taken is almost endless, and in many instances what should be a solemn proceeding is turned into a farce, by the absurdities practised in order to make people speak the truth. A case occurred on Tuesday last which affords a home illustration. A colored man, who could not spell his own name, was defendant in a paltry debt case, and on being called on for his defence, was duly sworn on the orthodox bible furniture of the Court in the usual form, bu.t owing to a query of the Magistrate, it accidentally turned out that the witness was a Mahommedan. On being asked if the oath he had just taVen was binding on his conscience, he answered in the affirmative, with a voluntary assurance that it was "all a same" to him whether the bible he had sworn on or his own bible (the Koran) was used on the occasion. Very properly, as the law now stands, the Bench refused to allow such free and easy latitude, and declined to hear him till

some fragments of the Koran had been I procured, and the "all a same" farce had been gone through. There are, no doubt, many who will denounce the expression of this follower of the prophet of Mecca ; but there are quite as many professing other religions who daily, in the Courts of Great Britain and her colonies, go into the witness-boxes with the most perfect indifference as to how they are sworn, resolved under any circumstances to forswear themselves. The "all a same" class is not confined to men of the stamp we have referred to, but we regret to say, and repeated proof is furnished in the law courts of our boasted civilisation, it may be found in the most strait-laced communities. The redeeming virtue of the defendant in question was his candour ; did all who give evidence be equally open, a good many, who are not of his race, would have tfieir evidence refused. As the law at present exists, it is necessary that an oath should be taken or that some form or ceremony binding on the witness' conscience, and therefore its equivalent should bo gone through before he can heard. As we have already said^ some of these forms are of the most grotesque kind. Only very lately, a Japanese witness was examined in a Victorian Court. After, with very grea* difficulty, being made to comprehend in some foggy degree, . what the obligation required of him was, he plumped down and touched the floor of the Court with his forehead several times doing the salaams with the most perfect gravity. Judges ask little children where they will go to if they tell a lie, and if properly brought up, they reply, to a place that shall be nameless. We wonder what penalty the prostrate Japanese thought he incurred if he failed " to tell the truth the whole truth, &c." Chinese, who are now so numerous in* the Colonies, have more forms of oaths than we can tell. They break saucers or other crockery, blow out matches, cut off the heads of roosters, and perform other vagaries that qualify them to be accepted as witnesses. The Christian swears with hat off, the Hebrew with it on ; the Quaker has his form ; there are some who decline to be sworn at all ; and, indeed, the ingenuity of man seems to have been tasked to the utmost in devising means supposed tp bind all consciences and meet every swearing emergency. It is certain, in a majority of instances, that the Chinaman who has just decapitated a rooster with the aid of the police in attendance, the Japanese who literally casts himself at the foot of the Court, the individual to whom it was " all a same/ tne Hebrew who swears on the ancient Scriptures, the Christian who kisses the Bible, or those of other sects or races with other forms, tell the truth, though at the same time it is certain that what the law terms perjury is frequently committed. The question has arisen at home, and been very seriously discussed, as to how far it is advisable to retain the present system of oath-taking on the part of witnesses, and it is at least worth while considering. Mr Justice Richmond, than whom an abler occupant of the judicial Bench is not in New Zealand, has on more than one occasion referred to it, and pointed out how inefficient present appliances are to ensure truthful witnesses. Probably a veracious millenium will never arrive, but it is certain that the present system has lamentably failed in bringing it about. If that be the case, then surely in this respect, as, in many other manners and customs of uur ancestors, reform can be introduced, and it is for the members of the Legislature to consider how it can be done. If the penalties for giving false evidence were greatly increased, without such ceremonies as we have referred to, a greater deterrent would be introduced, as far as we can judge, than is now existing in the consciences of a large number of witnesses. If, instead of terming false evidence perjury, and classing it amongst misdemeanours, tiie lightest offences known in criminal law, it were made felony of a grave kind, punishable proportionately, we have little doubt the truth would be spoken, not • only as much, but a great deal more, than at the present time. Those who are conscious of consciences, if we may use the term, the good, the upright, and the straightforward, would speak the truth sworn or unsworn ; those wishing to evade it will do so under just the same circumstances. Everyone knows how some who are troubled with partial compunction satisfy their conscientious scruples in case of stating falsehoods by thumb-kissing, by mental reservation, &c, &c. If prior to giving evidence a warning of severe punishment, in case of its being wilfully untrue, was given to each witness before being heard, and the authorities were diligent in prosecuting offenders, the ends of justice would most probably be better attained. The subject is a vast one, and it is not likely to be speedily dealt with. The time will yet come, we believe, when some such changes will be brought about ; as to great alteration being needed few will be inclined to deny.