Tuapeka Times. AND GOLDFIELDS REPORTER & ADVERTISER SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 29,1873. "MEASURES NOT MEN."

Tuapeka Times, Volume VI, Issue 308, 29 November 1873, Page 2

Tuapeka Times. AND GOLDFIELDS REPORTER & ADVERTISER SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 1873. "MEASURES NOT MEN."

Thb press, the public, the bar, and the bench deplore the prevalence of perjury, and we think that the time is ripe, almost to rottenness, foreffective legislation on the subject ; and any legislation for perjury must be radical, for desperate diseases require desperate remedies. Perjury saps the root of justice — indeed the two cannot co-exist ; consequently, as perjury is prevalent, injustice, also., must be prevalent, and all our legal expenditure is liable to be like a two-edgsd sword in a child's hand — a very dangerous instrument indeed. Untruthful evidence could exist apart from o.ath-taUing, but perjury oould not exist without affidavits. First, we should abolish oath taking and all kinds of affirmations ; and, second, as a necessary logical effect of said abolition, we should abolish the crime o£ perjury. If a witness is detected in a falsehood, in relation to the falsifey of which sufficient evidence is forthcoming, let that witness be punished for contempt of Court. As to what constitutes " sufficient evidence " of false testimony, let that point be decided by a judge or judges, by a m^igtrate or magistrates, with the assistance of independent counsel. Theory must be blown to the winds on this subject, and its loss will not be regretted, simply hecaxwe we have ample experience to guide us on the subject, which experience dates even as far back as the time of E,ve, who. was gnilfcy of very excellent leg-il quibbling in the garden of Eden, Assuming, for the sake of argument, that people are. more conscientious when under an oath, this assumption we meet with a plump, denial. Our own opinion is, that the oath gives witnesses ample right to tell a, long string of lies. They consider the " kiss " a kind of mental purgative which clears the conscience in advance of old lies., and make? room, for a new burden of falsehoods. The whole thing is a, proxy performance. The kis3 ex,cepted, it ia the Magistrate who practically both gives and takes the oath. Now, no man can be influenced by the oath of, another. It is one's ow-n deeds that create an impression on one's own. mind- It the oath is to be retained, the oath taker should slowly, thoughtfully, and under3tandingly speak the oath himself or herself. But, after the oath is. taken, we have a contradiction^ in praotice. The witness swears that lie or she will tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the. truth," and yet the opposing counsel incredulously addresgps.that, witness, and counsel's questions are all based on the assumption that that witness, who has just called his or her God to be an ear-witness of an affidavit, ia able and filling to commit j perjury. In fact, the opposing counsel in every possible way, proceeds openly (as the saying is) "to test the credibility of the witness ;v; v and in being permitted so to do, the oath becomes a mere rope of sand> and any trial built upon such foundation maybe in accordance with law, but chance only can make an investigation so based in accordance with, justice to all concerned. What guarantee have we that a witness believes th,at he or she will be punished after death for false evidence ? Oiffcward religion is no guarantee of such baljef. There are causes, ample causes, for the profession of a creed quite irrespective of abstract unworldly motives. Church going is considered respectable, and nonchurch going is not considered very reapectable. The church goer is, as a rule, other things being equal, in better qredit with the world, and credit in the present is cash in the future. We bplieve that practical religion is, frequently, the effect of genuine belief in the inspiration of Scripture ; but, so deceptive is human nature, we argue that it is impossible always to separate the. chaff from the wheat ; and, in our atternpta. at undeception, we are just as likely to attach the label "hypocrite" to a Christian as wo are liable to give the najne of Cfcmti^n tg % mere. * ( whiter sepvOpJuje."

Our position, then, is as follows : — 1. Men ' and women can be judged by their acts only ; 2. As no true test of the sincerity of such act 3 exist, the value of such acts in relation to oath-taking is -apparent only. Indifference to the future spiritual career is the leading symptom of the present generation, and as our knowledge of that future spiritual career iB chiefly acquired from the Bible, it logically follows that the taking of an oath on it is not a sufficient stimulant to truth telling ; and as it is impossible to substitute a superior stimulant to truth telling, we must remove all religious inducement to abstain from false evidence, and substitute therefor a more analytic sifting of testimony, accompanied by an adequate penalty for witnesses convicted of giving obviously false depositions. Reason is that great faculty hy which we are enabled to distinguish that which is worthy of belief from that which is incredible, in consequenoo of being opposed to universal experience, and being also contrary to fixed natural laws ; and reason, based on probability, should constitute the sole test of legal evidence. "We deny that conscience, whioh is supposed to be awakened to a love of truth by an affidavit, is an invariable stimulant to truth telling, far the individual standard is often incorrect and unreliable ; and believing that a certain book is inspired by the Supreme Being will, not make the individual standard more reliable. The standard of right and wrong is often artificial and arbitrary. Some sects lay great obligations on abstaining from certain food at special tunes ; other sects on abstaining from labor on particular days ; others make it a matter of conscience what fashion of garment they may wear. In being careful about such things, they each and all create a distinct standard, and it is impossible that A can think Bs standard correct, and yet A and B are both sworn on the same book, from vfhich each derives different ideas with reference to Pilate's query " What is truth ?" The question here involved is not '* Is there a God, or is there not ?" but '' Is the kissing of the Word of God a sufficient inducement to speak the truth?" Oar reply ti> this latter qiiciy ia «il fulluws ; Tf the witness loves truth, no bible kissing is necessary ; if the witness loves untruth, lip service performed on a ton of testaments will not secure trust-worthy testimony.