Untitled

Westport Times, Volume VI, Issue 999, 27 August 1872, Page 2

Statutory declarations are but of doubtful value, if the ruling of the Select Committee re O'Conor, may be taken as a just criterion. Of the duly signed and well attested documents, submitted to that august body, one we le:;rn, has been treated as mere waste paper ; as to the other, our telegrams reveal nothing,. Jt may be fairly assumed that io attaching no importance to one, the committee also abandoned the other, permitting neither statement to influence thendecision. If this course has not been adopted, the recognition of one declaration to the exclusion of the other may be taken as convincing proof of a predetermined judgment in favor of the appellor. On the general question of the actual utility and moral influence of either statutory declarations, or judicial oaths, as much or more importance may be attached to the former as to the latter. In fact, the deliberate writing down, word for word, of the oral statement made by a dec'araut, the subsequent careful reading of the same, and the appending of signatures thereto, is a far moreimpressive procedure than the mere verbal gabbling of a form of oath, followed by " kissing the book." There is, in the minds of the majority of witnesses called upon to give evidence or make statements, a traditional regard for the sanctity of an oatb, but in very many instances the mere form of kissing the covers of a volume of Holy Writ has no more moral eiFect than as if the witness had adopted the -Chinese method of blowing out a match. In fact, very often less, for John Chinaman has some conception, faintly shadowed forth, that the match blowing performance indicates that the person so swearing calls upon some avenging Deity to annihilate him as suddenly as the flame is extinguished in case the truth is perverted ; but not a few who kiss the book with all outward solemnity, inly recognise a most comprehensive code of mental reservations, that, according to their philosophy, affords them convenient loopholes to escape the responsibilities of any amount of hard swearing- A. very slight knowledge of the evidence daily given in law courts will prove that in the majority of cases wherein the evidence of either side is solemnly sworn to ; the magistrates or jury are compollerl to decide, not on the real facts of the c ise, but as to which of two or more witnesses, absolutely contradicting eac'i other on oath, is the most worthy of credence. The belief in the infallibility of ai oath has long since passed away, and in its stead there is spreading a deeper feeling of the moral obligation of speaking the truth at all times and under all circumstances, but, where it is still deemed necessary to have honest truth-bearing statements confirmed by conventional customs and ceremonial observances,

the calm, deliberate, statutory declaration may be more implicitly relied on than evidence ou oath. Tho weak point of the law as it now stands seems to be that the penalties for perjury do not extend to false declarations. A falsehood, either on oath or declaration, should be punishable to an equal extent as perjury, whether occurring in voluntary statements or in enforced evidence before a judicial tribunal.