_Question_. What is the difference in the parliamentary oath of
this country which saves us from such a squabble as they have had
in England over the Bradlaugh case?
_Answer_. Our Constitution provides that a member of Congress may
swear or affirm. The consequence is that we can have no such
controversy as they have had in England. The framers of our
Constitution wished forever to divorce church and state. They knew
that it made no possible difference whether a man swore or affirmed,
or whether he swore and affirmed to support the Constitution. All
the Federal officers who went into the Rebellion had sworn or affirmed
to support the Constitution. All that did no good. The entire
oath business is a mistake. I think it would be a thousand times
better to abolish all oaths in courts of justice. The oath allows
a rascal to put on the garments of solemnity, the mask of piety,
while he tells a lie. In other words, the oath allows the villain
to give falsehood the appearance of truth. I think it would be
far better to let each witness tell his story and leave his evidence
to the intelligence of the jury and judge. The trouble about an
oath is that its tendency is to put all witnesses on an equality;
the jury says, "Why, he swore to it." Now, if the oath were
abolished, the jury would judge all testimony according to the
witness, and then the evidence of one man of good reputation would
outweigh the lies of thousands of nobodies.
It was at one time believed that there was something miraculous in
the oath, that it was a kind of thumbscrew that would torture the
truth out of a rascal, and at one time they believed that if a man
swore falsely he might be struck by lightning or paralyzed. But
so many people have sworn to lies without having their health
impaired that the old superstition has very little weight with the
average witness. I think it would be far better to let every man
tell his story; let him be cross-examined, let the jury find out
as much as they can of his character, of his standing among his
neighbors--then weigh his testimony in the scale of reason. The
oath is born of superstition, and everything born of superstition
is bad. The oath gives the lie currency; it gives it for the moment
the ring of true metal, and the ordinary average juror is imposed
upon and justice in many instances defeated. Nothing can be more
absurd than the swearing of a man to support the Constitution.
Let him do what he likes. If he does not support the Constitution,
the probability is that his constituents will refuse to support
him. Every man who swears to support the Constitution swears to
support it as he understands it, and no two understand it exactly
alike. Now, if the oath brightened a man's intellect or added to
his information or increased his patriotism or gave him a little
more honesty, it would be a good thing--but it doesn't. And as a
consequence it is a very useless and absurd proceeding. Nothing
amuses me more in a court than to see one calf kissing the tanned
skin of another.
--_The Courier_, Buffalo, New York, May 19, 1884.