this subject, we ought to go a step farther,
and not require this qualification as to the
competency of a witness. The creditability
of a witness is a different matter. Let his
religions belief be a matter of inquiry, and
let it go to the jury, and let them deter-
mine whether they will believe him or not
no matter what his religious belief may be.
But in view of the legislation we have al-
ready had upon the subject, I think we
ought not to impose any disqualification to
testify as a witness on account of religious
belief.
I have no doubt that, if a murder were
committed, and nobody saw the crime com-
mitted but a man who would gay he did
not believe is the existence of God, but
who was such a man as Hume or Gibbon,
or any other infidel, who was a man of
honor and integrity and truthfulness, it
would be considered hard that the criminal
should escape punishment because that
man's religious belief disqualified him from
going on the witness stand and testifying
to what he saw. We should, it seems to
me, go as far as most of the States of this
Union, I believe, have gone, and not ex-
clude a person from testifying as a witness
on account of his religions belief; not absolutely
disqualify him from giving testi-
mony, bat have the question of his credita-
bility to be inquired into and determined
upon by the jury. Let the witness be cross-
examined as to his religions belief, and then
let the jury say whether they will believe
him or not. A man who has been con-
victed of stealing, or any other infamous
crime, and has been sent to the peniten-
tiary and has served out his time, is not
excluded from the witness-box, but can go
upon the stand and testify agains, any of
his neighbors. That matter, however, may
beenquired into, before the jury, as affect-
ing the question of his creditability. The
provision I propose is in the Constitutions of
most of the States, and I believe it should
bo interested here.
Mr. BARRON. I never want to see the
time in the State of Maryland, when a man
can appear as a witness to swear either for
or against me, who does not believe in a
God. I think that every man who is a
witness on the stand should be at all times
a believer in the Supreme Ruler of the
universe. I shall not vote for any motion
to allow any man to be either a witness or
ajuror who does not believe in the exist-
ence of a God. I am perfectly willing to
strike out "a" before the word "God,'
but I can go no farther than that; I would
just as (???) have a fox for a witness, if he
could talk, as a man who did not believe in
God.
Mr. STIRLING. As this article stands now
it does not prohibit the Legislature from
letting anybody they choose bo a witness |
Its only effect is to put a limitation upon
the power of the Legislature to exclude per-
sons from the witness stand. It says they
shall not exclude a man from being a wit-
ness or a juror, If he believes in the exist-
ence of God, and a future state of rewards
and punishments. This article, as it now
stands, does not prevent the Legislature
from admitting him to testify even without
that belief. As the gentleman from Anne
Arundel (Mr. Miller) says, the Legislature
says that a man who has been a convict
may be a witness, and yon can let that
fact go to the jury on the question of cred-
itability. The only effect of the change in
legislation is to make the jury the judge of
that instead of the court. There is no ne-
cessity for making this change. it does
not give the Legislature any more power,
but rather gives them a little lees power.
As the article now stands, it prohibits the
Legislature from excluding a man who has
this much belief. The gentleman from
Anne Arundel (Mr. Miller) would prohibit
them atill further from excluding a man if
be had still less belief. Now, I am willing
to leave it to the Legislature; if they say
that it is better to go back to the old system
again, I am willing to let them have the
power to do so. This is a declaration of
the general principle that a man ought not
,to be excluded if he believes in God, and a
future state of rewards and punishments.
I do not want to say that the Legislature
has no right to ask that question; I think
the Legislature should have the right to
ask that question. Whether they will ask
It or not is a mere matter of expediency for
them to decide.
Mr. DANIEL. I do hope, Mr Chairman.
this amendment will not be adopted. I
think I see great propriety in retaining this
provision in the bill of rights just as it now
stands. Indeed not only that, but I think
we ought to recognize in our Constitution
more than we do, the existence of God, and
our accountability to Him. and that we
derive from Him all our benefits, social and
otherwise, I think we ought to be very-
cautions how we break down any safeguard
of this kind. I believe that witnesses
ought to be held responsible to God, and I
do not believe any man is qualified, or
ought by law to be allowed to testify in any
court of justice", who does not believe in
God and in future rewards and punishments
We ought to make this as secure as
possible, and not allow any future Legisla-
ture to say that any mall can come into a
court of justice and testify under such cir-
cumstances.
I disagree with the gentleman from Anne
Arundel, (Mr. Miller), that this is a mat-
ter which may go to the jury and be judged
of by them. I recollect a case which I tried,
in which I tried to invalidate the testimony |
