Democratic Sentinel, Volume 3, Number 7, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 28 March 1879 — A California Court Rules that Infidels May Testify. [ARTICLE]

A California Court Rules that Infidels May Testify.

Charles de Lacale was called as a witness for the prosecution, and Mr. Barnes said he wished to challenge the competency of the witness on the ground that he does not believe in a Deity. He was not aware that there was any rule governing such cases in statute law, but, under the common-law rule, he was entitled to examine the witness as to h’s belief in a God. Our statute makes a distinction from common law. It makes no distinction as to a man’s competency as a witness because of his religious belief, but the common law does. He did not know how far the United States Courts are governed by the State laws. The Court said it was not inclined to recognize that common-law doctrine as a rule of this day. The law would be considered obsolete. Mr. Barnes gave the different rules prevailing in the several States under the statute law, and said he could not say what was the rule of the day.

The court did not doubt what the rule formerly was, but many old rules had been exploded. The proposed rule would exclude Profs. Tyndall and Huxley as witnesses. Mr. BarneS thought otherwise. He did not understand that Prof. Tyndall was an atheist. He believed in a God, but did not believe in the efficacy of prayer. When a witness swears upon the Bible to tell the truth, the truth must rest with his conscience to his God. The court reasserted that the rule had become obsolete; if it had not, it ought to be. The enforcement of such a rule would be an outrage—to cut off, by a circumstance, very important testimony. The motion would be overruled. What do you mean by an atheist ? Mr. Barnes —I will explain in a- moment. The Court —You can put the point in any formula you choose for consideration hereafter.— San Francisco Bulletin.