If the General Assembly is not disposed to give effect to the wishes of the people as now expressed in the Constitution, it might be induced to submit an amendment leaving it to the courts to determine the necessity for a special law.

The lawyers of the State, in the interest of economy and good government, should take an interest in this question and bring their influence to bear by discouraging such legislation.

Arkansas with her vast natural resources and high order of citizenship, deserves the best, and will finally rightfully settle the issue. In the meanwhile, she and her people will advance and prosper notwithstanding such disadvantages.

THE OATH-ITS HISTORY, USES AND ABUSES.

BY C. B. MOORE, TEXARKANA, ARKANSAS.

One of the most embarrassing incidents in the preparation of a paper of this kind is the fact that the essayist feels compelled to compress his thoughts into a very limited space, and he has constantly before his mind the fear that undue prominence may be given to some particular point, at the expense of others of equal or perhaps greater importance.

This embarrassment has been particularly felt in the investigation of the subject of this paper. Like many other things, with which we have been familiar from our infancy, it has, we believe, been by many, if not by most persons, regarded in a superficial manner, and few have ever taken the time or pains to consider properly the meaning, the necessity and usefulness, or the abuses of the oath.

Our first endeavor in this investigation should be to arrive at a clear, distinct and truthful definition of the term. What is an oath? Webster gives as its definition, "A solemn affirmation or declaration made with an appeal to God for the truth of what is affirmed. The appeal to God in an oath implies that the person imprecates his vengeance and renounces his favor if the declaration is false, or if the declaration is a promise, the person invokes the vengeance of God if he should fail to fulfill it."

Dr. Paley defines it to be "The calling upon God to witness that He is to take notice of what we say, and invoking his vengeance or renouncing his favor if what we say be false, or what we promise be not performed." Cicero speaks of the oath as "An affirmation under the sanction of religion." Voet, in his commentary on the Pandects, calls it "A religious affirmation of the truth, or an invocation of the name of God in witness of the truth." Perez, a Spanish jurist, gives as the definition "An affirmation on any subject by the name of God and some sacred thing.”

Starkie says: "It is a solemn invocation of the vengeance of the Deity upon the witness, if he do not declare the whole truth,

so far as he knows it." Bouvier, in his Institutes, gives the definition thus: "A religious act by which the party promises to man and invokes God, not only to witness the truth and sincerity of his promise, but also to avenge his imposture or violated faith, or, in other words, to punish him for his perjury, if he shall be guilty of it." Jacob's Law Dictionary defines the oath to be "An affirmation or denial of anything before one or more persons who have authority to administer the same for the discovery and advancement of truth and right, and calling God to witness that the testimony is true."

These definitions, and they might be multiplied almost indefinitely, in the main agree with each other, and their agreement is remarkable, in view of the fact that they are given by men in different ages of the world and of different religions and different modes of thought. Most of them, we think, are substantially correct, as far as they go, but for a complete understanding of all that is included in the word "Oath" we believe a fuller and more correct definition to be the following, which we find given by Dr. D. X. Junkin, in a little treatise on the subject, published about fifty years ago, towit:

"A lawful oath is an act of religious worship appointed by God as a means of promoting truth, and confidence, in which act the presence of God is solemnly recognized, His omniscience, justice and supreme authority are acknowledged, and in which the juror enters into a special covenant with God and with society to speak or act truthfully, calling upon God to witness what he affirms or promises, and to inflict the temporal and eternal penalties of perjury, if the truth be not spoken."

Doubtless, at first blush, this definition may be considered open to criticism, in the statement that the oath is an act of religious worship, but a moment's reflection must convince us that it is true and an essential ingredient in the definition. By the appeal to God, He is recognized and acknowledged as Supreme, as Omniscient and Omnipotent, and as having the right and power to punish for a violation of an oath. Moreover, the oath really embodies a prayer or supplication, an invocation of God's assistance, to enable the juror to speak the truth, or perform the promise and an imprecation of His vengeance if the truth be suppressed, or falsehood uttered.

This idea has obtained from the most ancient times, and is embodied in the form of the old English oath, and which is in common use with us to the present day, in the words at the conclusion of the formula, "So help me, God," or, as it was anciently used, "So help me, God, at His holy dome," (doom or judgment.)

The fact admitted or established that the oath is a religious ordinance, or an act of religious worship, and which, we believe, is entirely too frequently ignored and overlooked, we perceive at once the importance and dignity of the ordinance and the care and caution that should be employed, both in its administration and the performance of the obligations and duties imposed and enjoined by it.

All lawful oaths may be classed with two general heads: Assertory and promissory. An assertory oath is so called "Because in it the juror asserts, or declares, something to be or to have been. In it he asserts the truth about things, past or present. In a promissory oath, the person sworn promiseth or engageth to do something, or not to do something, hereafter."

There are, of course, other subdivisions of oaths which we have not time, nor is it necessary now, to mention or explain. (We note, in passing, that the word "juror" is used in the definitions above given, and in this paper, in its original and general sense, equivalent to swearer).

Under the head of assertory oaths, belongs the oaths of witnesses, the oath called the Voire Dire, the oath administered to voters to test their qualifications, etc. Promissory oaths include such, for example, as the inauguration oath of the President or Governor, the oath of a juryman, the oath of allegiance, etc.

These definitions borne in mind, it is easy to perceive that the chief object of all oaths is to promote and secure the truth, and to inspire confidence. In the language of another, "Few cases occur under the providence of God in which the facts necessary to be known, in order to the administration of justice, are not within the knowledge of some persons, who could, if they would, disclose them.

Now, since courts and juries cannot search the heart so as to gain possession of the knowledge of the witness, the ends of justice require that some means be adopted and employed to make

the witness feel it to be his duty and his interest to speak the whole truth * * and "as the agents of society, i. e. those who occupy official stations, are intrusted with grave and important interests, it seems reasonable that they should give to society some special pledge that they will be faithful in the discharge of their respective duties."

It is a self-evident proposition that the heart of man is naturally deceitful, and a tendency to evade or conceal the truth, or to give to events and facts a false coloring, and to invent falsehood instead of truth, whenever any supposed good is to be attained or evil averted, is one of the first noticeable traits of the budding intellect of the infant mind. And this trait of the human heart generally grows with the growth and strengthens with the strength, so that for the protection of society and the promotion and advancement of truth and justice, some device must be used to counteract this evil disposition, and to induce the utterance of truth, instead of falsehood, and to inspire confidence, in place of distrust. This, the oath, intelligently understood, is calculated to accomplish-with the more depraved, by the strong motive of self-interest, to-wit, the fear of incurring the penalties, either temporal or eternal, or both, for a violation of the oath, and by the presenting the motive of duty to the more conscientious.

This leads us back a step in our investigation to notice the fact that in some of the definitions of the oath, quoted above, the invocation of God as a witness of the truth, is alone mentioned. This we conceive to be only a part of the correct idea embodied in the oath. There is not only an invocation, but the imprecation of God's wrath for a violation of the truth, for, as has been well said by one writer, "The sanction and force of an oath lie peculiarly in the imprecation of the Divine vengeance upon perjury." And he adds, "This element is certainly held essential by our law and supported by the highest authorities."

It is the recognition of this essential element that, by our Constitution, and, indeed, the Constitutions of most, if not all, the States of the American Union, Atheists are excluded from testifying in our courts, and which, indeed, excluded them by the common law.

This it was, that under the British Constitution, created such a sensation a few years ago in the celebrated Bradlaugh case in