class of people who must have the fear of consequences before their mind's eye in order to do right and to talk right; and, because that is so, I believe that, as a wholesome police regulation, the old common law rule should be retained. I have in my mind two illustrations. They may be used in argument on both sides, and may cut both ways. I remember a trial that took place in Nashville before an eminent jurist, now deceased, who was a man of powerful character and force, strong common sense, who was an able advocate, of not much book-learning, but a man who always knew how to handle his cases. I remember an occurrence at this trial. A distillery firm was sued on an obligation, and it was stated in the declaration that A and B were members of that firm. The defense was that they were not partners. The one that was solvent sought to get out on that defense. There were introduced in evidence forty-one affidavits made under the revenue laws of the United States for forty-one consecutive months in reports to the revenue collector, in which the two men swore that they were partners in that firm. Neither of them were disqualified because of these statements. The judge, in charging the jury, said: "Gentlemen of the jury, forty-one affidavits made by men whom we know to be Christians are a strong circumstance, but, gentlemen of the jury, you must not forget the hardships of the revenue laws; you must not forget the fact that men cannot always comply with what Uncle Sam requires of them, and they may sometimes, to get out of what they consider an unjust and oppressive tax, be induced to make forty-one affidavits. Therefore, I say the affidavits are a strong circumstance, but you need not regard it as conclusive." I have another illustration which may also cut both ways, but which may be applied especially in favor of my position. There was a bundle of papers sent to my office within the last month, in a case in which a commissioner had bound over an offender against the revenue laws-a moonshiner. There were five witnesses, and they came near acquitting the defendant, when he himself came upon the witness-stand and testified, and denied the evidence; and the deputy collector who carried on the prosecution asked him whether it was not true that he had told those witnesses to answer as they did. He said: "Yes, I did; and

moreover told them I did not consider it wrong at all to swear falsely in a revenue case." These are two actual facts in the history of lawsuits in the State of Tennessee. I think if the last-mentioned man were asked, "Do you believe in a future state of existence, and in a future state of punishment and reward?" he would say, "I do believe in it, but not in revenue cases." I think that a class of men of that character need to have a rule of law held in terrorem over their heads like that which Brother Greer is attacking; and I think the time has not come when we can afford to let the flood-gates open and allow every one, without discrimination, to testify. It will not be well for society and the administration of justice to do it.

Tomlinson Fort.-Our Constitution has had for its cap-stone religious liberty. Many of us believe it to have been a result of the effort to become a separate people and a separate government. It was the result of the fact that in the settlement of America there were colonies that were Puritans, colonies that were Quakers, colonies that were Catholics, colonies that were Episcopalians, and colonies of other religious beliefs and principles. It was impossible for them to have formed under a government to make a common cause against a common enemy unless it was laid on the foundation-stone that the government should not be Catholic, Episcopalian, Quaker, or Baptist, and that there should be religious liberty, each denomination being allowed to have such religious freedom as it desired to enjoy. It was from causes of that character, and at a time, too, when the world was shaken to its foundation by the doubt which brought about the French revolution, and when the attempt was made to strike from the world the name of God, and when woman was made to represent all of deity in France. The efforts to destroy this qualification of witnesses is an attempt to place us where the French were, and have us declare that we are without belief in a future, and that the future is annihilation. At this suggestion mankind rises up in holy horror; when the attempt is made to conduct the affairs of the world in the absence of God, and says: "When this attempt was made it brought about the French revolution, which we have been led to consider as a horror of horrors, and which represents what man is capable of when not restrained.

by any kind of religious influence." The argument of the gentleman reminds me of a little circumstance that occurred when I was a boy. Some negroes-who were then slaves— were guilty of breaking into the house of the owner of one of them, a negro girl. She had two brothers who belonged to another man, and when her owner was away one day they had a party, and broke into his house and took what they could find in the way of sweet-meats and fine linen and silver, which they set out for their party. They introduced the fiddle and the banjo, and kept up the party until midnight. The old lady who was the owner of the girl, who was perhaps the instigator of the whole mischief, was not going to punish the girl at all because she was a girl, and was not to blame, but had the two brothers arrested for punishment. In those days negroes were competent witnesses for and against each other. The first put upon the stand was a negro man by the name of Dick Johnson, who was, by the way, a slave of Herschel V. Johnson, once Governor of Georgia. The squire was a man who was accustomed to slavery and to the negro, and the lawyer who was defending the two boys under indictment, said: "Squire, I wish to know whether this negro understands the solemnity of an oath. Let him swear to what he believes." Dick was sworn. "Dick, have you ever taken an oath?" "Yes, I have cussed some." "That is not the thing. Were you ever sworn in a court-house?" "Judge, I never cussed in the courthouse in my life." "Dick, that is not the question. You are to be sworn here as a witness in this case." "Squire, I object to this ignorant negro's being brought in here as a witness." "You don't understand these negroes," said the squire. "Dick, you are going to be a witness against these other negroes. I want to know whether you are going to tell the truth." "But, Squire, that is not the way in which the law entitles me to examine this witness. I want to know whether the witness believes in a state of future rewards and punishments, and I wish that question propounded to him." "This negro does not know any thing about future rewards and punishments," said the squire." "I will go and get Blackstone," began the lawyer. "I don't want to know any thing about Blackstone," the squire replied; "he never knew any thing about negroes. I want to

show you what a fool old Blackstone was. Now, Dick, if you swear to a lie about this matter, what will be the result?" "Judge, if they catch me, they would whip me." "That is not the question. If you swear to a lie here, and they don't catch you in this world, and you go to the next world, what will be the result?" Dick thought over it a moment, and said: "Judge, if they caught me there, they would whip me." How would it work to have such a witness put on the stand where the rights and liberties of people are at stake? When American liberty was founded upon religious liberty as the corner-stone, we had a sufficient amount of conservatism to carry with us the English common law, which has been brought into Tennessee, and which has not been altered by statute. We have it here to-day. These laws are the result of experience and common sense from the time when the memory of man runneth not to the contrary. There are those who will come out among us with red lights and blue lights and all other kinds of lights, but the result of experience, as laid down by the common law, is the safest light, and that which, in my judgment, it is safest for us to follow.

THE PRESIDENT.-I see with us Senator Rivers, who introduced a bill to remove the disqualifications of unbelievers at the last session of the Legislature.

Flournoy Rivers.-To begin with, I was keeping in the dark the fact that I was a member of the last Legislature. I did not want to say any thing about that. But inasmuch as you have been so unkind as to call attention to that fact, I will say that I did introduce into the Senate of the Forty-seventh General Assembly and procured to be introduced into the House a bill that contained the ideas which are set forth in Judge Greer's paper. Having the same conception of what the law ought to be as he seems to have, I sought to put that law upon the statute-book and failed, as I failed in several other things I tried to do. Mr. President, the only objection I can see to Judge Greer's paper is that in my opinion it does not go far enough, because he has a saving clause and an exception when he uses the expression, "saving and excepting them that have been convicted of an infamous crime." I see no more reason why a man that has been convicted of an infamous crime

might not and ought not to be allowed to open his mouth on the witness-stand than the man who stands as spotless as the driven snow. I believe the law ought to be as with reference to defendants in criminal cases, that every man, no matter who he is, black or white, high or low, bond or free, ought to have the right to tell his story upon the witness-stand, and let the jury judge of his credibility. The gentleman speaks of revolution. The history of development and human progress is the history of revolution and nothing else. Col. Fort speaks of the common law. I call attention to the fact that this is the only landmark with reference to the credibility of witnesses that is left that once belonged to the common law. The circuit judge tells the jury that they are the judges of the weight of testimony and of the credibility of the witnesses. He lays down to that jury the rules laid down in the law books. The reputation, the character of the witness, his demeanor, his willingness to answer, are all to be taken into consideration. I think the only standard should be, to hear the witness and allow the jury to judge of his credibility from his demeanor and other indications of whether or not he is telling the truth. I am one of those who have been reared, I started to say after the straightest sect of the Pharisee, but some of you might think I was a Presbyterian, when in fact I am an Episcopalian, and it is not from any question of religious dogma that I stand as I do upon this question, but because, to my mind, it is the result of the plainest incentives and dictates of right. I think, it was one of the blots upon our statute-books for years and years that a man could not stand up, when tried for his misdeeds, and tell his side of the story; and we have been told that it was one of the boasts of the English-speaking people that it was not the nature of our country to condemn a man to death before he that was accused had his accusers face to face, and had leave to answer them concerning the crime for which he was charged.

I think that when the General Assembly took that disqualification from the statute-book, and allowed a criminal to become a competent witness, leaving it to the jury to be the judges of his credibility by the aid of the evidence which should be submitted against him and his character, it acted wisely. I do not