T. E. CLIFFE LESLIE, the eminent English Polit- | WM. ROSCHER, Professor of Political Economy at ical Economist. the University of Leipzig. HENRY D. LLOYD, Financial Editor of the Chi- M. ROTHE, Professor at Sorö, Denmark. E. LÖNING, Professor University Dorpat, Russia. F. B. SANBORN, Concord, Mass. J. B. SAY, France. ALFRED BISHOP MASON, Counselor-at-Law, Chi- LEON SAY, Economist, France. cago, Ill. D. H. MASON, Chicago, Ill. CHARLES DE MAZADE, France. J. R. M'CULLOCH, the English Economist. G. DE MOLINARI, Editor of the Journal des Débats, Corresponding Member of the Institute of France. M. MONJEAN, France. E. MONTEGUT, France. MICHEL NICOLAS, Professor, Montauban, France. S. N. D. NORTH, Utica, N. Y. M. ORTOLAN, Lawyer, France. A. OTT, France. E. PAIGNON, France. L. SCHWARTZ, Germany. JULES SIMON, Member of the French Academy. HAYDN SMITH, Chicago Times. A. R. SPOFFORD, Librarian of Congress, Wash- SIMON STERNE, Counselor-at-Law, New York. A. M. SULLIVAN, M. P., London, England. JOHN P. TOWNSEND, one of the Vice-Presidents ESQUIROU DE PARIEU, Member of the Institute A. UBICINI, Italy. of France. H. PASSY, France. JULES PAUTET, French Vice-Prefect. M. POEZL, Professor at the University of Mu- FRED. POLLOCK, Cambridge University, England. GEORGE HAVEN PUTNAM, New York. R. W. RAYMOND, New York. FRANCIS A. WALKER, Mass. Institute of Technology, Boston, Mass. J. D. WEEKS, Editor of the Iron Age, Expert and Special Agent (Tenth Census U. S.) for Wages in Manufacturing Industry, Pittsburg, Pa. DAVID A. WELLS, the eminent American Economist, Norwich, Conn. HORACE WHITE, New York. FREDERICK W. WHITRIDGE, Counselor-at-Law, TALCOTT WILLIAMS, The Press, Philadelphia, ERNEST RENAN, Member of the Institute of FRED. H. WINES, Springfield, Mass. France. LOUIS REYBAUD, Member of the Institute of LEON DE ROSNY, France. H. B. WITTON, Inspector of Canals, Hamilton, L. WOLOWSKI, Paris, France. THEO. S. WOOLSEY, Professor at Yale College. The following is a List of the Subjects treated by American Writers: ATKINSON, EDWARD- Banks, Functions of. BOLLES, ALBERT S.- Finance, American. BOWKER, R. R.-Scratching. BRYCE, T. T.- Products on Paper. BURCHARD, H. C.-Coinage; Gold; Silver. CARY, EDWARD-Education and the State; Gambettism. CLAMPITT, JOHN W.-Bill; Court Martial; Military Commissions; Law, Common; Law, Criminal; Magna Charta; Police Power of the State. COLBY, JAMES F.-Privateering; Prizes, Maritime; Suffrage; Territorial Waters. CONWAY, EUSTACE-Treaties; United States Pension Laws. COOLEY, THOS. M.- Bar; Corporations, Law of. COWLEY, C.-Knights of the Order of St. Crispin; National Cemeteries; Ten-Hour Law; "Waltham System." CROSBY, EDWARD H.-Petition, Right of; Priority of Debts Due to the United States and to the States; Public Policy. DAVIS, J. C. BANCROFT of the United States. -Geneva Arbitration; Treaties EATON, DORMAN B.-Civil Administration; Civil Service Reform; Confirmation by the Senate; Judiciary, Elective; Patronage; Primary Elections; Promotion; Removals from Office; Spoils System; Term and Tenure of Office. EBERHARDT, MAX.-Aliens; Bundesrath; German Empire. FISKE, JOHN-Great Britain; House of Commons; House of Lords. FORD, WORTHINGTON C.-Extradition; Income Tax; Internal Revenue of the United States; License Tax; Navy; Participation in Profits; Poll Tax; Prices; Public Lands of the United States; Refunding of the Public Debt of the United States; Sinking Fund; Tariffs of the United States. GEORGE, HENRY - Chinese Immigration. GODKIN, E. L.-Office-Holders, Danger of an Aristocracy of. GOODE, G. BROWN- Fisheries; Treaties, Fishery. GREEN, GEORGE WALTON-Municipal Bonds; Naturalization; Repudiation. GRIFFIS, WM. E.-China; Corea; Formosa; Japan; Mongols; Mutsuhito; Riu Kiu; Shimonoséki Indemnity; Shinto; Siam; Tartar, Tartary; Ta-Tsing; Tauism; Tonquin. HADLEY, ARTHUR T. Over-Production; Postoffice; ISHAM, EDWARD S.-Corporations, Economic and Social Relations of. JAMESON, JOHN A.- Convention, The Constitutional. JAMES, E. J.- Banks of Issue; Customs Duties; Education, Compulsory; Emigration and Immigration; Excise; Factory Laws; Finance, Science of; Insurance; Labor; Political Economy, History of. JOHNSTON, ALEXANDER-The Articles on the Political History of the United States in the Cyclopædia. JOHNSTON, JOHN-Scotland. KNOX, JOHN JAY-Banking; United States Notes; United States Notes-Legal Tender Cases-Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States; United States Surplus Money, Distribution of, among the States. KOERNER, GUSTAVE-Monroe Doctrine; Outlawry. LLOYD, H. D.-Clearing, and Clearing Houses. MASON, ALFRED B.-Proportional Representation. RAYMOND, R. W.-Mines. SANBORN, F. B. - Pauperism. SMITH, EDMUND MUNROE-Nationality, Law of. SMITH, HAYDN - Exchange, An; Fund, Funding, Refunding. SPOFFORD, A. R.-Academies; Ballot; Budget; Congress. of the United States; Education, Bureau of;: Homestead and Exemption Laws; Interior, Department of the; Justice, Department of; Library of Congress; Lobby; Navy, Department of the; Parliament, The British; Parliamentary Law; Patent Office; Postoffice Department; Public Lands, Office of; States, Legal and Constitutional Diversities of'; Treasury Department; War Department. STERNE, SIMON-Cities, Administration of American; Legislation; Monopolies; Railways; Representation. TOWNSEND, JOHN P.- Banks, History and Management of Savings. WALKER, FRANCIS A.- Public Revenue; Wage Fund; Wages. WEEKS, JOS. D.-Conseils Des Prud'hommes; Industrial WELLS, DAVID A.-American Merchant Marine; Distilled WILLIAMS, TALCOTT-Apportionment; Party Govern- CYCLOPÆDIA OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, POLITICAL ECONOMY, AND OF THE POLITICAL HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES. OATH. ОАТН. ATH. Oaths have been in use in all countries of which we have any exact information, and it is probable that there is no nation which has any clear notion of a Supreme Being, or of superior beings, that does not make use of oaths on certain solemn occasions. An oath may be described generally as an appeal or address to a superior being, by which the person making it engages to declare the truth on the occasion on which he takes the oath, or by which he promises to do something hereafter. The person who imposes or receives the oath, imposes or receives it on the supposition that the person making it apprehends some evil consequences to himself from the superior being, if he should violate the oath. The person taking the oath may or may not fear such consequences, but the value of the oath in the eyes of him who receives or imposes it consists in the opinion which he has of its influence over the person who takes it. An oath may be taken voluntarily, or it may be imposed on a person under certain circumstances by a political superior; or it may be the only condition on which the assertion or declaration of a person shall be admitted as evidence of any fact. The form of taking the oath has varied greatly in different countries. Among the Greeks a person sometimes placed his hand on the altar of the deity by whom he swore; but the forms of oaths were almost as various as the occasions. Oaths were often used in judicial proceedings among the Greeks. The Dicasta, who were judges and jurymen, gave their verdict upon oath. The Heliastic oath is stated at length in the speech of Demosthenes against Timocrates (c. 36). It does not appear that the oath was always imposed on witnesses in judicial proceedings; and yet it appears that sometimes witnesses gave their evidence 120 1 VOL. III. on oath: perhaps the oath on the part of witnesses was generally voluntary. (Demosth., Пpòs Αφοβον Ψευδ, c. 16; Κατὰ Κόνωνος, c. 10; and Meier and Schömann, Att. Process., p. 675.) - In the Roman jurisprudence an oath was required in some cases from the plaintiff, or the defendant, or both. Thus the oath of calumny was required from the plaintiff, which was a solemn declaration that he did not prosecute his suit for any fraudulent or malicious purpose. The offense of false swearing was perjurium, perjury; but it was considered a less offense in a party to a suit when the oath was imposed by a judex than when it was voluntary. It does not appear that in civil proceedings witnesses were necessarily examined on oath; but witnesses appear to have been examined on oath in the judicia publica, which were criminal proceedings. The title in the Digest, "De Testibus" (22, tit. 5), makes no mention of the oath, though it speaks of punishment being inflicted on witnesses who bore false testimony. - The law in America and England, as a rule, requires evidence or testimony for judicial purposes to be given on oath. A Jew, a Mohammedan and a Hindoo may be sworn as witnesses, but they must severally take the oath in that form which is sanctioned by the usage of their country or nation, and which they severally consider to be binding. The offense of declaring what is false when a witness is examined upon oath, constitutes perjury. Declarations made by a person under the apprehension of immediate death are generally admitted as evidence in judicial proceedings, when properly verified; for it is considered that the circumstances in which the person is placed at the time of making the declaration furnish as strong motives for veracity as the obligation of an oath. Quakers also, in all the sheriff by the judge. In the latter case the ceremony is a mere form without any useful civil cases, were allowed by the statute 7 & 8 | ercised over the judge by the legislator, or over Wm. III., c. 34, to give their evidence on affirm ation; and now the affirmation of Quakers and Moravians is admissible in all judicial proceed-effect whatever." - The absurdity of this argu ings, both civil and criminal. - As oaths may be ment hardly needs to be exposed. He who adeither voluntary or may be imposed by a political ministers the oath, by virtue of the power which superior, so they may be imposed either on extra- he has to administer it, and the political superior judicial or on judicial occasions. Oaths which who imposes the oath, may either believe or not are imposed on occasion of judicial proceedings believe that the Deity will punish false swearing, are the most frequent, and the occasions are the and it is quite immaterial to the question which most important to the interests of society. The of the two opinions they entertain. That which principle on which an oath is administered on gives the oath a value in the eyes of him who ad judicial occasions is this: it is supposed that an ministers it, or of that political superior who additional security is thereby acquired for the imposes it, is the opinion of the person who takes veracity of him who takes the oath. Bentham, the oath; and if the individual who takes the in his "Rationale of Evidence," on the contrary, oath believes that the Deity, in case it is profaned, affirms that, "whether principle or experience be will inflict a punishment which otherwise he regarded, the oath will be found, in the hands of would not inflict, the object of him who enforces justice, an altogether useless instrument; in the the oath is accomplished, and an additional sanchands of injustice, a deplorably serviceable one;" tion against mendacity is secured. It matters "that it is inefficacious to all good purposes," and not whether the Deity will punish or not, or "that it is by no means inefficacious to bad ones." whether he who enforces the oath believes that he - The three great sanctions or securities for ve- will punish or not: if he who takes the oath racity in a witness, or, to speak perhaps more cor- believes that the Deity will punish false swearing, rectly, the three great sanctions against mendacity that is sufficient to show that the oath is of itself in a witness, are, the punishment legally imposed a sanction. - The fear of legal punishment is on a person who is convicted of false swearing, admitted by Bentham to be a sanction against the punishment inflicted by public opinion or the mendacity. But the legal punishment may or positive morality of society, and the fear of pun- may not overtake the offender. Legal punishishment from the Deity, in this world or the ment may follow detection, but the perjury may next, or in both. The common opinion is, that not be detected, and therefore not punished. Is all the three sanctions operate on a witness, the oath, or would a declaration without oath be, though they operate on different witnesses in "a mere form without any useful effect whatvery different degrees. A man who does not ever," because the legal punishment may not, believe that the Deity will punish false swearing and frequently does not, overtake the offender? can only be under the influence of the first two When a Greek or a Roman swore by his gods, in sanctions; and if his character is such that it can whose existence he believed, and who, being not be made worse than it is, he may be under the mere imaginations, could not punish him for his influence of the first sanction only. Bentham perjury, was not his belief in their existence and affirms that the third sanction only appears to their power and willingness to punish perjury a exercise an influence in any case, because it acts sanction against mendacity? All antiquity at in conjunction with "the two real and efficient least thought so. There are occasions on which sanctions," 'the political sanction and the moral oaths are treated lightly, on which he who imor popular sanction;" and that if it is stripped of poses the oath, he who takes it, and the comthose accompaniments, its impotence will appear munity who are witnesses to it, treat the violation immediately. Bentham's chief argument is as of it as a trivial matter. Such occasions as these follows: 'that the supposition of the efficiency furnish Bentham with arguments against the of an oath is absurd in principle. It ascribes to efficacy of oaths on all occasions. Suppose we man a power over his Maker. It supposes the admit, with Bentham, as we do merely for the Almighty to stand engaged, no matter how, but sake of the argument, that "on some occasions absolutely engaged, to inflict on every individual oaths go with the English clergy for nothing;" by whom the ceremony, after having been per- and this, notwithstanding the fact, which nobody formed, has been profaned, a punishment (no can doubt, that among the English clergy bematter what) which, but for the ceremony and lievers are more abundant than unbelievers." the profanation, he would not have inflicted. It The kind of oaths "which go for nothing" are supposes him thus prepared to inflict, at com not mentioned by Bentham, but they may be conmand, and at all times, a punishment, which, jectured. Now, if all oaths went for nothing being at all times the same, at no time bears any with the clergy, or with any other body of men, proportion to the offense. ." Again: "either the the dispute would be settled. But this is not the ceremony causes punishment to be inflicted by the fact. If in any way it has become the positive Deity in cases where otherwise it would not have morality of any body of men that a certain kind been inflicted; or it does not. In the former case of oath should go for nothing, each individual of the same sort of authority is exercised by man over that body, with respect to that kind of oath, has the Deity, as that which, in English law, is ex- the opinion of his body. He does not believe 64 66 |