THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. SATURDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1909. "KISS THE BOOK, PLEASE."

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLVI, Issue 14235, 4 December 1909, Page 6

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. SATURDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1909. "KISS THE BOOK, PLEASE."

At last the doom of the old oath is in view, and the formula " Kiss the Book, please," which has admonished witnesses in English courts of justice since the dawn of history, is to be heard there no more. One by one the relics of the ages pass away, like old men who have lived their span, and their places are filled. None of us like to see old friends drop out by the way, and for that reason among peoples of repute for constancy old customs are relinquished with reluctance, so long as they can be usefully retained. The old form of oath has seen its day, and must pass away. It has had a long reign, full of dramatic situations. In the hands of a man qualified for the task its history would be one of the most fascinating ever penned. Human joys and sorrows and human villainy would fill the story. Every human failing, every virtue, every crime would be there. Selfsacrifice and love, tyranny, murder, and torture, revenge and retributionno passion that ever touched I the heart of man, whether for good or evil, but would find a place in such a .volume. There is nothing in our daily life round which clusters such intense human interest as round the ancient Bible-oath. A ready and convenient way of binding a witness, it has survived in our courts of law through every vicissitude, until, at last, the modern microbe, or the modern knowledge of that microscopic but dangerous enemy, has driven it from its last stronghold. For, when we look around, we see, with perhaps a touch of surprise, that a formal oath, except for legal purposes, has become a thing of the greatest rarity. We no longer try to bind our friends to their promises by the administration of an oath, and if the Bible oath is abolished in all Court work—that is, in the administration of affidavits outside of the Court as well as in the binding of witnesses in the Court itself is difficult to see what can preserve it as a living custom. If we suspend its employment in the administration of justice, in all probability it will become a mere memory, like the medieval habit of swearing upon the Host or consecrated wafer, or the grisly and fantastic oath taken upon the fingers or bones or other decayed relics of saints and martyrs. When the crafty and ambitious Duke William wished to bind Harold Godwin to his extorted promise of assistance, the most powerful means he could devise was to collect all the musty bones and dried-us bodies of saints preserved

in the churches and monasteries of Normandy, and secretly to deposit them under the tub that formed the temporary altar upon which Harold was to swear. Harold was not a superstitious man, but even he shuddered when the chest was disclosed and he learned what he had done. The value of miscellaneous 6dds and ends of human remains for the purpose of adding solemnity to an oath has gone. Such oaths are as dead as the relics they were once associated with. And, in the course of time the custom of swearing on the Bible may seem as incongruous to our descendants as our | ancestors' relic-oaths seem to us. But, however this may be, the main reason for withdrawing the Bible-oath is the dangerous, insanitary condition into which Court Bibles quickly get. An added reason is that "kissing the Book" has become a formality which in the great, majority of cases has lost the peculiar force it formerly possessed in drawing truth from wells of untruth. This may be a deplorable fact, but if it is a fact we cannot afford to overlook it. The Bibleoath was formerly used because of its special influence upon the deponent, and the existence of that influence became a proper subject of inquiry before the oath was administered. A witness with no religious beliefs was not eligible to give evidence. His word was deemed to be worthless if the oath did not bind his conscience. Thus the Bible was brought in to give an extrajudicial sanction to a man's word, and reliance was not placed upon the influence of the Court's own powers of punishment.. That idea gradually gave way, and when the belief of a Chrstian witness had ceased to be a relevant question the ground was clear for the affirmation. The steps. on the way from the indispensable Bible-oath to the affirmation • were . the statutes passed to meet the religious scruples of the Quakers, Moravians, and Separatists. Members of these sects objected to taking oaths, and were consequently allowed simply to affirm, or make a promise to speak the truth, but until 1869 the right was limited strictly to them. The removal of the barrier generally, however, was the logical outcome of its removal to meet the cases of special sects. The cable which announced the passing of the Bill the other day did not say whether or not the Bible-oath was to be abolished for all legal purposes, or whether it was still to bo used in the administration of affidavits made in connection with Court proceedings. But if it is no longer to be employed for witnesses in the box, we can see no reason for retaining it for any purpose. The Scotch oath, which has replaced it, is an oath just as the ■ Bible-oath is, and in England -since the year 1888, and in New Zealand since 1894, any witness appearing in Court proceedings could use it if he or she wished. In New Zealand a witness is also free' to affirm if he desires without giving any reasons for his choice, but in England he may do &o only if he either has no religious beliefs or the taking of an oath is against his religious beliefs. Thus the new Oaths Act will not abolish oaths, but merely make the previous optional form the only form. The affirmation remains for those who wish to use it and are qualified. The affirmation itself is a simple promise. The witness says: "I, A. 8., do solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm that I will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." The words of imprecation present in oaths are omitted. In administering the Scottish oath the officer of ":« Court holds up his hand and says to the witness: "Witness, hold up your hand and repeat after me, ' I swear by Almighty God, as I shall answer to God at the great Day of Judgment, that I will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.' " Such a form is hygienically perfect, and we do not doubt that, now the Mother Country has taken the lead, our own Dominion will follow as she has followed in the previous reforms.