Oath

An outward pledge given by the person taking it that his attestation or promise is made under an immediate sense of his responsibility to God. Tyler, Oaths 15.

— The term lias been variously defined: as, “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;” 1 Stark. Ev. 22;

— or, “a religious asseveration by which a person renounces the mercy and imprecates the vengeance of Heaven if he do not speak the truth;” 2 Leach 482;

— or, as “a religious act by which the party 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 his perjury if he shall be guilty of it;” 10 Toullicr, n.

343; Puffendorff, b. 4, c. 2, § 4.

The essential idea of an oath would seem to be, however, that of a recognition of God’s authority by the party taking it, and an undertaking to accomplish the transaction to which it refers as required by his laws. In its broadest sense, the form is used to include all forms of attestation by which a party signifies that he is bound in conscience to perform the act faithfully and truly. In a more restricted sense, it excludes all those forms of attestation or promise which are not accompanied by an imprecation. Assertory oaths are those required by law other than in judicial proceedings and upon induction to office: such, for example, as O out authority of law. Though binding in foro conscientice, they do not, when false, render the party liable to punishment for perjury. Judicial oaths are those administered in judicial proceedings. Promissory or official oaths are oaths taken, by authority of law, by which the party declares that he will fulfil certain duties therein mentioned: as, the oath which an alien takes, on becoming naturalized, that he will support the constitution of the United States: the oatli which a judge takes that he will perform the duties of his office. The breach of this does not involve the party in the legal crime or punishment of perjury; State v. Dayton, 23 N. J. L. 49, 53 Am. Dec. 270. Where an appointee neglects to take an oath of of lice when required by statute to do so, he cannot be considered qualified, nor justify Ills doings as an officer; Johnston v. Wilson, 2 N. II.

202, 9 Am. Dec. 50.

Qualified oaths are circumstantial oaths. Rap. & L. Diet. The form of administering the oath may be varied to conform to the religious belief of the individual, so as to make it binding upon his conscience; 4 Bla. Com. 43; 1 Whart. Ev. §§ 380-8; Com. v. I.uzzell, 1G Pick. (Mass.) 154; Mc Kinney v. People, 2 Gilman (111.) 510, 43 Am. Dec. 65; 7 111.

Uy. & M. 77.

The most common form is upon the gospel, by taking the book in the hand: the words commonly used are, ‘‘You do swear that,” etc., ‘‘so "help you God,” and then kissing the hook; 9 C. & P. 137. The oath was in common use long prior to the Christian era; Willcs 515, 1744; the oath and Christianity became associated during the reign of Henry VIII. in England; 3 Bobertson's Charles V. 257. The origin of this oath may he traced to the Roman law; Nov. 8, tit.

3; Nov. 74, cap. 5; Nov. 124, cap. 1.

In ancient times a Bible containing the Gospels was placed upon a stand in view of the prisoner. The jurors placed their hands upon the book, and then the accused had a full view of ‘‘the peer” who was to try him. This was called the ‘‘corporal oath” because the hand of the person sworn touched the book. Probably, out of reverence, the book may have boon kissed sometimes, as a Catholic priest now kisses it in a mass; but it is doubtful if kissing the book was ever essential to the validity of the “corporal oath”; 22 Law Mag. & Rev. 59. The terms “corporal oath” and “solemn oath” are synonymous, and an oath taken with the uplifted hand is properly described by either term in an indictment for perjury; are not generally used, but? the party taking the oath holds up his right hand and repeats the words here given; 1 Leach 412, 408. Kissing the book has been abolished by statute (1895) in Pennsylvania. Where a justice asks affiant if he swears to the affidavit, and he replies that he does, the oath is sufficient though he does not hold up his hands and swear; Dunlap v. Clay, 05 Miss. 454, 4 South. 118. Another form is by the witness or party promising holding up his right hand while the officer repeats to him, ‘‘You do swear by Almighty God, the searcher of hearts, that,” etc., “and this as you shall answer to God at the great* day.” In another form of attestation, commonly called an affirmation ( q. r.), the officer repeats, “You do solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm that;” which is the form prescribed in England by 8 Geo. 1. ch.

6.

A general oath that the evidence “shall he the truth, the whole truth, and nothing hut the truth,” etc., is all that is necessary for a witness who testifies to the signing of an instrument in his presence, and translates the language of such instrument for the benefit of the jury; Krewson v. Purdoui, Iff Or. 568, 11 Pae. 281. A.lew is sworn on the Pentateuch, or Old Testament, with his head covered; Stra. 821, lllff; a Mohammedan, on the Koran; 1 Leach 51; a Gentoo, by touching with his hand the foot of a Brahmin or priest of his religion; a Brahmin, by touching the hand of another such priest; Wils. 549; 1 Atk. 21; a Chinaman, by breaking a china saucer; 1 C. & M. 248.

See State v. Ohyo Chiagk, 92 Mo. 895, 4 S. W. 704.

After a witness has taken the oath according to the custom and religion of his country, it is not error to require him to take the statutory oath; State v. Giu Pen, Mi Wash. 425, 47 Pac. 001. The requirement of an “oath” as used in any act or resolution of congress shall be deemed complied with by making affirmation in the judicial form; II.

S. K. S. § 1.

The form and time of administering oaths, as well as the person authorized to administer are usually fixed by statute.

See Herman v, Herman, 4 Wash. O. C. 555, Fed. Oas. No. 0,407; U. S. v. Bailey, 9 Pet. (U. S.) 288, 9 L. Ed 118; Oaks v. Itodgors, 48 Cal. 197; Arnold v. Middletown, 41 Conn. 200.

The administering of unlawful oaths is an offence against the government; AVhart. Lex. By the Promissory Oaths Act (81 & 82 Viet. c. 72) a number of unnecessary oaths have been abolished, and declarations substituted. The same act provides a new form of the oath of allegiance, and forms of a judicial oath and an official oath to he taken In Arkansas, California, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Oregon, and Wisconsin there are constitutional provisions intended to exclude any religious test for the competency of witnesses. The Bible is not an indispensable requisite in the administration of an oath; People v. Cook, 8 N. Y. 07, 59 Am. Dec. 451.

See Kissing the Book.