WHEN IS AN OATH?

Is an oath binding if a man solemnly swears, but neglects the formality of holding up his right hand? With such a defense, a prisoner in a New Hampshire court is pleading not guilty to a charge of perjury, and the court has been so overcome by the strangeness of the plea, that the case has had to be continued. This leads one naturally to ask: what would happen if a man had his fingers crossed all the time, or perhaps his tongue in his cheek, or forgot to cross his heart and say, "Hope to die," after the ceremony? The whole situation is obviously ridiculous, but the point involved is important. Thousands of tax-payers have sworn to their income tax returns without raising their hands. Are their oaths to be repudiated? Every day hundreds of would be motorists submit to the same stereotyped process, not bothering to raise their right hands, and merely mumbling meaningless phrases through their teeth; yet they are judged to have sworn to the truth of their statements.

The point raised in New Hampshire affects intensely the whole question of the conception of an oath. In New York state anyone who takes an oath is required to lay his hand on the Bible. Here in Massachusetts, Attorney General Allen is of the opinion that what ever the New Hampshire courts decide, an oath is binding whether the right hand is raised or not, and every intelligent man will support him in this attitude. If an oath is not recognized as sacred in itself, if there is no way of making it sacred; how is it going to be possible to depend upon any statement? As society is constructed today everything rests upon truth and honesty. If a man cannot be held legally to his word, the very props are knocked from under our feet.