<<
>>

the right of Jews to testify in court.

The status of Jews as witnesses on lawsuits has been fixed for the first time by the decree from the May, 7th, 1786, confirmed their right to depose «on ceremonies of their belief if under laws and under merits of case the oath evreinu follows, not delivering in a distinction obstacle in the law [i.e.

in creed - E.A.]».

Despite this unequivocal enough legislative formulation, in due course in practice the right of Jews to represent itself as witnesses has been called in question. An occasion for more
Attentive trial on this question has appeared in 1806 when the claimant on business considered by the Kiev court has wished to refer to indications of Jews. The court and provincial administration were inclined to resolve to it it, however have not dared to make it without highest authority approval, and the question has been transferred by Kiev civil governor Pankratevym in the Senate. It is characteristic, that in other provinces this right of Jews was not called in question - so, the Minister of Justice, whose opinion on this question has been enquired by the Senate at a legal investigation, has referred to the official report of the Podolsk provincial public prosecutor where it was informed, that in offices of Podolsk province indications of Jews [490] (though, probably, the role that the decree of 1786 quoted above has been accepted in reply to applications of the Belarus Jews in this case has played and formally concerned the Belarus provinces [491]) are accepted. Moreover, in reply to corresponding inquiry the State Council has given to the Minister of Justice the list from 27 affairs, Vysochajshe the approved opinion of the State Council on which has been based on certificates of Jews [492].

The senate, considering a question on possibility to accept a testimony of Jews on affairs of Christians, leant against norms of the decree from May, 3rd, 1795, and also Positions of 1804 on which basis it has been established, that Jews «are compared to other Russian citizens; zasim to deprive of their trust and to delete from the certificate on affairs of Christians would be nesootvetstvenno the meant legalisations». Such conclusions have demanded from the Senate of extensive interpretation of norms of the named legal acts as in the decree from May, 3rd, 1795 it is mentioned only, that to Jews «without distinction of a sort and

The law »the general legislation on participation in municipal government should be applied, and in Position of 1804 - that Jews« consist under exact protection of laws on the same level with all other Russian citizens »; other norms which in bolshej degrees would concern the status of Jews as witnesses in court, in these certificates does not contain. However the Senate has considered these norms sufficient to conclude, that the norm of the Statute forbidding to Jews to testify on affairs of Christians, contradicts the operating Russian legislation and, hence, should not be applied. It is obvious, that this decision of the Senate was completely political, and the reference to the previous legislation was formality as to equalise Jews on the basis of the named decrees in other rights, for example, to cancel line of settled way of life, nobody gathered.

The Senate report in which the arguments listed above have been reflected, was considered by the State council on August, 21st, 1815.

Thus eleven of present members of the State council have expressed in favour of that it was authorised, and two more offered temporarily, until the decision of this question the Commission of laws, to uphold positions of the Lithuanian statute. Nevertheless, the opinion of the majority of the State council has received the highest statement [493].

Subsequently attempts to achieve cancellation of this norm became. In 1824 the Vitebsk provincial public prosecutor informed the Minister of Justice, that, according to the Judaism doctrine, on the Jew who is giving evidence in Christian court against other Jew, the damnation is imposed, and petitioned for distribution on Jews of the rules, concerning dissenters, about their assumption in witnesses only on affairs among themselves [494]. That not
Less, the oath of Jews continued to admit; the latest changes of the legislation only specified an order of its bringing.

It is necessary to recognise, that doubts of the authorities had under themselves some bases. This problem had two aspects - formal according to which to accept the certificate of the Jew for the proof it was once forbidden by the Lithuanian statute nominally incorporated in system of the Russian right after sections of Speech pospolitoj [495], and substantial according to which as affirmed, the pray «Kol Nidre», read by Jews in the Doomsday, releases them from a sin kljatvoprestuplenija before neevrejami [496]. This argument testified to acquaintance to German Antisemitic compositions as corresponding ideas have been stated for the first time in the classical Antijewish treatise published in 1711 to I.Ajzenmengera «Entdecktes Judentum» [497].v In some other cases similar statements were proved by the reference on "Shulhan-Aruh" - constituted in XVI century in Italy the collection of household and legal recommendations according to which each Jew should arrive and on which basis decisions ravvinskih vessels are taken out. Critics of the Jewish culture specified that many norms "Shulhan-Aruha" contradict universal morals, and sometimes and to the legislation (for example, the permission not to settle the debt taken at died goja if its successors do not know about this debt). In a polemic context about the right of Jews to testify in court special value has got instructions on articles "Shulhan-Aruha", resolving to give false testimonies under the oath if it is necessary for protection of interests of sworn or other Jew [498]. N.A.

pereferkovich, the researcher Judaic the dogmatic persons, the devoted number of books and articles to a refutation of incorrect and tendentious interpretation of the Talmud often repeated in Antisemitic publications of second half XIX century, specified in incorrect understanding of these articles. He approved, that the permission to lie concerns only cases of bringing of the cleaning oath in criminal trial provided that at refusal of the oath the convicted is threatened with a death penalty. Hence, as the institute of the cleaning oath by this time in Russia was not applied, it is impossible to say and that the Talmud allowed to lie to Jews before the state court [499]. Moreover, the Talmud at all does not provide institute of the witness oath, considering as a sufficient guarantee a precept forbidding false witness [500 [501]. It confutes arguments of opponents of an assumption of Jews in witnesses according to whom the oath in the civil court, brought without observance of formalities demanded by the Talmud, cannot be considered is religious a binding 502 oath.

3.5.

<< | >>
A source: ABAKUMOVA Evgeniya Vladimirovna. the LEGAL STATUS of JEWS In RUSSIAN EMPIRE In the end of XVIII - the BEGINNING of XIX CENTURIES the Dissertation on competition of a scientific degree of the master of laws. Moscow - 2014. 2014

More on topic the right of Jews to testify in court.:

  1. 1.1. Jews in Russia till 1772
  2. 3.1. The class rights of Jews.
  3. 4.1. Features of the fiscal status of Jews.
  4. state regulation of realisation by Jews of trade.
  5. 3.6. State regulation of a suit of Jews.
  6. 5.2. Participation of Jews in the general system of self-management
  7. 4.4. A duty of Jews on compulsory military service execution.
  8. 2.5. An interdiction for residing of Jews in a countryside.
  9. 2.4. Special rules about residing of Jews in Lifljandii and Kurland.
  10. the rights of Jews in the field of religious activity.
  11. 4.3. The organisation of intracommunal redistribution of taxes among Jews.