the following classes of person to be incompetent to
give evidence.

1. Persons who have not the use of reason, are, from the infirmity of
their nature, considered to be utterly incapable of giving evidence.[101]
This class includes idiots, madmen, and children too young to be sensible
of the obligations of an oath, and to distinguish between good and evil.

2. Persons who are entirely devoid of any such religious principle or
belief as would bind their consciences to speak the truth, are incompetent
as witnesses. Hence, the testimony of an atheist must be rejected;
because, as it has been well said, such a person cannot be subject to that
sanction which is deemed an indispensable test of truth. But as Masonry
does not demand of its candidates any other religious declaration than
that of a belief in God, it cannot require of the witnesses in its trials
any profession of a more explicit faith. But even here it seems to concur
with the law of the land; for it has been decided by Chief Baron Willes,
that "an infidel who believes in a God, and that He will reward and punish
him in this world, but does not believe in a future state, may be examined
upon oath."

3. Persons who have been rendered infamous by their conviction of great
crimes, are deemed incompetent to give evidence. This rule has been
adopted, because the commission of an infamous crime implies, as Sir
William Scott has observed, "such a dereliction of moral principle on the
part of the witness, as carries with it the conclusion that he would
entirely disregard the obligation of an oath." Of such a witness it has
been said, by another eminent judge,[102] that "the credit of his oath is
over-balanced by the stain of his iniquity."

4. Persons interested in the result of the trial are considered
incompetent to give evidence. From the nature of human actions and
passions, and from the fact that all persons, even the most virtuous, are
unconsciously swayed by motives of interest, the testimony of such persons
is rather to be distrusted than believed. This rule will, perhaps, be
generally of difficult application in masonic trials, although in a civil
suit at law it is easy to define what is the interest of a party
sufficient to render his evidence incompetent. But whenever it is clearly
apparent that the interests of a witness would be greatly benefited by
either the acquittal or the conviction of the accused, his testimony must
be entirely rejected, or, if admi