McKelvey, in his work on Evidence, Sec. 213, says: "In the case of the sect of Quakers, so obnoxious to the early English churchmen, whose members refused to take the oath, some little difficulty was experienced, in bringing them within the rule of competency; so much, in fact, that a special statute13 was passed allowing Quakers to affirm where other persons were required to take the oath. But this did not extend their competency to criminal cases. Later, however, all restriction was removed, and a form of oath established for any person not competent or not desiring to take the oath." 14 By statutes in most of the States Quakers are allowed to solemnly affirm instead of the regular oath.

10 1 Starkie on Evidence, 82, note.

11 Noble vs. People, 1 I11., 54; Hunscom vs. Hunscom, 15 Mass., 184; Clinton vs. State, 33 Ohio 27; Hutton vs. Seaver, 26 Pa. St.. 274: Arnold vs. Estate of Arnold, 13 Vt., 362.

13 Arizona; California; Colorado; Connecticut; Florida; Georgia; Illinois; Indiana; Iowa; Kansas; Kentucky; Maine; Massachusetts; Michigan; Minnesota; Mississippi; Montana; Nebraska; Nevada; New Mexico; New York; North Dakota; Oregon; Rhode Island; Tennessee; Texas; Utah; Vermont; Virginia; Washington; West Virginia and Wisconsin.

13 7 and 8 Wm. III, c. 34.

14 31 and 32 Vic, c. 68.