Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1840-05-15

same causes which influence The actqns OF other men
The iudGrs Of the t. :. Court rresPonsl BILE
They have changed the law b. their decisions 10 such
an y,ent that !, j. impossible TO tel! what the law Is
You nav say To-day what Is, hut It IS impossible 10
say what il viii be tomorrow, month hence Inc
common law j. thing to-day, but Tomorrow II VIII
be another If lie understood common laws 1t was Just
and universal its Opcration-lhe same III one sec
ton of the country the other Bnt was It 50: No.
The courts give one decision III New York, and me
courts III Philadelphia give another and entirely diier-
cut one under The same law. 1t was then high time
10 decide what was BE- the law of evidence. 1t was
high time that the tax-payers-mcn not living III the
citiesncn in every par, OF the country should conc
forward, and pass such acts as would eiectualy
guard the Of the country, and protect the no.
nest merchant and the manufactures against the gross
Injustice done them, through fraud on the revenue, by
these foreign importers We told that the bill
would do Injustice 10 innocent men. He denied It
[ There was no man who not, IN greater or less
decree nliucnccdby his own interests. Merchants and
induces nrc no better than other They all la
bic to be- swervcd from the strict rules of morality
when their interests ut stake are large and when the
Inducements 10 frauds are great lie hoped the law
yers here from New York and elsewhere would not be
so touchv He looked upon the bill carrying out the
i good maxim of equal and exact justice TO all lie
hoped the section OF the bill would be passcdt was
{ of all Others the most Important aud without It the
bill would be of no effect; fraud could be committed
2 with impunity
Mr. RIlE1'T was opposed to the amendment lie
said that the principle son might be proh
bitcd from giving evidence III favor OF his father, ana
rice rcrsG: hence both interested by the ties OF
2 nature He coucnded that the amendment, fadoptcd
would he violation of the Constitution, and the first
principles of common law, and that If the principle was
sacrificed in one instance might be done in oil others
pethaps gentlemen would like the collector to have ar
b,rary power and dispense with the trial by jury alto
i retler But so long there trial by jury the 10
ycrnmrnt must how TO the majesty OF the people The
more the Government could be checked the better it
would be for the people. lie would never lend ms ard
L., mi II ibp
!, Mr. BRIGGS did not see how the question OF trial
d by Jury was involved III this matter. lie did not see
that it proposed TO interfere in tins great const-
tutional right He could no, perceive that tins section
Of the bill contemplated interference with any great
constitutional principle II merely question OF cv
drncr or law in relation the admission Of evidence OF
e certain individuals, By tie common law proper man
who interested in canSc could not be admitted as
e evidence But one innovation had followed ah"'ler
50 that the strict rule had IN measure, been departed
Il from But he must confess that, with all his Difference
10 the universally of the practice he was al loss to
G. sec It's wisdom He could not much ior the VerdIc
in favor of man whose suit should be determined on
the testimony OF another man, IntcrcseG III me htiV
&c dual question.
ri In this case the evidence was not so much IN relation
If 10 matters Of fact As Of opinion which, he con
10 ceycd render il very doubtful Us 10 whether the rs
monv OF interested persons Should III received Inc
direct II tins h was 10 prevent frauds an INC revenue
I'd an! he saw nothing II calculated I" 10 Tie least III
It. ps.;cc ia upright men Its object TO pGas t"st
Of N opoSi,c character and, Tor his part, h. cared no
u. how much they might su'er Ia questions OF proper
B. IS he DID not the proprlcy of allowing Individual!
ID, to testify who were themselves Interested And al
y, though this innovation Of law had been tolerated, Ia
of should vote ,r the section with the pr"vlSo
Mr.. TlLL,NGIlAST thought If any legislation va
nd had on the SUBJECT so rs alter the laws OF evidence
then such alteration should be general, and made to ap
ply not only 20 cases between certain individuals ant
n the Government, but also to eases where individual
l. we're con
II, Mr.. BARNARD objected to tlic amendment. IL
H. considered 1t objectionable Ia the section itself. II
cited many cases from English law books 10 show tina
is, the common hw Of the country did not dsQuahy
IN man 10 rive c7dcncc III where hr was mereSte
IN the Gncstiol involved He would never consent
entertain proposition, which sough; 10 establish on
rule in cases in which TIE Government was concerned
and which did not arpy 10 all other cases lie wSie
the door thrown open wade III relation 10 tle aGlisso
m Of evidence, and there was any thing winch diStli
M rushcd the present day in the advances made IN III
system of Jurisprudence, it was the fact that every SCUM
lawyer was DESTROYS that the laws Of evidence should
relaxed.
Mr. LINCOLN was opposed to the proviso. II
say no reason why particular rule Of evidence shou
-. be a!otcd in cases were the Government was col
crrmcd and which, would MT apply 10 indly;i; If,
r Was property, he would ask, more valuable! .I';sh
Ia Then on what ground could they seek {" I'm ,,uI
w law of violence IN relation 10 the !cv-nuc' c;,;,
- not be admitted when the rights and ~
mi were concerned. a., tcu,l,rnau C,,r
J., New Yqs Of the same opIn0" - ,he common hw 9
m"TaIv because he mich, have testimony .; ,an"s.
lcL ton involved He had always understood the como
nts law of England a law Of liberty, which gnric
ave the property, life and liberty Of the subject Id h
ac would be very sorry for the introduction Of any artia
The legislation which should conravcne the usage or
r mer years.
az He was extremely DESTROYS that the rcvcnu law
should be- strictly enforced, only for the prevntio
the of fraud, hut for the protection Of the great nauac
turing interest of the country, Of which he ,artl
ian an humble representative But, however great nlg
be the advantage the country by en- increase i, III
revenue, he could not consent 10 sacrifice viola
H. great principle OF civil liberty, in accomplishing II
feared the proposed amendment would, if adp,cd
,D leave the honest man. ~ many cases, without the
nor OF protection There much apparent danrr i
nc it, that it would require stronger arguments THAI la
been hitherto urged, TO reconcile HIM to it.
yas Mr.. SERGEANT spoke at some length in olpos
ton to this section of the bill He had not 50 nuc
,cu objection TO the modification proposed by the geItle
man from Massachusetts, as he had to the scctm a
originally reported He argued that the section wa
in dIscspcctin! to the trial by jury. 1t would be-, c
or Feet saying that iary could no, be trusted He
son mined Into tic powers Of the collector under
On, laws and understood 10 contend that in this part
nv cular question al Issue, he had ample power. Thee
feet OF the section would be, that if The collector IA
made several improper seizures the parties affected
Ter The seizure would be excluded from csying in elite
Of the cases He contcndcd that the common law d.
icr not exclude man from giving testimony qucsto
es in which he was interested. In reply to the remak
tod of Mr. PetrkIn, to the rrcgularv Of the dccsn
ne, '"' c '''' Jaw, tidt no J""St ever II
IN tered the common aw had the power to do it, hr
or was no Judge with hardhood enough to do it. He as
on argued that there tribunal in this country whG
Inc a man is excluded from giving testimony in questD
in which he interested. 1t was settled princiIl
al the law of this land, that he may give
tinony There well established and univcna
ID rule Of evidence; and there was no reason that thr
M should be an exception in this case, BY drparttr
H.. from that rule.
Fps Mr.. NANDERPOEI. looked upon this section as I,
yet most vital portion al the bill! 1t had been agreed
al all that there vcry great evils existing, and that
necessary Congress should m,crpoSc some remedy
lie believed tins portion o the bill was ,ccssay TO
efficient remedy for the evils. Under that i'm
preston, he would vote for the section and the provs
ms added By the gentleman from Massachusetts
it, Ii struck him that all these learned cnisitions OF