The Cambria freeman. [volume] (Ebensburg, Pa.) 1867-1938, 1868-02-06
THE LAW OF EVIDENCE.


Our Senator. Hon. Harry White, has sent
US bill read in the Senate, on the Oath of
January last, entitled can Act relating to
the Law Of Evidence"
The first section makes all parties. no
matter whether parties in interest merely.
or parties in the record, witnesses in all
cases, excepting certain cases therein men
toned
The second section gives any party the
right to call his antagonist, cas- on cross
examinations" with the'right, afterwards. to
contradict him by other testimony.
The third section provides for taking the
testimony of the parties made witnesses by
the preceding sections, by rule or upon a
commission.
# the Honorable Senator forwarded this
bill to us for information. we feel obliged to
him If for our views, they are cheerfully
given.
We are opposed to the proposed change
in the law OF ,-,1cence, because, in the first
place, the people have not called for it, and
do not need it. We have not seen that the
people have petitioned for this law, and if
they have not, it is to be presumed they do
not need it, or require it, We are aware
that there is a great desire or the part O
some legislators to make innovations on the
law Of evidence, but legislative innovation
is not always Improvements.
In the second place. we orine that tie
Oh h, {
abundant crop Of periuries. 1t is well
known to the legal profession that party
coming into court with rotten cas- C will,
in nine cases ont of ten, make it good by
his own oath, if necessary. The man who
is dishonest enough to make false entry,
or az unfourded claim. is generally wicked
enough to support it by his oath. Besides
it begets, or is calculated tC beget, careless
ness in business. If transactions between
men are conducted in 4 busuess-like man
ncr, the testimony Of either party can rarely
be required; but enact the proposed law
| and premium is given to careIessness in
business transactions. Ard when litigation
arises, instead Of written evidence of the
transaction, the treacherous memory of par
ties Is substituted, where the powerful mo-
. tive Of interest serves to strengthen the
memory on the one side, ard weaken it on
/ the other. 1t gives the man who may pos
| sess for the moment a higher character than
! lis neighbor, an advantage that he could
not obtain from impartial evidence In
/ other words, it tries the men rather than
the case.
The second section seems to us peculiarly ly
Objectionable. 1t is well settled law that a
party may not impeach his own witness.
and this rule Of law is so plainly proper as
to commend itself to both lawyers and lay
men. Here party may, against his will,
be called to the stand cross-examined before
he has testified in chief, and then after elect
ing to call him, the party calling him may
contradict his testimony by the next wit
ness. This, we submit, is most homogeneous
and at war with all the hitherto recognized
rules Of dieting evidence.
We shall be told, as we are told Of every
innovation, that it works well in tLose
States and Counties in which it has beer
tried. 1t may be SO, Jtd the I1,c as Il IS aa,
1coTkeI 1celL in Pennsylvania, and we do moi
see the necessity Of adopting every change
made elsewhere, unless called for by tn,
profession and the people.
We may be regarded as an cold fogy''-
be it SO. We are opposed to all changes il
our laws, unless the benefit Of the change
can be clearly demonstrated, and to non,
more than to that which throws the charac
ter Of every suitor into the judicial balance