The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1869-03-01
MONDAY, MARCH l, 1859.
who Are Competent witnessesr

who Are Competent Witnessesf
THRRE Is a bill pending in the State Legisla-
ture at the present time which is so important
in It's everyday application that we cannot
but direct public attention to Its provisions
II Is not a private BILL on the private oaienuar'
and win not. we fear, receive that examina-
tiop which its merits demand. The bill pro-
noses to enlarge the rule of evidence in Penn
syIvapis, and to make all parties in interest
capable of testifying in all matters in which
they are concerned. We have already referred
TO the statute, and would again urge its
passage. A careful inspection of the intention
OF suoh law will convince all of its
paramount importance. The old law forbade
any one being examined on the stand as
witness in any civil suit, il he was in any way,
either directly or remotely, interested in its
decision. It forbade even those who did not
appear on the record, but had an equitable
interest in the result, to have any question
put TO them. But the necessities OF numerous
oases, and the evident absurdity Of shutting OFF
from the jury the facts which might be
known only to those excluded, led to
o modification, and It is now much more re-
buipb0u 0Nc4 Az 1chhhykNdnds auy hidUhtuR
of the law soon showed the mistaken nature
Of the former rule. It was found by expert
encs that Il was safer and more reasonable to
leave all the facts to the jury, after having
them laid before them, and let them Judge Of
the value to be attached to any particular part
Of the evidence, than it was to keep from
them the statements of those interested. In
other words, let all testify, and let the jury
judge of their credibillty.- The consequence
was the passage of an act Of Parliament in
Great Britain, cancelling all ineligibility to
testify from these grounds, and admitting
both plaintiff and defendant to the witness
stand. Massachusetts,, New York, Ohio and
many other States followed suit, and the United
States Courts also adopted the new rule, SO
that to-day, in a majority of the States,
and in all the United States Courts, the evi
dsnoe of both plaintiff and defendant is ad
mitted. Pennsylvania, however, has held ou
in opposition, and adheres to the old rule
True It is that a son can testify for father
q brother for a brother, and a dear frien(
for his friend. The credibility of such is lef
to the jury, but partner cannot testify for
partner. Is it not reasonable to suppose tina
the influence Of paternal affection is as stronl
tendency to bias witness as any pecuniary
consideration If the witness is presumed t.
be 80 far prejudiccd in one case as to be OK
oluded, why should he be admitted in tn
otherf The truth is that the jury can gene
rally judge pretty correctly as to the value t.
be attached to a witness, and they can do 81
much more clearly than any rule Of evidence
can. The surest way to secure justice is t
allow all the light possible in the case in dis
pute, TO let both parties tell their own story
to Let the jury see the motive and the
facts which led to the transaction, and
to let them decide according to their oaths
There La certainly an element of the ridiculous
in man being admissible as witness on on'
side Of Fifth street, and ineligible on the othe
side. Over the Post Office all can testify
over in the State House the same man is ex
oludsd. We think 1t time for the Legislature
to do away with this absurd discrimination
Lat us not continue behind all the other Com
monweslths in what is q reasonable advance
ment in the right direction. To do 30 is t
subject ourselves to the charge of fossilism
which Is too appropriate. large number @
the Bar and Of the Bench, as well as an almos
unanimous sentiment on the part Of the mer
camille world, call for such an advance, an
we hope that the bill now pending somewher
at Harrisburg win speedily become part q
the law Of Pennsylvania.