The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1872-03-18

subject and the matter was discussed by
Mr.. Farnsworth and Mr.. Byrne. the
former opposing and the latter support
Ing the resolution, yesterday afternoon.
This morning,
Mr.. Hoge, of Berkeley, said that
much as be regretted to differ with the
distinguished author OF the resolution,
he could not vote for it, and during bis
experience in the practice of law in
Maryland and elsew here where parties
in interest were freely permitted to testl-
fy he had not observed that any demor-
slization resulted therefrom. Wherever
the rule has been tried it has been found
to work well, and it is significant TACT
that no State having once adopted the
practice had afterwards repealed the
law and gone back to the old rule. A
witness will always, almost necessarily
color his statement OF any case. 1t Is
the duty OF the juror to weigh the EVIL.
dence, and he may doubt the truth OF
the evidence offered without doubling
the truth Of the witness. But his main
objection was to the improperly OF in
cooperating such a provision In the
Constitution. The object aimed at
should be left as question OF expediency
to the discretion OF the Legislature.
Mr.. Davenport-Thought that the
members had not had time to devote
sufficient attention to so important a
subject. The earliest writers on evil
dence made many exceptions to the old
rule. The later and better practice had
been received with almost unanimous
consent and approval. He read state
ment compiled from the laws OF many
Of the States showing that the law had
been almost universally adopted. lie
referred to numerous authorities IN
relation 10 and support of his view. To
alter it now would be step backward.
The tendency Of the best progress is in
favor OF admitting the testimony oil
parties in interest. The law has work ed
well in preventing non-suits and in
diminishing the. number Of witnesses.
1t often prevents the necessity of en-
, ploying a person to do the swearing, as
may be the case where the evidence OF
third party is necessary to show the
provisions Of a contract. He thought
that the subject should at least be lett
open TO the discretion OF the Legislature.
Mr.. Holt, of Observation-Disclosures
this a rule Of evidence which in its
nature should be flexible, and therefore
should not be fixed by the Constitution.
1t could not be said that the wrongful
ness OF the rule, if it be wrong. was so
clearly established that should be pre-.
vented by Constitutional provision.
Mr.. johnson, Of Wood-Thought
there would be no more immortality
under the present law than might result
from its repeal. The question should
be left to the Legislature. The law
was adopted four years. 1t had been
thoroughly tried and it's effects observed,
and Notwithstanding several legislative
sessions had been held since its
adoption no effort had been made Tor it's
repeal
Mr.. Armstrong-Thought that be-
cause the Convention had prohibited
various kinds of legislation it might
Just as well do so in this case, if the
Convention was satisfied the rule was
wrong and destructive Of morals. He
believed that the rule was conducive to
immortality because it was productive
Of false swearing. He related instances
where prominent and respectable men
in his community had sworn in direct
contradiction OF each other TO the great
detriment Of the moral sense OF the
people.
Mr.. Hoge-Inquired whether the
same results might not follow oath and
reply in Chancery, which had long been
the rule?
Mr.. Armstrong admitted that the
Chancery rule was wrong, but that
afforded no reason why it should be
extended. 1t offers special temptation
to false swearing The multiplication
OF oaths is dangerous to the truth and
morality of the people, and tends TO
destroy the sanctity OF the oath.
Mr.. Wilson thought the matter
should be left to the Leg stature. The
law had received the assent Of both
parties and the people and contracts
had been made in reference 10 it..
Thought it did not demoralize the peo-
pie. The people have not asked its
repeal. Cited a case in Harrison coun-
ty where it saved to widow the estate
Of her husband which would other
wise have been lost. The law had
been growing in favor. II it should
become unpopular and undesirable the
Legislature would repeal it. but as vet
it, repeal had not been asked for by the
people.
Mr.. Price thought the people had
demanded OF the Convention the max
ing of Constitution that would protect
them and 10 this sense had asked for
a change in the present law. lie was
in favor OF progress but not Of the
progress Of immortality. He thought
the present law did not promote the
knowledge Of the truth. His great OBJ.
lection to the law Is its demoralizing
effect. In the excitement Of litigation
and anxiety to win his case, facts We're
distorted and wilful perjury sometimes
committed by the party testfying. The
witness should not be led into tempta.
ton. In every case in every court ne
had attended since the passage Of the
law he had seen its effects. He had
lived sixty years under the old rule
without prejudice, aud was not afraid
of bad men taking advantage of the
law to the prejudice OF honest men.
Instead of hirinn others to do the