, 1875-10-17
EVIDENCE OF THE RESURRECTION.
REVIEW Of JI1DGE r0OtH.

REVIEW OF JUDGE EooTu.
IL the Editor of The CHICAGO tribune:
CHAMPAIGN. ILL.,, Oct 19.-Judge Booth in his
late discourse before the Philosophical Society
Of Chicago finds fau1t with the testimony Of the
Evaogelists, as we'll concerning the fact OF the
crucifxion AZ the resurrection Of Christ, for the
reason, among Others that they do not agree
precisely as to the words employed to make up
the superscription which, it is alleged. Was
placed upoa the cross-
1t is faVorite practice among Judges to de-
ci6e no moro than may be necessary 70 dispose
Of the case, and it is somewhat surprising that
the Judge did not follow this rule in the present
case. The objection stated by him, as above re-
ferred to, would If it has any force a. proof,
dsprove the alleged fact Of crucif1ion, which OF
course would leave no room to bs troubled about
the resurrection As to this superscription, the
Judge is not consistent with his daily prac tice
as Judge OF lawyer. II it Is o conversation he
requires sheso evangellstB to use the precise
words Of the person speaking them, in order to
entitle their statements to belief. He utterly
ignores his own az well AZ the practice OF all
other courts, to receive as evidence. and Indeed
a8 proof, not the exact language used, but III
most CAGES the substance Of what Was said; and
that the same rule is spilled By him in the duo
administration Of Justice when lost writings are
involved doubt not The discrepancies which he
complains OF do exist. Ergo, tho whole story 10
false, and behold. there Was not IN fact crucl-
fxiont
But further the Judge seems determined to
array Judge Booth the Judge against Judge
Bootn tho philosopher to the full extent Of al bis
common sense professional. and Official life- In
this case because OF discrepancies ID the state
ments OF the Witnesses, he refuses to eclleye
any, all, or either OF them.
Jones' vs. Smith is called for trial. Tbs form
er swcars that the latter owes him 81 900. The
latter swears he does not owe the former anv-
thing. This ia ali the evidence in the case. Ho
must find bis verdict on this evidence or tho
OF proof is not, in tho estimation Of legal in
quiry, found in the greater number Of Witnesses
necessarily, he may find ia favor OF Jones' He
must believe the one or the other. and docs
belle-a aud that IN tho face OF more thaa mere
discrepancy. nat unqualified contradiction. and
such is the frequent official experiences OF tho
Judge.
I think the Judge will find it impossible dur
ing his professional and official experience "a
recall any considerable Dumber OF instances IN
which two or mora persons have testified to tho
same transaction involving words and acts in
which the witnesses have agreed precisely az to
what waa said and done, and yet In most Of thesa
I am quito sure ho was fully convinced Of the
maln fact in the case, md acted upon the cez-
tainty Of its truth. Tho Judge mav sav this
does not produce certainty True, but cartsn-
ty is not attainable, nor Is it required Dis
crepaucics In the statements Of witnesses ara 80
common that no one expects anything else. aud
30 unusual is q perfect agreement in all respects
that the fact Of agreement itsoK il rather =
badge Of cousiou and imposition than exact
truth. It is safe to say that almost every fact
foand through the agencv Of hum.n testimony
is arrived at through discrepancies, 11con.lsten-
cies, and denias. 4 LAWYER