, 1875-02-01

| lnHc'' 1H}t1lea ny tho Edm9 principle. and
F'tnhlnS alrHE tho Aafpo Efue and by tho eatnr
rta"e. tp tn" tamn end, wan tho IcglHla.nn of
this Stn.c. 1fnl,co. In 1stG, bv constitutional Or.
alia'icc, I'll" ihciln:tty t., bn witness arsiIl.
5s' ,lefcet % religious principle VAS nbolisIlct
lslcd In lhl7, the inrunpntencs nj Il purtr Ia
tls actio1i waa nH,liriJad. In 1857, tbt jtlcun,-
potency ntelhg from the relation nf nI,a,,l Il I'D
vile ~ testify tor mil lEai'IHt sarh otuer wA1
:honilcd nna mt0se4ua1ttly VIZ have attained
III Till enlightened aud i'itunn course, 10 tic
arElne That iIow critninl iE,IiCeL. In admitted
to trfs'ly IN lIlh own behalf .:,tc this cnrto
oi lce!rl"tto1, II your isunor please s!ut ~ a
vain diHt|ay of theoretical information hut AZ
tacaing tint When principle butls t,pec;,lat;ya
atd fiettlcal. bosh in tie cnetssIea pf ti1rs-co-
t''i' a''i IN tho att, nf L"sAlsssca If tho most
| eH''nhtc!cd ctiIiltrlee under tiIn ctJuual law
lin iarlLrous pulley uf it4euln]atcncy lms ,eet,
removed. and il is stead Ito Principle has Iron
deilhHrately adopted by tI4iH State. where tho
question Of divtfn, in dotcrn,suctl by tho 1aors
e1itSi'tencl rrt'n'lp!e pf crclibl!lv.
HoW' sIr Lave naid tl,at IL 1867 all act VAS
nahhed Ny tho l'uElstanTa u Nov York renewing
t!e lcaiasity 10 testify growing ont III tue re:a-
tien of Ear'%to t:la cad.r. jtie pI4raaeulu:;:
o. tat ahaet1uoat Ii material to tle present did
| cuasiuu:
"a party to an action or proceeding may bo
eSafnned as witnsss in hia own behalf tic
| slnlo III any o.ler witness"
"!th terEa'fs exceptions not material to this
! inquiry " to tt!s clnae~ Ipu tLBcrye tito
Eut"'e''"%f' "a parry N nit action Or fl'J-
cee:li!ls may be cxnn,l1cd az Witness in III. own
hchaEf. tho rGtle Rs aav other witncsp" Tie
Terms Ul ttli9 statute. meanwhile. Ilayc been eu-
/ 1ecttd to turcesaiye notifications. but nl,"rye.
never To tho intent or to the effect of restricting
or narrowing its operation. but ulwArs wItl, III,
obvions ottae. and irtoslstiblo result of c,lur..
ing and improving i,a colAeuenceA and at,jeacy
i'eI'c'. ws'.rens tie Ac: Of 1867 merely admits
araity tu testify III lliB o#n behalf, by q suIna-
| Gucn alteration Of tho ,,hra4cnlogy liz was
! made calute!ilble to testify aranst niInscif.
md now that stat.te Tint cnaetnlent trans.
1nffod TO anniber Section uf tho cols, reads in
| tlD8o largo tDrua;
No prra,n offered AZ wtrcss in nuy action
or protteuHK III aiIf court. before at officers
nttng lUdLclAfly. shall be- excluded l,y reason nf
| lilB !ate:ent i'll tho eFeat OF this l"sinn nr rru-
ceaatl'gs or hocauso e ~ i pszt,,' s..rrc.p."
This is tho la.f which gl,yalupu tins ra.o
IIiid is tho cnarier of this Plaintiffs pry1leva
| ant! {lterOgAtve to tell III t1iA sct1
| HIS oHS SAD h1oRI oF WIRE CnEDSI.ss AND wrnyr.
NOW, sir. como back to tho act Of 1557. ;;o,n
tliat act, 11nnTat!ng upon tho t:u:li.oat prin-
ciples nf tue co!n1non laH nus 70 .ttint nfirons
70 nll thc prejndices nf the profession. nlbet ~
pinin and u1,eiuvocal i'll ls piltaBru!u;;y, wcro
subject to dtrcntfidn md to Judicial cnnstr,c-
t,on. eet1cs Of cases wcro decided determining
tho 1ea'liii!s aud eact OF tbiB nct Of 1867 onlv
mid Which leg to cltc to your Hoaor. Tie
cHatoln wnH thlH Al!hounh party to tho xctiu.,
Iua plaintiff, party may testify fpr himself,
although tlls act of l557 dll remevo the
question unIer discussion md prupoInletl fer
judicial c0netrnc.iou iu thu discussion l.. tie case
elsall cite WAS taA did sip uc. haze Ill outer
| effect beyond ti.at Of removing tho stability o1
party, and did 1t opeeate 10 enaLIe Il PARTY Il,
testify not merely fer himself, but Ior his wjfo
or husband, hi lilo caro may tie un the puo
hhls It was contoHdr.l that ihn ciTcct OF tho act
iitrely Wns II, lcgnI!ze uni legitimate Il party 10
tho action M wituces, anl That it waB not tia
i.cnt vi tue LegtsIatrre nor The effect Of It's en-
aetlicnt to acrnnpli31 thiH nlicrinr rurpoGe,
namely, to b:cak down aaotl,cs tlIatinut ulll
SPECIAL ground of coinpecnCf namely, coycrturc.
Sow, H!r. 1t wad uEou that Guestiun that tho de-
clHionb to which bel, to nvlte yuur iIonors at
tesitinn woro cited Thu 1lrrt. lila case Ut Potter
VI. Alais!i (30 Balb., pagu bOli Supreme Court
Durlsio in Joo) wta Ill ctiou Of hlal,ler agai,Lt
dcfei,dant's wifo 13otA dofolnnts otYer-
cd themBelf ~ witnesses; first each III
l's and hor own behalf; md. second
~, eacll-fo tho o:hcr. Tae Witnesses wcro
WIS apl,calcd - the Genera! Torm. nud tic rill-
ing Of tle Trial Judge reversed. The u,,cstlon
argued niia ad]ndcatea at General Term WIS,
"AutheE married persons, When properly parties
20 acsaon+. arc sotnpatent witnessc.. Tile deci-
slon VI tho GaEG1al form Sustained their corn
potency. and this heciaian WAS affirmed by tic
Court Of Appeals in 1sG3. rs appears by refer
cneo 70 = Howard, GU, note. Eot onlv that.
tins declsoi oi Potter W. Atareh affirmed in
tie Court of Appeals, unl subsequently cited
Eilh appreciation a:!d recognition il, thu caso Of
Wehr}alnps Va. W.llcit q Abbott, Court of Al
peala declHion); case reported also in lst
htys.
Sir. III this caHo OF Potter ye, Marsh occurs
thu laHgunEo which beg to reproduce be..u,sa
1t ai.tNerb lnIlch more log!cav, mt.ci, uloru dr.
c'lqely, md with greater weight Of authority,
laaii cotll pre.enu to respond 10 & lar.,e 1,r-
t.oa ct tic lenrlied geutlt1nal,'s argument: Tho
Court eaya:
'But III this caHe, the defendants we're offer.
od as witnesses in their own behalf, an well ~
TOR each other. II tho rational and common,
Law rlle for excluding husband aud wife
was based sololy upon thu nion or Interests
created by the marital ro!atiot tint tllsunra-
t!on having hoen removed it waA thar the |
parties to tho record, tho defendants in tto !
cahc, wero nttIuinsihlo Ar Witnesses flor caci,
other. l3ut whethor tho cumu.un !nw ruIo stood
along uppn tho gronn1A Of interest or not, being
PARTIES to the teco.d, and necessarily a. thuy
nso most certainly competent NJ witnesses III
their nwn belintf."
Such il tic lettor and such IL tho snirit Of thu
"a party to IN notion or proceeding may ba |
c:ainine:l III his own behalf bame III my olher |
Iheu tho Cn,rt proceeds and BAYS:
:" No limitation, no qualification, no restric-
lion is imposed BY the lnw-ia4ki,,E power. What
s'%,t then has tile Court 10 frttur nway, by
1tHi'ctal construction, tho plain letter Of thu
party uhal DO deprived ut the bene,it Ut Ils own
Testimony, willis lliA opponent ii ,crnilteI to
Eeatlfy Clearly noo, said tho Ei,l,rL
lHoro ion. l1yar oitol Il nlmbor OF prece.
leuts.--Et.. t'nI. TnlB.]
DEnrttTioSs FApM FORMER DEcrafoSa
Now, sir, whnt ii the result of tAiA Ina OF do.
ultlnlsatlnts hot ouEY trum tho
'u;'rt Of primary jur,stlictiu, bnt satslied and
stf1tmod by yanr trihnna! Of lust Ecsort2 What
~: principle is thcre-eyen when those colvtn
l!1ier upon another InaHEI0u-what ons prlei-
n" Is tllero that sta,,Gs ont zalleut and n,,ll-
efitcd? 1t III this that u party to an uetiuA,
.tinB hua'ala ur wife, iii every anI in anr
Icton, When tho husband nnl vito IL nat n,Bo n
,alty to tle action On ono siIo OF the secor.l or
he othor; that tleu, IN ait these cases, that
Mrty 10 tho action, bo ho or Hhp, husband Or
f!le, ID n competent wituess in hcr owl. tr }is |
'~n behalf, Ansi chailonyo my lsnrnol ml-
eraarns, with ull tlcir extranrslinary nul
diliAbo rohsarrs, to lind IN the reports Ut this
'tato, dco tho art Of 1857, ana solitary tlu.
'slon which BAYS that wifo or hus-
'and' patly to tho action. testifyinG not against
husband Or vito. party to tho ac.Ipn tlat thu
sost'd or Wiio, sfnen party to tho actiu1, is |
r0lnpetent to testify. when tun husband .,r