New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-06-25
STATEMENTS OF WITNESSES.

| make these suggestions that you may give
them such consideration you think they deserve Thus
much the principal question In ISSUE nave now
to call your attention to question which, as nave sld
belongs exclusively yOu namely the credit due to wit
The statements witnesses to be considered
and weighed with due regard to their relation to the
case as in interest the bias prejudice they may have
in respect to the parties the subecmatter under in
yestigation, TO contradictions, previous inconsistent
statements their knowledge OF facts and the apparent
dsposon to make Just and true disclosures, and to their
known or ascertaned characters, good degree OF re-
spect confidence due TO every citizen who has occ
sion to speak under oath court OF justice as to his
own rights the rights of others But certain degree
of inarmty may, and often does, attach; the memory
may be defective dates and events be COMPOUNDED Wit
nesses smpe-mnded and honest contradict themselves
and each other On trial some months ago remember
to have been much impressed by the testimony OF
worthy man. the president of an insurance company,
who while the case still on, came back from
the City Of New York to acknowledge his error
and make O correction. He honest in his
first az in his last affirmation; there was
actual perjury In either This ohense as such Is the
fruit of wicked intent Of wlful peryersion OF known
facts TO work injury to another The legislation Oh
this has borne striking testimony TO the virtue OF
our people, allowing parties TO be witnesses in their
own behalf the prisoner on trial for crime to tes-
tify TO his innocence But while believe that perjury Is
OF less common than Is imputed by the popu-
lar view IL is crime OF the gravest magnitude Is not
qualified by the special circumstances leading to its per-
petration. He who, upon any mere theory OF honor,
would be guilty of It, might If be had the temptation,
commit any crime 1t has been said and upon high
authority that there is distinction between mere
fasehood and lie: the former an untrue statement
made without guile and without knowledge OF its want
OF truth latter statement Of what is known to be
false and with intent injure another am disposed
TO respect the distinction. &c. too modern dramast
has said, The truth always, when 1t is proper to be
spoken theory OF value applied to mere social inter-
course good have stood fer the truth though 1t
cost their lives. So good have uttered fasehoods
when only their interests were concerned Walter
Scott long he thought proper denied that he was
the author Of the waverey Novels II was his secret II
Is the duty Of jury, when witnesses contradict each
other TO seek to reconcile conflicting statements to
make allowances for honest errors, and To accept tie
suggestion OF perjury reluctantly and from necessity
All testimony as have minated II &C the risk Of i'm
perfect knowledge and imperfect memory. Witnesses,
who appear equally entitled to credit may give different
accounts OF the transaction the difference going
to the and effect only TO the immateral do
tails In such cases you have substantial identity with
crcumstantial variety. Too much Importance should
not be attributed such differences To the dscredt Of
witnesses You may believe that they intended to tell
the truth uness the contrary reasonably clear and
far "a you can seek TO harmonic their testimony and
discover the substantial truth.
1t proper refer in ess general terms. to one or two
witnesses Mr. Mouton TO have interviewed a. the
open aud avowed friend Of Mr. Tlton. He appears to
have undertaken TO mediate between the parties. to
reconcile theln and far possible, TO prevent the
specific character VI their differences nom obtaining
publicity He states THAI such the real purpose aud
character Of his Intervention, and the defendant In his
letters and otherwise has borne large and generous te
timony TO that effect Yet Mr.. Mouton various occa
sions ~ be himself esnes, and other witnesses state,
declared that the defendant not guilty OF the sexual
intercourse which he says had been admitted It Is
for you 10 consider how far the Inconsistency In his state
mens goes ~ dseredt him IL you shall be Of opinion