New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1880-04-18
THE WEST POINT INQUIRY.

THU WEST POINT INQUIRY.
It is not pleasant to comment on the pro-
ceedings of q board of officers like that now
sitting at West Point nor is it at all cXpedicnt
to discuss the bearings Of the evidence before
it has all been taken. But there is one feature
that has marked these proceedings on which 1t
can do no harm 10 comment. We allude to
tbemanneriu which witnesses have been allowed
and encouraged to express their opinions, upon
the theory that Whitaker committed the out
rage on himself. We understand that the Board
now investigating this case is what Is called
Court of Inquiry, and not a Court Martial.
This distinction, however, is not important,
because both descriptions of military courts, IN
this country, arc bound by the common law
rules of evidence. These rules, according to
the universal theory of our Jurisprudence,
afford the best means Of discovering truth that
human wisdom can devise. There are other
theories, which may be better or may be worse;
but we have never adopted them, being salts
fed from long experience that our own rules
of evidence are the best. Among these rules
there is one that relates to the expression by
witnesses of their opinions upon the main issue
of fact that is supposed to be on trial.
To a certain extent and under certain restric-
tions. our law allows the opinions or beheis OF
witnesses to be given in evidences but they
must first of all be expert witnesses, and even
when they are called as experts, their testimony
in regard to matters Of theory or hypothesis
must be confined within narrow limits. Thus
an EXPERT witness who is a physician Oh surgeon,
may 10 asked to describe with the utmost
miuuteness the condition in which he found
uatient his symptoms or his wounds, his an
syers to injuries, and all other matters Of fact
The EXPERT may also be asked to express his
.opinion upon various hypothetical questions,
such as these: Whether person in II state of
insensibility or Inconsistencies, could have
tbe command of the muscles OF his CyeIid, so as
TO be able to resist the attempt of a bystander
to raise the eyelid. Whether a wound was
inflicted by q knife or n pair of scissors.
Whether the loss of q certain quantity Of blood
would or would not produce faintness.
Whether faintness might be produced by fear,
or should be attributed to some actual physical
injury. Whether the fact of PERSONS rising
ND from a recumbent position and walking to
n wash-basin and washing himself without
assistance and exhibiting no weakness
of nerves. would or not Indicate that he had
been beaten to n state OF lnsenslbilty. On
these and many similar questions, put hypo-
thetically and with an accurate inclusion of the
surrounding circumstances, it is perfectly legiu-
mate to ask an expert witness to give his pro-
fessional opinion or belief. But wen an expert
witness is asked OF allowed to give his opinion
upon theory whether the injuries which he
found upon q mans person were inflicted by
himself OF by some one else, the inquiry should
be conducted within very narrow limits. There
NAV be special and isolated facts, on which if
would be proper to ask an expert witness
whether particular wound could or could not
have been inflicted by mans own hand.
When q witness, however, whether called as an
expert or otherwise, is asked or allowed to take
all the circumstances of the case, moral and
physical, present and past, and to give his Opin-
ion whether the injuries were inflicted by the
mans own hand, the province of q witness is
altogether exceeded. II is the province of the
tribunal to draw the main inference in the case,
and not the province Of any witness whatever.
AS the opinions expressed by several of the
witnesses in Whittaker's case have gone en-
tirely beyond the province of even expert testi-
mony, they should not weigh with the tribunal,
and they should not affect the judgment of the
public. While there is o certain degree Of inn
probability that man would mutilate himself,
of which Whitaker should be allowed the full
benefit, such occurrences have not been I'M
known. All that can be said, in the absence of
direct evidence or of shOnR circumstantal evil
dence leading to sOme other conclusion, is that
this theory of self-immOlatiOn ia at present tho
principal subject of inquiry and while it contn-
ues likely to be the only one on which the
board of officers will have to express their be-
lief or disbelief, the public opinion should not
be formed upon it under the influence Of any
beliefs expressed by the witnesses, or enter
tanned by any officer of the institution. IF no
other discoveries are made, this theory that
Whitaker was his own assailant is one on
which the Court of Inquiry will have to find
that it has or has not been satisfactorily estab-
lished. There are great many moral consid-
e-ations, as we'll as physical facts which bear
upon the probability or imprObability Of this
hypothesis; and while on the one hand no one
should wish to shield the institution, or the
cadets, or the soldiers attached to the post from
the Odium of this occurrence, no one should at
present either adopt OF reject the theory that
Whitaker tied and wounded himself On this
explanation or suggested explanation of the