Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1881-10-09
TOO COuMON PRACTICE.

The London correspondent of New
Y ork journal quotes the view Of late En-
glish Lord Chief Justice that where the
honor of woman is involved the defense
of her character justifies resort to per-
jury. The remark of the jurist is liable
to several constructions, but the obvious
meaning is that even though the woman
be guilty it is allowable to swear falsely
to save her reputation and leave her stand
ing before the world whited sepulchre.
The contingency of an innocent woman
so placed that to protect her from the ban
of unchastity recourse to lying must be
had, though possible, is scarcely probable.
The position taken by the English judge
seems strange enough. Tested by the
commonly accepted standard of social
ethics it cannot be maintained. Yet
there are beyond question many men who
incline to the same belief, though COM
paratively few who take a view so
thoroughly radical
But the conditions mentioned are not
the only ones where perjury is, or seems
to be, comparatively small fault or no
offense at ALL This crime has probably
always been more common than the pop
ular mind believed, and it can hardly be
supposed that it was ever more common
than now. 1t is not, of course, as uni
versal as tobacco chewing, but accurate
statistics touching the matter, could they
be compiled, would astonish great num-
Der of people, though many would
no doubt be more surprised
than shocked. A defendant on tria
is generally allowed to testify in
his own behalf and most of them avail
thmselves of the privilege. Defendants
are guilty in nine cases out of ten,
whether the fact is susceptible of techni
cal proof or not; yet who expects the de-
ceased to acknowledge his crime? No
one. The reverse is looked for, and ex-
pectation is rarely disappointed. But the
auditors are not profoundly shocked, and
if the defendant is acquitted he too sell
dom incurs the harsh criticism his pal
pable double crime would seem to call
for In other words it seems to be proper
for a man to procure immunity for his
transgressions by lying-if he can.
1t is not many years since the most
eminent of American clergymen went
upon the witness stand and testified false
ly to save himself and woman from dis
honor He could not be acquitted of
guilt save upon the theory that the king
can do no wrong-that great man, a
public idol, may do that which to lesser
mortals is forbidden--or by process of
reasoning about as logical as one which
would prove that the whole is not equal
to the sum of all its parts. 1t is not
many years since number of the most
prominent men in political and official
life formed successful conspiracy to
cheat the nation out of its clearly ex-
pressed will in the choice Of chief mag
istrate. They were all, or nearly
all, examined judicially as to their
connection with the affair and
none of them hesitated to COM
mit perjury to clear their skirts. For fif-
teen years-eveu since the post,bellum era
of corruption began-perjury has been as
common in American official life as greed
and selfshness. 1t has besmirched the
proudest, the ab1est, the most exalted,
as we'll as the most obscure. 1t has not
been confined to any particular party, or
state, or municipality. Yet how few of
the offenders have Suffered social or po-
ltical ostracism, even when their guilt
was uneuestionablef What a small pro
portion have been punished by the law
How Indifferent people seem to have fel
as to whether the accused were guilty or
innocent, convicted or released How
many of the most culpable have found
champions in the very constituents they
have disgraeed and defrauded and been
"yindicated'' by further promotionl
1t is not astonishing that perjury is a
common practice The distinction be-
tween this crime and ordinary lying seems
to be dying cut. How long must we wait
for a reaction in public sentiment which
shall bring about reform that legis-
lation cannot reachY