The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1883-02-08


Again, by section three, a poor, frail
woman. who, by confidence misplaced in
brute, cannot be heard 10 detail her fall
but the wretch who caused IL all Is in
vited 70 give evidence in the case Oh,
consistency, thou AIT virtue. Sir, /
will vote against this bill though every
civilized nation under the sun should en-
| act such o law
Mr.. Taylor agreed with Mr.. Labatt
as TO the propriety of some such
measure. Often defendant knew
and could establish better than any.
! body else the facts as to his case. II
was thought that witnessing in ones
own behalf tended to perjury. As the
law Is. a prisoner may be convicted
under the testimony of an enemy,
when he knows that the testimony is
wrong and prejudiced from beginning
to end against him. The changed
rule as adopted in some other states
worked well. He had asked promi-
nent officer of the United States how
he liked the change, and he replied
that 1t enabled him to make more con-
victionS than was possible under the
old rule.
Often, too, mans guilt can be
shown by the conflict of his own teS-
| timony with that of other witnesses.
If he tells the truth his statement will
| be borne out by others, by taking one
statement with another. The cross
| examination will make the facts APP
| parent by his untruth or inconsis-
| tency.
Mr.. Barrett said he saw no reason
| why witness should not be permit
| ted TO tell what he knows. Often
! defendant is confronted by witness
who has no object but to wreak VEN
geance on the accused, yet the defend
ant must set by with sealed lips, and
be convicted, Mr.. Hill says the re-
suit would be to encourage perjury by
defendants. Now because some would
perjure themselves, is that any reason
why any single honest man
should be precluded from the benefit
of his own testimony. AS Mr.. Labatt
said, this is no theory. 1t has been
tried and worked well in other states.
Mr.. Scott was opposed to the report
| of the committee, and agreed with
Mr.. Barrett. AS well as he could re-
member this was about the speech of
attorneys: Behold that poor, perse-
cuted defendant; look at him, his lips
are sealed-for the statute has sealed
them" He was opposed to the law
because it worked injustice, and was
a temptation to perjury. The proposed
change in the rule could do no harm,
and might save innocent men from
unjust conviction.
Mr.. Ayres. speaking on the motion
to reject the report, said he was in
favor of the bill because it contrib
uteS to the main end in view in every
trial. The object of the law is to as
certain the guilt or innocence of par
ties, and to that end it was necessary
to have all the light on that subject
which can be had. As TO the idea that
the state is the keeper of the conscien-
ces of its citizens, he commended that
the state had very little to do with
conscience. All possible light should
be had in the trial of civil and crimi-
nal cases, and necessarily the bill would
give what the court and Jury ac-
knowledge they would not otherwise
obtain. 1t has been said the bill
would be in the interest of criminals.
| don't agree in this. 1t confronts
them with the powerful reach of the
cross-eXamination. This would deter
large majority of presons5 Enlarged
with crime from the temptation to
avail themselves of the risks of perju-
ry. The baSeSt criminals even would
not be tempted to avail themselves of
it. He thought the bill with another
which had been proposed, as to the
qualification of jurors, would make
an epoch in the history of the jurispru
dence of this state.
Mr.. Douglass hoped the report of the
committee would not be rejected
The law of the country was not q
matter to he affected by vengeance
The object was merely to deter others
from crime. He knew of cases even
in civil matters where the testimony
of men of reputed honesty was in
conflict. One or the other must have
committed perjury. How much
greater would be the temptation in
criminal cases, where the door of the
penitentiary is open? 1t would throw
a safeguard around men who wanted
to violate the law.
Mr.. Browning said in his experience
as prosecuting attorney, he had not
(. known of single instance where an
I innocent man was convicted. Ii
be could he would go back
!, and adopt the common Law
rule in civil cases. The jury can't lay
aside what is before them. In one
case the party declares: l can't make
that affidavit; l will plead guilty be
fore will do it.
Mr.. Jones, of Henderson, said: Ger
tainly hope that the motion to reject
the report of the committee will moi
!; prevail, and propose to state briefly
why favor the committee report:
, / hear it stated by gentlemen upoI
the floor of the house that truth is in
, consistent with falsehood, and thai
when a defendant testifies falsely the
. inconsistency of his statement will
the facts proved will lead the jury tC
, a correct conclusion. l also hear the
same gentleman say that many con
victions are had upon the evidence Of
persons who testify through motive:
of malice, hatred or revenge. Now
) if the inconsistency of truth to false
hood will avail in the one instance Il
unmask the defect, why will it moi
also avail to prove the perjury of thu
witness in the other instance.
! l also desire to call the attention o.
the house to other objections which
y entertain to the bill. Section de
= clares that on trial for seduction
l adultery or fornication, the pers IN Sc
: duced, or the one with whom thu
adultery or fornication is charged tt
have been committed, is Incompetent
to testify. Yet the defendant on tria
is a competent witness in his own be
|. half. On the one hand, the woman
e whose confidence and trust has beer
e basely betrayed, is incompetent to ties
: tify, but the one who betrayed he
confidence and took advantage of he
: trust, may tell his tale on the trial o
the case. The gentlemen virtual,
f say that the woman's love of chastit,
d and virtue is so strong that she must
/ not be subjected to temptation
f to swear falsely, but that tn
h defendant undergoes no temp
> tation when allowed to testify, al
though his life, liberty and propert.
= are at stake.
i The bill seeks also to change articl
o 731 of the code, and permits princi
| pals, accessories and accomplices t,
n testify for each other. / object Il
e this. because it is only the base Grim
= inal that can be benefited. The hon
: orable defendant, and l confess tina
d honorable gentlemen are sometime
n defendants in criminal cases, have NJ
v such things as accomplices. They d,
g not wilfuIly violate the law and en-
7 gage in tricks and conspiracies to vic
i late the criminal laws; but the lower
. baser class of criminals alone do this
e and tell others that they inten'
|. to violate some law. 1t wa,
e stated by the gentleman from
1 WNvn L.