The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1883-05-05
A" Because. I"


because, it is customary to say,
sis q woman's reason" and the sup
pressed portion of the argument-sup-
pressed through courtesy to woman-is
that it is, therefore, worthless reason.
But is it worthless? Is it not, on the
contrary, very often the best and only
reasonp
During the past week the subject of
expert testimony has been a current
topic, and there has been much discus
sion as to the relative value of. the tes-
timony Of witness who gives, or en-
deavors to give, the grounds of his be-
lief, and that of the witness whose only
ground is because" The impulse is
to credit the former above the latter,
but if mature consideration rs given to
the subject it will be found that the wit
ness who says ''because" is quite as
trustworthy as the explanatory witness,
and that his testimony is quite as valua-
BILE.
There are so many things that the
majority of mankind know simply be-
cause they know them that it would be
simple folly to question knowledge or
the accuracy of it in all or even in
majority of the cases where the founda-
ton or source of knowledge cannot be
accounted Knowledge of handwriting
is an excellent illustration of this. The
man or woman who is in constant cor
respondence with friend may know
that friends handwriting and be able to
swear to it with the most perfect conf
deuce without being able to give sin.
gle distinguishing characteristic of it.
In precisely the same way one may
know an individual and recognize him
or be able to swear to seeing him yes
terday or last year without being able
to tell the clothes he wore or even the
color of eyes or hair. Probably there is
in both cases some subtle recognition of
the details which go to the making of
the recognized whole. There certainly
is a real recognition of details in many
cases, and in those cases the witness can
give the details with accuracy. But it
is equally true that in a vast number of
instances there is no conscious recogni-
ton of details, either in handwriting or
individual, and yet the recognition is
entirely accurate and trustworthy. The
NlluCSS Olll1 hllON0 DtCduSC. DuI llC
knows just as well as if he could give
dozen reasons for his knowing, and is
Just as much entitled to credence. Often,
indeed, he is better entitled to credence,
for the similarity which in handwriting
will stand the test of rule and dividers,
or in the person the tests of height,
complexion and color of eyes and hair,
can be far better counterfeited than the
individuality which one recognizes with
out be able to say why.
What often weakens the ''because"
testimony is the effort of witnesses to
give other reasons when they really
have none. There was striking illus
tration of this some years since in
criminal case tried in this city. The
defendant, charged with shooting at
neighbor-who was wounded, but not
fatally-was seen directly after the
shooting going from the spot with his
gun over his shoulder. The person who
saw him was son of the wounded
man; and he so testified on the trial,
stating the distance at about forty rods.
As the prisoner was striking figure,
there was nothing to prevent any
person with ordinarily clear vision
and acquaintance with the man,
from recognizing him at that distance.
There was no reason to doubt, from the
surroundings of the case, that the wit
ness did recognize him. If he had
stuck to the simple truth and insisted
that he recognized the prisoner ''be-
cause" he recognized him, the jury
would have believed him implicitly,
But, on cross-eXamination, shrewd coun-
sci asked him ho1O he recognized the
prisoner; and he Immediately began to
go into the details of the prisoners ap-
pearance, drawing, no doubt, upon his
recollection of his usual appearance and
upon his knowledge of what he then
wore in court. The witness testified,
among other things that he knew the
prisoner .'because he had on a hickory
Shirt as the prisoner then had in
court. But the prisoners counsel
showed by ocular demonstration that
the difference between a "hickory'
shirt and a white one could not be dis
tinguished the length of the court room,
to say nothing of forty rods. The re-
suit was that the witness testimony,
though undoubtedly true as to the main
point and perfectly honest throughout,
was discredited because he did not con-
fine himself to the woman's reason.
which was the true reason.-Detrost