Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1884-05-23
Laval Rebeccs Jones.

Retecca Jones Ii martyr languish-
ine in New York Jail because In her
fajthfulness 10 the family which she
served for her life time, she refused to
answer the lawyers questions about the
life and habits of Mr.. Hamersley, whose
will was in dispute before the surrogate.
M. Hamersley was man OF weak
mind, a member Of an old and wealthy
family, who married q young wife able
TO take care Of him, and died after
winter trip to Florida, as 1t Is rather
she fashion to do, Of late; and
bis will I was disputed, also per-
hans to be in the fashion. With the
merits of the dispute we have nothing
TO do. being solely concerned with the
resolute refusal Of Rebecca Jones,
colored, to tell to the public the secrets
of the Hamersley family and help the
lawyers to unveil its skeletons to q
curious world. Rebecca declared that
n her old mistress, Mr.. Hamersley's
mother, was to speak to her from the
grave, II would be to tell her to
say nothing, and that Injunction
she was going to obey, the court and
lawyers to the contrary notwithstand
ing. The surrogate told her she must
answer the questions put to her ; the
Hamersley lawyers advised her to an
swer but Rebecca stood alone and
refused. The court gave her week to
repent, and at tie weeks end she was
firm still and declared her purpose to
stay firm In her resolve until the resur-
rection day and so she went to Jail to
awaitit.
We think that Rebecca Jones was
right. We notice that the New York
Sun, replying to a correspondent, who
thinks that Rebecca Jones deserves
rather monument than cell for her
loyalty to the family she served, says
that it is in sympathy with that feeling
but that nevertheless the surrogate did
right in sending her to Jail, because the
law obliged her to answer, and the law
must be obeyed.
That is true; but 1t must be law
reasonably construed and We maintain
that the construction given to the law,
by judges who require witnesses tC
answer pretty nearly everything that
tmpudent and inquisitivel lawyers ask, /:
wrong. Nine tenths Of the testimony
taken in the average trial is imperti
nent and in such case as this, with
witness occupying the confidential posi-
tion in the family which this faithful
servitor filed, the questions whic
the laws would order to be al
swered should be most strictly limite
to those that are absolutely needed Il
the elucidation Of the issue.
No one will say that servants err gel
orally in reticence as TO the private a
fairs of the family in which they liy
No one will deny that servants shou'
not be tell-tales. They hear and see VIII;
they hear and see while occupying CO.
fidential relation, which should serve
seal their lips, if they had Il
sense of honor they should hav
but seldom do have. When, then, "
find one who has 1t, we cannot help fee
ing that II is an outrage on true publ
sentiment which applauds the exhibition
that il should be stamped upon in Il
name Of the law. We feel that there
something wrong in the laws condemn
ing what the heart approves; and
tales of family life can be forced into pull
licity out Of the mouths of family servant
by any proper construction Of the Law
then the law needs prompt amendment
as it does indeed in many things. Wi
poor legislators, mean judges and mise
able lawyers, the administration of ju
tice is come into public derison al
the question arises as to how mu,
better off we are with our law, than '
would be without it, with good chan
for every big scoundrel to feel rop,
apd if tha littla onas do 90 FREQ