Morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven [Conn.]) 1848-1894, 1885-03-31
MINISTER PHELPS.

Tuesday, March 81, 1855.
MINISTER PHELPS.
His Concluding Address to the Divtn-
fty SchoOl-The New Minister to Eng
land Gives Some Sound Advice and
InstructiOn-MOral Honesty a Want
of the Tfmes-The Law and the Cos
pei.
the Divinity school was given in Marquand
chapel yesterday. After an introduction by
Professor Fisher, he spoke as follows:
''Resuming for the last time, am sorry to
say my subject, you will remember l was
dealing in the last lecture with the topic of
the trial of questions of fact by ecclesiastical
tribunals. pointed out the sources of legal
evidence and it's limitations by legal rules.
I now proceed to other points in that con-
nection. Evidence must not only proceed
from legal source, but must be relevant.
Testimony is relevant when it is calculated
10 establish the truth of the fact to be
proved. It is irrelevant when it is immater-
ial, or when it is only calculated to raise 8
prejudice.
When say that in order to be relevant il
must be calculated to establish the fact,
| add that it may be equally relevant to estab-
| fish what are called collateral facts. One
| word as to circumstantial evidence. Circum'
stantial evidence distinguished from Ill
| rect is where the truth of fact is establish
| ed not by the direct evidence of witnesses
| who saw it, but by proving circumstances
| which gradually lead to certain conclusion
| It is the most certain kind of evidence, pro
vided you have enough of it. There is nc
| such thing as an isolated independent fact il
human life. No man has even come here
but the fact of his presence is but one link il
| an endless chain of circumstances. And if 6
| fact is true it will fit into the attendant cir
cumstances piece of glass broken from {
window will fit the hole it came
from, though no human skill car
| make another piece to fit it.
| When the circumstances marshalled to sup
| port fact render any other hypothesis I'M
| tenable looked at fairly and candidly; when
| you cannot reconcile the circumstances ex-
| cept by admitting the truth of the fact, then
the fact is proved. When the surrounding
| facts establish proposition it is better es-
| tablished than in any other way. The cardi-
nal question is, How much is there of it? Is
| there a loophole for escape? Another point
is the influence of personal character on the
administration of justice. The worst man
starts with the legal presumption of inno-
cence in his favor. If he uses as shield the
fact of his good character, then it is open to
dispute it. Not otherwise. Good character
may always be shown where charge is made
inconsistent with good character. Every
man brings into a court of justice the repu-
tation he has established among his fell
lows. The origin of jury trials
among our Saxon fathers was that if a man
could bring twelve heighbors to swear that
they did not believe he committed the wrong
with which he charged he was entitled to be
acquitted Such was the weight of charac-
ter Good character is of avail only to turn
the scale in a doubtful case; not to save from
conviction when the case ceases to be doubt
IL L Il 49,
of evidence has been much confounded by
discussion, and by that sort of wisdom which
is foolishness. Just SO long as in doubtful
cases men address themselves to conventional
and artificial means of finding out the trutn,
Just so long they will come to wrong conclu-
sions.
There is one, and only one, test of the weight
of evidence, and that is its effect on the hu-
man mind Of course that assumes that the
mind is honest. But if the triers are honest,
unprecedented, with open, receptive minds.
when they get through with the inquiry the
question for those men is, What do you think!
They are not to go into an argument.
The theory of the jury trial is this: as
sert a fact. B. denies it. l produce evil
dence to sustain my assertion, he to sustain
his denial. s. The fact is important
enough to demand judicial settlement.
Get twelve men of average intelligence who
are unprejudiced, who have no motive but to
do right; let them hear the evidence, 60 out,
and come back with verdict. They do not
go into discussion of theories as to the
weight of the evidence. But they say what
they think. They all agree. But they could
not give their reasons for the decision if they
were to be asked The evidence has fallen
into their minds and terminated like seed.
And if you can get twelve to agree on the
same side you will get right more often than
in any other way. Their judgment on that
int Sc bok4o hon hot of he iaf inc
tice. When it comes to business of corrup-
ton, when juries are dishonest, have
been tempered with, then the theory falls.
That is the trouble with modern juries. l
am speaking of the theory, not of the modern
practice. I have nothing to say about that.
1t has been the custom of English chan
cellors to send doubtful cases of fact out to a
jury and often to successive juries, when not
satisfied with the first verdict.
A story carries with it in some way or
other the impress of its own truth or false
hood. This is remarkably true of the story
of the New Testament. How much cyiti-
cism and theorizing has been expended upon
It'll 1t has stood, because it has been uni
versally believed through all the generations
and all the centuries. The child does
not ask his mother, els that
stery trues' And the old man
goes to his grave thanking God that it is
true. The jury of humanity has decided it.
w udG are Lu6 QudllIl0S 10 DC cultivated III
those who assume the high Office of sitting in
Judgment on the truth of an alleged fact? We
are talking of the action of well-intentioned
men. You want two things The first is
what l call intellectual honesty. Most men
are honest in intention. Intellectual honesty
is the capacity to thing as it is. Many
men see through colored mental spectacles
Perfect mental honesty is the rarest of all
faculties. Like all faculties, it can be cult
waited. Men always instinctively recognize
it and trust it. The other point is moral
courage. Physical courage is the inheritance
of our race. Want of it is the exception.
Moral courage is another thing. I have seen
an innocent woman bounded to death and
hanged when the tribunal who condemned her
knew she was innocent, because the public
clamored for victim. More often we find
those who are guilty, and known to be so,
acquitted because men lack the moral cour-
age to walk up to the offender and cast him
down. No more scandal has been thrown
upon Christian churches than by the fact
that ecclesiastical courts have been unable
to bring themselves to do justice.
In the absence of those qualities evidence
may be proper, relevant and sufficient, but
the guilty will go free and the innocent be
convicted. We want men who will see
things as they are, and then convict or ac-
quit, as the evidence is, whatever the posi-
ton of the accused.
Moral courage is wanted, not only in
legal tribunals, but everywhere. The
country is thirsting for men of
moral courage and you will used it in your
ministry. We have men who will face bat
teries. Where are the men who will face
majorities? ST. Paul was a great man be-
cause he was afraid of nothing, We want
soldiers in the pulpit who will stand by their
convictions and storm any citadel that is
necessary to be storm in their behalf
1t has been pleasant for me to have been
with you these days. 1 bid you farewell.
Sake this as my last word. In this great
calling to which You have devoted your life,
be soldiers of Christ.
THE COURT RECORD.
Superior Court Civil Side Judge