National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1886-05-15
[coNrINuEp FnoM stxrn rAaE.l

rot consulted many of them on the subject, adn
really could not say what they think aooat IT,
The Chairman. | think the cases In which
he Is brought in to do II IS where, for her own
protection, she may swear the peuGc against
her husband
Mr. Gibson. They are permitted to do II, and
IN Itnh there is . law which permits II w
stand and compelled to testify.
Mr. stewart. Then Is u not simply aaue5'
ton OF sound public policy ", under al cir.
Cumstnnces, you compel n woman to tctUy2
IN other words Is II necessarily any outrage
Upon hCr2 Is II such an Infringement Of prin.
ciPle, or of departure nom the well-settlcl
rules, If you compelled a woman to testlty2 |
am speaking about II now as sort of abstract
principle because, of course, that Is the urgu.
ment upon which this provision must rest. II
y rests at all, II must he on the theory that IN
the first place the personal right OF the irst
wife, or the wife, has been outraged by the
second marriage, mud secondly, upon the prin'
ciple that the institution to be suppressed re-
quiTes that every possible research shOlld be
made to all means OF evidence In order TO Sc
cure convictions, Gs 1t y, understand, dimoult
question OF public policy under all ClrCum-
ttGnces rs to what rs best to be done;
Mr.. Chandler, agree that there Is no COZ.
uituliOnal impgdimCnt IN the way OF making
the wife testify against the husband, lni II
may be that the evil which Is sought u be cor
rected * sufficiently grave TO depart from the
ordinary methods orinycstigatlon, Ia order to
expose and to punish the oilense That must
b. the assumption. Now then. wOnld II he
proper IN order 10 PUNISH n man Tor pOliyuiny,
us illuch as It is abhorred by parties whone
had anything to do with It,, to compel party
himself to furnish evidence TO establish thar
we OIL say no, we al. cay TINT II y you nnd Ter
evidence TO prove him guilty of ;ht crime, 1t
would not be right.
MIR Stewart. We all agree to that.
Mr. Chandler. Now you have traced him to
relation with person who does not esteem
this conduct Of hisa an injury TO her She
enters the relation With hin, voluntarily.
NJ r tg i'm Nvi
MI Chandler. Yes, she Is the first wif5, aud
tCcomts 50 under system that contempiatcs
lcnce Is involved which has been tho solitary
exception In the law heretofore OF admitting
her testimony, Now, why has the wife not
cen compelled to testify when the assault Is
lhyslcal2 WIN anybody tell M why the re-
lalion of husband and wife Is so sacred that
where she is beaten and bruised she Is not
compelled to testify TO IT.
mon law principle, That the personalities OF
the parties are swallowed up in the man.
MIR, Chandler. That Is the theory OF tho com
mon law; that there was unity in interest, u
unity in affection between the husband and
Miic and SO sncred was that unity from in-
vasion ard discard that the law up to u Ger.
tain period would not impair that unity by
permitting either party 10 come into tribunal
against the other and endangcr 1t. Now the
exception TO that rule was In the case where
the wife was beaten and bruised she mi Eht be
called in to testify where no other evidence
was accessible. The Limitation in the first in
stance was where there was no other evidence
secured. That Is exceptional. suppose inan
commits murder, why not make tia wife como
in and tell his confession to her that he has
committed the murder? Is there any public
reason or public policy that would shelter a
man nom the testimony of the wife In a case
of murder. and not IN u case Of bignmy2
MIR. stewart. | think can state the reason
Mr. Chandler should be glad to hear 1t.
Mr. stewart. Your statement of the case
slows that this original idea is founded on the
lotion of unity. Now when you admit the
vol lxs N 10 a
Mr.. chandler. Yes; but the committee can
rot argue from two standpoints. the com
miitee cannot argue from the standpoint o.
one wife and then shrink away from II and
argue the case from the standpoint OF plural
marriages. | am talking to the point OF this
unity between man and vile.
Mr.. Stewart. Unity On the one side and
plurality on the other We are dealing viii
plurality.
Mr.. Chandler. You arc dealing with tho
punishment of bigumy. II Is no worse in one
state than in another, Ifa man ma"rlcs two
wives, It is the same no matter where done.
IN the District of Columbia you never thought
itwise to establish this rule. II Is simply q crims
here, as in Utah. Now, when usk you TO 'aS
whether you regard 1t as a wise ollcy 10 make
the wife a witness against the husband In orde
TO charge the husband with marder, you mus
must answer the question negatively In bigdmN
cases, because we must look at m Offence II
the grade that the law gives IT, The law h0
always classed murder as more debased ant
dcpraved than bigamy, polygamy or unlawiul
marriage. Now, why step down to grade oil
crime and pick out subordinate crime and
make the wife witness in that subordinate
crime, when you will not 90 to the full lengtl
ofcXtending her testimony to the higher one
Why does the human mind shrink away iron
one and not shrink away from the other? Thu
more hedous aud chastity the crime, tn
greater the excuse and necessity for making
law does not do any such thing as that Til
hill contents itself with one particular viola
Ito oflaw,and in that particular case makes he
witness, and refuses to make hersa witness II
the other cases, aud llsay when you do that. yo
express n distrust of the very doctrine whic!
you propose TO establish In the particular case
crimes committed by her husband, or else vol
express, when you make 1t exceptional, you
distrust of the principle in those cases to whic!
you do apply 1t.
Vermont, and II you would not bring the VIII
into court in Vermont in an attitude of hoitil
ity to her husband cannot see why yo
should do |! in Utah. and If you would no
bring the wife Into court rs a witness In cas-
Of murder where human life Is taken away
win you depart from hoordinnry methods AM
usaGes to introduce her In case of bigamy
The Injury to her rights here Is purely con
structive aud just as this cohabi;ation wespoaI
of Is constructive. There is no physical injur
done her, nor Is her marriage title affected
and, so far as she can assent TO this matter, sh
docs assent, so that the reason in this case TO
making the wiien witness against the husband
because of some special injury falling upon tn
wife only exists constructively. 1t does no
exist in reality II exists because we fancy
en- injury to her, while she does not fancy
an injury to her and we imagine the inlur
and make 1t the foundation of introducing heI
She is introduced because, in our opinion, a
injury Is inflicted upon her, and not becaus
any violence has fallen on her person, not be
cause any legal invasion of herrightsh has take
place. it Is only ideal. Now say that, III b
not sound principle to introduce the wife l.
all criminal prosecutions against the husband
IL is not wise TO make II an exception in thi
case.