The record-union., 1893-02-07
A MATTER OF IMPEACHMENT.

a Dill has been introduced in the AS
sembly to amend Section POSI- of the Code
of Civil Procedure, relative to impeach-
ment of witnesses. 1t presents very
interesting question, to which there are
Two strong sides. The section of the
code referred to reads:
IA witness may be impeached by the
party against whom he was called by
contradictory evidence, or by evidence
that his general reputation for truth,
honesty or integrity is bad, but not by
evidence of particular wrongful acts,
Except that it may be shown by the ex-
animation of the witness, or the record of
the Judgment, that he had been con-
victed OF felonyl.'
The proposition is to so amend as will
strike out of the law the words we have
placed within brackets. That is to say,
proof of conviction for felony shall not be
introduced by way of impeachment of
the credibility of the witness.
For tie measure its friends say in
brief: 1t is barbarous as the law now is :;
it is unforgiving, inhumane, and flies di-
rectly in the face of the theory that So
ciety does not and cannot cherish hatred
and revenge. When the man has ex-
plated his crime, suffered the sentence of
the law and served out the penalty, the
mere fact that he was once convicted of a
felony ought not to discredit him on TAX
ing the witness-stand. On the stand let
his credibility depend upon the circum-
stances, upon his reputation for truth
and veracity. and upon the impression
his testimony makes upon the court or
the jury.
As the law now stands, a witness of
nrst importance to the State, or on whose
testimony may hinge the life or liberty of
a defendant, may be crushed by the fact
Of conviction long before, and which
conviction bears no sort of relation to the
present. and, cannot have any influence
whatever upon the witness to make him
untruthful.
Again, it is urged, the law as it is hangs
like the sword OF fate forever over the
head OF one liable to impeachment under
1t. He may be as true as the sun, his
sense of honor as keen as that of the best
OF men, his honesty of purpose inyin-
chile, his reputation for truth of the first
order, but because twenty years before
ne was convicted of manslaughter. or
some crime not involving his honesty, he
Is liable to impeachment.
1t is added, also, that the question of
conviction for felony does not or ought
not to cut any figure in the case of wit
ness who is by all other intendments of
the law to be held as truthful. If one by
ais testimony is of use to the State or to
a fellow-man as witness, and cannot be
impeached because his reputation for
truth-telling is bad, what matters it that
ne has been convicted for burglary, or
larceny, or deadly assault, or other crime
that does not of necessity involve him as
liar in the issue on trial long after the
commission of his crime.
Advocates OF the measure say that he
who has expiated his crime should not
be deprived of his right to prosecute in
courts and recover of trespassers on his
right; but under the code such a man
could be discredited in testifying to facts
to establish his rights against one who
has wronged him. Moreover, it is often.
1t is urged, great cruelty to uncover the
past. For instance-and cases are cited
of this order-a man who has lived in
this community for a score of years an
upright, truthful life, is called as a wit
ness in case in which he has no inter
est whatever. The other side discovers
that twenty years before the man was
convicted of felony, and though his
innocence may have been established
later, the threat to expose him is held
above his head, and he is terrorized bv
1t into falsehood, unless he has the cour-
age to bring shame and public odium
upon his family by disclosure ofthe dead
past.
One case is cited where, in San Fran
cisco, an important adjudication was on.
and depended upon the calling by the
plaintiff of a friend to the witness-stapd.
The other side had secret knowledge of a
chapter of shame in the mans life forty
years before, or more, and warned him
that they would produce the record. The
witness appealed to his friend not to
call him and then force disclosure that
would wreck his life, that for thirty years
had been clean, upright and honored of
men, and under which his children had
grown up innocent of the folly of his
youth. Rather than sacrifice his friend
the plaintiff abandoned his suit.
On the other hand, opponents of the
amendment claim that the law as it is
is wise, the result of long experience, and
is reflected in the laws of every State in
the Union, and has been since this was
Government and should not, therefore.
be broken down by mere sentimental
consideration. They hold that one who
has been convicted of felony does not
expiate his crime by serving out his term