The prison mirror. [volume] (Stillwater, Minn.) 1887-1894, 1893-05-11
Odd Things in the Law.

>~~>>~eS
1t is presumption of the law, which
no amount of testimony can controvert,
that ignorance of the law excuses no one.
AS rule this presumption has, in the
opinion of lawyers, been found to work
well, but as matter of fact the man
who knows the law ranks as rdra aUis
IN terris. Even judges who have spent
years on the bench are often ignorant
of it, not alone as regards it's interpreted
ton, concerning which differences of
opinion may easily exist, but also in re-
gard to the plain significance of statutes
which have been law for scores or hun
dredS of years. Scholars of curious lit
erature have often read Bentham's
scathing and sarcastic denunciation of
the English law which for centuries
prevented person accused of crime
testifying in his own behalf, and Amer
leans have been accustomed to regard
this law as relic of the dark ages.
The st. Louis Post Dispatch regards it
as probable that not one lawyer in a
thousand is aware of the fact that until
within very recent times this old stat
ute still ruled in many of the states,
and that it is claimed that in one or two
states it still prevails That it has never
in any important case been enforced
is to be ascribed to the lack of knowl-
edge of it's existence. The idea of those
accused of a felony could not tell the
truth if it was to his disadvantage.
But the distinction between the com
potency and the credibility of testimony
was lost sight of, the defendant was
prevented from explaining his actions
and the jury from listening to the
evidence of the person most deeply
involved
Some of the most skillful legal ma
npuvers of the leaders of the English
bar during the last half of the eighteenth
and the first quarter of the nineteenth
centuries were directed toward bringing
out the evidence in favor of the accused,
which he was not allowed to give him
self. Such law seems SO unjust as to
be ludicreus to men of the present day,
but few are aware of the fact that it
was not disapproved in the State of Mis-
souri, until 1877. A case was brought
before criminal court during the pre-
ceding year, in which objection was
made to the testimony of the defendant
on the ground of its incompetency.
The judge was at first inclined to smile,
but on examination found that the
claim was borne out by the facts. The
old English law still stood, and it was
necessary to obtain an act of the legisla-
ture to abrogate it. This act was passed
on April Is, 1877, and only since that
date could an objection to the compe-
tency Of the testimony of witness &C
cused of crime be legally overruled. The
states of New York, California, Massa-
chusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut,
and Nevada were little in advance of
Missouri, as they had only passed laws
setting aside the old statute a few years
before this action was taken at Jeffer-
son City. Tennessee was still further
behind; in fact this state has not fully
shaken off the old rules yet. Accord
ing to the laws prevalent there, a man
accused of crime may, on his prelim
mary examination, make statement,
but in case he is held he cannot offer
this preliminary statement in evidence,
although the state may do so. 1t should
not be understood that any American
state ever approved Of this oppressive
English rule. 1t was not knowingly
adopted, but, as it had fallen into dis
use, was incorporated in the state laws
through ignorance.
Another law that has never been