The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1893-03-12
TO MIR. CROOkER.
Clark Rradcn Denies tho Truth of State.
mepts He uas Made.

To The Independent:
Will you give the writer space to criti
else the attitude in which Rev. j. II
Crooksr now stands before the people o
Helena. by means of a simple illustration
There has been before the supreme cour
of Great Britain n very interesting suit
many lawyers are employed on each side
and other lawyers have taken sides. and
hundreds OF lawyers have written articles
pamphlets and books on each side. Tn
defence presents, az conclusive OF the whole
matter, IL statute of Edward the Confessor.
The plaintiff asserts TINT this statute is Il
fabrication of the seventeenth century,
made up Of pieces Of decisions of judges.
opinions of lawyers. and forgeries of the
redactors. When the court calls on the
plaintiff for his proof that his assertion is
true, he has subpunns issued for all law.
yers who have written or Expressed an
opinion in harmony with his posi-
tion. These assert in tho most posi-
tive and doGmatio manner. the position
of the plaintiff. The court demands:
ID you testify to this rs n matter of your
own personal knowledge2 Did you see this
statute compiled?" "O! no." responds
the witness, sit is my opinion and belief
that 1t was SO compiled Cou t: but.
sir, your opinion is no better than the
opinion of the nan i'll the moon, who has
no direct knowledge OF tho matter" Wit
tit5S. 1 law iASSblAAatta WAX LtatsGAs iIltt
certain documents of the seventeenth CEN
tury. prove that what l assert is true"
Court: Very well, sir, Introduce those
documents. We do not accept heRrsay,
especially Of so preiudlced a partisan of
the plaintiff, rs You are" The lawyer
managing the case inteFposes: "But this Is
q question OF the present hour; and must
be settled by men now living" Court:
The case is now being tried, but when
you undertake to prove Eow, what happened
in the Seventeenth century, YOU must pre-
sent evidence OF the Seventeenth century,
evidence of persons who know it to be- II
fact. The dogmatio assertions OF mon
who can know nothing about it, because
they lived humid eds Of years after it should
have TRANSFERRED. is not evidence in any
sense. Nor are their assertions in regard
to what documents and evidence of that
century prove. Introduce evidence of com
petent witnesses of the time when this
should have occurred" Lawyer: We'll,
| introduce these witnesses as
experts in matters of internal cri-
ticism. to prove. by internal criticism. that
il is what | asse t it to be-" Court: "Nery
we'll, Messrs. Experts, lay the statute down
before the court. and tell the court what
reasons your ability as experts have enabled
you to discover, that prove your assertions
to be tue. Your testimony as experts will
be accepted only so far as your ability as
experts has enabled you to discover, and
make plain to the court, reasons that the
court has not been able to discover" The
pretended experts begin to testify. There
are unlimited assertions, assumptions, spe-
cial pleading, pettifoggery and migrepre-
sentation. Their theories and assumptions
are not alike in half a dozen features. They
fatty contradict each other. The results
contradict. The reasons that are given
contradict. One witness asserts that q por-
ton is old. Another. that it is new. The
reasons that one urges that one portion is
Cd are the reasons why another is positive
that it ia new. No two agree as to when
portions were fabricated, nor by whom. nor
concerning what portions were fabricated.
They only agree in dogmatic assertions
that the law is q fabrication. Would not
any court in civilized nations kick out such
stuff from such pretended experts?
Now for the application. An issue is be-
fore the people of Helena. when, and by
whom were the books of the Bible written?'
Rev. J. II. Croker made q number Of most
positive and dogmatio assertions that they
are tabrications long after the period
claimed for them. We nave the MSS of
the Bible that critics date A. D.. 355-40O. 450.
For this reason ! insist that witnesses to the
asserted fact of fabrication must have
lived before the first date in order to be
competent to testify to it, as a fact, by per-
sonal knowledge. And that the original
documents themselves be introduced. Not
the assertions of lawyers in regard to what
they establish. MIR. Croker insists on in
Producing an army of lawyers on his side,
special pleaders, partisan attorneys ana
some I ejuoiced p~ettifog2ers. And insists
that they should testify because the case is
being trled in the nineteenth century. AS
what he asserts must have occurred from
1900 to 5000 years ago. how can they testify
to it as u fact? If he tells US that they are
familiar with the facts of ancient litera-
fura tai him intrnd1ra tbot lienr,
ture, and not their statements in
regard to what it contains. If
he introduces them as experts IN
matters of internal criticism let him give
US their reasons. We care nothing for
their dogmatic assertions. their specula-
tlons, their theories. All that i'd merely
the assertions of lawyers, not the testimony
OF witnesses, We object that his experts
agree IN nothing. except their cry of fab
rlcat!on." They conflict, contradict, disagree
IN regard to every detail great or small. He
cannot name two who agree in their theo-
rles, reasons or conclusions, even most i'm
portant particulars, in regard to the time of
fabrication. portions fabricated or pc. sons
by whom fabricated. or compiled. The
very reasons that are urged by one to prove
q portion to be old, are urged by another to
prove it to be new. One sees in a portion
certain features. Another sees in it the op-
poslte. HIS authorities are like the men
tlas sIi dilS lIOLl tI0 uEuROu h IGeEQ SOweu
by Cadnas, they destroy each other. | defy
him to name two who have agreed in their
work over a single book of the Bible, in
even important features OF their work. or
what value Ia such criticism? He knows
that If he Is confined to actual testimony,
that they can give none. That If he is
compelled to read the reasons for
their assertions, they will destroy each
other by contradiction. Hence he wants to
be~llder md ~browbeat by a torrent of dog
matte assertions, mt a parade of a long
list OF assumed authorities. The writer ia
not acaret by his men in huckram. He
knows that tho names he parades are not
witnesses, but partisan attorneys, pre-
ludlced pettltoggers in many instances.
mat they contradict each other, in theory.
reasons. What they assert to be facts. and
IN conclusions. The writer can quote hun
dreds Of names on the other side, who not
only deny but utterly expose the dogmatic
INSERTIONS Of his Wanted authorities. Like
the redoubted fat knight, Mr.. Ctooker
parades a host III buCkram. When the
writer, like Prince Hal, demands his ree-
soue, he V~aliant!y retortA. 'tIteasons. II
reasons were "a plenty as blackberries
Will rende no man II reason on com pulsi0n.
Not l." We will let him take his place
with his men i'll buCkram, to whom he be-
longs.
have pricked this bubble which he,
grown TO such wonderful proportions.
can afford 70 let tho little moisture it leave
eVaporate. CLARK BEADEs.