Daily Kennebec journal., 1897-03-15
ARGUMENTS IN FULL
CONTINUED from page ~

general reputation that we cannot separ-
ate the one and the two and the three.
and l know that this jury when they
s,nalyze that question philosophically and
fairly, will see through the shadowy
cross examination which has been worn
threadbare ever since courts of Justice
were created. Otherwise, what has my
friend to argue? He must argue first
ing. That he will hardly do, because
you know them. Next. he must argue
that those men did not know what it
meant. did not know the responsibility
of going upon that stand and swearing
that this man with whom they had the
most pleasant relations, had unfortunate
Iy acquired in his town a reputation for
a bad moral character. Aye. gentlemen,
their appearance. reluctantly. and take
il that no testimony ever dropped from
human lips that caused the givcrs more
pain than did theirs: Put yourselves IN
where you would be called to testify to
the moral character of your next door
neighbor of whom.it was your misfortune
to know that thu people generally said
10 tell the truth in the witness stand
against your WILL with the responsible
ity OF doing right and telling the truth
upon your shoulders. Do you suppose.
take? Would there be any mistake
in such testimony? And then con-
YrOnted upon cross examination with tsc
question of lawyer: Name one per,
pick ont any particular person, because
Il was the slow aggregation OF years, the
grains of sand that make up the great
beach of human life. then your testimony
is to be Giscreditcd is 1t?
Aye, but that is not all upon that iSSue.
Most every man has his friends, his init
mates. Most every man can find among
his neighbors, his fellows who can ease
their consciences. upheld by the strength
of friendship. and yet not & human being.
not citizen OF the town of Clinton to
come here and to contradict those six or
seven men: not Il solitary man, even OF
easy conscience. to come upon that stand
and testify that George II. McNally has
a good general reputation in that town.
Why not? That, gentlemen would open
up n door of a different style of cross
examination. That would open up more
than the door Of who did you ever hear
say that his reputation was good?' Be-
cause that would not be as foolish as the
line of cross examination put upon the
other side. because the very fact that Il
mans reputation is not talked about is
always the strongest evidence that it is
rcputed to be good. But il a single man
from the town of Clinton had dared to
come upon that stand and testify that
this mans general reputation for char
acter was good. aye, it would have
and possible talk and possible facts. and
Il cross examination that they dared not
face. But that is hypothetical. This
ease does stand upon this appalling
renee that man when his general char-
actcr or his character for truth and
Veracity is attacked, the two lines of at
tack that we have in COURT say it is Il
rare case that when a mans character
is attacked and when he is i,npeached.
either by good citizens or bad. or when
his reputation for truth and veracity as
I, witness is imrcached by the testimony
Of good citizens. or citizens good
or bad--i say it is rare case
in the experience of courts that
not one friend. that not ore neigh
Dor. that not one citizen could be found
who would come here and stitie the voic"
of conscience, and at least out OF Il
spirit of friendship. perjure himself. as
man. Not one. Not a solitary friend in
the town of Clinton to come here and
say that his character is good. and yet
he was born there. yet he was reared
aged father lives there with all his
friends. And although the town of Cln-
ton, in its generosity. out of the multi
tude that hold the high, dignified office
of constable. has allowed him to serve as
one of the constablcS of that town, yet
ii is true. and my brother may make as
much of 1t as he can, that the ideal of
political morality of that borough. and
might go further perhaps. even in this
county, has been such that they have
suffered this man to hold this place of
II, 10 neip MN, us one Oh
the witnesses said about signing his petit
ton; he did it to help him. They have
suffered this man to hold the office OF
deputy sheriff to their shame. But be it
said for the good name of this county.
he holds it no longer. But no matter il
he has held the dignitied and responsible
office of constable, no matter if he has
been entrusted. as one of the witnesses
said. with the service of a subpoena. Il
ministerial act which calls for the exer-
else. as you will understand, Of course.
gentleman. of n large amount of con-
science and of good character. No mat
ter IL up in that remote section of the
county he has for six years. through the
influences that control politics, through
the blind friendships by which we all Of
us sign papers for appointments when
perhaps we ought not-thrOugh the vari-
Gus influences that you al know control
in those selections, no matter If for those
reasons this man was suffered to hold
the office of deputy sheriff. I am not
aware that the holding of the Office of
deputy sheriff or of any other Office in
these degenerate days affords any pre-
sumption of any moral character what
ever. But the representative men from
Clinton say that at the time when this
publication was inserted. he had bad
moral character. They do not say that
at the time he was elected to assume the
responsible Office of deputy sheriff he
then had n bad moral character. 1t may
be that the magnitude of his Office and
it's temptations and associations have de-
veloped this bad moral character and
bad reputation since. When these rep
resentative citizens rom the town of
Clinton come here. and with intelligence
and candor and reluctance. say that on
the day of the publication of this alleged
libel this man in that community where
he was born and rFa1ed had general
reputation of having a bad moral char
acter. and when not one solitary friend or
citizen or neighbor can be brought here
to testify aug'llt against that solemn
fact, how stands this preliminary
proposition? How stands this ele-
ment, with the burden of proof
upon him to come into this court
and. before he can ask damages in ex-
cess of nominal damages of dollar. sat
isfy this jury that he mad a good repu-
tation to be hurt; that he in the high
sounding language of his writ. must sat
isfy this jury that he then lost-what?
What did he have the audacity to put in
his writ which not one citizen will come
here to swear to? That he has lost his
good name and reputation which he bore
in the community" What are We try
ing? A real wrong or fanciful. theo-
retical injury? Is this substance or air?
But, gentlemen the case goes ster
farther. 1t does not rest upon repute
alone. A mans real character is what
he is. His reputation is what his neigh
bors think of him. Sometimes the COM
inunity may be unjust. AT heart d man
may be pure, and his real character may
be good, yet by Observation-Disclosures by
misfortunes. by iealousies, by chickering's