The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-09-19
.rHE TRUTH. THE WHOLE TRUTH.

''THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH"
The trial of Luetgert, the Chicago
sausage maker, for the alleged murder
of his wife and the destruction of her
remains by caustics in a rendering vat,
has given rise to a nice question in
ethics and morals through the testi-
mony and subsequent statements Of
one of the pathological experts. DIR.
Bailey was summoned by the state as
a witness to establish the fact that
some of the bones found in the vat
were those of human form. DR.. Bal
ley has very strong convictions on the
subject of capital punishment. He
as murder committed under form of
law with the sanction of society. We
are not aware of what his testimony
was when on the stand relative to the
nature of the bones submitted to him,
not having read it. But we are sure
that when he went upon the stand ns
swore, under the pains and penalties
inflicted by human laws for perjury,
that he would speak "the truth, the
whole truth and nothing but the truth"
and adjured his Maker to assist him
in so doing. Whether it is the practice
of Chicago courts to impress this GER
emony with the solemnity Of kissing
the Bible or not we are also unaware,
but aside from that no more solemn
promise can be made by man than is
the customary oath.
A couple of days later the doctor
gave an interview to a reporter of the
Tribune in which he said that Il am
not only positive that bone from the
Luetgert vat is part of human foot,
but 1 can swear positively that it be-
longed to the foot of a woman or a
small man who had been addicted to
wearing tight shoes" He said, how
ever, that ST did not so that far when
on the stand" because L am strongly
prejudiced against capital punishment
under any circumstances, and did
not want my word to be the means,
perhaps, of sending Luetgert to. the
gallows. Not even the states attorney
knew why I held back in my identi-
fication Of some of those bones"
This raises the question whether a
man, having taken oath to tell the
truth and the whole truth is justified
in committing implied perjury by not
telling what he knows to be the whole
truth, because he may have strong
convictions on the subject of punish
ing murder by death and does not
want his testimony to be Instrumental
in bringing that punishment upon the
prisoner. 1t is quite evident that DR..
Bailey believed his testimony, if fully
given, would have that effect. 1t is
evident that he believed it extremely
killed his wife and then, to destroy all
evidence of his crime had thrown her
BODY into a vat and covered it with
/ clash to dissolve even the bones Yet
tity of a bone exhibited to him as be-
ing and known to hin to be, a human
temporal bone lfro,n, the side of the
skull, because 81 wanted to make the
case as easy as possible. i don't care
to be the means of hanging a man.
That is he did not tell the whole truth
as he positively knew it to be, al
though he had. in the most solemn
manner. swore that he would. because
he held his private conviction as to
the penalty for the crime higher than
he held his oath. The candid man
ner in which he admits this would
seem to imply that the ethics of his
profession permit it, but we can hard
ly accept this implication as true.
However that may be, the question is
presented whether a medical expert or
any man can violate his oath and JUS
tify himself as DR.. Bailey does.