allowance must be made for the bias necessarily belonging to men retained to advocate a cause, who speak not as to fact, but as to opinion; who are selected on all moot questions, either from their prior advocacy of, or from their readiness to adopt the opinion wanted. In such instances we are inclined to adopt the strong language of Lord Campbell, that'skilled witnesses come with such a bias on their minds to support the cause in which they are embarked, that hardly any weight should be given to their evidence.'" ' Authority. Expert testimony implies common honesty and special ability. Another kind of testimony, resembling this, but being based more upon sound judgment, is called authority.2 Sometimes it is the expression of individual judgment, sometimes the combined judgment of many, and sometimes an established record accepted as ultimate proof by communities, sects and states. Expert testimony settles single cases; authority establishes facts or principles. No man, though he must act on them, can investigate and settle for himself all the questions arising in his mind, and whenever they arise. He therefore accepts the conclusions arrived at by others whose competence he trusts, or conclusions reached by himself on some other occasion. Webster's opinions were received with great deference in the courts, as those of a high authority on constitutional law. "Whenever he gives emphasis to the personal pronoun, the reader feels that he had as much earned the right to make his opinion an authority, as he had earned the right to use the words he employs to express his ideas and sentiments. Thus at the celebrated Smith Will Trial, his antagonist, Mr. Choate, quoted a decision of Lord Chancellor Camden. 1 Wharton, Law of Evidence, 425. 2 Pages 289, 307. In his reply, Webster argued against its validity as though it were merely a proposition laid down by Mr. Choate. But it is not mine, it is Lord Camden's,' was the instant retort. Webster paused for half a minute, and then, with his eye fixed on the presiding judge, he replied: Lord Camden was a great judge; he is respected by every American, for he was on our side in the Revolution; but, may it please your honor, I differ from my Lord Camden.' There was hardly a lawyer in the United States who could have made such a statement without exposing himself to ridicule; but it did not seem at all ridiculous when the 'I' stood for Daniel Webster. "1 This is an extreme case. In most of Webster's forensic speeches he frequently appeals to authority, that is, to decisions of courts or instances of legislation, and to the Constitution itself. Among orthodox Christians the Bible is the ultimate authority on matters of revealed religion; among the Mohammedans, the Koran; among the Mormons, the Authority. Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and CoveInstances of nants and the Word of Wisdom. Among lawyers, the Constitution, the decisions of courts, and the interpretations of learned jurists, constitute a body of authority. In medicine, in science, in education, authority is furnished by the opinions of those recognized as possessing the most marked ability and the sanest judgment, and arriving at conclusions by the most careful investigation or experiment. When there is a conflict of authorities, as there often is in every realm of thought and activity, a decision usually rests 1 E. P. Whipple, Introduction to Great Speeches, lxiii. 2 Pages 288, 306, 308, 313. on the preponderance of authority, or a preponderance of probability from other sources. The appeal to authority may be abused in several ways. What was authority in certain circumstances may not be such under other conditions. Too much stress may be placed on single Authority. opinions, or those may be cited as authorities Abuse of on a special case, who are authorities only on the general principle or not at all. Testimony. is Many other circumstances attending the testimony of a witness affect its value. These may induce him to be truthful or afford motives for evasion or perversion of truth. Unwilling testimony, given in the interests of truth and not under compulsion of Unwilling any kind, — testimony to facts making against the witness's interest, prejudices, theories, desires, considered specially valuable. A witness testifying to the genuineness of a will that disinherits him; to acts which would help convict his best friend of a crime; to the ability, honesty and fitness for office of his rival; to the efficiency of an institution the patronage of which must lessen that of his own; to the cures wrought by a rival physician; to the justice of a government which has banished him, or of a chief who has dismissed him from office, would be worthy of great credit. The testimony of Bible scholars who have always advocated the theory of special creation, that Genesis and geology are not inconsistent, and that the Bible account is on the whole favorable to evolution, is strong evidence. Had Joseph Knapp's confession 1 that he was a party to the murder of Captain White been put in evidence, as was 1 Page 279. intended, it would have had great weight notwithstanding its advantage1 to himself. Lord North's measure looking toward the relief of the Americans from the imposition of taxes, was good evidence of the weakness of the position of parliament. The testimony of capitalists and employers to the many points of excellence in the various labor organizations, would be much more convincing than any evidence offered by members themselves. A distinction is to be made between reluctant testimony and forced testimony. The validity of evidence given under compulsion is doubtful. Galileo under Forced torture was not "the devout astronomer." Physical suffering or fear for one's self or for others nearly related, may overcome the scruples of the most conscientious. The fear of physical harm induced Abraham to tell the Egyptians that his wife was his sister. Not only the confessions of those accused of witchcraft, but much of the testimony against them, were secured by torture: subsequent history shows how false were both. Moral courage and physical endurance must have been possessed to an almost miraculous degree to prevent false testimony from witnesses subjected to the pains of the Spanish Inquisition. The evidence in favor of the truth of what is related in the Gospels, is greatly strengthened by the fact that no suffering could extort from the authors anything contradictory to those incidents. Incidental or undesigned testimony is worthy of special consideration. A witness sometimes makes a statement, not thinking or not knowing its bearing on 1 He was to secure immunity by turning State's evidence. Testimony. the case; or a writer refers to something as if it were too well known to need more than an allusion. A boy whose direct testimony as to his designed foster-father's kindness could not be shaken, remembered a certain event "because it happened the morning his father knocked him down with a hammer." Those who fabricate a story take most pains with what seems to them most important, when, in fact, it is the minor details that mark most distinctly the true or the false. A single detail from fact may destroy the whole fabric of fiction. The nature and force of undesigned evidence is illustrated in an editorial comment on an incident of the Cronin murder trial: "Maroney is reported as saying that there was not a member of the Clan-na-Gael but that wanted the murderers of Dr. Cronin discovered and punished'; and he added: "The records of the Clan-na-Gael will show that I have always opposed murders, or assassinations, for revenge or for any cause whatever.' This is the most significant and startling confession yet made. That it was unpremeditated, and uttered while the speaker was apparently in a state of considerable excitement, if not alarm, is evident; and that adds to its importance. The inference is inevitable. If the records of the Clan-na-Gael show that Maroney always opposed murders and assassinations for revenge,' they must show that measures of murder and assassination were considered by the Clan-na-Gael, and were an essential part of its methods."1 6 Maroney's testimony illustrates, also, what is usually called a hurtful admission. He inadvertently admits that murder is a recognized method with the clan. The Vanderpool case 2 affords 1 Chicago Herald. Hurtful Admissions. 2 "One year ago Field had a capital of $7,000; Vanderpool $2,300; bankers on a slender capital. They became dissatisfied. |