17 



to complain. Many of you can remember when a trial at 

 law was fettered by rules of evidence which now seem to 

 have been designed to conceal the truth, so devious and 

 uncertain were the paths through which truth was sought. 

 Parties to a civil suit, those interested in its result, persons- 

 whose religious beliefs did not conform to the standards of 

 the times, and persons who had been convicted of crimCr 

 were absolutely excluded from the witness stand, and a 

 person accused of crime was neither compelled nor per- 

 mitted to testify upon his trial. 



With fear and hesitation, these restrictive rules have 

 from time to time been abolished, until the one under con- 

 sideration alone remains. After many years of agitation, 

 parties to civil suits and persons interested were permitted 

 to testify, although many predicted that the courts would 

 be overrun by false and fraudulent claims, and that no one 

 would be protected against the perjury of his neighlior. 

 But the experience of many years has shown that this feat 

 was unfounded, that men and women will not willingly^ 

 commit perjury, and that jurors are entirely competent to 

 judge what weight should be subtracted from the testimony 

 of the party on account of his interest in the result of the' 

 litigation. 



When the privilege of testifying in his own behalf was 

 extended to a prisoner, it was feared that this privilege 

 would afford a protection and a shield for the guilty, but 

 the result has been far different, and has proved practicallj 

 to be a great benefit in an unexpected direction. The riglit 

 to testify has not only protected those unjustly accused of 

 crime, but in a much greater degree has rendered certain 

 the conviction of those justly accused of crime ; for it is 

 the almost unvarying experience that when a guilty man 

 avails himself of his right to testify, his examination fur- 

 nishes the most convincing proof of bis guilt. 



