| Show THE NEW MEW EDMUNDS BILL REMARKS BY SENATOR VAN WYCK COMPLETE reputation refutation OF AN EDMUNDS SOPHISM inthe IN the U S senate on january ath mr van wyck of nebraska replied as follows to statement made by mr edmunds thit that the provision of his bis bill compelling legal leal wives to bestif testify y against their husbands was substantially lythe ly the same as in several states state of the union mr van wyck mr out desiring to say aford upon the merits of this bill or any of its provisions I 1 still think it proper to maxe mane a correction of a portion of the statement made by the senator from vier ekr mont yesterday as I 1 under swo i that the provisions of this bill as it affects the power to compel the testimony of husband or wife against each other is substantially the same as the statutes of new hampshire and neb and twenty five states of this union did I 1 understand the senator correctly mr edmunds I 1 do not know whether the senator did or not I 1 have not looked at my remarks mr van wyck then to refresh the senators recollection I 1 will read what he there is nothing therefore in the penal part of this bill relating to the punishment of the crime of polygamy that does not exist in substance and and almost in form going to the extent of giving evidente evidence by husbands and wives against aach other in every single state in this union I 1 have looked at the statutes ot of nebraska since my friend from nebraska alluded alladen to that point and found that the laws of nebraska their standing statutes are in substance just the same tiling aning mr teller on what point mr edmunds on the point of husband and wife giving ving evidence against each other in criminal T prosecutions that affect either one or the other I 1 looked at the sta statutes tures of new hampshire after my from new hampshire alluded to that point yes berday and I 1 found they had bad the same Is the Senators recollection refreshed by the reading of his speech mr edmunds not much laughter mr van wyck then I 1 take it for grunted granted that the senator lr believes today as he stated yesterday mr edmunds yes mr van iran wyck I 1 take that for granted his memory is not refreshed sufficiently at least to contradict the statement he made yest yesterday erds now mr president I 1 fail to see in the the statutes of nebraska as my friend from new hampshire boes dhesi t in the statute of new hampshire that the features are the same as this bill contains I 1 think the senator from vermont will not find in the statutes of any state of this union provisions such as that which is corp orated ir in this bill I 1 dp do not now say whether this provision is right or wrong or weather the enormity of the crime to be stricken at in utah is not so great that that people should be visited by legislation such much as a is not n ot found in any statute in this un union ton or provably prop ably in any civilized civili sed country on the globe the statutes of some states provide so carefully that they deil deal in minute particulars wherein they allow a departure from the great principle of the common law as to the sacred bond that holds the virtuous marriage relation ion upon the foundation on which it was built it has been guarded so tenderly that a statute sia statute tute has never dared to bouck touch it unless out particularly the respects wherein the testimony monk should be receivable this is the legislation of his own state of vermont now let me show this just for a moment mol nent because this is apart from the consideration of polygamy and its crime it I 1 is i higher gher lit and above and beyond that this bill provides in any prosecution for bigamy polygamy or unlawful cohabitation under any statute of the united states the lawful husi husband and or wite of the person accused shall be a com potent witness does it do as the statute ot of every state says on what points husband or wife may testify no A competent witness wit pesa in the case as an any other wit ness and therefore a witness to prove any fransa transaction tion or crime or offense which the prosecutor chooses to ask of that witness this bill makes the husband and wife competent witnesses auk against irist each other in the ifie cuse case to prove anything that is my point now I 1 should like my ai attention to be called to the statute of any state which jus tides or allows or compels a husband or a wife abe a competent witness for anything that may be sought to be proved in the suit pending bendin g this bill says and mayba may be called and may be compelled to testify in such proceeding examination or prosecution without the consent of the husband or wife but mr edmunds yes mr van wyck the senator says I 1 yes precisely it is not so in any other state to which he can call our attention there is one negative my friend says triumphantly but such witness shall not be permitted to testify as to any confidential statement or communication mado by either husband or wile to each other i during the exi existence of the marriage relation re he or she may testify to everything else is a competent compete fit witness as to everything else which she ahe or he Is not made I 1 think by the statute of any state in this union so carefully are ws me attention of the senator to his own state in her revised statutes in a case of civil damage where the sale of intoxicating drinks has hag produced a cause of action the vermont law says no person shall be disqualified as awit a witness by reason of the marriage relation in a proceeding under this section again by the th livermont eVermont statutes in actions against a savings bank by a husband to recover moneys deposited by his wife in her name or as her money the wife may be a witness as if she were an unmarried woman Is 16 there any stat statute 1 tite in the state of vermont which compels a husband or wife to be a witness against the other even in an immaterial matter where he be or she is indicted for an offense if 11 so I 1 have not found it ii if that exists I 1 the senator from Vermont can call our attention to it w and ami we vp v p look 1001 upon i a the heig 6 la in one provision the massachusetts law is neither husband nor wife part of the provision bili is in the law jaw of massachusetts but tile the other part is not ti bi either dither husband nor wife shall be arwed to testify as to private conversations with each other oh yes the senator from vermont says that provision of the massachusetts law Is is here but that is all of it there is here it II is only the negative part of this law which id ia Apo proposed posed by the judiciary committee neither husband hus bant nor wife shall be allowed to testify asto as to private conversations with each other there is more in the massachusetts law t that at there may de be no doubt about 4 the virtuous marriage rela being belai disturbed neither husband nor wiep shall I 1 be compelled to be a witness in any trial upon an indictment complaint or other criminal proceedings against the other that is the massachusetts law S she be is entitled to all the glory which the world gives her she preserves good laws in her statute st tte book bok yet no such law as this could the senator from massachusetts f from rom the judiciary committee inflict upon any other portion of the country 1 now we come to new york not so virtuous probably pro bobly as new hampshire or as vermont because the region is not so cold not so good as massachusetts because massachusetts is nearer to vermont than new york is but new york has a very large city and it is probably necessary to go a little further the there rebut but even she regards the marriage relation new york says nothing herein contained shall rend bendey any husband or wife competent or compely compellable to give evidence for or against the other in any criminal action or proceeding except t to prove drove the fact of marriage in case of bigamy that is all she can prove you may put gu t the wife or husband on the stand but ailt you can prove by him or her only one tiling thing and must stop there that is what new york says nearly as wicked probably as utah by comparison new york says you yon can only compel the husband or wife to prove the fact of bigamy will the senator from vermont put that language in this bill to restrict the effect of it as the statute of newyork new york says providing I 1 ng that in case of bigamy one or the other may be a witness but only to prove one fact and there they must stop prove the fact of marriage nothing more or in any action or proceeding instituted in n consequence of adultery or in any action or proceeding proceeding for div roe on account of adultery ad tery except to prove the fact of marriage or in any action or pr proceeding oeding for or on account of criminal conversion where are the tw twenty enty five states that have the provision of this bill I 1 have gone from vermont a away w d down 0 w 4 to new york and probably y aft it i id s n not 0 t necessary to go either up or down any further the others probably are the same in his own state the witness is not allowed and in the nood good old state of massachusetts it expressly says it cannot can not be doue done and in new york where probably there may be greater necessity it says it can only be done to prove one fact and that is the fact of marriage if it be that we are making a great gnat divergence let it be anderst understood ir not that this is in conformity with the legislation of the states of this union but that it is ar an innovation going further beyond the settled law than ever has been gone before let it be so understood der stood and then let the justice or rather the emergency of this occasion be the only excuse upon which we seek to make this innovation which never has been proposed by any state statute to which my attention has been called it may be that the senator from vermont with his vast experience and greater knowledge will be able to call our attention to such a statute but I 1 have not found it |
