| Show THE NEW EDMUNDS BILL SPEECH OF SENATOR VAN WYCK NEBRASKA vindicated in the united states senate january ath mr van wyck of nebraska showed that mr edmunds had bad misrepresented nebraska on the r rights of married persons in the following remarks mr van wyck I 1 ask the senate to indulge me only a moment in explanation of what certainly seems to be a very remarkable construction placed upon the statute of nebraska by the from vermont I 1 suppose it is not necessary to offer an apology or to ask pardon for objecting to what seems to booe be an obnoxious principle inserted in a meritorious bill I 1 will say to the senator that I 1 am willing tot 0 asfar as far as and farther than himself in F n uprooting the system of polygamy in utah I 1 would very much prefer to vote for such soch a measure as was suggested by the senator from illinois to take away political power from the territory entirely and place it in the hands of the commission which we have there with nothing to do and give them something to do by placing the political power of the territory in their hands I 1 would very much prefer to do that and I 1 apprehend that is going further farther than the senator vermont would be willing to go in this matter then I 1 think we should reach this difficulty As I 1 said vest yesterday erday we have been doing this for four years practically with no forward movement and und under erthe the act of 1882 and this a bill we shall probably progress four years more with no other results than we have today to day the lawmakers of nebraska supposed that the statute read by the senator from vermont was plain and ve yet t my friend seems to give it all a forced construction by propounding an in and himself giving the answer I 1 understand the theory of the deviation f raw the common law to be that it Is 10 in roe me interest of society so the senator irom vermont says and that in some cases caries lin the interest of society the husband and wife are allowed to testify one against the other othar kappre I 1 apprehend the senator gives the wrong reason for it it is not in the interest of society specially because if that were so why roop Is it not in the interest of society that a person should swear to lo the commission of murder as much as to the fact of a marriage solemnization if in the interest of society is socie me not the testimony in cases of r robbery r y and arson and all other crimes known from that ito to murder as much to be protects it an the interest of sod society ty the wife can disclose the matter of a grave crate committed by her husband against the peace and society why should it stop but then I 1 think the senator confutes COW his hie own idea by saying that in ka and other states they are allowed to testify because it is to reach the personal injury anti and he propounded the question to the senator from georgia is not bigamy a personal injury it if the allowance ot of the testimony of the husband or wife be put upon the ground of the perso personal nul injury from the one to the other then certainly it is not upon the broad ground of public policy or tile the interest of society the latter suggestion of the senator from vermont is evidently correct because in no instance probably where it is detailed in any statute is it applied applied except where the husband an ana wife can only redress themselves by being allowed to be witnesses in their own behalf and that is borne out in the statute of nebraska itself so also in the statute of the state of new york which expressly provides that it can only be in the case of bigamy and then the senator asks Is not b bigamy 1 ga y a personal injury to the wite wife or h husband u tm nd it may be so in the case of bigamy but then the statute provides that only one fact can be proven by the testimony esti morty of the accusers accuse ds marriage partner partner only the fact of marriage so in n the case of divorce on the ground of adultery the wife may be a witness or the husband may be a witness but not a general witness the statute of the state of new york sa says a such witnesses can only testify to the the fact of marriage nothing more not in the atie interest of society as the senator says because if so why confine it there the dihe wife may ay know the fact ot of the bigamy but she can only swear to her own marriage why stop there society is not protected if the husband or wife knows the true fact which would convict the other and the statute says that only one fact is to be proven so too in the case of divorce for adultery the wife may know the fact th that would atwould convict the husband husban dof of he gravamen of the main charge but the statute keeps her lips sealed and says in such a case you can only prove the fact of marriage by her testimony and then the statute provides no further her lips are sealed and yet the senator says that the break is made in the interest of society although the witness is stopped by the legislature right there the other point is right as my friend suggests it is undoubtedly where the per personal Fonal injury is to the husband or wife now mark the husband can in no case I 1 am reading now from the nebraska statute to which the senator ref refined eri ed the husband can in no case be a witness a against dinst the wife nor the wife against the ha laband husband except in a criminal proceeding for a crime committed by the one against the other I 1 ina in a criminal proceeding for a crime committed by the one against the other and my friend says that thai bigamy is a personal injury but that is a not the statute of nebraska I 1 asked my iny friend if the statute said compel and then he rebuked me for my impatience by desiring that I 1 should wait until he could give a construction which I 1 think the statute nowhere can bear the lips of the wife are sealed the husband can in no case be a witness aga against hat the wife or the wife against the husband except in a criminal proceeding by the one against the other I 1 submit 8 ab 11 tit to the senator if the language is not plain that it is permissive and not compellable if the wife comes into court to arraign her husband for assault and battery upon her and she begins the prosecution if the proceeding in is commenced by her she may be allowed if owed to follow that by her own testimony t imon it is perfectly plain she must ae be the moving instrument in the prosecution against him in the criminal proceeding and in such a case only can a she be a witness if society adrai arraigns I a her husband if the public authority thorl arraigns her husband for an assault 1 t upon herself then she can not be a witness even it if she desires to be it is only where she is the author the mover of the criminal proceeding against him that she is allowed to be a witness but they may in all criminal prosecutions bo witnesses for each other yet the senator would claim that the novel the startling doctrine introduced in this bill is sustained by the statute of nebraska which provides as I 1 have stated distinctly that in 11 criminal prosecutions husband and wife bif e may be b e witnesses against each other wil will mal the senator put that language in this bill instead of that which the committee has placed there that will settle this matter will he take the language from the statute of new york and put it in his bill instead of what is there if he does doe i that I 1 might be willing to vote for his proposition put it upon the ground that it is a new departure aud and that the departure is justified by the exigencies ot of the peculiar situation of thins things in that territory but I 1 protest here that the legislation of every state in this union the well known and recognized principles of the law la in every civilized nation under the sun shall not be stigmatized by a proposition coupling it with the doctrine here enunciated upon the ground that this now new doctrine is only the reproduction of that which ex exists ests in a majority of the states of this union |
