.MjEwNg.Mjk0NjM

[page 95] and I know they mean it, that the desire is to probe this to the buttons and have a searching investigation. I object to limiting this testimony to the strict rules. This is the tribunal to try it, not a count of law. It is infinitely better than a court of law. Mr. Pattangill: Did I understand you to say that you didn't propose to follow the rules of law in taking testimony in this case? Dr. Butler: Not the technical rules of confining a witness to what he has seen. In the very first examination it was allowed. Mr. Pattangill: The witnesses were not under oath then. And perhaps it would be quite pertinant to say that the first examination of this was a mere preliminary affair. You have now requested that the witnesses be put under oath. It does seem to me to be eminently proper that the witnesses should confine themselves to what, in any court, would be considered sworn evidence, evidence that would hold them, and even convict them of perjury, if them sworn falsely. Dr. Butler: I only have to say that if that is the effect of administering an oath it must surprise gentlemen of the committee