The Indian very frequently has the crime of perjury alleged against him,
though what is assumed to be perjury is usually demonstrated to have
nothing whatever of that element in it.
These imputations come about in this way: If the Indian, about to give
evidence, be declared to have a reasonable mastery of English, the Court,
sometimes rather hastily, I think, dispenses with the interpreter,
in order to save time. A question is put to a witness, who, though
not understanding it sufficiently to appreciate its full import and
bearing, yet protesting, in a self-sufficient spirit, that he does (for
the Indian likes to have imputed to him extensive knowledge of English)
returns an answer apart from the truth, and one which he really never
intended to give, and becomes, through the interpreter, committed to it
on the records.
Or, the allegation may arise after this fashion:--The interpreter,
having to master several different languages, will almost insensibly,
in the confusion of idioms, misinterpret what has been said. The
outrageous prevalence of this supposed perjury would of itself point to
an explanation of this kind, since, we cannot believe that the Indian
wishes to canonize untruthfulness.