A STUDY OF THE THEORY OF APPRAISAL FOR SELECTION By ...

judiciary has developed a complex system of common and positive
law to guide the process. History, on the other hand, is
developed in an informal way, with a less rigorously defined
setting, more subtle social consequences, and, because of the
destruction or loss of records inevitable with the passage of
time, less available evidence. Because of these factors, its
standard of proof is rarely higher than a balance of
probabilities. In order to establish historical proof, however,
history has the same need for accurate and authentic evidence as
the law. For this reason, the standards set by the legal
profession can be flexibly applied to historical inquiry as well.
Primarily, legal rules provide exceptions to the use of hearsay
evidence, and delineate an acceptable authentication process of
evidence by establishing admissibility criteria. While the rules
primarily apply to government and business records, the various
Canadian evidence acts have defined the concept of business so
broadly that it includes all forms of organized activity. By
extension, then, the rules also apply to private records as well.
The common law has established that hearsay evidence is
inadmissible because it fails to guarantee accuracy of facts. It
does not proceed from personal knowledge of the witness, but from
repetition of what the witness has heard from others. The value
of hearsay evidence thus derives, not from the credibility of the
witness, but from the veracity and competence of other people.
Such testimony inhibits the establishment of truth because of the
court's
20