New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1859-04-18

pubb,hed IN he newspapers the same ss the aimifef
evidence The whole proceeding ls indeed anomalous
Bpo calculated to give rise TO serious questions ss 70
the practical WORKING Of TIE mode OF uisi oy Jafy
The theory Il that w cannot be trusted ~ tue in'
fuepce OF ap,tb,ny b,t the strictly legal eydsnce
He1cs TIE Formally VIII Oh has been Kept up 10 tnIs
Of not allowing the Jun 10 De a. IHge during .ne
trisl il order TO avoid eIposie 20 slto
ether persona TIE sutject CT 1ne tral heoce 'O'
the practice when eyderce IL nrirg r onerel sn1
objected g., that the Court eXIm.'rs an1 al
mcgee II admissible II is sltsg-ther h'si nom ihe
Jury, snd cancot with propreiy De !e'sHel 70 y
cOuIsel. In respec, 70 paroleyidence VIM ooectS1
10, j. IL difficult 10 eXc.ucs Il siogsihsl T14 re
know, dye q the iory II - te,--sery to > ga e.
end sdvautsge sometimes taken o, th's ne'-fsly Oy
urforupuous counsel t. make statements of isc's pro
posed 10 be proved, although well enough aware OF
Eeir iIs6miss Diiy, perhaps 10 -0ne fosttuoes no'
having the power 10 make the proof even n held sd'
missbe and tits is done foI the sake OF the elect
upon the Jury. REMEDY for this could lndee1 %
f. uud bv recurring counsel TO reduce the offer Of evil
Cerce 10 writlug ard hand il 20 the Co1rt 70 h dis
posed Of under The rale 10 which documentary
evidence is subject.
Bot in this tIial w0ie the Jury are in arctd Gus
t0dia lest scms outside opinion should possibly be
sugge sted-yet document which hss been Iriudei
b the Court from their consideration, IL foIths N
transcribed in all the newspapers Of the country, ac-
coupanied 9itn commentaries by editors sod corre-
spob0snts Of the press Does the Court prescribe the
ssh. Of rev spspers By the Jury II doss, IS there
possibility Of excluding from them information a.
tttOLd-f ana OF VIVA kDOsl W al Inc resi- W tao
ccumuIity
Bot the publication in this instance Gale for csnsure
upon another ground. From the very nature OF lts
o0uterts ii shOud FOR the cake If common Gecency,
have been put al under intsr1ct, IT tae Court
have thu, rover snd 60 not see why has not, b.
max ng the counsel responsible gentlemen OF honor,
for ooLformi with the directions or even sdmoution
Of the Judge in a matter Of this indeics'e natGre.
Their ss cOurtrbslsnce 20 this pars1e OF rejected
ard Gisgustug evidence before the public, the prul-
Mt ouroiy of thtse who euioy such details s ablud'
aIty sstsfed By the gossip of Desspspsr correspond
ents setting forth similar m0rceaux Of scsnoal not ye.
tfoIed in evidence bat extracted By the diligence of
reporters from the private treasury OF counsel
Who that will reflect upon the probable conss-
ouerces of this judicial invitation Of the minds Of the
whole conn unity TO impure thoughts aud subjects of
nyeIsatiOn, will fail 10 perceive that such trial
has besliI gs upon al welfare far nding 10
importance any result affecting the parties nme1i-
ately involved
Such consequences are the more TO be deplored
when AZ in the instance the exposure has not been
made ssary for the vindcsOn OF the innocent bat
the work Of Decentralization is pursued in reciprocal
demonstration Of the vices Of tie guilty principals IN
the transaction.
Il would seem, from some indications which have
already been painfully apparent, that an eclat ever
will belong the actors IN these scenes OF deprsyed
passion which with those who do not think for ham
selves will psss for an enyisb.e renOwn. n.