New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-05-06

Mr. Evarts-It put exactly it WA In the form oil
contradiction. to which Mr.. Beechers attention ha5
been called
Mr. Beach-That is just the form that wo propose to
pat it in
Mr.. Evarts-Now will you show me
Judge Neson-We will let that stand IA merely con-
tradictng what previous witness has said which it Ia
competent to do. think you cannot do it by leading
interrogatOry you must ask the general question
Mr. Beach-we put a question to this witness stating
that Mr. Beecher, witness, and party made certain
statement in regard to interview with this witness
and ask him what recollection upon that subject
Now. is that leading. srl submit to your Honor not
II is a perfectly admissible inquiry.
Judge Neilson-Wen, 1t will stand IA IL s only think
that tho better way to the witness in the ordi
nary FORM If it amounts to correction or contradiction
well and good.
Mr. Evarts-It is not question OF extraudcal state
ments Of Mr. Beecher that are now being called for.
Judge Neison-I perfectly competent to contradict
any statements made by the witness and quite early in
our discussions Mr. Abbott handed up case to Mr.
Evarts, which read that any statement made by q
witness could be contradictod aferward
Mr.. Evarts-Anything that is evidence in chief Of
course.
Judge Neilson-Whether material or not
Mr.. Evarts-It Is material in the of giving col
lateral evidence have no objection this. excepting
that the inquiries of producing independent wit
ness to speak OF the same occurrence
Judge Neilson-Yes.
Mr.. Evarts-And he must be examined the same as an
Independent witness according to the rules Of evidence
Judge Neilson-I think so. They have occasion to
lead him. Go on. Mr. Fullerton.
Mr. FuertOn-I supposed the rule was. Sir that must
repeat he language OF the witness TO be mpeached and
ask the witness upon the stand whether that language
was used
Judge Neilson-wen you may be allowed to do 80
where it is found TO be necessary.
Mr.. Fulerton-In this will put the question in
that way
Judge NeilsOn-We. go on.
Mr.. Fullerton-Tn that conversation did Mr. Beecher
say You in substance that il his Judgment that
man that was tainted IA NJ. TOn could not prop
ery be retained on such paper without doing 1t dam
age referring The dependcnt and respected The
Brooklyn UTiOn, that he thought Mr.. TtOn an imprac
cal that he not apt TO agree with parties or
with movements, except far he led them. and that
II thought that the editor OF the Republican organ in
Brooklyn he would be found to be that would get
tho paper into troubled"
Mr. Evarts-Don't answer, Mr.. Bowen.
Judge NeilsOn-I think you should first examine in the
usual form, and II you don't get the attention OF the Wit
ness 10 any such statement the correction Of any such
statement. then you may put the simple inerrogatory
Mr. Fullerton-well, Sir, that will bring stronger OBJ
lection than this one has
Judge NesOn-That may be.
Monday. following Christmas in December, 1870, advise
Won AGAINST the retention Of Mr. TltOn editor OF The
Tndependenti
Mr. Evarts-TIat I object TO- If your Honor please.
Judge Neilson-It il too leading. Did he give you any
advice upon the subject of retaining Mr. IItOn II So
WHAT
Mr. Evart=-Thc point II your Honor please, IL this ;
that this is not examination Of the Witness except III
chief He is called TO speak to an interview Of which
vi
ordinary case of a witness side speaking to an
occurrence the witness called the other side To speak
to the same il to speak 10 1t az an ndepeh
dent witness, and under the same rules OF examination
that the first witness examined The fact tiat VIII
ness has first been called side to speak concerning
an occurrence does not alter the rules OF examining
another witness who is called by the opposite
marty To speak concerning the same occurrence
IT bcino evidence in chief. All this apparatus
of questions and confinement Of contradiction to ques-
tons is based upon not evidence IN chef' OF 10 inc
merits hut collateral impeachment by out OF court I'd inc
contrary Now that Is not this case. There was al IN
teryiew between Mr. Beecher and Mr.. Bowen MI
Beecher has given his view Of 1t Mr. Bowen Is caled
here either to confirm give different view what
ever II NAV be- he in tho hands Of his counsel. ia pri-
mary Witness to be examined according to the rules OF
evidence.
Judge Neilson-very we'll That only goes TO the form
o. the question 70 nut it being conceded that it was
propcr 10 call the witness correct OF contradict the
statements.
Mr Bcach-The idea. il your Honor please, that the
contradiction of is confined to statements WHICH
he has made ont Of court rpugnant to the evidence ne
gives in court and to which his attention ia primarily
and nrciminariy called is o somewhat novel one. |
suppose we can contradict witness by proving that
statement TO which he swears Is Inaccurate
Judge Nelson Undoubtedly
Mr. Beach-Wen, sir. Mr.. Beecher upon the stand
swears that upon certain occasion, he communicated
certain thing to Mr. Bowen, the witness on the stand
We can contradict that. suppose, Sir
Judge Ncilson-Yes, Sir
Mr. Evarts-Howl BY proving what did take place
MI Beach-By proving, Sir. that no suck thing TOOK
place.
Mr. Evarts-NO. you cannot.
Mr. Beach-Yes, can do IT, and will do IT,
Judge Nesoi-Thcre is trouble about 1t, gentlemen
We have gone along upon tho theory from the FIRST and 1t
is so everywhere that when witness on one side makes
certain statements the other side may call witnesses 10
correct explain or contradict Tho only question is
whether they shall put at to Mr. Bowen, leading
questions.
Mr. Bcach-Wc Sir, how contradict land SEQ
what n dilemma you would put Us in
Judge Neson-Do it this way Ask Mr. Bowen whether
ANYTHING was said a given subject.
Mr. Beach-But Mr. B.echor to specific decara-
ton. suppose we don't want all of the conversational
Judge NcilsOn-It may not be worth taking altogether
Mr. Beach-Very well, Sir that is what We suppose,
but your H0nOrs rule, submit Of examination, would
force upon inquiry In regard to portion OF the
conversation which do not desire and which is not
necessary for the contradiction OF Nh Beecher still,
understand from my colleague, Sir that We are quite
willing 10 take that course.
Judge Ncis0n-I think you are at liberty to nerrogate
him whether anything was said upon given subject or
topic, or branch Of a subject.
Mr. Beach-Well, Sir.
Judge Noson-without indicating precisely What you
want
Mr. Fucrton-Your Honor, We all take too narrow n
view Of this question. and will state my reasons for
making that observation. II will be remembered that
Mr. Rcccher stated here in court that the cause OF his