The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1875-02-11
Gen. Roger A. PRYOR.

The Brooklyn correspondent of the Cincin-
natl Commercial, gives the following descrip-
ton Of Gen. r. A. Pryor, as he entered upon
the discussion of the question of the admissa-
bility Of Mr.. Tilton's evidence in the Beecbe--
Tilton scandal now in progress in Brooklyn
Mr. Evarts had just concluded an elaborate ar
gu,nent against the proposition to admit Til
toms testimony, and Mr.. Pryor was apppoin-
ted to reply to him. The correspondent says !:
There was great curiosity to hear this noted
soldier Of the gray, editor and duelist, who has
sat here day after day so patiently and quietly
during the long period of the trial. Pryor made
his formal bow to the Court and began. He at
once made Il good impression, his voice was
clear and rotund, and he had but slight Virgin
ianism of pronunciation. He spoke with much
earnestness and intensity, and his evolutionary
effects were impressive. This was his first
great opportunity since he came to New York,
and it was to Evarts to whom he was about to
reply. Evidently he felt that the country had
its eye on him, that history was gazing at him,
that Virginia and Bceehers church, and the
American bar would pronounce Judgment on
him, As ne began, his broad, deep. full voice
produced effects strangely different from those
just made by the high pealing tones OF Evarts,
which seemed to be still echong through the
| Courtroom. He opened by saying he was
about to speak OIL dry, technical question Of
law, and should urge no topic not bearing di-
rectly on the solution Of the problem This was
a cold blow at the retiring Evarts, who had dis
| cussed the metaphysics of marriage and the
philosophy of society. He proceeded at once
to show how by the current of legislation in
Great Britain and this country, during the last
| half century, the competency Of witnesses had
been constantly extended till the present time,
when a party to a trial is allowed to testify in
| his own behalf in this State. It is by the New
York law Of 1887 that this plaintiff is allowed to
| tell his own sad story Of wre.ehedness and
wrong. He here occupied an hour in reading
and commenting upon such decisions in law
books as were applicable to this case. He ar
gued that by principle as well as by authority,
by precedent as well as by reason, by the act OF
1867 as well as by the decisions under it, the
plaintiff i'll this case is proper witness on this
trial. Yet Notwithstanding the uniform cur
rent of tradition and legislation in extending
the range of evidence and admitting witnesses
previously excluded, Notwithstanding his DEM
onstrstion that by the law Of 1867 the plaintiff
is competent witness on his behalf, we are
confronted with argument on the other side.-
He assaled the absurdity and barbarous jargon
of the old common law which excluded such a
witness as this in a case like the present. P1y.
or was Just about to read some additional pre-
cedents from a law-book in his hands, when
one of his colleagues called his attention to the
fact that the hour of adjournment had arrived !;
he abruptly closed for the day his argument
but it will be renewed to-morrow-and the
Clerk, in sharp voice, announced the adjourn
ment.
Mr.. Pryor, during his hours speech, had dis
played force and energy almost equal even to
his colleague, Mr.. Beach. In several passages
he showed the effects of his literary tastes and
editorial experience, but he occasionally con
fused his sentences, SO that he had to retrace
his steps and his voice, which was from the
first used to its utmost powers, soon became
husky.