New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-04-29

i u
word Of truth In 1t, from beginning to end.
Judge Neilson-That Is the reason they going TO
examine the witness in regard to II. suppose.
Mt EvartsTha does not exclude evidence that 1t Is
not true
Mr. BeachYes, Sir 1t does unless it Ia sworn to and
verified by some other mode than Mr.. Tracys simple
utterance counsel.
Mr. Evarts-We will not press this at present, Mr..
Tracy l will take up n matter that can dispose OF
within few minutes, and about which there is doubt
MORE PICKERING OVER THE TESTIMONY.
Q. Do you remember in August, 1874, an
interview between yourself and Mr. Moulton which has
been made the subject OF evidence in regard to obtain
ing the documents from him for Mr.. Beccheri A. That
was in July, Mr.. Eyarts.
@. July, yes the interview was in July, but the
answers did not come think until early in August A.
No. Sir.
q. viii you please state how that arOsef
Mr.. Beach-Can you refer to where that is mentoned
Mr.. Evarts Ito the ssl-What occurred between
You and Mr. Moultoni
The Witness-Mr. Beach is looking for the evidence.
Mr.. Beach-Wait "A moment, Sir.
Judge Neson-If 1t application for the papers
on behalf OF Mr.. Bcecher, OF course you can show It,
Mr.. Evars-Yes Mr.. Moulton gives the interview be-
tween Mr. Tracy and himself, and / will examine Mr.
Tracy as TO that.
@. Now, how did that arise and what occurrcdf A.
Q. That is the letter OF July "a, is it A. Yes, Sir.
O. Which is in evidence A. Which Is in evidence. l
am not that occurred the day OF
date OF that letter. it either occurred that day or
day or two afterwar could tell. probably, If knew
the day Of the week that the oath But took let
tel
Mr.. Beach (still searching the record wait moment.
Mr.. Evarts-Do you find 1t
Mr.. Beach-Yes, Sir; find it. but it is upon crossex
animation
Mr.. Evarts-Well
Mr.. Beach-Welli
Judge Neilson-Necessarily it was on the cross-ex-
animation II in reference to Mr. Beoohers seeking
To get the papers.
Mr.. Beach-Certanly. Sir.
Judge Neilson-Now. it is perfectly competent to show
that Tracy behalf Of Mr. Bcecher went with one
of those letters and sought to get the papers.
Mr.. Bcach-That is in proof.
Nr. Eyarts-But Mr. Ioulton's statement Of any con-
versaton transaction, that drew out cross-ex-
animation does not preclude from giving what occurred
by another witness. II is not collateral.
Mr.. Beach Ny friend will modify that statement for
it certainly does in regard to matters. The qes
ton whether this is collateral material to the ISSUE
Mr.. Evarts-Wcl assume that it Is not collateral
Mr. Beach, don't know why you should assume that
Mr.. Evarts-Iiow is il collatcrali
Mr. Beach-IIow Is 1t material, between Mr.. Tilt0n
and Mr. Beecher, that Mr. Beccher applied to Mr.. Mou-
or that he did give heIni
Mr. Eyarts-It certainly not collateral ip the OF
being to the subject the issue IL is not in
the nature of a collateral Impeachment 1t may DO sub
ordinate it certainly IL not collateral.
Mr.. Beach-Well the counsel makes distinction, very
refined and mystical between collateral and subOrdi
nate This is collateral. Sir in legal phraseology be
cause it does not bear directly upon the merits OF the
ISSUE and whatever does not is collateral in the sense OF
the law.
Mr. Evarts-wel the only question is this whether, in
the line ths controversy their giving evidence as TO
Mr. Beechcrs Of conduct in regard to suppressng
or shaping directing Investigations, representations
explanations is not collateral 1t il not collateral
1t bearing upon the direct issue of the adultery by
showing, in the nature of confession or conduct that
which implies guilt. Otherwise we have no space In
our record all this evidence that has been given
running through the West charges and variety OF other
matter That il what mean by saying that it is not col
lateral although IL may be subordinate and may be I'M
important or important IA the examination may show
Now this was one things done On ss-examina
ton Mr.. Mouton, or there was drawn from
Mr. MOuon certain view Orrect IN part, or III whole
if You pleasc-c0nccrning that interview and his
dealing with this matter. Now there is nothing in the fact
that took examination his testimony that pre-
vents me from proving by another witness who knows
what really occurred what did and qualifying or
fatty contradcting his view Of the matter II IL not as
if had asked him question derogatory to his character
on cxtfaneOus matters. There / take the answer OF
course That is what understand to be the legal sense
of "coatera" II my friend insists that he is more cor
rect regard to the phrase than am. we won't dispute
aboutit this belongs the issue and Is one OF tho
elements and chains Of evidence; and propose to show
how
IMr Abbott here made Il suggestion To Mr.. Eyarts
MI EvartsIf it in any shape ms outside of the
issne why il wOnld be question of bias, and the con
duct of witness in respect bias collateral in the
sense that you cannot contradict him Bias. then. be-
comes matter to be provedo wit it belongs to this
issue it belon - to this bearing upon the qes
ton Of whether he has espouscd side or the
oh her. acted with hostility and injustice toward
the other party that IT, in that sense it is collateral
WHY bias can always be shown. and not concluded
by the wnesss statement concerning his bias
Nj Beach-Upon the question of bias your Honor has
ruled and law undoubtedly is, that in IN attempt to
show hostility unrcndmess of feeling on the part OF
a witness you can merely ask in general terms with re-
gard its existence you cannot 30 into the details OF
any dculty transaction between the witness and the
party against whom he appears for the purpose draw
ing an inference establishing conclusion Of enmty-
50 that il necessary in that view to consider the
question presented your Honor because this was an
application for letters, copies OF letters, to
which il is supposed Mr. Beecher was enti-
tied from Moulton as the trustee and deposi-
tory In whose hands they had been placed.
II Is that Mr. Moulton refused It, 1t Is provenby him,
it proven by the correspondence between the parties,
it proven by them orally and in writing and therefore,
so far as thai indicates any nnfrendness enmy
IL is proven and proven far it can be properly
proven under the rule Now, how does the conversation
between Mr.. MOulton and Mr.. Tracy, which they drew
out on the crosse xamnation how does that become
teria any sense to this issuci Mr. Tracy represent
ing Mr. Bcecher applies TO Mr. Moulton for copies OF
these documents. Mr. Moulton makes certain declara-
tons in regard TO the propriey Of delivering them, and
his views Of the honorary obligation which rests upon
him. Mr.. Tracy, representing Mr.. Beecher, combats
these views and perhaps makes some very forcibe and
striking suggestions Mr.. Mouton in regard to his