New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-01-30
MR.. EVARTSi REPLY.

Mr. Evaus-Tle aversion that my learned friend
ayows this money action by husband respecting the honor
Of his wife aversion that is shared by the law, and by
morals and By society And, what my learned friend well
understands and your Honor, it tolerated in the
remedies OF jurisprudence upon its own motive for
its own sake twas in the system Of the judicial procedures
Of the country from which take law, only step Of
sincere and honest investigation before jury Of the fact be
cause the final remedy Of the law which gave for tins great
cause, divorce could only be exered BY Para
mcnt; not upon petitions or examinations in com
mittce rooms and by confessions and collisions
but what the law regarded open sincere investigation
Of the fact which the husband governed by every condera
ton that should withhold him he not sincere, mpecd to
il bv 10 possibility motive except the requirements Of the
law that forbade his divorce except by this public demonsta
ton of the reality Of the crime should before jury and in the
form Of an action against the njur Of his domestic peace
abish the fact in order that Parliament might grant him
divorce upon that established fact.
And when English law gave ordinary Judicial inquiries
the method and the result Of dvOe upon judicial nvestga
ton it suppressed the niQuy and the disgrace Of the action
for criminal conversations permitted husband who did not
pursue his wife with the honest purpose Of divorce open his
mouth raise his hand against her in any Of justice
permitted only union of correspondent, the decever
a part Of the procedure Of divorce, and
cudcd husband who " had condoned his wifcs fault"
and so never could be heard ask fort divorce raising
the question OF inquiry proof against any alleged deceyc
And now it is the credit Of Jurisprudence and the
now tor long time courts have had this jurisdiction Of
divorce criminal conversation have disappeared from
the annals Of law except In the very lower ranks Of life and
under the grave suspicion that It for lucres sake
that the action brought Aud why No longer necessary
by system OF law that made the nyc seaon useful or i'm
poant towards divorce the sincerity Of husband did
not desire divorce and yet did desire money vengeance (
my learned friend has scruped 10 call the motive Of this &c
tom not treated by the law as consistent with the morals
Of society or with the purposes Of the administration
Of justice. The solemn, the universal Injunction Of
the law 10 a husband who finds fault thus In nj,
wife is that he shall then speak forever after hold
his tongue and he pirons and the embraces Of
marriage. Court hears hs further complaint any desire Of
separation from his wife. In England the fact closes
inquiry in every FORM concerning the fact thus buried forever
and destroyed
Now your Honor plonse in all that had say concerning
the presentation Of this plaintiff witness prove wife
adultery spoke wholly upon the prime the theory law
and society him the benefit Of the proposition the basis
Of the argument that be coming here prove thing
and that Unjust be ASSUMED for the purpose Of Argument
your Honor that What proof he gave would direc
ton. aud might produce thai result And ssrne tona