New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-01-28

thought i was necessary to take advice aud that did not
| Tracy"
appears sufficiently that that this interview between
Mr. Tracy and Mr. Mouon and Mr. Woodruff acquiesced
and recommended by Mr. Beecher HIMSELF and Mr. Mopl
ton went to that interview representing the interests
| OF MI. Beecher, for whom he acting not for
| himself Upon what subject was he to take advice
What was the business that led 10 the consultation Of
Gen Tracy' Why Sir II the business OF Mr. Beecher
was for the purpose OF getting advice from wise and sod
gentleman recommended by Mr. Bceche upon that busne
and when Mr. Moulton went TO that interview, he went
as the accredited agent Of Mr.. Beecher for that
| purpose. and consulted with the recommended
| by Mr. Woodruff and approved by Mr.. Beecher;
and whatever occurred in that interview communicated to
Mr. Beecher and whether communicated yet in
terew between his authorized agent hold with the parties
with whom it held. Independent OF that Sir have
shown otherwise that Mr. Tracy assumed 10 represent
| the interest Of Mr.. Becchcr in his interviews with
Mr.. Mouon. But, Sir II Iir. Bcccher had been
at that Interview why OF could prove It
red Not having been present far in this examination you
have admitted the details OF that interview they
nicsed to Mr. Beccher and you have held matter Of
law, It undoubtedly Is the law, that that interview
having been communicated TO Mr. Beecher, il becomes
evidence against him. Well it is sad by my learned
friend there quite difference between detailing what tran
spred interview to Mr. Bcecher and proving the facts
which occurred at that interview Well that results il your
Honor please think in this very dilemma from the Of
proof to which your Honor has restricted IN the proving OF
those communications. suppose ordinary and orderly
mode Of proof would have been have given evidence by Mr.
Mouon Of the facts the details OF Conversations occurring at
that interview and then proving that they communicated
Mr. Beeche Your Honor has directed the Subsequent order
! OF proof -
| Judge NcilsOn-As matter Of economy.
Mr. BcachYc9, Sir matter Of economy but mus, not
result when cndcayorng economic time in the
vera Of principal OF law and Of evidence. MIR Bcccer
having been made Of that interview and OF the facts that
asprcd there all that occurred becomes evidence against
him Was not communicated to hmY Mr. MOulton swears
was precisely The then If Mr.. BeecheF had
been tranpoed that very interview and hal heard all that
occurred and all that communicated to him by Mr. Mou
ton Now, if he is charged with the eject Of that inter
view have right prove by ordinary and
Of evidence? I, to b. raid that restricted 10
the witness MIR Moulton who made the communication TO
| Mr.. Beechcr'
| Mr. Eyarts-I have not said that
Mr. Beach-Yes sir but certainly that is the effect Of the
argument OF tine gentleman.
Mr. Eyorts sld You could not prove BY Mr. MOnton,
! and you not allowed 20 prove 1t.
Mr. Beach-Could prove by Mr. Moulon' Did not
! prove ii by Mr Mouiony
Mr. Eyars-No in the least You proved wha Mr. M1ulton
| told Mr. Bccchcr
Mr. Bcach-And Mr. Motlton swcars that that was what
| trans p.Icd q that interview
! Mr. tts-No; what he odd Nj B-cchcr tran-pirrd
! MIR Tracy to Mr. B,acll-No; he has said that.
| Nj Eynts-IIc not allowed - Sir
Judge Nci son- would have been allowable The orl,r OF
proof my suggestion. II seemed awae Of time 70 have
the witness stats what occurred at The interview and then that
he afterwards repeated 10 Mr. Bcechr being restlcmcnt
Of the same thing and simply with that view economy the
witness M Suggestion, proceeded at to state what oc-
cured with sir Bcscher on tue subject.
Mr. BcachIha question the 10 which have read
in part was: Nov what did yon to Mr. Ecrchcr which
had been stated Il" you" That is. Al That interview.
Mr Eyaus-Staiel to 'r Bcochcs'
| Judge Nclson-Yc4.
Nj Beach rcadn-l We'll stated 10 Mr Bo.chcr what
! had been stated TO at that Interview"
| Mr. Eyars-1lat j. whit he stated.
Mr. Certainly il is what be stated but IT contains the
affirmation tina, What he stated was what Lad stated
him al t!Al interview The question H. IN company with
your partner A. WtAmy partner; ye. Sr; aad Did him
what Ian>pircd that interview between Mr Woodruff Gen.
Tracy and my self" Now. the gentleman sag that
what Mr.. Mouon stated to Mr. B"cchcr Mr. Moulton
| did affirm stated TO him 1T that interview
Your Honor has held could prove occurred that
interview because stated 70 Mr. Bccchcr. and
adopted rejected y him. might be II adopted,
then he adopted that interview occurred end a. stated by
him. and Sr NoultOI having stated occurred there stated,
again question which gentleman Gays hc did not
popouud as proposition whether is possible
prove the terms Of interview stated by E Beecher by
additional evidence
MI Eyars-We have never objected TO that evidence What
you prove witness you by two, suppose
bu you Prove b. either submit. The whole
point your Honor please Of narrative made to Mr. Heecher
affect him by Ais response nswcr to IT, Iha response
or answer comes az his action upon what s narrated
10 him II is falsely narrated il such thing ever
took place nevertheless the purpose OF being the
mmunclion made to him. upon which his response, which
to him. made Whcacycr you undertake TO carry
into that communication affecting him, his hearing It,
and responding IT, being silent, the case may be-
| you undertake prove the fact that did Occur in
| a meeting at which he not present to which
| he not party then you have gained
no right to prove q matter which occurs without his
being party it, simply because you have narrated 20 him
the occurrence What affects him his receipt ~ the Traton
aud not its truth, or the fact Then supposnS happened
Otherwise than narrated 1t is only what passes to MI
Beecer that becomes The subject Of evidence affecting him.
Now let look the other proposition that Nr Tracy stands
in this conference Of three il MIR Becce there or that
what it must come to- and what edcrce That Mr.
Mouon said Produce Exchange people had criticised
Lin aud his firm in reference this Woodruff publication and
his MOuoI ~ connection with it, and tina HIS partners thought
that something ought to be done about IT, en- some consua-
ton to be had about il; and he tod Mr.. 8eecher that
Mir Tracy would a good consult with, and that in
consulting with he would have tel hin the truth Very
well this affects Mr. Bsecher and Mir Beecle says he is very
good man to consul Now when those gentlemo0 in
behalf OF their relation to the matter, taking
consultation with MI Tracy, does that make
Mr. Tracy the substitute for Mr. Bcecier? Why, he
was their own man. picked by themselves talk with in
reference their relations the matter and Mr. Beecher
told by Mr Mouton nd the pregnancy Of , that he
would tell Mr. Tracy the truth Nj Beecher had no
objection his telling him the truth. That don't follow
that what he did tell him affected Mr.. Beecher as il
it had been told to NJ. Bseches himself, and
yet it that else Mr. Tcy there does
not affect Mr. Beccher at ALL 1t is appas, nt Mr. Mouons
testimony that Mr. Tracy had paid him; he not in
the relation OF lawyer employed by Mr. Beechc lawyer
employed by Mr. Moulton, Mr. Robinson He only the
intelligent and experienced lawyer brought into consultations
but IN the matter that consultation for the interest Of Mr.
Mouon and ofr Robinson might be necessary to tell him