The star. (Cincinnati [Ohio]) 1874-1875, 1875-01-22
OonsaseMts on the ton
The OBJECTS Sought, etc., etc.
NEW YORK, Jan. 20, 1875.

Correspondence of the Star.
NEW YORK, Jan. 20, 1875.
The cross-examination Of Moulton is
more a matter of theatrical effect than
anything else. There is little or nothing
in the way of evidence ELECTED from the
witness, but there is good deal that is
impressive to be elcited from the exam
iner's own eyebrows, fore-fnger, chest,
voice., and other elements Of dramatic
expression. For all this, Judge Porter
shows himself eminently gifted, and JUS
tilted the choice that had fallen upon
him.
The symmetrical countenance. that
beamed silent suavity behind Mr.. Evarts
throughout the preceding stages OF the
trial, now rises leathery pale, and gath
ers deeper blackness on its brow than
that of the dense, close moustache ON its
lip, standing out between the parchment
cheeks. like an ink splash on q drum
head.
| He confronts the witness with an ex-
preston of stern, omniscient justice in
his burning gaze and magisterial pose
more awful than Rhadumanthus, sum-
moning a speechless caitif to convection
and Judgment. Or, to use more famil-
lar similitude, it is your old-tashioned
hardshell schoolmaster, gripping bad
boy by the collar with one hand, and his
birch with the other, while he brings home
his guilt with two or three crushing
postulates, preliminary to the posterior
demonstration. And as the searching
Significance of Judge Porter's dreadful
tones brings down the question on the
witness like a thunderbolt OF doom, one
gasps involuntarily, and wonders-What
has he done? What is this black vii
lafk fn hn 6raa nf N
mouth?
10 be sure, the question doesn't
amount to much, and when answered
probably amounts to nothing. But then
the manner OF it is tremendous; and
many gaping juryman must have shud-
dered in his day, at the depravity in the
witness, disclosed by judge Porter's
enunciation of a trivial question; and
many an innocent witness must have be-
come suddenly impressed with his unfit
ness tolive any longer, without knowing
exactly why.
You see at once, therefore, that you
can not get any conception of the CROSS
examination from the tame. monotonous,
alienation of petty questions and an
swers in these printed reports, devoid of
all tragical severity-the terror of the
beak, the lightning Of the eye, and the
rest OF the stage business.
| How is the hreside reader to know, fol
| instance, when, he reads the common,
place question, "Will you swear that
you never gave him that paperW and the
still less pregnant answer, mo, sir,''
that the taint Of perjury has here been
fastened on the witness by the indescrib-
able significance with which the ques-
tion vas put. Butwhen you see 1t done
why, there is nothing more to be said
but "God have mercy on your soul!'
Saturday, however, the high style o.
| Iinquisition appears to have been judi
ciously withdrawn from the common use
and the cross examination has been con
linued all day in quiet vein, quite sat
isfactory to lovers of gossip. You have
in the full report a luxurious repast o
details of private affairs of no possible
concern to anybody but their owners, anG
hence excessively delightful to every
body else.
THE LEADING OBJECTS
so far have been these:
l. 70 elicit evidence of partiaiity to
Tilton and against Beeeher, on the part
Of their mutual friend, in refusing the
latter access to papers of his own not
withheld from the former.
| 2. 10 elicit evidence of the long and
still sustained intimacy between the wit
ness and Tilton, and even of obligations
to the latter, in contrast with the recent
and special occasion of the friendship for
Beecher and its present disruption.
8. 70 elicit evidence of quarrel, and o!
consequent animosity toward Beecher,
on the part OF witness; also, to get in Mr..
Beechers forcibly put argument for his
right to the papers.
| 4. To elicit all the money transactions
and accounts in. detail between the wit
ness and Tilton, and to connect Tilton's
Indebtedness to Moulton with the latter's
acceptance for him OF $1,000 from Beech
er, so as to show u selfish motive, or BEN
eft to Moulton, in taking the money.
insignificant as these points are in
their bearing on the substantial credi-
aility Of such testimony as Moulton's, on
ly the second and third were even par
TALLY sustained, and the others were
more ehectually than ever destroyed by
the cross-eXamination itself.
There were number OF minor objects
which | need not enumerate, as
IL do not pretend to report the
trial. Some minor points were
made in q telling manner, and per-
haps as many and as telling ones were
made boomerang fashion, i. e., on the
head Of the party making them. The
best of the FORMER was the sarcastic conn.,
Ement for (which counsel was reproved by
Judge Neilson--"We have your word
/ that you he'd"
70 say that this is
THE STRONG POINT OF THE DEFENSE
that's witness who owns he has lied is
not to be believed--is not, perhaps, to
give itimuch OF show; but l believe it
is understood to be the fact. So far, how
Fever, from appealing to the common
sense of the jury, on the question of
Moulton's eredibility against the defend
ant as affected by his confessed lie for
the defendant, they would deny the jul
risdicti0n Of common sense, and claim as
overriding it all imperative jadicialrule,
binding on the jury in spite of whatever
they might be naturally supposed to
think-probably asking a charge to that
effect from the judge, and taking an ex-
ception to be argued on appeal that the
testimony ofa witness in Moulton's po-
sition mustbe disregarded in toto,
The contest between the opposing ad-
voeates will be ON the part OF the plain
tiff, to have Moulton'S testimony weighed
by common sense, and on the other part,
to have it excluded from consideration,
in obedience TO an infiexible legal prin.
eiple. And here | observe that the tes-
timony Of the witness (Moulton) wha
must De annihilated before a verdict for
the plaintiff can be honestly refused, has
already made