New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-06-24

wbere tberc wns irrecOncilabe conflict between the
former evidence OF these parties and that given oy Mr.
Tracy or any other person. It was utterly unnecessary
and inadmissIbIe 70 recall those witnesses.
Mr. shearman-One moment, with your permission
One word-Mr Beach kindly permits me- TO say worn.
The point of 1t Is this your Honor, that MI moutoh anu
Mr. Titon had neither OF them sworn on Ner uirocs
original eyidence-inchef that tho charge made W MI
Tracy was Auditory therefore Mr. Tracy was not contra
dieting Mr. Mouon and Mr. Tilton. and when they were
recalled they would have contradcted Mr.. Tracy upon
that new Issue as to them. which they did not 40.
Mr. Morris-Mr. Bcecher eontrasicted Mr. Mou'on'
Mr. Beach, have read, Sir the evidence OF Mr. Moul-
ton and II that il not clear stiirnance OF comnu
cation TO Mr. Tracy OF the charge OF adultery, why am
unable to understand force aud effect and II by any
sophistry equivocaton my learned rienuS eau a'ou
the force OF that proof will refer for moment-ho
will not gentemen-to tho evidence or MI woodruff DC
cause II conceded you remember that no swore tha
before the communication between the three, az houi
toms house, in private interview between Mr.. tracy
and Mr. Woodruff Mr. Woodruff then informed MI Tracy
that the charge adultery.
Mr.. sbearman--That Mr.. Woodruff did. but MT. Wood
ruff does not swear Mr. TtoD did no one has sworn
That
Mr. Beach-well IL it necessary. my friend 10 repeat
what you have said omphatically several tmes
uaughterJ Any reasonable interruption am willing to
submit TO- But this theory OF professional conduct ana
OF clients privilege upon which the excuse OF MT tracy
Is founded commendabe admissiblef II Mr. Tracy ID
employed by man who Ia accused Of mansaughter, ana
his client reveals to him al the circumstances OF 'he
npon which the Indictment rests, and nap
pons (as it has frequently happened that that ndic
ment ia withdrawn, and q one for homicide pre-
scnted would Mr. Tracy feel himself at liberty !"
testify against his client and reveal what had pooh
communicated to him while he was defendhS MN oi
the lesser ofense And II you reverse the PROPOSE
ton and IL client Gas very often happens to be the case
nf
turn out to be different if he has consciousness Oh
weakness and wrong and conceas the truth OF us cas
and the LAWYER discovers It. can he abandon his clients
cause and testify to what his client told him while the re-
lation OF attorney and client exists
Mr. Shearman-well, Mr. Beach
Mr. Beach-We in the name OF heaven, talk until you
get tired
Mr. Shearman-well. II your Honor please, 1t Is a mat
tor in which am Mr. Beach will bear with me on
account of the relations involved. think my learned
friend is entirely mistaken in assuming for moment
that tho relation of attorney and client was even claimed
to exist between Mr. Tilt0n and Mr. Tracy.
Mr. Beach, did not assume it, and have not dis
oussed 1t upon that ground.
Mr. shearman-I was going to say one thing more
Mr.. Beach-Well.
Mr. shearman-That the decision Of your Honor admit
ting the evidence OF Mr. WOodruf[cOnfuson in the a-
dence should like to know your Honor whether inc
gentlemen upon other side to be allowed to speak
and YOUR Honor is not DO allowed to hear me. The
audience seem to think that they are the best judges or
when you should hear the counsel and when not was
going say your Honor that you were asked to decide
that the evidence Of Mr. Woodruff was admissible upon
the express ground that In this interview Mr. Tracy rep
resented Mr. Beecher, and there as Mr. Beeohors
representative and attorney and on that ground the evil
dence was admitted and that alone.
Mr.. Morris-Are you through, nowf
Mr. shearman-Thereforo Mr. Tracy was, from the ba
ginning. Mr. Beechers representative aud attorney, and
not Mr.. Tlton's.
Mr. Morrs-Are you through nowi
Mr.. Shearman-I am through.
Mr. Beach, have not argued Sr-I think have too
much good sense to argue that this evidence shows any
such relation as that OF attorney and client between MI
Tracy and Mr. TitOn. But docs Mr.. Tracy place him
self upon that narrow and fine distinctions Does the
lawyer who comes into the presence OF an adversary
party and pledges that party his word and honor that
he will not DO engaged in any future litigation between
the conesng parties against the one with whom ne con-
suts-can no receive the communication of the secrets
Of that opposite party. and aterward disclose them
without depth of personal disgrace and professional
namy against which the highest in the land could not
stand against indignant and outraged profession
(Applause
Judge Neilson-Gentlcm"n. you must be quiet