New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-02-10

A"'b"""e
| with any Of mine; that Is all.
Mr. EvartsNo, will take care OF that now pro
| pose to read the omission.
| Judge Neson-I think you may proceed.
Mr. Fucron-I your Honor please let understand our
selves exactly What this paper that they show to the wit
which they call the Catherine Gaunt letter. stated 10
be part Of the statement Of Mr. Thon which was sworn Z"
and which went before the Committee; but that Is q
bare statement OF counsel; 1t Is not proved In the
case yet, 10 be part OF the case and OF winch
action DO predcated Now until that Is put IN
evidence that fact will appear why, matter Of
cannot take IL for granted, simply because Is as
the Catherine Gaunt letter part OF tha
statement and that that is here in Court Mr. Maverick d
make copy OF Mr. Ttons statement but Is this part Of
| the copy OF which Mr. Titon speaks Mr. haSenck
may have made than lie may for some psrpose OF
his have made another copy. We know ho'nng
upon that subject ALL Now, surely your Honor would not
permit them point out discrepancies between this paper
which they have hand and the witness statement without
laying foundation for such proof because Is undoubtedly
OBJECT the other side to hold Mr. Ton responsible Tor
| some kind OF change In that document
Mr. Eyarts-We certainly do.
Judge Neison also been stated that 1t was sworn
| statement Have we any such statement before US
Mr. Fuleron-Not at all, and that is what am speaking
about now There Is such statement before the Court at
| ALL
Jadge Ncison-rhen 1t Is improper to speak OF IL as
| sworn statement
Mr. Fullerton-It Is now proper to speak OF a. sworn
statement and is improper speak Of it as his statement
that Mr. Maverick copied until are informed OF that TACT IN
| the proper way.
Mr. Beach-They do not show the statement here that Mr.
Maverick copied
Mr. Fueon-No they produce some loose leaves part OF
what they call statement and ask In whose handwriting
It's That ia as far they have gone. The statement Is
either DO In evidence, out OF evidence one or the
| other.
Mr. Eyars-Now your Honor please the point OF imputa
ton L. this and Is very serious one The point Oh impna
ton is that Mr. Triton has presented before the Committee Of
| the church.
The WitnessThat identical letter you hold in you hand the
| original manuscript carried 1t there.
Judge Neilson-One moments don't interrupt the counsel
Mr. Eyars-And published in the manner letter
wife, presented vital point affecting her. that Is not
letter OF his wife, but the omission OF the part omitted changes
its sense and effect. Now. that is the mputation.
Judge Neilson-Now, the question Is whether In order to
support suggestion not necessary for you TO produce
the statement which, Is said has been sworn TO- 80 may
| be compared with the letter
Mr. Eyars-Now all that propose to poduce-and that
will do fairness to the witness that he may give any expa
nation that In advance Of the reading OF the
true letter. Of scrutiny Of the difference, OF how there
happened be that omission hand him printed book con-
tanning that letter. and ask bis attention to that letter. ana
nothing else as thus printed and he he cannot be espo
sbe for the print then hand him the letter. and nothing
else as In the handwriting OF his amanuenss and as laid De-
fore the Committee That Is the letter. do not want any
thing to do with his statement
Mr. Fueron- appear that that letter was before
the Committee.
Mr. Ryars-And then ask him whether that letter purpor
10 be whole letter. thus written, and contains any
indication of omission, to get rid Of any difficulty about
printing; and 1 understand the witness that II
does not he has given statements that he observed
or may have observed sometime or other, that there
was difference the Catherine Gaunt letter as printed
and the Catherine letter written by his wfe ana
that he sent 1t over The Graphic he thinks to be ltho
graphed he first stated 1t autographed in the Grph
az supposed he remembered but now he does not remen
Der that was Autographed, but that ne sent 1t, and
! supposes, no doubt that 1t was. Well, whether II
was Autographed will appear from The Graphic itself
whenever we look back Now, reading as is my right
the true letter by his wife, and have right as seems to me-
TO show every publication of that hitherto under the supervision
Of that witness any degree has omitted this passage and
sacrificed in so far the uhfuness Of this letter. and then the
magnitude Of sacrifice will appear by comparing the letter
as printed and used with the letter written by the WIFE
udpe Neison-You right to read the letter. but the
production OF the statement itself necessary to support
your suggestion Of discrepancy the production Of the etter
| itself would be.
Mr. Eyars-ow does your Honor mean as to the produc-
statement otherwise than OF the manuscript eWer
| contained in the statement!
Judge Neson-Hee is detached leaf written by the same
party 1t said does appear that IL part OF the
statement may have been incorrectly written don't see
how you institute comparison between the letter and the
without both being here Inc presence OF ONO 10 10
| necessary as the presence Of the other.
Mr. Eyarts-I understand your Honor perhaps to lay down
some proposition that may necessarily observed but whether
been abused is the question 1t Is not certainly
necessary wish compare letter contained in publ
cation for which this witness is responsible, with letter
written show the difference that should use the statement
In the of IT, because have nothing to do with that
Judge Nelson-You have right to show that he published
| II untruy doubt about that
Mr. Eyars-Now your Honor thinks that on the present
proof concerning the statement already in, that does not
| appear
| Judge Nelson-so II strikes me, Sir.
Mr. Evarts-well that we alre ty have In
The Witness-Mr. Eyars may borrow the manuscript q
| momentt
Mr., Evars-Ceranly [Ianding witness Mr.. Mavericks
| copy.l
The Wtness-I mean the latter.
| Mr. Eyarts-The letter itself.
| The Wtness-Yes Sir.
| Mr. Evarts-Yes. Handing the witness the letter
The Witness-My impression Is that those little marks
top show that it has Autographed in The GfAic office,
feel morally certain Of at the time will not swear
| toH.
Mr. Evarts-wen, don't know, OF course. The Graphic
| will speak for itself whether it is Autographed.
| The Witness-Yes, Sir.
Mr. EysrtsNow look at that letter and say whether you
eye that manuscript which place your hands to be the
manuscript the letter presented before the Commit
teei
| Mr. Fullerton-Tha we object TO.
| The Witness-I presented
Mr. Fullerton-Just moments we OBJECT TO III ne asks
for the mere belief of this witness to matter
hs, can be certainly proved satisfactorily BY he state
ment itself,
Judge Neilson-He should ask II he knows
Mr. Evas-Wel do you know believe. have right ID
! either.
Mr. Fullerton-You have right TO put II either way
| Mr. Evars-Yes; and have right TO an answer
Mr. PullertonAnd have right to object before You get It.