New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-03-17
ARGUMENT OF MR.. BEACH.

Mr. Beach-Will your Honor permit me TO sug
gcst you given in evidence certain proceedings
before the Church regard to Mr. Vests charges We have
given other proceedings The record OF those proceedings
has been presented TO your Honor and there has been
paro evideuce Of the action that was taken upon
several occasions upon the charges presented by
Mr. West Mr. Bell, also, has gwen considerable
evidence upon the subject by paro Now upon what
principle the defendants permitted give in evidence the
proceedings Of ymouh Church. OF its officers or mem
bes upon other occasions than those 10 whch we nave
directed attention
Mr. Morrs-And at those Nj Beecher was present. Mr.
Beecher participated in those.
Mr. Beach-Oh! well, think we have given evil
deDce think Of proceedings of the meetings of the
dcacons or the examining Committee when Mr. Becher
not present though any material extent Our evidence
confined mostly 10 the action which was taken,
the non-action, the action which refused upon
the West charges and nothing else Our examination
has been confined that, and l ask your Honor 10
rule OF evidence the defendants liz
that proof give testimony Of the general action Of
the Church, its udcato upon the subject Of this scandal
upon the subject Of the West charges that presents different
consideration which viii attend TO If II ever arises but
upon the general action Of the Church manfeng general
disposition upon the OF the congregation or its officers
upon general subject Of this scandal why submit with
great confidence your Honor that Is nadmissibe We
present. have given evidence 10 which that sort
OF proof will be a legitimate True Sir have by
proof attempted make the mputaon upon Mr. Beecher
that he was depressing examinbtion but is not by
general evidence is by proof Of specific instances Of
specific Of specific declarations made by Mr. Beeches all
which could give in evidence Your Honor has already
they this class Of proof by evidence
OF other declarations other times 10 which we have not d
rected attention and in the absence Of Mr. Tton. And
this proof now proposed under the
principle and is liable the objection.
We given authenticity to those acts proceedings Of
the officers Of that Church. which they
propose gve have referred that any mode
have hat he
as TO the general subject Of this scandal and the
action Of the Church in regard to it, has MOI
been introduced by in any form. 1t is only
the West charges and the proceedings Of Mr. Beecher
with reference these specific charges TO which have Ill
Teced proof and again repeat 10 your Honor that it is
sub,ec which ought to be- think conside red with deb
Grafton whether receive the general action Of this
church and It's membe. with reference these general charges
1t opens a pretty wide issue
judge Neon-No the general action OF the church. and its
members butthe Official act of the church as corporation
Nj Beach-Very we'll Sir what have We to do with the
spa acts Of the Church corporation We have do with
the action Of Mr. Beache with the action Of tine Church,
except 30 for have gone into it in con-
nection with the action Of MI. Beecher. That is all
the proof have given and that is all the materially
action Of that Church has the issue in that
hy give the declarations OF Mr. Beecher upon any
other occasion that we have referred 10.
Judge Neilson-Oh that is Of course.
MI BeachYour Honor has already ruled that Well upon
what principle, Sir do you allow them TO give the
declarations the officers Of his Church. his undeng
In that nsuton-yes underings aud Extensively, either
Sir rather compliment be underling TO the greatest
man on the face Of the earth! ILaughter
The Wness-Itis
Mr. Beach-Ispeak it in offensive sense Sir
Judge Nelson Well the question is whether the distinction
this regard between generally which might ndcule the
members Of the Church the other hand
acts any official which indicates the action Of the Church
Itself and would bind the Church
Mr. Beach-The Church. Sir, not sontesting this
issue with the Church; is not the action Of the
Church its officers, which is 70 give character and
complexion this trial It IS the action Of Mr. Beecher and
Mr. Beecher alone and his action could neither be excused
or coloed by the action Of his Church. charge him
With an attempt to suppress all notice OF this scandal
,,on his own action, upon his individual declara-
s mon the course Of conduct which he personally pur-
"a and we have not attempted TO charge him
,h the action of the Church, except so far as he
-, d,ec,Iv aud Immediately though the proof which we
- osyep cxerted himself TO control that action Now 1t
n me- Sir the most monrons proposition, that when
an ssne between individuals, and when Mr. Beecher is
~ h iudgd by his own declarations and acts and nothing
a monsrous proposition that the action OF hs Chuch
n the general subject OF this scandal the Church IN
u. Official character its judicaores can De gwen
D. bear upon the between these TWO private
and IL suggested Sir what limit will there be 10 this Hne Vi
cuyf II the gentleman give the action OF tue E1a
Committee or the Board Of Deacons In any Of the ios
al e yoly binders them from proving also 'nai 'hee