New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-04-07


husbandi A. Yes, Sir
O. Now Sir In this letter-the expressions OF tns lou
ter-s there any reference which you recognized tnen
now of any special covert meanngI A. NO. Dill ""
derstood it perfectly then, and do now
O. What was your understanding Of that letter tneh
and nOwi
MIR. BEECHERs INTERPRETATION OF THE
LETTER OBJECTED 10.
Mr.. Blackwell, we object to questions OF
that kind.
Mr. Fuerton-Ths letter Is TO be translated Sir IN the
light OF events proved, and In no other way.
Judge NelsonSupposo the person 1t was written TO-
understanding a certain way, took certain step In
reference to 1t; think no might show that
Mr. Blackwell, Sir, that understanding must come
from some fact, some event.
Judge Neilson-It might come from misconcepton OF
the letter.
Mr. Blackwell, Of what consequence is that, sirf
The question s What does this letter mean-what Is It's
significance Now is that to be determined by the party
witness on the stand who receives It, or by the jury from
the language Of the letter. accompanied by such sur
rounding circumstances and facts as may DC gwen III e'
dencef
Judge Neson-It will have to go to the jury in that
light OF course but the question now Is, How dd nc u
derstand It'll
Mr. Beach-What difference does II make, Sir, how no
understands i'll The question is how Mrs. Tlton under
stood it, what did she mean by the phrases she USED In
this letteri 1t is not for this gentleman to give consru
ton to instrument and to interpret the meaning Oh
Mrs Triton himself 1t for the jury to say what the
instrument meansrst from its language, anu scconu'
from accompanying circumstances.
Judge Neison-Oh, undoubtedly.
Mr. Beach--very well, Sir do not see upon what
principle thcn your Honor shall permit TINS WITNESS W
say how he understood this letter when he received It,
Judge Neson-I think no may say how he understood
1t or misunderstood 1t, either with view 70 any suDse
quent act Of his.
Mr.. Beach-Ah! yes, Sir. II he had made reply 10
this ette IL there any act Of his which was iouhueu
upon this letter. why might be admissible In connection
with his act or with his answer.
Judge Neson-It Is immaterial unless there Is some
thing OF that kind behind.
Mr. Beach-very well, Sir; unless there Is something
Of that kind shown, Sir; and 1t Is mmateria submit II
your Honor please that 1t Is not to be received. e'
denco is in itself immateria the proposing party must
show the circumstances which render 1t MATERIAL Deoro
your Honor will admit 1t. Now submit, Sir with great
respect and with great nevertheless that
this witnesses understanding Of that letter. giving con-
structon to its phraseOlogy and mputing to MIS- Ioh
a meaning which perhaps the language itseH Will not
communicate is utterly inadmissibe.
Mr. Evarts-My learned friend Overlooks the principal
fact that the letter itself could not by any possibility DC
evidence az the mere act and meaning OF Mrs. Tilton
IL was only by its communication to Mr. Beecher that IL
comes to be IN evidence ut ALL and its significance as con-
veyng intelligence to him, and his action or MS recep
ton OF it, is the only point that can make evidence at all
against him Now no doubt the letter has nothing In IL
but the English language, and, so far as appreciate H.
IL Is as innocent letter ever was written put 'eto
is proposition that there is an equvoca acoVer' NEAR
ing reference TO private yet common intelligence be-
tween Mr. Beecher and herself that carried an express
sion that Is ncupatory Of the two parties IN respect
To their relations; to tho familiar phrase that IL Is
letter which is be read between the lines Now, pro
pose by the party who Is to be affected by such an i
putaon drawn Of the fact that it bears and carries
such an import not be treated its innocent express
CO. that he is entitled to say whether or no here
was any such meaning conveyed to his mind or how he
understood it; and your Honor, believe, accords that
right
Mr. Beach-NOt yet; he has not. Now, disagree Win
entirely, Sir in the proposition that this letter
becomes evidence, and significant only from the manner
i'm which 1t was understood and received by the party 10
whom it was addressed That is not the question, sr
To be sure the letter. the act OF Mrs Tton Is only
made evidence by the circumstance that 1t was com
municated to- made known Mr. Beecher, addressed
to and received by him. but the important question con
neced with the letter is what were the sentiments
Mrs. TiltOn as expressed represented in the letter, a.
to Mr. Beecher not how he understood IL
Sir not how he felt when he received It, but now Mrs
Titon felt and her feelings at the time, as
ton And now this gentleman, when no received that
letter. may give any act Of his. suppose, Sir, he might
give any expression OF dissent appreciation which was
uttered at the time received the letter part OF the
act.
Judge Neilson-Of receiving IL.
Mr. Beach-Iut for him o witness to express what ht
understood by the language in the letter and to give
and effect, submit to Honor Is mad
missibe And perhaps the statement have made would
go SO far this, toward admission, and perhaps II
may accomplish the object OF my learned riend 10 say
by this Witness what he felt what he expressed In re
gard to the letter when received do not believe
Sir It IL evidences think 1t Is violation OF principle
there overt act some declaration ut th'
tme connected with the act Of receptions submit there
is principle upon which his Oh the letoe
can be made admissible.
Judge Neilson-was there any act connected with this
letter
The Wltness-Yes Sir
Mr.. Beach-It is suggested by my friend-which dit
not remember at the time-the fact
Mr. Fuerton-Thus far in this discussion. Sir we have
lost sight of the that there answer TO this letter
from Mr. Beecher to Mrs. Tilton in evidence, and sup
DOSE that his Interpretation OF that letter to be gathered
from what he wrote ut the time, and not from anything
that he may utter now Your Honor will bear in MIND
Sir that Immediately after giving that letter In evidence
the reply was proved and read and although there
il no date to the reply yet there is an internal commune
cation or correspondence between the two productions
which shows that the one is an answer to the other
Mr.. Evarts-That only shows the greater importance
OF ascertainng whether this note conveyed to Mr
Beccher any covert secret meaning.
Mr. Fuerton-My reply to that is that his answer al
the time will show how he appreciated 1t and how ht
translatedit.
Mr. Evarts-That answer is in evidence; that we shall
deal with when We take 1t up. What understand you
claim Ia answer.
Mr. Fulerton-But our claim Is that they should dea
with i, alone in order to get his views Of what tn,
meaning of that letter was
Judge Neilson--Certainly; both papers ought to bt
taken together.