New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-03-19
ARGUMENT OF MR.. BEACH.

Mr. REHABILITATION me a single word, il your
Honor pe,se The gentleman ha. touched the point in
discussion before your Honor In the first place. he Is wrong
In the assertion that maintain that Mr. Beeher is presump
lively responsible the action OF the official bodies conducting
the dp,oary matters Of his church On the contrary We
have proven BY witnesses direct communication with Mr
eecher upon the subject and positive declarations anu
tons in regard the subject Of repression We DO not cna
him AZ presumpvely responsible for the action eher OF Tue
members OF his church. except far as we show him person
ally to have participated in that action The question
IA not either Sir, the gentleman presents
H. whether, having given this evidence connecting =.
Mr. Beecher with that policy ii is competent Tor them 10 rep
that evidence by proving that the church TOOK independent anu
pninauenced action upon that subject Our objection Is Sir 10
the mode u proof not to the be proved Our objection
that Mr. Beeche cannot free himself from the accusation
sne from the evidence OF his direct and personal interference
which we introduced by showing the declarations c
members Of his church in absence or OF The oc ooe
OF his church in upon this particular SUBJECT Iha
what we object to- Wehayc conceded the popcy OF prov
ing under your Honor's ruling, respectfully
submitting TO that ruling, although we diner
from It's concusion-of proving that ms SUP
iect wa presented this Board OF Deacons ana tha' ty
took no action in regard the matter Now hcy propose 10
prove and that ia the question which raises this discussion
what the point OF view in winch tha' 'uOI7o' VI '' ~
hull scandal was presented.
Mr. Evarts-I did say point Of view
JUDGE Nclson-That Mr. Shcarman's question
Mr. Eyarts-The point disposed Of the point considered
Mr. Beach-Well now they ask 10 sho" "ha' was NV P
consideredycs Sir point considered at the meeting III
connection with this Woodruff scandal Now it is sufc'en
Sir to prove the point considered to show that the SUBJECT
was presented to the meeting and that they TOOK no
action upon II. That far as their jurlsdicuoh
extended. assuming that the counsel Is right III
regard power Of recommending charges or IMITATION
disciplinary All that they could do would be to rec
ommend proceeding against member OF the chuch-some
action church, and sufficient to prove that they TOOK
When they attempt TO show what WAS the par
cuar point upon which they acted they necessarily draw IN
question the discussions and conversations had between the
different members Of that body they had taken action by
resolution resolution would prove it, They could not give
in evidence the intermediate discussions the speeches made by
the different members the views expressed the line OF policy
recommended that would not b. evidence Sir because 1t
| would be a expression Of the individual views
OF the members Of the body. But no action was taken
| and they prove that that action was taken
But the preceding and preliminary discussion, the
expression OF sentiments by the different members Is not
subject which admissible against would not be admis
sbc under any circumstances in which the action OF that
body would be competent evidence therefore submit to
your Honor that whenever they attempt TO subject
which proven by the declaration Of the members
posing that body it Is inadmssble it is incompetent evidence