The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1875-02-02

cestors Wfh this refnark Mr.. ETarts closed.
Judge Nelson stated that he would give the
4 matter hisutmost consideration, but warned
4 the counsel that he would deliver no written
opiLion, but that il would be frankly
spoken opinion en- the merits or the case.
The court made an effort to induce the conn
sci to go on with the case tomorrow, or to
NEST next week half an hour earlier and ad-
joUrn half an hoRr later every day, bat to
this the legal practitioners demurred. Judge
Nelson, in answer to ex-Judge Fullerton,
said that this opinion of his would be 6el;v-
cred immediately on their meeting Monday
next. adjourned
THE GREAT DEBATE.
Sandal FoREsslcs-THE AReUMENTd OF
/ MEssEs. EvARrs AND BEACH-SOME ELO-
! QUENT PASSAGES FROM EACH SPEAKER
THE 0RAToRY or Mr.. BEACH.
| The debates in the Beeeher-Tilton trial on
the admissibility of Theodore Tilton as a
witness have been of an unusual character.
The speakers who have participated i'm this
discussion are Messrs. Evarts, of the defense,
and Beach and Pryor of the plaintiff side.
The arguments have been very lengthy,
especially those Of Mr.. Evarts and Pryor,
consisting, In the main, of references to
legal authorities and learned discussions
and comments on these various decisions.
The New York papers of the 10Th inst. give
the proceedings and arguments complete.
From the report of the Tribune the following
extract Is taken OF the exordium
OF Mr.. Evarts: at seems to be
utterly unQuestionable that the wife
can not be witness In TINS case
The wife of this plaintiff can not be wit
ness to sustain her life and character. The
wife of Mr.. Rsecher can not be witness 10
defend her husband. because the common
law has said great as is the interest ofthe ad-
ministratien of justice, sll-powerful as 1t
lsc ss1kn arf avid rro
that can speak the truth within the rules Of
evidence, yet the administration OF justice
was made for society, not society for
the administration of justice; and there
are certain institutions of society lying at the
base of our civilization sustaining the whole
fabric of its prosperity, its purity, its dignity
and its strength, which must not be under
mined, or corrupted, or disfigursd, or defiled,
under the notion that In the administration
of justice the truth must be sought in every
quarter and from every witness. Thus the
great minds, Legislative, judicial, the great
moralists, the great religious teachers, have
all combined to say that there are certain
limits imposed by the nature of human
society in the fabric as it Is constituted for
our defense and protection, that can not be
ovefpassed. That OF client and attorney, that
Of Clergyman and penitent, that OF physician
and patient, are, however, trivial compared
with the relation of husband and wife, bar
riers against the Introduction of evidence
from sources thus protected; because, with
out that respect of the law to othose relations,
no client could confde in a lawyer to defend
him, no patient in physician to save him,
no penitent in priest or clergyman to aid
him. But when we come to the relation Of
husband and wife, it is the foundation of
our civilized society, for though nature pro-
vides the sexual attraction, yet 1t is the civil
and religions institution of marriage that
makes civilized Christian communities in
stead OF loose and
LUsrFUL HERDINes OF THE HUMAN RACE.
Now, the common law, built up by msscu-
line undertakings thstshave raised its great
esta ablishmept, uses no fine and sentimental
phrases, such as come from platform orators,
or from eloquent lawyers, but it understands
the institution that it has undertaken to
frame, and it protects it accordingly. 1t
provides that when a man or woman come
together under the divine law of purity, that
the twain shall become one flesh, and thus
that the population ofthe world shall be fur
nished, and not otherwise, consistently with
the Divine command. And when the common
law says that man and his wife are one,
or, in Lord Coke's language, "As two souls
in one person." 1t is said no man shall put
asunder those who are thus joined together,
and, least of ali, In the name of law, shall
the administration Of justice pull and tear
asunder this coniugal relation by the step of
the sheriff or the precept OF the jadge that
compels one to come and betray the other.
Ii is not when the question comes before the
court so much the interest, or the duty, or
the particular circumstances of the inS
dividual case of marriage that is thus
brought up for attention, as the in
stitution itself. 1t is the happy marriages,
It is the un broke en- marriages, i5 is the whole
system of marriage, by which husband and
wife are In the supreme confidence within
their household and in each others embrace,
that TO interests of society, no law of the
land, can invade. And ifevery Englishman
and every American prides hi nsen upon
the inviolability of his Threshold against
the king of all the power of government, ex-
cept within certain strict mandates of the |
law authorizing forcible passage OF 1t, how |
much more important that all that make
the inviolability of the Threshold iIrpor-
tant, to-wit, the inyiolability Of tne family
and the protection Of che marriage, should
be sustained by the law against the king or
tie mandate, albeit, ofthe lawi
In response to the opening argument of
Mr. Evarts, Mr.. Beach made powerful re-
ply. In the course of his argument Mr.:
Beach said: In concluding this, sir, and
in answer to the illustrations OF my
learned friends to-day, permit me 10
follow with an illustration. Imagine,
sir, happy, honored, cultured home.
The wife, frail, feeble and delicate woman,
emnently deVotlonal ana plous IN an ner
impulses, ami, as has been shown hereto
fore, devoted 10 the husband Of her early
choice, and the father OF her children. She
had pastor, learned, eminent and gifted
beyond his fellows. One who stood at the
very head of his honored and sacred pro-
fession; one whose words " ere listened to
with Difference and respect. But be had these
powers Of mind over her. lie hau /,
that persuasive power of eloquence, that in
sidious and silver tongue which would lure
an angel from his paradise. He was her &C
eepted and chosen teacher and guide. She
looked up to him with yeneration <ccond
only to that with which she reg@rdsd her
God. Nay! IL an incarnate Christ hsd come
down with the glory of Calvary upon His
brow and the love Of sacrifice In His eye, she
would not bow to Him with more obedience
than this woman gave to