New-York tribune., 1875-05-12

Mr. Beach-Ask him whether he ever had any such
conversation with Mr.. Bcecher Mr. Evarts has just
read.
BY Mr. Morris-Did yOu ever have any such conversa-
ton with Mr. Beecher as has Just been read by Mr.
Evarts from Mr. Beechers testimony A. did not nor
had the facts which such conversation coud nave
been based then occurred.
Mr. Evarts-That we have nothing to do with. Y0u
asked whether you had the conversation that Is all
move that the rest be struck out
BY Mr. Morris-Dld you ever havo any conversation
with Mr. Beecler In reference to Theodore H. T0n A.
don't remember Sir that Theodore H. 1iltons name ever
occurred in any conversation between Mr. Beecher and
myself.
O. When did you first learn tho facts in reference to
Theodore II. Titon
Mr. Evarts-Tbat object to. We have not introduced
any facts about Theodore H. TOn. We have interest
in the facts relating to him. The whole question IL
whether Mr. Tilton told Mr. Beecher this. Mr. Tlton
says he did not.
Mr. Beach-That Is the whole question, Sir; but there
are several to It, and several modes OF proof by
which we reach the fact to determine the question: Mr.
Bccchcr says that in certain conversation OF certain
date Mr. TtOn made this reference to his namesake or
near namesake person bearing nearly the same namc
and who was obnoxious to public reprOach and rumor,
and referred to him and his character and
reputation as tho probable source OF some OF
the imputations upon himself Now, Mr. Tilton denies
that and In confirmation of his denial, Sir there being
this contradiction between Mr.. Beecher aud Mr. Iiton,
We propose to show that at the period AT whch Mr.
Beecher locates this reference this other Mr.
Tton had no such information OF his character and that
the against him had not then ranspired Ihat Is
the point that we purpose to give In evidence.
Mr. Evarts-Wel that has been expressly ruled that 1t
cannot be DONE You may contradict whether he said 80
or not. You cannot give in confirmation or argument
that he did not say that 1t would not be true Iero
is nothing in this proposition; 1t has been exploded
and again.
Mr. Beach, would like to see where the explosion
Cured.
Mr. Evarts-Whcther man says so or not Is the qnes-
ton that in dispute and he cannot prove whether he
said so would have been le and therefore he did not
say it, that he could not have said so because was
not true.
Mr. BeachCant he be asked whether 1t is true or notf
Mr. Eyarts-No cannot be asked whether 1t Is true
not.
Mr. Blackwell, let us see about that
Mr. Evarts-Then could bring other people In here
to prove that II te and should try this name
sake OF his, and the date Of his knowledge OF IT, The
point that tho contradiction is between the statements
of what a witness said-as to what witness said, and
IL ia settled that you prove the probability or I'm
probability Of bis having said by proving one way that
it was true or the other way that 1t was untrue.
Mr. Beach-Now deny, Sir, that that Is settled
Judge Neilson-I think this Is perfectly clear III one
witness states that another made u certain statement,
that other witness could deny that he made the state
mont and could add the fact that he did not know the
party the other witness until after that time.
Mr. Evarts-Wcll, Sir, understand exactly not.
Judge NclsonWe don't see the reason of the uec'-
sons, il that is so. ..
Mr. EvartsThe is that the contradiction Is az
to the statements and whether 1T true not when
he said 1t would not have any bearing the question
It would involve you into inquiry wholly collateral
whether it was not whereas the only issue Is
whether ne said II or not.
Judge Neilson-That is the primary ISSUE
Mr. Evarts-It Is not argument that man did not
say thing because 1t not true There arc great
many men tell lies.
Judgo Neilson-That may bo don't know. Laugh
teri
Mr. Evarts-Your Honor has been very fortunate In
your judicial experience IL you have not noticed that
Mr. Beach-That Is not the proposition, Sir, which we
submit prove that it was, or was not trre We pur-
pose to show circumstance. fact connected with the
transaction which confirms the testimony OF Mr Tton
az the ono supposed by your Honor
Mr.. Morrs-Supposins he was in Europe at that time.
Mr. Beach-Yes, suppose that circumstance, as sug-
gesicd by Judge Morris
Mr. Evarts-It would bear on the question Of whothor
he made the conversation.
Mr. Blackwell, this bears the question OF whether
made the conversation whether he had ever heard OF
this Theodore H. Ton at that timc. Suppose should
show that no such Theodore H. Tilton ever cx-
isted why be sure, the gentleman might reason that
it Is not absolute proof that Mr. Tlton did not invent
that story and tell it to Mr. Beecher but we are not to
presume falsehoOd upon the part OF either and II any
confirming circumstance can be shown sustaining the
confirmation either OF these parties, why it would be
a most extraordinary rule Sir, which should exclude
that
Mr. Evarts-well, this is the rule will ask your
Uouors attention TO it, 1t would involve In every
case trial OF the truth alsty Of tho staement and
can 60 into testimony to prove that Theodore H. Ton
before this had to this opprobrious imputation
Mr. Beach-U Undoubtedly you can.
Mr. Evarts-And that Mr. Tilton knew 1t.
Mr. Beach-UndOubtedly
Mr. Eyarts-very well; now that shows that it Is
wholly collateral tReadingl:
"A witness having testified to negotiations for ex-
change of horses another witness was called to prove
frrcnt account of what said at the time referred TO-
The former witness was then recalled and explained tnat
those of another exchange, different occasion He'd,
that IL not competent to coIIoborate MIN Dy PROOF
that the other exchange thus referred to- actually took
place"
You cannot provo the fact that is the basis OF the
statement or the absence Of the fact that is the basis OF
the statement either confirming discrediting the
probability OF the statement having been made
Judge Neilson-Is that Massachusetts case :
Mr. Eyarts-It is the of Edgerton agt Wolf in II
Mass the 9th Of Gray.
Judge Nelson That collateral question isn't to be tried,
OF course
Mr. Evarts-Then evidence can be given concerning
It, There any law that side can give evidence
about and tho other not Now, OF course we have not
shown Mr. TiltOns statement on this subject with any
notion that there any truth in it, not the least 1t
was his statement concerning matter in regard TO which
other proof been given that is, this Winstod AFFAIR."
therefore, tho truthfuncss Of his statement about the
Winsted affair is not matter that La to be as
s,imed at all in giving OF the evidence, but
they undertake to show that Mr. Tilton did not or
could no-dd not could not have said that Nj Theo-
dore U-f that ia his name Mr.. Beecher does not