New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-05-05


ness might be called, II You please to reproduce
Mr.. rracys extra:udiciA statements concerning the
1 snbjeotmatter about which he has made q judicial
alta cement here and to show contradiction. II the aten
ton o. Mr. Tracy had been properly drawn to that topic
but that Us not what sought here II IL not any extra
judicial sta xement Of Mr.. Tracy that Ia invoked In this
case to eontr dict his testimony under OATH 1t is
traiicop BIZ IN witness OF series OF facts testified 70
by Mr. Tracy viii Vi series Of facts wholly outside OF
the issue of this eau and entirely oollseral and
contain no extraiudc q statements To the contrary
eernng the topic of his. present views, Now. they
that We drew II out ON . CT Vssekaminauoh'
| Mr.. Beach-No; not on GRO REHABILITATION
Mr. Evsrts-Well a redireH examination. after your
cross-on redirect examinationSu the details or sud
stance concerning which you had 1assSpecia inquiries
and say that that gives you rigst 80 contradict Mr.
| Tracy. Whyi II it had been matter shas was w'thin
the Issue here OF you could contfaaet him with
out any leave preparation: but on this matter
which you into. and which B collateral
aud which contains extra-iuacial statements to
DO corrected contradcted within those rules,
have right by any other Witness to pus another
those subjects in evidence We had no right 20
bring In this matter matter Of substantive evidence
on our part at ALL and when We brought 1t In on the re-
direct only by The right that you had given va on
your 10 have the matter stated ~ 1t
was, and you made objeotioa think. No objection
made. and that is the that must stand
until the end OF this OF that occurrence That Is our
view Of the situation as now presented
Dir Abbott mere called Mr. Bysrss's attention to
authority.
Mr. Eyarts- readngi
witness cannot be cros4examinrd TO distnct col
lateral iact for the purpose OF afterwerd lmpeschng
him by cOntradctng his testimony His answer To such
questions are conclusive upon the party crOsseXaminng
him.
Mr. Beaeh-we Sir. that Is very valuable cOntribu
ton to the law Of this case.
Judge Neilson-At the time 1t has been held that
a nv
direct the crOssxamnation. may be contTadcted by
another witness, whether it L. material or ncs think
you confne this within that rule Any statement
Mr. Tracy made may be contradioed By this witness
Mr. Evartsr agree. If your Honor uses material or
not IN the OF important or not but not you dis
tngush bet ween material and collateral
Mr. BeAoh-They call upon their direct examina-
Mr. Tracys of this interview with Mr. Rich
ards. We propose now to contradict him.
Judge Neilson-Well. take that in detail
hr Beach-Your Honor certainly does not waTt IA to
take quarter of page Of this book.
Judge Neson-No; 1 would skip some OF 1t II | were
you tIaughterl
Mr. Beacl-why when Mr. Tracy attempts TO give
relation of the interview with Mr Richards may not we
take Mr.. Richards's statement of that interview
Judge NeisOnYes calling bis attention W 1t, clause
by clause, and asking him II that was
Beach, beg your Honors pardon; IL Is not seees-
say it clause by clause 1t ia evidence which
they have gwen, which wo have not introduced, anu
which nothing that did authorized them to ntredIce
We the first place asked Mr. Tracy certain specific
questions regard declarations made by him 10 D
Richards and statements made by Mr. Richards to him;
and then on redirect examination they called out the
whole conversation, not conhnng themselves To the
subject TO which drew the attention or Mt
| Tracy. They made 1t substantive and affirmative
evidence upon their part and, no matter whether we
objected TO not, 1t is evidence given by Them re-
oeyei by your Homer evidence in the case and insist
that have a right to give that interview in regard to
which they examined Mr. Tracy their behalf and the
whole of that interview between Mr. Tracy and MT
Richards.
by this witness should time and space and be
more comprehensive than the interview AZ stated by Mr.
Richards
| Mt Beaoh-yery well. Sir, suppose it does
Judge Nesonsuppose he only gave part OF che inter
| viewi
Mr. Beach-If he only gave part of it. we can give the
, VIII ,le Of II, cir.
| Iuage Ne,lson-Proyided he says that was all
MI BeachYes, Sir. If he does say 1t was all NOW IL
would DO astonishing doctrine that they couu e8-
anime Mr.. Tracy in regard to declarations between MN
and Mr. Richards and we could not call Mr. Richards the
opposite party.
Mr Evarts-I agree TO that
! Mr. geach-If the gentleman agrees To- that then he
agrees 20 my whole proposition.
Judge Neilson-The only question is about the form Of
| the specific interrogations.
Beacil-Certalniy lt cannot De Worbn "hiio ~
waste time in specific Undergraduates when mere rela
ton OF the conversation by Mr Richards would cover
tbs whole ground and would not probably be 80 extern
ave as the relation given by Mr. Tracy but can pursue
the other course If your Honor thinks ought.
Mr. Eyarts-If my learned friend will allow me to put
in a Word
MI. Beaeh-Certainly; Will allow you because you
have a right 10.
Mr. Ryar,sYor often allow me to do things that 1
have right TO.
Ne. Beach-Yes. do.
Mr. Evarts-Because you cannot hepit. Laughter
Mr.. Beach-Yes, l could help it,
Mr.. Evarts--I mean that your courtesy would moi
allow yon TO help II. IIaughter.l
Mr. Fuorton-Yell, he ID doing what is not right now
Mr Evarts-There seems 10 be u differeHce between
you, gentlemen
Mr.. Beacb-Oh. III stop Fullerton. Laughter
Mr. Fulerton-weIl. / want him to address the Court
Mr. Eyars-we could not have shown this conversation
with Mr.. Richards
Mr.. Beach-You could. II we didn't object.
Mr. Eyarts-Well we could not, and didn't try to-
Mr.. Beach-Oh, yes you did.
Mr. Evart-They introduced the subject by way o.
collateral impeachment and then we had right to have
what was said and all they right TO do is 10 brns
in contradiction by showing extra Judicial statements
that are contrary what Mr. Tracy said here and they
must be confined TO that A narrative OF facts tina
occurred collateral and not within the issue betweeI
Mr. Tton and Mr. Beecher in this case, as all the pro
ceedings Of that Committee wholly collateral a.
your Honor knows, and could not, in body b
brought in here at oil, nor any part o
them per Sc This stands in that position
They have chosen 10 introduce collateral subject IN
detail Of facts and they must stand upon 1t and II thel
propose that, within the rule of contradiction
by extra judicial OF Mr. Tracy and they hav
laid the foundation here why that is going beyond IT,
Judge NeilsonThen the simple question Is whether Ut
shall nterrogate the witness specicay as 10 particular
| tharf he VIII
Mr. Evarts-I think the particular parts must he In
| nnired ahnnt = -----.Ne>-