New-York tribune., 1875-02-17
ARGUMENT OF Mr.. EvhRTS.

| Mr.. Evarts-My learned friend who has last ad
dressed your Honor has wandered far from the inquiry
It s not an inquiry all what Mr. Tton thought OF his wfes
innocence his wfes purity what theory he had OF an
adultery that left aduteress not word Of that kind
question had nothing TO do with theory scheme
or reasoning of Mrs Tton she had any by which adul
ress was nevertheless pure from the holy character Of
aduerer The question is this and plain and simple one,
and do with the direct test, not OF these vapoous
and cloudy schemes OF innocence and guilt but whether
as matter fact after imputed confession the part OF this
husband alleged the wife had not insisted onpury No On
excupston because the circumstances Of gui No But
the simple question You say Mrs Tton
for year after what yen stated as Mr.. Tilon's
confession, she insisted to you that she had nos
violated her marriage VOW Now that Is question
of fact whether a has violated her marri-
age VOW An intelligent woman knows whether she
has violated her marriage Il is not metaphy ysca is
not mystical it is in Heavens high Court of Chancer
whether the temptations the oyershadowng influence shall
excuse or pardon 1t Is the fact Of the adultery OF the body
as known and understood Of all and all women And he
he did say that she did that he did
that she did say she had not violated her marriage and
that ia contradiction Of assertion that she had viola
ted IL.
Judge Neilson-where is that asseorn the statement
that they propose to read'
Mr. Evashst she had violated her marriage that she
had committed adultery. That is the very point Of the inquiry
and now they seek they profess obedience the
quremens the rules Of evidence statement then and
there made the that the law considers then and there
made In qualification OF this husbands assertion that his wife
had insisted that had not violated her marriage vowhey
do not seek to cay, to explain by that that he did
not mean that she had not violated the marriage
VOW for that has nothing to do with the question
but the question is whether he made qualifying state
ment reducing mpang affecting his recognition OF his wes
statement year. that she had not violated her marriage
VOW And what do they propose in reduction OF that Why
his accusations that is all Does that qualify his statement
that his wife Insisted had violated her marriage
Mr. Beach-Pemlt 10 interrupt you, Mr. Evarts by say
inc that this answer goes far beyond that simple question
whether or not the wife had violated her marriage
Honor will by reading or hearing read the question In
snsre did you say yes Elizabeth In sort OF vaporors
like cloud she between Light and dark she cond
no, rec that 1t ws wrong; she maintained 10 her
mother In nv presence thai sbe had done no
wrong and going on with much longer the
onesop and all presenting the real question by this answer in
IN. mind OF Mrs Ton 10 whether e accepted act Of the
violation Of person moral wrong or adultery In the
sense In which gentleman says al the world understands
Mr. Rvart-Now, that does not touch the point
lie nnds quafing circumstances IN the answer seIf
Mr. Beach-Some Of them
Mr. Ryars-Let him find other qualifying circumstances
Nj, Beach-That is Just what propose 10 do.
Mr. E,arts-Oh bu, you do NOT You do not propose 10
.ho that this witness 10 answering that question and In con
nectoa with question Of whether his wife had not insisted
that she violated her marriage vow had made quahca
on OF thai IN 30 Insisting NOW thst tne hasoahh charged h
wife he charged her before the Comnttee hs he
charged the pubationhat is not matter Of dispute
basis tha, there accusation and inquiry
and then point OF evidence thai inquiry
the distinct proposition 10 your Honor h that
this wtness'-present witness bin Of Indictment his
a1sr Of accusation In the phrase Of the civil law.
is to be IN evidencea ~ bearing upon the
questions whether did make that 10 that
particular point OF inquiry Now that ALL Now the paper
by itself be evidence at all 1t his Of accu-
saon How be form Of secondary evidence concern
ing any principal fact that alleged within H. especially when
that principal fact II It relate 10 any communication between
husband and wife, Of the nature your Honor rules and under
the requirements OF the law be made the subject OF inquiry
IoaS Ae4H sec. ae thP Hp9s shs WIS aas ugaR ls Dc