The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-04-02

can portray. Ana ! appfehend there has never
been any doubt since TINS tllal commenced That
whatever did occur between This DEFENDANT and
TINS lady during their period OF mountaineering
cluson whether at any moment there had been
guilty act, guilty word. or guilty purpose.
Now produce this interview as under thai geu-
eral head, and nave heard nothing IN Inc obser-
Vailohs OF my learned friend thai tends to snake
nv confidence Ia That proposlton De Cd use counsel
would undertake TO produce nothing unless 1t had
sleniilctnce IN regard TO guilt Bot IN an entirely
dinerenL relation
THIS EVIDENCE rs ADMISSIBLE.
we are entitled 70 show, and strict justice can
never be administered IN respect TO this defendant
toward TINS painun un.ess In approaching their
intervention on direct appeal OF accusation, such
as II may nave been oil regret or explanation, such
this defendant ana this lady, known 10 this plain
till, as II was also CONSIDERED before TINS Jury; SO
that wncn you come to The Crisis oil Determination
what conclusions ere TO be orawn fron what you
did on the 30ta OF December or the 31st Of de-
cemoer; the attitude and tue relation,
moral. intellectual &c ual, between
these three persons, are, IN Your Honor's mind
and In the JurJ's mind ana before their eyes. as
1t was before the eyes be .ors the mnu OF this
defendant, and formed the subject and the inspir-
Ing cause oil nateyer he said OF aid, whatever he
lamented, Whatever ne regretted. Now in the
mater That passed, IN the attitude oil this wIie
reSenLIng ner husbands treatment, unfolding 10
her pastor her relations TO nm ana to her husband
can Dc brought lnLo evlaence; then they VINO are
10 Judge both-Mr. Triton, what he knew and
what he did; Mr.. Beecher and what he knew and
mind, and their intelligence, and their power OF
ASSOCIATION. their power o. ANALYSIS, their power
OF logical con illusions, which are liked IN the very
marrow oil their nature.
Evarts argued for his client with unusual force
and clearness, insisting that justice could never
be done the plaintiff as AGAINST the defendant un-
less the actual intercourse between Mrs. Tllton
and the defendant were spread upon the record.
The jurymen, more especially the foreman, fol-
lowed Mir. Evarts plea with close attention.
Porter gazed up into his lace with look OF ad-
mlration, and the entire audience seemed 10 lend
him their sympathy.
Now have said what Is recited 20 q person In
the absence OIL another person does not bind that
otner person, but it ls, nevertheless, Just the
distlnct TACT In It's being SAID TO hm and Ia
carry weight whether 1t binds the third person
or not. Mr.. Evaris mere pictured parallel IN
stance, Illustrating he moral enect OF Impressions
as Influencing actions which were received rom
narrdtlons that 1t bore no relation to ordinary
nearsay evidence. Continuing, he said. the ques-
ton is on what statements and ON what conclusion
action from these statements Is the conouctf Ii
L the subject upon which The inquiry Is based.
Now, Your Honor and the jury are perfectly
familiar with the general nature oil this important
fact and Stage OF the relations between Mr..
Beecher and TINS lady at which we have arrived,
and every sees That The conduct oil the vile III
thus voluntarily making an Issue and separa-
ton from her husband, and resortng with
the complaints against hlm 10 the az
vice OF Mr.. Beecher who stood IN the
relation or friend ana pastor,
the conclusion which rational men would draw
from the evidence. IL bears on the relation that
crlminalty upon ner part as toward ner husband,
or continued crimlnahty with Mr.. beecner. Now,
II the TACT Is al unlinportant fact, why then 1t Is
clear mode oil proo!-oi proving the fact, 10 wit;
ana IL Is the greatest mode. 1t Is the greatest 10
Mr. IIton, Il Is the greatest TO MRS. rilton.
cause 1t shows exactly what the eitua-
ton was and what the impression on his
mind. and his own ceilings were. 1t shows the
plain operations upon winch the subsequent inter-
views between Mr.. Beecher aud Mrs. Hilton, in
wnicn the whoie matter. and the general relations
NeLWeel Mt. BeeGuer and
forms the whole subject aud OCCASION OF the inter-
views. And everything antecedent TO that nignt
OF 30;h OF December nas significance Ia respect 10
the dealings or the lntel course between Mr..
Beecner and Mrs luton. and between
TO his family and his interest, Whatever 1t
may be, influencing the lamlly or Influencing she
inf"ry,ew OF the 3Oth OF December and To All thas
interview OF the 3Otn OF December has led TO- and
aoout winch IL Is 70 De Judged. confess / am
quite surprised at hearing objection on the part OF
this piainllR and his counsel TO spreading the
facts which were operating on Mr.. Beecner's
mind anu operating on Mr. Tlltons mind anu TINS
family, aud mir. 1llton's aud Mr. Beecner,s T. la.
lions 10 it, anl Mr.. nllon's resentments ADDED.
IL excludes tRat from trial which mas for It's pur
pose 70
without fear ana without favor, as to whether
there has been q great crime committed on the
part OF Mr. beecner, whether there has been CON-
tInuatIon OF errors ana deIusIons, OF malignant
purposes which has set up show and appear
ance OF crimlnallty for tue purposes OF prose-
cution. Now justice Will give tnat. No man Will
or eau believe that he will deal justly with the
SITUATION OF these parties on the 30tn oil Deem
Der, when they came together, without being put
In possession OF wnat constitutes In the NINA OF
eacn the relation Vi each 10 the other
in respect TO the family or Mr.. TIlton
Mr.. Eyarts then quoted as authorizes
opinions delivered In the case or Oh christ vs. BAN
watts, 355; bennett VS.. SnlIn, "a Barber, 43s;
Hadley VS.. carter, 3 N. IL. 40. There you have
the nrec,se sltuation 800
Mr.. Fulerton-rhe Doctor who gave advice was
not n defendant there.
Ar. Evarts-Tnat does not make any difference.
Here Is wltness-he l. good witness; what
ever he knows ne can swear TO. AS TO the ooec-
ton OF allowing him 10 testify where he Is party,
lnierences are 70 DC drawn compatible with guilty
relations or not when tue actual situation or
rns party TO tnls wi z, aud this husband TO tins
wne, - considered. anu constitute what the rela-
ton Is. lie IS as compet ~ testify any other
witness to W nat ne knows.
Mr. Beach, should have been content 70 have
lett TINS question TO Your HonoI's decision WITH
out any argument nad It not been Tor the labored
enOrt OF my learned Trend, but for the gentle
the principle announced py the counsel, anu what
would Oe It's effect IA the general rule OF evidence.
Because 50 lar. except so lar as the doctrine OF
contemporaneous complaint referred 10 IA the
last authority, rus question Is TO be determined
In Application 10 this case precisely lac same as
~ any Other lssue. My friend says, sir, and I
agree with that proposition, tnat II We could
spread before Your Honor, as bya
VIVID PICTURE OF ART,
al the intercourse between these parties rom
the time OF It's commencement to It's iniquItOus
contamination, Your Honor and the jury would be
able more accurately 10 judge OF the ruth OF the
accusation made Dy the plaintiff. Well sir tnas
same remark could be made with regard TO any
issue. no matter what tue controversy may De,
between parties. IL It could presented in
AL tts ramncattons and Incidents, with a
cearness and yINdness Of high pictorial
art why Inc Cours and the Jury could
Judge perhaps wItn more accuracy tnan
undcr those rules OF evidence which tue wisdom
and experience Of me past has established. Now,
sir, tnat vague and dreamy, general way OF max
Ing legal propositions does not apply TO this place
and occasion. We are acting under fxed and
established rules. IL Is impossible Tor US 70 get
that perfect conception OF any case which the
gentleman supposes, aud ne admits the impos-
slDiitJ. We must get then, our conceptions OF
tnls case IN subordlnation 10 those rules aud
principles established for the administration OF
Justtce and apply them 70 the question. H this
proposition succeeds IL VIII permit not only nim
% give the conferences and the condolences be-
tween
HIMSELF AND MS ALLEGED MISTRESS
IN opposition 10 tue husband viii De q violation
OF known ana acknowledged principle OF evl-
dence. Ihls u 20 be zone, sur after the fact OF TINS
seduction has been established. 1hey propose TO
give these communications between these guilty
parties SIX months ter the wife made her confess
sion Of the adultery; tney are to be given In evi-
Hpure L. n VUi fnn