New-York tribune., 1875-02-17

needing decision from the Oouf' VI hPfV"'''
might recognize It, Now. eonhne yourself wi'nn '
Mr. Eyartshe trouble the question not confined ioui
Henor gives directions. ~,
Mr. Fulerton-I will put question ITO inc N"ne,si
TAtoa having heard the question and answer emooue " @
question put by Mr. Eyarts upon the cross sseA"' -
you what further said by before that Comm''ee VII"
yeene To the subject of that question ana answer
A Well in nr place. Mr. Fullerton IL seems 70 oe ioso
ten that when M the other day put to me the question
whether or not hsd said that to the Commee-whemef
not had said TO Committee that Mrs. lion had insisted
that she had violated he marriage vow- seems 70 me-
Win all r,spect both you gentlemen have forgotten that said
M substance remark to the Committee was that during
that time she thorat had violated her marriage vow;
did not appear that she violating her oaih-tha 1t
seemed 10 her mind in maze lmade that
qualification.
Mr Fuleron-No, had not forgotten it, at all
gr Eysrts-That appears in the answer
The Witness-Yes thea what further ransprcd In the
committee main point which does not appear In the exam
nation reported the statement Of charge against
Nj Bcocher, before that committee, Of criminal reauonsn'
with Mrs Ton the confession OF the same, msde oy S
Tnton In July 1870 and made by Mr Beeche ha year
a.erward myself to Mr. MouoR to Others do no' Aho"
that appreherd your inquiry.
O. II Is to be inferred from the question which, 1t is alleged
put you before the Committee TO wit; lou say Nh
n for wear after what you stated Mrs Tons conies
sion she insisted to you that se had not violated her as
vewg' Had you stated anything before that ooh''ee ~
r.srd 20 Mrs Tons confession, which led 10 ths' queeo"
aad if So what had you stately
Mr. Egars-I object to an inquiry whether ne nau
made statement concerning confession which was alluded
TO- but then the Of what she had stated object TO-
Mr. Fuerton-Ta is to say object to the ques
ton that is put would object to II 1t was put Shouci
way do not see the propdety Of the observation.
Mr. Ryarts-Wel II is limited; tha- is the point iwoht
object to what is legal you make it larger than the law
allows then do object.
Mr. Fullerton-we the counsel must judge Of Its size by
what appears to put the question and he knows
exactly what its II it is Objectionable let us have the oo
joc,ioa; and IL not, let us have the answer
Judge Neilson-Wen 1t amounts TO suggestion that the
witness will keep within the limited Interpretation oil your
question.
Mr. Fulertonwe then 1t is not an objection to the ques
ton but objection TO the answer that mas not oeeh gwen
Judge NeisOn-lt is a su question -
Mr. EyarsI think if the question is read your Honor wi"
sec that il is Objectionable.
Judge Neilson-e most questions might be abused no
doubt
Mr. Eyars-we will have read, II your Honor please
Mr. Fullerton-That : no reflection on the question
Judge Hesoa-Bat justihes the counsel In making sug
goston on the subject lQues'ion read
Mr. Evars-"And if so, what had you stated f-thas Is the
Objectionable part
The witness-Msy not answer that'
Mr. Fulerton-I ask him If he stated anything and II 3d.
what he statedl
Judge Neson-Anythlng that led to that
Mr. Fulerton-Yes. Sir.
Judge Neison-Go on
Mr. Eyas-Y Honor will note exception to the qnes
tiOn.
A. had stated to the Committee in writing, with my oath ap
pended the the confession made by Mrs lIon to
me in July 1s and made by Mr. Beecher to me In Decemoe
and Japuary following made MouOn and to other per
sous
DISCUSSION OVER MR. TlLT0N'S ANSWERS TO THE
COMMITTEE
@. What was that confession A. 1t was con-
fession-
Mr. Evarts-what is this , object.
Judge Neson-Wha did you state there before the Com
mittee!
Mr. Eysrts-No object to that if your Honor please
Judce Nelson may state that that is part OF the sub
feet matter did you state there in that connecticut
Mir Evarts-Concening her confessionI
Judge Neison-Yes.
Mr. Eyaris-There your Honor has directly the point All
nv irour, WAS "Dd You answer this question:" "
Gedving tI-and the question has nothing to DO win
cay inquiry truth fsehood OF the confession on
I~-. ,4.i, year after that occurrence
Whatever was insisted she had violated her marriage
Judge Neison-wha did he state to the Committee that
subject which led to that inquiiyi
Mr. Eyarts-NOt exactly thai, il your Honor please :;
don't think your Honor allows that But whether he
stated something and II what which led to that inquiry
was 81 had stated confession That
In the question WITH from the Committees transac
ons 1t is reference the fact that he had said something
about confesson the wtnesss coursehe wtnesss
statement in regard his wfes declaration after the confes
brought Now, your Honor please the witness
unde< Of narrative conveyed to Mr. Beecher.
has allowed what he delivered to Mr. Beecher
being confession but has not been allowed to state what did
occur between Mrs. Tton and himself. Now your Honor
please right this witness interogaories In
his own behalf simply reproductions Of what he has
stated elsewheref
Judge Neison-Snpy because the occasion respecting
which you make inquiry and the subject he
have further other statement which led TO that in
quiry That is all.
Mr. Evars-But nv inquiry show before the Com
mee whether reference what he has already said he has
not also said and And he answered that he had
Judge Neilson-And then they ask what else he said
Mr. Eyarts-No exactly that, il your Honor please.
Judge Neilson-I seems so to me.
Mr. Eyarts-Nol connection with that point which was his
statement concerning his declaration that she had
lated her marriage Anything in qualification Of that is
one thing with is whether, after supposed
confession (which you have referred to have not said for
year denied had violated her her marriage VOW
Now If your Honor please when the witness answered Us he
did did does that allow the coanse 70 ask what he
had formerly SAID?
judge Neison-No on that occasion.
Mr. Ryarts-Wel, the occasion-what he had said
concerning her violating her marriage vow.
JUDGE Neon-When you inq lire to part they may In
qure the Of the statement on that subjec-the sub
jec being material.
Mr. EyarsOn the same OCCASION ana as part OF the same
conversation.
Judge Nelson-Yes.
Mr. Ryarts-Now his affair lasted several days. ap
pear that they limited in thenquy to what said on
that occasion when this made understand that
your Honor does not intend hold different rule Of law from
what we are insisting upon that qualification then
and there made this Committee explaining to them what he
meant by saying nsis ed for year that she had
not violated marriage uow, would be within the puiew Of
the law
Judge Neilson-Suppoe he makes statement Monday
evening and growing out that an in;erogaory Is put on
nalOu he sub H.cn