The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-04-30
Mr.. Tracy's Testimony in the neschsr
Case.

/ PNS~NSN~-
the Woodruff article. He was then brought.
into consultation with Tilton and Moulton in
contriving devices for its suppression. He
WAS an avowed friend of Mr.. Beecher, and
Mr.. Tllton refused to communicate the
nature OF his grievance except on pledge by
Mr.. Tracy that he would not, in any future
complications, act as Mr.. Beecher's counsel
The required pledge was given, and on the
strength Of it Tilton unbosomed himself to
Tracy AT the opening of the trial Tilton's
counsel sharply objected to Tracy's participa-
ton, on the ground that it violated his pledge
and was inconsistent with professional honor
Tracy justified himself on the plea that the
charge against Mr.. Beecher at that time was
only improper proposals, and that the change
to actual adultery absolved him from his
promise. To the unprofessional mind which
looks merely to the observance of good faith
between man and man, this excuse does not
seem satisfactory. The pledge was given be-
fore Mr.. Tilton would consent to state his
grievance at all to Mr.. Tracy, and, therefore,
before Mr.. Tracy was informed of the breadth
of the charges. Being given in ignorance Of
| what Mr.. Tlton would communicate the
pledge would seem to cover every possible
mind TO Tracy in advance Of the pledge, and
as Tracy could not have known when he gave
it that Tilton would not make charge of
\ adultery il would seem to persons who do
not draw nice distinctions between personal
and professional honor to preclude Tracy
\ from acting as llr. Beecher's counsel in every
possible contingency. The pledge was not
made between a charge of improper pro-
posals and charge of adultery but before
\ Tilton would consent to state his case to
Tracy at ALL 1t was given for the purpose of
breaking Tilton's silence, and could not have
been conditioned on Tilton's adherence to q
statement which he had not yet made
Tracys excuse assumes that the
pledge was made after Tilton had COM
municated his complaint; whereas, in
point of fact, it was given before Tilton
would consent to open his mouth to Tracy at
all. 1t seems absurd therefore, to claim
that he was released from it by violation
Of the condition which it was made. As
Tracy did not know, when he gave it, what
\ the charge was to be, he could not, as a man
of honor, release himself on the pretext that
\ the pledge was made in view Of an accusation
which was afterward changed. At the time
! he bound himself there was nothing to be
changed, because at that stage of the transac-
\ ton nothing had been communicated The
\ public, which judges by the principles of
personal honor which prevail among gentle
men, will be apt to regard Mr.. Tracy .excuse
as a subteriuge.
\ II Mr.. Tracy intended at the time that his
pledge should only cover an accusation Of
improper solicitations it was deceptive on its
face, because he must have known as a
lawyer that no suit could lie against Mr.
Beecher for improper proposals Every
lawyer knows that such proposals are not
actionable. This was clearly brought out by
Mr.. Beach yesterday in the cross-examination
Of Mr.. Tracy, who could not deny that the
pledge was hollow and empty unless it ex-
tended to the case of criminal conversation.
1t is difficult to understand why Mr.. Tracy
\ should have consented to have this question Of
professional honor raised against him by act
ing as counsel for the defendant. On the
81
his ability to clear himself did not depend on
the employment Of Mr.. Tracy as counsel
Any other lawyer Of equal ability would have
answered as well. It is difficult to see why
he should have exposed himself to those
doubts as 10 his professional honor and his
fair dealing as a gentleman.
Mr.. Tracy's testimony as witness is Of
NJ
services as a lawyer. Perhaps he absolved
himself from his pledge to qualify himself to
testify. clients confidential communica-
tions are privileged, and it may have
been thought necessary to abjure that
relation in order to bring Mr.. Tracy on the
stand. The essential point Of his testimony,
as bearing on the merits of the case, is his as
sertion that, under circumstances which
entitled him to Tilton's confidence, the lat
ter accused Mr.. Beecher of nothing beyond
improper proposals. If the jury can be made
to believe that that was the full extent of Mr..
Beecher's offence the Law will compel them
to give verdict in his favor, even though
every man OF the twelve should believe that
improper solicitations were actually made.
Mr. Tilton has no case at all unless he can
prove actual adultery; and if the jury can
make Mr. Beechers remorseful letters con-
sistent with the lighter offence the case Of
the plaintiff will utterly break down. Morally,
there is little difference between attempts to
seduce and actual seduction; but legally the
first Is no offence at all and the latter is a
very grave one.
The Reduction OF Canal Tolls.