The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-02-27

prevent, IN such suits, collision between husband
ana vile. That would be good. reason were she
to be examined for her husband No reason at all
II to be examined. as here, against him. Mrs.
Moulton was examined for her husband, and he Is
In a certain sense as much party as Tnton. And
here let me remark that 1t seems to me that Mrs.
Mouitons testimony adds not q ieather's weight
30 the anti-Beecher case. II Beecher Is innocent
and that Is the issue to be tried, then is Moulton
coconspirator In perjury with Tllton; and II Mrs.
Tllton be excluded on the technical ground that
she Is one with her husband. then are Moulton
and his wife one, and her testimony is not even
cumulative.
The root OF the whole dif1culty In this case-and
this IS the point OF what have TO say-is:-Flrst
that parties are examined as witnesses at all and
second. as you have suggested, that, II any, all
should have q chance. l shall not dwell ON this
las, consideration further At common law and
in most Of the States OF the Union parties could
not oe examined. They. II tnev brought suits, had
to MAINTAIN them by witnesses, and II they were
sued, to defend themselves in the same way. The
dead Jeremy Bentham and, II mistake not, the
living David Dudley Field thought differently
and now partes-not their wives, however-have
full swing at each other, with what fruit let Triton
VS.. Beecher show. How would this case, scanda.
lous in all It's aspects, and getting more and more
so every day, 1t drags its slow and fetld course
aong-how would II have stood II the old rule
had prevailed In the first place, it seems to me
it Id neveY have been brought, and no one
doubts this would have been public benefit. II
Tilton had had nothing to support hum but the
Moulton testimony, husband and wife, and the
other scraps he had produced and the etters--not
his and his wtles, but Beechers-he never would
have ventured into court reckless as he may be.
But he knew the new rule OF law perfectly we'll
and that he, the pla inti1, would have ample room
for rhetoric and defamation and vituperation
and Misrepresentation. dgnifed as evidence,
and his vanity told him that though Beecher would
be examined too, he Crilton) would be more than
a match Tor him. whether he will be is another
question. But be this as IL may. can any sane
man pretend to say that the antagonistic rhetoric
OF two such adversares will conduce to the evolu-
ton of TRUTH 1t seems to me it VIII depend on
who talks the best or spouts the most. Yet this
is the logical result Of the system-as shown in a
case when admit to be extreme. but still is Illus.
trative. Even CrOss-examnation, that alleged
sure test, is q failure when applied to parties or to
those who stand IN the place OF parties. This has
been abundantly proven here. The comment is
not how truthful these 1oiks are but how well
they stood cross examination. But there is a
graver consideration still. How about perjury and
the inducement to itY Take this very case. There
be no question that either Tilton has perjured
himself! or that Beecher i. he contradicts him,
as he must or PERISH will have done so. There is
no room for any alternative. Can any system be
good which permits-nay, encourages thiss Wit
nesses, admit may be bribed to loreswear them.
selves. That is subornarion, and bad enough; but
1t is not as bad as perjury; and here we have a
case in which, IN one event or the other, we have
both perjury and subornation. II Tilton lies. then
he has got Moulton ana his vile to lie for him.
II Beecher means to lie he will suborn his friends
too. AS to Mr. Beecher's examination, voluntary
though 1t may be and conclusive OF his innocence.
as / sincerely trust 1t will prove, the view Is
equally clear. 1t is inevitable, ADMIT. The in
qusitors OF old had a plausible sort OF logic in
favor OF the rack. ana am by no means certain
that something ike It has not now come to life In
the present system. Mr.. Beecher may be voun.
tary witness, but he Is not q voluntary party to
the litigation. The law says he must be stretched
on the rack, and kno wing it to be inevitable, he
submits. All this could be obviared by going
back to the old testimony, and let parties prove
their cases. not make them. AN OLD LAWYER.
NEW YORK, Feb. Is