New-York tribune., 1875-01-19
MouLTON's FIRST STATEMENT EXCLUDED.

In have been read without objection do not recall
sn. Gle Mrs Morses etter-tha objected
The ,ntc Of the paper spoken by counsel and that
held him. but the reading Of the paper not OBJ
cctcd This Il the first think that has been thus OBJ
ected to- TIE simple question H. Eyas whether it is
admissible as having been approved by MI. Beecher
Mr. Eyarts-Exactly.
Judge NesonThere s this to be sd about at the
time An approval by the defendantan unqualified approval
Won be thing An approval Of proper to be put in
by the witness would be perhaps another thing.
Mr. Whenever this paper shall be read II your Honor
eha think shat i admib it, entire harmessness as affect
in defendant will be apparent but nevertheless
question ase for counsel whether matters not pertinent to
an sue hch includes and Of what pertinent
and cnouga and adequate variety q eydence-whether ey
cnce not pertinent should be admitted because II s not in
furious is not question with which counsel have properly
nothing 20 do Here statement Of Mr. Moulton who occu
pied the position witness tilted to attend before church
muation which had compul ory power over him. He
did 20 there witness, but he prepared statement
which present at least answer for his not tes
f,uc and h. read Mr. Beecher and asked him he thought
il 1as IN honorable statement for him lMr Mouon TO make
in that behalf anl for that purpose and then he asked Mr.
Ifon the thing and then Mrs Mouon 1t seems had
an interest in asking question: AMI the result of it is
doubt rs it etands-that Mr. Beecher had this little short state
nj Of half PAGE which hold in my hand read to him. and
ssd that honorable statement for him to make and
please concurred in the poprey Of his making it, that
is aD
1dge Neon-That had reference fcourse TO the attitude
Of Hr Moulton.
Nr F,srt.-No doubt-the propriety Of his making t.
Mr. FuertonHe states facts which bear upon this
issue.
Mr. Eyarts-Who,
Mr. Falcr. on-Mr Monton; in that statement
Ne Eyart.-Wh1tever in that conversation that bears on
the ssue not what discussing The question Is
yhc;hr, this statement bears ou the issue
Mr. Fulertou--My reply Is
" 1 hel I hay learned
under axes 10 say supported by his learned associate
that whatever indicates an aversion on MI Beecher part 10
promugaou Of scandal and examination into scandal Is 70
be produced evidence that he Is guilty OF crime
There is no principle OF human nature, and no rule OF
law impntes any .uch consequences TO any such
cAo-ts There IL one simple Issue TO be t1ed In
this csnse, the burden OF which has been assumed
by tis plaintiff and that is 70 prove the adultery OF his "fe
and would like know how hese conversations as 10 the
latitude and mode Of meeting an inquiry into that matter ana
the aversion Of party the alleged fau-the alleged gut
being in posd to have the inquiry made bears upon the
question: which Is real question that your Honor or the
juf, aIe occupied with-thc existence OF the fact
Nj FderronI agree eney With tne leasd tounse as TO
the issue between these ries and who has taken the
affirmative Of ,se and asse again that there are facts
-td n t. which bear upon that issue lt was
-tse ncut read Mr. Beechcr Mr. Beeche understanding per-
ty well that that was to be promulgated before the Commit
tee Doesn't bac1me important therefore, to look
this statement and what was there sai with refer
ece his crime charged npon Mr. Beher suppose tha'
SIR Mouon that proposed statement had acknowledged MI
Beeches guilt bat did not think that was subject Tor In
yesga that ought to be suppressed would not that De-
come cyienc.? Why it me, II the Court please that
,he proposition pain for argument and your Honor
viii take the nine IT, you will see that Mr
Noaou directly the point in that statement ana gave
his reasons why he should testify and those reasons bear
upon this question before the jury There can be nothing
paincr Sir beg yolr Honor to look at this statement
Mr. Eyarts-Your Honor lock at the paper
Mr. Beach i have cen, for authority Sir that wish
your Honor TO see.
Jpdoe Nciln- do not think will help any to look at
the papsr taking the prper
Mr. Evarts-It il very short paper.
Mr. Fullcrton-Ani very significant one Then in another
noin of view already presented your Honor this paper be-
comes exceedingly important repeat what said before
that when M eeche tes efforts to suppress Investigation
be certainly doing thing from which his guilt may be In
ered capnot any other inference to be drawn from IT,
He says TO the public: g" want Investigation He says 70 his
church. Appoint Committee for the purpose OF inves
eating" private and In secret he Is attempting In every
pob,e way preven IT, As matter Of couree, the esu-
nonv o. Moulton before that Investigating Committee was
OF tn first Importance lie had been connected with this un-
happy from the beginning up to the time OF the meeting
OF The Ipve-tgang Committee He hld within his knowledge
facts wh ch would enable him TO determine
whether the SANDER was groundless or wel'founded
Now M Beecher prevented Attempted TO prevent him
from going bfsne that Committee oganized by himself so as
4
doesn't It imp ,rtant' Docs nj II bear upon this quee
ton and in with the food OF evidence In this case
not the ury warranted in dawn. inference from F Docs
Il not add force and the effect Of the other testimony
In this cause, be said TO be irrelevant IL always
COMPETENT prove against In ivdua trial for On oueS
ha. he cndeavocd suppress testimony that he got wne
% 10 nut the jurisdiction OF court and beyond Its process
hat undertook for compensation TO withhold he uutn
anything kind competent In the trial OF an individual
for an on The suppression Of the truth Is always evidence
OF guilt On the part OF q individual who Ia on trial
Mr. Beach read yolr from the case OF Keey'
The People in the 55th OF New York page So read from
raae 5T7. 1t was a criminal case
Whcn an lndlyi na charged with ocnse or declara
lions made IN his and Gearing touching he aet OF
thr t or % alleged crime and he remains silent
whrn II would b, proper fo him speak II the province OF
M Jury 10 interpret silence ald determine whether hs
silence was under the CT instances, excused or ehpane1
Al ence nndcr snch circumstances H. but an implied
~ nth Of the statements made by Others aud
th presumpfve evidence Of gn and IN cases may
be sght except conned aud cooboraed by ether CIR
cumstances'
In this case your perceyes not simple silence
IL was an explicit concurrence.
But II is come evidence and therefore cXcept In those cases
where the made upon occasion and under
enmsances which the individual sought 10 be Affected could
moi with prOprety speak In the progress OF Judicial nVe
tlganon discussion between third persons not ad
10 intended affect the accused induce action
in respect h that for him " speak would be manifest