Year: 1875

O. Can you turn to it there (! [Showing paper
A. II was In the form Of sworn statement and have
II In my hand here These the exact words In whch
the narrative was given.


O. And this paper which you now furnish what had oeeh
laid before the Committee prior to the examination OF your A.
Yes Sir


Mr.. Fullerton-Now. propose to read this
Mr. EyarsThat we object Now. your Honor please,
you see the point which this comes They propose 10 prove
the entire inquiry before the COMMITTEE based on single
Question which put to the witness


Judge NcisonI huk Mr. Fullerton, yo0 have gone lar
enough don't think this is proper
Mr.. Beach-It will make 1t clearer II this Is read


Judge Neibon-It may; but don't think it is proper


Mr. FulertonYou Honor secs that some member OF the
Committee their presence refered to the concession which
had been stated to have been made by on and embod
led question based upon that fact Now is 1t not proper Tor
us to know what before the Committee at that time win
reference to that confessionf
Judge Neilson-He has stated that


Mr. Beact-But long it sworn statement ought
not to be given jury in order that they may see
what was and how made and in what terms 1t seems 10
me entirely proper because the examination OF the witness
before Committee had reference to that a'egnon 1t was
an Indictment contained charge against Mr. Beccher lie
was questioned and nterogaed with reference to that charge
Now think the jury ought to soc exactly the length and
breadth height and depth OF the charge as was there
put in writing, sworn to before The Committee.


Judge Neison-Wc the question TO the reading
of portion OF that statement


Mr. EvarsNow proposes to put In evidence the whole
statement Now is just il the witness on the stand at
trial has given evidence In on particular poln ana
examined whether he did or did not in answer 10
question: make certain answer and he admits that he did
and t2en that bong in q case III Whch there WAS
sworn bin In equity put In by him' you
get up and ask put in his bill in equity That is precisely
the situation Everybody knows that Mr. T,an had made an
accusation against his wife, and that this Committee was con
sderiag It, and because have ked him to question aud
answer that made. they say We can read his sworn
| accusation against his wife and against Mr. Beechee"


Judge Nelson-That is the question whether when you in
errogst question and answer contained in an
examination which has been reduced to writing the other side
can in virtue OF that put in that examination That the
| point.


Mr. gyarts-This sworn accusation This is not part
| OF an examination What have we to do with that
| NJ Beach-It is part referred to by the question.
| Mr Eyarts-I don't see that 1t s
| Mr. Beach-wel. propose to show It,


Mr. FuertonThey need have anything to do with 1t If
| they had kept their hands OF OF it.


Mr. Evarts-we have had anything to do with it, nothing
| whatever.


| Mr. Fullerton-Yes you did.


Mr. Eyarts-we have pursued the right Of our inquiry to
wit contradictory particular point under the
rules Of law; and the decisions sre well Defined
| This ia no inquiry, and it Is not subject
| OF now consideration. Our Court Of Appeals has
passed upon it strict limitation within the last few years,
Now this precisely the point that when contradictory
statement at vaence with the that the witness pre-
sens answered by him admitting it, then they seek TO show


that he has made other statements that conatoy OF his
present views and contradictory and you cannot make
anything out OF it than that.


Judge NesoaWe have allowed that far the occasion
| the very occasion, part Of the evidence.


Mr. Eyarts-Now the law has said az UNDERSTANDABLE have
asked your ono attention TO the auhoes-that the Occa


sion qualifying Imitation anything occurred in the
very conversation concen the question and answer and


they seek bring here this witnesses Bu OF accusation or In
| diotment against his wife


Judge Ncison-Oh no, not against his wife
Mr. Byar.s-That is the whole point Of IT,


Judge Neison-Tha NOT material but Is not against his
| wife.


| Mr. Eyarts-It Is in this connection.
| Judge Neson-Tba is mere talk


Mr. Evatts-Y Your Honor right think, in that propos
| ton.


Judge Neson-No 1t s moral argument here and 1t
moral argument there understand it, to show
that there accusation against his wife do not regard
| II so at all but that is not material.
Mr. Evarts-We will look at the point The point is that
when have undertaken prove that he had made statements
excusatory his wife, they seek by proving
| statements TO the contrary in respect of his wife


Judge NesonThe wife not on trial there and she is
| not on trial here.


Mr. Eyars-Well that Is as 1t may be- in views and
connections say the only pernency which they in


oduce is break the force OF his statements that his
wife had insisted che had violated her marriage by
proving statement or accusation on bis part that she
| had


Judge Nelson-I understand you think ITO defendants
COUNSEL Gentlemen let hear you further the subject
ARGUMENT OF Mr. BEACH.


Mr. Beachh your Honor please think the point under
discussion has two aspects which arise from the character OF
the question which called out the part of
the defense Your Honor has said that the examination Of Mr.
Ton before that Committee upon the subject matter which
pending before that Committee however long may have
continued, is to be regarded as unit.
Judge Neilson-Wel, is that correct,
Mr. Beach-Undoubtedy correct Sir II the witness is
under examination before your Honor here has been the
case eight days and upon occasion hereafter his tes
moay action in which he is interested in part given in
evidence against him. rule Of law applies that whatever he
may have upon the subject during the whole Of the
examination Ia admissible. 1t must be so, Sir
Judge Neilson-Thst was my impression.
Mr. Beaoh-That is law, and it Is justice.


Judge NeisonThat my impression but was suggested
that the Court Of Appeals thought otherwise.


Mr. BeachThe Court OF Appeals Sir have simply decided
this and nothing more, that where part Of the de-
claraton Of party, whether it is unsanct!oned
sworn declaration, is given In evidence against
him all the part Of that declaration which Is kindred
subject to the part which given against him. Is admissible
and is not rule Of law, Sir 1t Is airmance
Of the ancient doctrine OF the law Of evidence. Now
they give in evidence portion Of the testimony Of Mr.
Tltop before this Investigating Committee. What Is
our position Sir Not that may give the whole
pan the whole Indictment the whole evidence which may
relate to matters not essentially and intimately connected with
the particular part given by the defense not
qualify explain every subject matter which they have
given evidence but simply that part OF the proceeding
before the Committee the part Of Mr. Tton which reflects
light upon the portion which they have proven Our
object is Sir, to get the whole truth, to get all that
Mr Tton said upon the particular point TO which they
have extracted single question and Of that examine
ton And who will dispute the prophey OF that Sir Who
will attribute the law any principle which shall prevent NJ
Tton giving all that he said before that Committee upon
the subject which they have introduced but part
clar Nv