Chicago Daily Tribune Newspaper, February 1, 1875, Page 1

Mt ay 3 Ben at VOLUME 28. GENERAL NOTICES, HEL BROS TORE CLOSED This Day in Ordor to WARK DOWN THEIR ENTIRE stock, PRIOR TO RENOVAL Closing-Out Sale ‘Will commence to-morrow morning, at 9 o’clocls, Nos, 63 and 65 Washington-st, TAX $A LE CERTIFICATES, Until Vobruary 16,1875, Tax Snle Cortifi- cates of 1874, held by the Comptroller for City Taxes of 1573, can bo redoomed ut 234 por cent premium, and Cortificates of prior years at 20 por contpremium. On the above date tho rates shall be incroased to 6 and 26 por cent premium respectively, and on Biarch 21,1875, the former will be increpsod 14010 percent premium. Tho holdor of anid eertificrios is now entitled to 26 and 75 per cont premium rospactively. 8.58. HAYES, City Comptrollor. FINANCIAL. TRE UNITED STATES MORTGAGE COMPANY LOANS small or large sums,. in Gold or Currency, on improved insido proporty. ALFRED W, SANSOME, Secretary, 7 Union Buildin; The Mercantile Trust Co, OFf NEW YoRE, Capital, $1,000,000, rapared to make loans upon Improved Cit wuntry iteal Hstate in Ilaoin at carrent rat M. L, SOUDDER, JR, Manager, 108 Dearborn-st., Chicago. $40,000 ‘To invest in Putchaso Monoy Mortgages, or a loan for five oats, by WAMMOND & GAGE, 78 Washington-at, STOCKS FOR SALE, Tenders} Ineaeunee, Charuber of Commerce, Wort Di- any i Malou Ullas, ead Bank SNe AAD & GAGE, 38 Washington-tt, MONEY TO LOAN Julaen suns 258 or cent and @ porcont per antum, on roved Real atatn, ee ADOLIIE LOND & BROTITE and 131 tas Are and IRON WORKS. tO WATER & GAS COMPANIES. GLOUCESTER IRON WORKS, GLOUCESTER CITY, N. DAVIDSE. BROWN, Pros, MI . MIUITELLON, Hou. IEN.CILEW, Troass “WAG BERTON Bee 4 re ees Palladoiptin, @ North Soventhat. Cas Gas and Water Pip Tron St ingend Btoain Pipes, slay Valven hee Wane eRe ‘or Can, all alzos, PIR EY Draws, Gas Lfolders, Toloscopie or Singla, gs and Wrought Iron Work of all kinds, for Gas Cast Worl BUSINESS CARD. ARR Nn nt AAA Ee J. Metin. J. 0. Wittiass, Eb. it, Wansin, of Morrison, Il, MELLEN, WILLIAMS & WARNER, (Buecesssor to Mellon, Willlama & Co, Commission Merchants, Koom 2. Chamber ot Conumeree, Chiengo, REVERENOEN—Tirt National Wank, D. Wood & Co,, Chicago; First Nailousl Danks Morrone 1 Apeolal attention to handling Provisions, ‘lour, Grain, Fed, Soods, and Drosead loge, Usual adyauces uu ally month, Laundry. MOTFICKS—196 Dearborn-st., 196 Michigan-at,, 199 Weat RE 5. Proposals for the Fire-Proof aud Burglar-Proof Safes _jPeluired by the U, S, ‘Treasury Department, a b. O., Piet trapuguted brovorade vail bo Fecowed af (ho Of Fashions E ety Treaanry De Resol 'G 2 et, reaaury Defartinent, my 10 Cs, wentil 19 mi, wary, 16/5, for forniels royulred by the Untiod vn thw sith day of date tho tire and burglar-peuol sates ate Trvntury eenanien ene ‘env ytar from iho aeueptaneu of thar ae peac eae eusaiul pidder ad ‘i how! eatinisand drawings, showing : ricllg, und (arma! propuale Cau ada ore eon applicatts wrvising Archit ratty bod of AN bic cl nied by thy gu $0 Festouniblo porgoue, dn tha sum af tenets at oF Tare (810,40), that the bidder will acrept cud tn pontract iamarded tw lim, inoauriuioncy ot Ieee Ae fobeeertified to by, tho, Voltad Pilates dudge, ‘Clork ut ulted stator Cauet, or tio Lat Distres ieuoreta thn hadlor ea fad See Tho Departinout resurven tho elitt 2 rejent an; pidsitatbo deemed ive the tatorust of tis Usnarenct Eycry bid mast ho mado on the printod form 1 < talaed at tho Dinca ot the Nuporriday: Aieatcoe® OU must conform ku every terpeet wit uo requirvmes of Lois adlvor(isumens atid tho spoulication, or it will 0 be Bonsiderod.. All not. bo recetved fron parties who are nit of tha ano. Prope ueuvelrey enuagod In te aun atacturect onfee a ave mot the neccesary ievilliles tur guiling cue Whe Preposals will 10 inclosad {na scaled envelopo, indors. od * roposale for Bal wea," * Hhebupehiay Avekiieh weet” an4 addenda ee gmt DISSOLUTION, The copartaerslilp teratoforo existing botwoon Wm. Gerwein and A, Gottlieb, uniter the flan game of G volu & Gottlieb, 1a thts day disaolvod hy inutual consunt, Win, Gervrote wil continue tha business, collect all outs aaucing Coble and pay all Mabiliticn uf tho late firm. ‘ WM. GERWEIN, A. GOPTLIES, = ‘Thanklog fo the many fayors shown to us by sud customers Laolici the coutlaunacs of a cent aaa fas ar ten, A. GOTPLIER. OPTICAL Goons, OPTICAL GOODS” Muroucera, Thermoretern, Uydrome Hucelurouvters, anda lara lag oe ees SEAR aat aces abate manufacturer apele 88 STATE-ST. ~ TILTONS TONGUE. Tt Will Reiterate tho Black- ness of Beecher’s Soul To-Day, The Gamblers Making the Issue of the Trial an Occasion for Their Business. The Brooklyn Municipal Gov- ernmeut Under the Faw of Plymouth Church, Arguments of Counsel on Both Sides as to Tilton’s Ad- missibility, Leading Points Made by Messrs. Evarts, Pryor, and Beach, CURRENT COSSIP AND OPINION, TILTON TO TAKE THE STAND. Spectal Lispatch to The Chi: ‘ibune, New Yonk, Jau, 31.—Tilton will undoubtedly 0 on tho stand to-morrow,.and will Lie allowod to testity. The decision of the Judgo thus fore- shadowed is anticipated by Meechar’s Inwyors, who aro proparing an argumont that his wifo can thon becomo a witness, though this view is al- ready ridiculed iu advanco by lawyera gonerally, Judge Neilson will probably . restrict ‘Tilton to testimony received from Beecher in the form of confessions, and lottors of admissions by others mado with Beechor’s knowledgo, and matter within his own knowlodgo, of which Beecher nd been’ told. What hie wife’ told him, Tilton will not” be. permitted to tlt. course, only . the 3 details, of + Boceher's confessions will Lo now mattor, an Tilton's story iyalroady before tho world. ‘I'he cross-examinn- tion will bo very sovero,andhowtlt doubtless boon the stand for aweek or two. Ho will corrobo- rato Moulton, howovor,in relation to tho letter of contrition, a POOI-SELLING ON THR REBvLf, “ So inteneo is tho interest iu the matter, that pools nro gold on tho isauo of the trini, 3 on tho reault of & horde-raco, On fSaturday night at Daj's, No, 166 Fifth avenue, a large number of these. pools were gold amid tho ulmoat hilarity ‘Tho majority of purchasera oyi- dently agreo with : tho mnijority - of the publio—that thoro will ba no definite result to the trial. Tho “disagreement of tho jury” was the favorite ngainst tho field, which con- sisted of Bocchor and Tilton—that ia to say, bow of two to one woro mado,thns there would bes disagreemont of the jury rathor than that oither plafntif or defendant would got a yordict. In some of the pools the agreement was knocked, down at £50 to $26 for tho flold, and $2 for a Yordict for Tilton aud $1 fur a vordict for Beochor, MONE PLYMOUTIC CUURCIL INGANITY. Anothor illustration of te excilomout caused by this trial ia the fact that, in Brooklyn, nows- dealers rofuso to soll a pamphlot-edition of the trial, reprinted by o law firm from the Tribune's verbatiia report, on tho gronnd that Plymouth Church objects to tho report, and is powerful enough in tho Brooklyn Gayerument to revoko offending newedonlors’ ticonses. The secrot of thin opposition the publisher alleges to be that anedition to bo odited by Shoarman, Clerk of Plymouth and counsel for Bocchor, is to appear at tho close of tho trial, + TILTON'S RIGHT TO TESTIFY, THE ANGUMENTS OF MESSRS. EVANTS AND PRYOR. From the New York Tribune, Jan, 29, Theodore Tilton was called to tho witness stand at thia juncturo, ‘I'he Clork began to nd- minister tho oath, whon ho was intorrupted by counsel for the defenao with an appoal to tho Court denying Mr. ‘Tilton’s right to be a wituces in tho case. Tho sonlor counsel, Mr. Evarta, mado the appeal, citing authorltios and examplos in proof of thoclaim aot up. Following is Mr. Evarts' argument, MR, EVARTS’ ARGUMENT. Mr, Evarte—Wait s moment, Mr. Clerk, Mr, Fulloston—Wo offor Mr. 'Vilton aaa wit nese, Mr. Evarta—I object to him as a witnosa in thocause, Tho plaintift is now, called, as wo understand, and offerod to be sworn us a wit- ness in bis own behalf on tho ivsuo of this trial. That issuo, o8 a question of fact, is wolely and distinctly tho adultery of his wife, ‘That is tho fact on which ‘his right of action arises, on that nlougs and as his wifo’s adultory, and ‘tho question of whother Mr. Beocker isa man of upright morals in this bo- half, or guilty of thia crimp, is wholly immaterial in reupect of Mr, Beochor's relation, excopt aa the responeible person against whom the law fives recourse for tho injury that has arivon from the wifa's adultery, which hax invaded tho family, destroyed ite unity, and, in the language of the law, been the cause by which he hag loss tua tollowship of his wits. Now, at the common Jaw there would scem to bono question that neither husband nor wife can bo enliod ay wite ness, not ouly upon an issue as Brave as this against the character aud conduct of the other, and as deep in its peuetration into the unity of tuartingo, but ov any of the more ordinary aspore sions of charactor, or intorforencea with tho family relation; and it is only, aw I. suppose, from there being some impression thatin cer. -tnin limited, ttatutory interferonces with the integrity of the commion aw rule in this behalf, these have come to be occasions in which hus. band and wife can testify against or for uO an- othor, that it can be presumed or protended that Mr, Tilton it a witness Leraon thisiasue, But itt Wan watisiled, your Itonor, that thy common law rulo as obtaining in thid Stato is of the regard and complotencss that I havo imputed to it, £ Hunk 1 hull bayo no difticulty in watistying your dionor that tho legislation of thin State, 9 fur {oom permitting auy such disturbaneo or doyia- tion trom that rate iv mcaso of thin kiud, hus, on the other Laad, completely contirmad it und refuved to divturb it, It Heeins to be utterly un- questionable that the wife cannot boa witness in thiscaxe, The wifo of this plaintul eannot te & witness to sustain hor lifo und character, ‘Tho wife of Mr. Beocher vannut bo a witness to du. fond her husband, because tho common low bas said, grout as is the interest of (ho administration of Jautiva all-powerful us it should be, to draw into Court all evidence that cau speak tho truth within tho rules of avidenee, yet the adtninivtyg. tion of justice, was wide for surety, bot wocloty for tho administration of jus tleos aud there aro certain institutiony lizetion, ils prose of roclaty lying: at the base of our of sustaiving the whulo fabrie of pority, its purity, tte dignity, and its etrength, which muat not bo undermined, or corrupted, or disigared, or detiled, under the notion that in tho administration of justive tho truth must ba sought iy svury quartor snd from every witness, ‘Thus the greab minds, legislative, judeciat, tho great inoraliaty, the preat roligions teachery, jiave all combinod to say thst there are certain liuita imposed by tho nature of human society in tho fabrio as tt is constituted, tur our dofonsa and protection, that caunot bo overpassed, ‘hat of client und attoruey, that of clergyman end [outeus. that of phywiclan und patiout, are, owover, trivial comparod with the relation of husvand and wife, barriers againgt the intruduc- tion of evidence from sources thus protected ; because, without that reupcct of tho fair to those relations, no client could confide ina Lawyor to Aadoad hin, no pativus iyo phywiclan to sayo CHICAGO, SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1875. him, no’ penitent In a priest or clorgyman to sid him. Dut when we come to the refa- tion of Iuaband aud wife, it is the fonndation of our etvilized sovinty, for though nature provid tho doxval attraction, vet it id tho civil and ree ligions institution of marriage thitt makes civil- {zed Cliristian coummnitios inatend ut loose nud lostf{al berdings of tne Luman race, Now, the common ta poeta by masonling understant. ings thet havo rrivent its great extablintimnent, rex ho tine and Kentimental phraces, sureh 93 coma from platform oraturs, or from eloauent lawvers, butit understands the institution Unt. it Lax undertaken to frame, and ib protecin it ace covstingly. It provides that, when manand woman come together nuder the Divino Jaw of purity, that they tain sitatt become ono flerh, end thts that the pomlation of the world. shall be fat ninhad, nnd tot olherwieo, couniatently with tho Divine comand. And when the common law ayn that a much and his wife are one, or, in Lord Coke's langnage : “As two souls in ono. peiron,"—it ix xaid no man shall put axnnder those who ara Uns joined together, and, least of all, in tho namo of Jas, shall tho edmine ixtralion’ of justice pall ‘aud tear asunder thisconjnenl relation by the step of the sherf or tho precept of the Julgo tht compels one to come und betray tho othor, It is not when tho question comes before tho Court #o tuteh the in tarent, of tho duty, or the particular circumstau- cea of the individual care of marriage that is thus brought up for uttention, a4 the instiintion iteelf. Ibis tho happy marriages, It in the une 1 marriages, it is the whole Hy#tent of ia! riage, by which husband and wife aro in tho nue premo confidenco within their honsehold nud jn cuch other's ombrace, that no intorente of eo ty. no kuv of the land, can invade, And if overy Hnglinbman and every American prides himself upon tho inviolability of bis threshold against tha King or all the power of government, except within cortain strict mandates of the law author- izing @ forciblo passage of it, how much imora dmnportant that ‘aM that makes tho inviolability of tho thresbold important, to wit. tho inviolubil- ity of tho family and the protection of tho mar- ringo, Ehould bo sustained by the law avast the King or the mandate, albeit, of the law! DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF THE QUESTIO’ Now, there uro various napects iu whicit this matter presents itaelf in respoct to this instit: tion of marrinzo that do not, perhaps, really rise to the mind os suggested by the particular eircumetances of any case iu which tho question wragitated, Lot us suppose that a bappy mar- riage has been invaded by o eoducer, ant that the wife bas confessed fo the husbaad and tho husband haw pardcned her, and thoy two, renew- ing their fidelity, continua to preserve tho threatened unity, anil have chikiren born th on their renewed love. Now, while that tdelity continnes, and that happinoss i4 maintained, a stranger, by alikel suit, undertakes. to fortity himself by compelling the husband to como and prove his wifo's pardoned fault, aud breale that marriage, mid dixgrace and degrado his children, Does the law do that? Ithink not. Sappaso that, in tho cago I havo imagined, the guilty wife had as partner in ber guilt 0 husband in another marringo, and, after this pardon and these years of contmued affection and of a fam- ‘ily, the fruits of it, then comes up a dulliculty in the first family, in tho family of which the ec- ducer way the husband, aud’ by now discoveries of g Jealous wito there is. an institution of a anit in regard to thet husband's adultery, to wit, hie adultery with this wife of tho othor marriayzo. Now, docs thia Jaw permit this wifo, suing for her divorce, to prove tho adultery of her hus- band by bringing from this otuer family tha line band to prove the aduitery of bits wife, Lis own wife, under those citcumstances ? I think not. And no case enn be found that justifles any euch proposition, Will the law, then, allow the quer. tion of whethor the warriage relation is thus to bo disturbed to depoud upott the voluntary dispo- sition of the husband? Is that the way ‘the law deals with tho general interests of wovioty? And if you can imagino the baseness that could bring a husband into Court after baying re- ceived a coufursion and pardoned it. and lived with his wife years in that relation, if you can conceive tho buseness that sucha huéband should voluntarily eppoar og a wituoas, doos the law changa ita rule in respoct of tho aauctity and protection of marriago by the dif- ferenco between vhother tha law compels, or the Inw allows of voluntary production of tasti- mony bya husband? {think your Honor will find nothing iu the books that; justifies auy such opinion. Sut thro is another goncral rolation of this subject in a dilferont attitude, in which the com- munity aro interceled. Suppowe that a hurband, instead of haying having discovered un adultery of bis wile, has invented un xdaltery of lux wifo. Suppose that through tho processes of law thero is sought to bo world ont » scheme of degradation and menaco on the community, well known to the polico, that is, a combination of corrupt imurriod pairs to mako yietims of third persons. Now, iy it permitted by our Inw that the wifo should bring about attitudes implicating any impropricty, and thon that the husband should bo allowed to come into court ana prove tha wife's adultery by the confession, as {t would bo eaid, of the para: mou? No; tho law in respect to the marriage rolation is not merely a law inter Keso in its protection of soviaty, not morely a law in- ter seso between tha married poople, not only a protection of the marriage ngaiust iunoyation by ono to the injury of the other, or by the pub- Ne to disturb ; but"it ia a position of the married peopte to socioty in which thoy moye that is not tu bo disturbed, Seo how, if a husband is ty be admittod to testify in issues of this kind, how tho law, defective and incousistout, nocesenrily, if it allows it, involves tho interent of justicn and throwa down tho protection of tho opposite par- ty. Suppovo 8 husband gives falso testimony by which a defendant is destroyed in that nuit, and suppose tho wife of the husband thus witnessing can prove it is falsehood (1 do not now speal: of hor oxclusion from that suit; to that Lhave al- ready roferrod), but whon tuo defendant iu that money action undertakes to vindieato truth and Justico st tho Bar, and indicts the falyo withers, the husband, for perjury, tho law enya tho #ane- tity of the marringo rolution doey not porinit you to call bis wife to vonvict him. ‘Tho rules of Inw aro universal, they avo prescicnt, thoy are come prehensive, and they de not undertake todo by halves and imperfectly what the absolutointer- eats of foviety require to ba dono camplotely and perfectly, [ir, Evarts then proceeded to cite and com- Inout upon a multitude of precedents from Ka- lich as well as American dovisions to sustain bis Yiews, which would fill four or flvo colamt Lug Titovse to reproduce, He then proc with his argunont, aa follows.—Ho, Cir, ‘nt 1] SPECIAL UCAKONS WHY TILTON SUOULD NOT TEN Tey, | Now, n statute was pavsol in 1997 which opena tho testimony of husband and wife toa eran extent and in certain cates, “Lho report which 1 uow rond from mose utter the payuwage amt Lake ing offoct of that strtute, tho forty:ninth Now York roporta, the case of Southwick va, Nouth- wick, pago bid, It wns an action brought by plate ‘against her husband to recover an al- god Lalanca of moneys in hua hands belonging to her uopnrato oxtute und revoived by Iiim a ler agent, ‘The defenso was payment, On tho trial, tho defendunt offered hiruxeif uy a witness in nia own boball, The plalutut's aunt objected that he way Incompotent, ‘Thoro your Monor fees = it wits ero = inonoy n= torest between hneland and wife, in whieh the wife sued, and the hnaband defended on tho xrouod of payment nud offered Linwelf ad a wits hesw. Now, as Tundowtend from an oxarina- tlon of this caso, the compotoney of the witness for the evidenca for whieh ho was calle was Wilhin the allawance of thin rtatute, and tho question whether tho principle by whieh death or Givolcs excluded at common Law jut ad thor- phily ng tho continusnes of the inarriugo rela. Hon exelided such testimony, whether this slate uto could be considere:k as letting in evidenco acining in the courso of a marriage, which vie once arone prior to tho passnya of tao net. ‘That was tho sutitary point thora to be decided, and, of courgo, I do not elto,tha casa for that purpcse, bocausa this ix not portinent hero; but ay a no esuary foundation for the pieral determination of whother tho wituess thers was oxeluded or nat, it becamb novessary for the Court to detar- mine what the rule of common law anterior ta tho wtutute of 1467 upon thie point war, and Whothor it did rost entirely and thoroughly not Upon interest, but upon tho anurital relation, And thoy exammed, therefore, these ling of cases ‘to which IT havo called your atton- tion, even more purtioulariy, perhaps, than tho Court had hud “bofore tham—Lad undor view, Aud ay I undorstund this caso, it deteriuinos thas thocommon jaw uf this State, up to the tune that this decision ia piven, 13 the common law a4 Thavo given it in the nglish wuthoritiog, ant would exclude and does exclucde any evidence of aS busband bearing agalnat tho interest or char- cter of is wifo, or of tho wife ayainst tho hus band, as wellas any qucstiou involving tha ine foresty of one or tie other; and thon tho ques- ton was what had this utatuto of 1807 douo in reference to this rolation of huabaud and wife and the introduction of elthor an witness in » Soutroversy im which the character or the intore ests of tho other ere concerned, and they held that the proposition of the appellant, that this Btatuto must bea considered a¥ anabliog coly for eoncutrences in marited Jif aut intent ta tte dato ia untenablo ; that the common daw, until changed, excluded upon the grounds of potiex, but (lint the atatute of 1X6 hauged fhe “e men Jaw in ity ication to that caso. Wo tons have the hi 6 Of oar State KoGUniNg tho propoyition that, untid statute changes, (he common Inw ruta ‘applicable to a cave of this kind, it retasis the Jaw of this State that a witness proponoil as this one ia must bo excluded, Naw, et common law no party could ln na wits nora, no formal party tow iit could be o wile ness, And in tierge ntumbor of eaves im wien this «mestion might lave arme for the fast that the witness Was A patl not nrine beeanse the common lav 1 oa awept ous at ones partics nus wwitne On erste Deeg tre po jmalter of parties (and § think my learned frends Will not quowion wy propasitians ringly mpon this ground ¢ Liat die party is not, from the fact of being w party, to ba exeluded ann wteneas, and the question whan a party is culled is tha eure ns to his oxelusion. 1 woul bo if he were not a party, ‘There ix nothing. therefore, in that that changes the rulo of the coramou haw im. this re gard, Mr, Wilton fs no moro atwiacibis for Deing a party hero than ho would La if he wore nota party. Then eame tho act of 1867, which was intorded to mofernte and qualify. on mate tora of interert. the exclusion of husband and wite. For when tho practices that iniereatad Witnesses altoid no longer be exelw'ed came iv, all effo ts to int: elinpbead and wife on the ground that ther exclusion rovtel on inter t, fuiled, before the courts, for they waid: “Not it rents npon the murriago relation.” Sow, our shation has varied the rale of the © law, and will sys nea prodnetion of avidenco from husband and wifo in mattars iv which thov are conearned, fiat en actmeut js found in the Xeasion Laws, aceon me of laws of 1567, page 2221, It ian lrief your Honor, of vourse, lias had it peloro you repeatedly, ‘Iho law stands, then, on the rale of upon the common law; for tho siat vs respect to tha native of the ane that no public policy contd tule of evilenco of o:ther pa: unt the other in that inquiry, fo any extent whatever. and that Any caroless expectation ofc Ieginiation tlt you could introduce into such issues and such troyorsies, the testimony of cither, and expect to limit, or reduce, or contine it by apy rie of pro tecting what was contidenco, of exemding what was criminating, would be a vain and ili oifort that would leave the matringe relation a tho administration of justies in equal dusseac and danger. Wo have now thig atate of thinws, and Tueed only mk your Houor'n attention to the decision of the Gonerat orn of the Suprema Court of thin State in tho Fourth Deparunent, since tho presage of this uct, and in aerim, cor, enso—the cao of Dann ys, hatn, in the first. of hew York Supreme Conrt Reports, ps du. Now, the single fuet to whiel the plaintiif proposed to be called as a witnexs in this enue of Danu and Kingham (a plaintiff standin: us My, Tilton stands here), wus to prove marrige betweon bit aud kis wife, ‘Thal is ne! A qnestion arising in the confidence cf mar- ringe. A marriage is always celebrated in tie face of the church and the world; therefore the pruof of that fact did not como within. any roavon or any rule of exehimon from. its aviring inthe coutidenes of marriage, It Lappens to hou very grave, practical quostion for tho plain- ti, ‘fuo marriage, wa may suppore, wae in common or Linindle Jifo, and bad eceurred before a dustice of the Ponce, and doubtless without any troops of attendants and friends; and tue Justice of the Penea was dead, and the record orcertificate which the law reucires, ond per- mits to by aurhentio when couform?] to Inv whon prodused, way found to be defective, sud it could not be used ; and the ‘plaintiff toad ap puronily au the wwitnons that must prove. tho marriage. or it could not bo proved at wl, and he olfered {o prove it, and by the rales of the common liv, aside from the marriaga relation, hie, of courso, was a goad witness ; ib occurred in his preseneo; hoe wos attending to the sub. ject, and kuow all aboutit. Ho was excluded, aud wvery effort of counsol, either argning upon a chango of policy, or upon statutury eilicrcy of the legislation of 2867, by which *Lhid’ witness could be callod tor that single fast oud act, wat overruled by the Court; and altiwugh this slat ulo had oxpronily provided that in a prosecution for bigamy tho first marriage might be proved by tho husband or wife, and that inan uciion of divotee, though the parities wore oxcinded for avory otuer tuct, thoy could bo admitted to prove the fact of tho marriago that way wouglt Eodnanived anda saviuy right lad beon applied by the Legislature lo the action of crim. con, though doubtioxs the sama reason might apply. ‘Cho Court could find no change m= the common Jaw as upplicabin to an action of erim, con., produced by tho stututo-houks uf the Beate. of New York. Wo aro uuubie, if the Court please, to toe any pretanso that’ by tho ututatos of Now York Mr. Tilton is made compotent. Wo keo nothing Lo shake tho proponition that by tho common Jaw of this Stato, if this action bad been pending and bo had buon called before the Passage of that etauute, be could not bea wile hers, nel fo stands in the Hane position now, A QUESTION OF LAW, NOT OF FAIRNESH. * Now, it muy scom, it the Court plonse, that thore is somo notion of fairnoss in renpect fo the teatinony pro and con in tls case, that the plamtift ‘might reasonably oxpeet to bo adiitted naa witness if the defendant is, ‘Tho difiiculty is that ho is tied by rules of law that relate to hinvand sustain against his will his loyalty to mariiago and tho wifo, aud in order ‘that ail otbor men may know that loyalty to marringo and the wifa or husband resiprocally is a part of the haw of our land not doterminavlo by the ca- prico or will vicious or banovolunt of any particu. lar witners, Sut ina larger seono from how ins oquitablo a change of law that should disturd tho marringo relation in its sancrty, and should open the mouth of tho husband aud close that of tho wife, What precludes Mrs, ‘Tilton trom being a witnous in this suit? Is phe to prove any dis- gruco upon her husband? Nowe. IH she to proyo any poril or ruin to her chitdrs None, Sho is to testify ujruinet tie monoy inloreat of this plaintia in hin action for dutuayes from tuladofend. ant. Sho would uphold svorything grost and dear aml permunen:, but sho affects’ tha mousy recavery and the common law oxeludes her of thab ground, aud no chango of the utasute line introduced hier. And yet it is supposed that tha coumun aw that shuts tho mouth of the witeess who knows the truth, and whom the law pre- Bimes innocent Wutil she is proved guilty, vaya tho cannot dofcnd heraolf w40 whe in the wite of Lit husband, and he can destroy her bo- cauyo ho ix the husband of this wife, t appres hond tho cummon law hag boen guilty of no such fully sinea its foundations wero Inid, and on this, if your Huuur ploaso, we submit the propustion, GEN. PRYON'S ARGUMENT, on. Ruger A. Pryor, of counsel for the plains Lift, answered the argumont of Mr. Evari. His remarks were épparently a3 full of quotations of suthoritios sustaining tly views of (ho queution ag wora thoso of hin opponent. Mr, Pryor-~If your Nonor plonso, E spoal to the Court on adry, tozhnical question of Inw, and, accordingly, I shall adhere etrictly to the point in disputo, and wball urge no topic whiek, intay Judgaient, doos not boar directly on the wulution of the problem. The question iu ity siapleut form fy thig: Ta.a plaintif? an an action of criminal convorsutlon s competent witness on his own behale? Now, sir, itis not pretended on this sido that wt common law the plamtit? would have been o competent wituees. dhe common law, procosding ‘pon the hypothesis of the do- pravity of human nature and its inavility toresist any or tho Joast wolicitution of iuterest 10 wpoale faluely, arbitrarily and poremptorily exetuded trom the witnows-box all juterestod ix the ovens of tho cago, and, by consequouce, tho parties, tho Yory persons who from tho necessity of the oo wero most familinr with tha facts ia conirovorsy, aml inost compoivat to shed light upou tho litigation, wero mado ine competont to testify. ‘Iuexe unphitosophleal and niischiovous ideas were exploded by tho writings of Jeromy Bouthaw, who propounded and incul- cated the principle that ull parsons should bo ad- aitto: to testify, withous respect of character or condition, and thas thoiy trnstwortuinoss glould Lo subuntted to the diveriinination of a Jury 5 10 other words, ho promulgated ‘ THE PRINCIPLE OF CHEDINNITY asa substitute for tho ull comiunelaw principle of compotoncy. Nor, sir, was it. lung before these #ueulations of ihle eutightoned refuraer were Incorporated lu the practical jurisprudeuee of Great Mrituin, In 1813, by Lord Denman's aot, the dissbilty to bevomo a wituoss, arising: {rom interest wod iufaoy, wae abrogatod. Iu 1850, by Lord Sroughani's tho Ipeapacity growing out of the 5 ‘@barty to acause was removod ; and, in 1853, act. the ineampat inhed, Impettesd by Lord Campbell's tency of coverture was abol- by tho same principle, and ranning aloug the ato Hine, and by tho rane iM State, Wen ance, the in OT Tn 1545, ths isn ished. "In 1457, the action was 'a poten vile! abulnshes and 6 inthis enlightened aud Lutan course, to ti degiee that now a crimiunl, indic to testify on bin of legivIntion, if vain disolay of # knowing that when and practical, bot eults removed. and in deliberately aday question of divures in determmn enlightened prow Now, sir, L hay passed by the Le the incapacity to on uf B pares to of that cuactmont cussion: “A party to an examined as aw ne from defect of rehigsi y acieing froin the relation of ininband testify tur and again each otver was auiin the acus oF Le enligntened cunntries the barbarous puliey of iueompasen tothe kame end, was tho lanelation of 1. in 1886, by constitutional or- yy to bo a witness arising us prineiple was abolished, Hey OF interest wes abate tho ineompetoney nf w party to volished. In 1467, the it m= and uOsequEntly we have attained ed. ie welanite own behalf. f cite this ennran Sour donor please, net as a heorctioal mformation, but as plo, both speculative enchitina of juris-can- inlutived of tho most ader (oe common Tay y has beca plo has been Were tho by the more vin the its stead tho prin ted by thin St ple of «1 maid thet in 1457 as act wy: Now York removin testify growing out af the re tha exude, Sie phrascotoy tw material to Uke present dis aotion or proceeding may be ‘itness in hid own behalf the BuMO 49 any other witness,” or to Lebulf, tho terms of th jected to ruccess never to the intent or to With cortajn excoptions nob material to this is th cause. You observe tho A party to au action or proe ing may be examined a4 a witness in his owe mens any other witness,” statute, incanwhil The Jrave been enbe- Hy but, observe, 18 effect of revtricting ive 19: or narrowing ite operation, but always with tho. obvious objec: and irresistible result of enlarg- ing and itoproving its conmequencen and afl mis thre Act of 1. Henes, wi apnity tu wstify quent aiteration mado cumyeliabl und now that statute, that forred to another those large torms merely adiii aif, by a. tabs phranoology, he was against ‘himsolt ; echactment, traus- section of the code, reads in ay his own b of tho je to testi “No person offered asa witress in any action oF proceeding In acting ‘This iy the charter of this | : ndiciaily, #1 lis juterest in tha ourt, ur bafore any ofieers be oxetuded by reason of eatof the 2 OF pru- sti coading. or bocnuse he 19 a party ue Yniw is tho Jaw which goveruel this cave. intitt's privilege and prerogative to tell in thia netion MIS OWN SAD STORY OF WREICHEDNLSS AND WE Now, sir. come io. 1 back to the act of 1557. i thatact, mmovating upon the traditional prine ciples of the common law, aud xo dome affront tg all the prejudices of the profession. albert su pinin and uneguivoeal in its paraseotuy, were subject to dircussion and to judicial ¢ tion, A series of cases wero decided determiving tho meauing aud etfoct of this uct of 1437 ont ie y to the action for himeclt, of 1357 dtd reawyve the disabllity upon a purty to the action, ‘Lhe question under disesesion and propounded for judicial conetruction iu the discussion of the ease Arhall cite wax this: did tho act have an outer cifect boyond that of retnoving the disability of and did it operate to enaide a party Ws for himneelf, but for hin wifo Qu the one Wect of tho act zo uuil legitimate a party to al that ft was not tha iitent of the Logislavire not the cifect of ity on- mnplisn this ukerior purpose, i and and which L beg custom was thin qua plaintiff, although tira a par vr husband, ay 4] uemnent to ace special zround of Now, pir, it wad upon tl civions to whieh 1 beg to invite your Huuor's at- the caae of Potter vo. Maral (30) Barb, page bu, Suprema Cowt Devision iv 1860) was an uctiou of slander againat husband and wife, for defamation of plaiutit py tention were cite defendant's wil ed themuclf . as hig and hor ly, each_for tho other, aded aud plaintif?. ad a verdic was appealed to the Geueral ‘Torm, und the ral- ithe question argued and adjudieated at General Term was, Wwhuther married persons, when properly parties to actions, ary gompetont witneasen, sivu of tha Gonersl Term sustained their com- petoucy, and this decision was afi Court of Appeals in 2£ Howard, 610, note. this decision of Potter yu, Mare was affirmod in tho Court of Appeals, und eubsequently cited With approbation and 'recogmtion in the caso of Webrkams va. Willett (Abbott, Court uf Ap- pealu decision); 9 caso reported ulso in ‘Ist ing of the Trial ence to Kev it answerg inuch civively, and with a purty may tent jos mere! nie it was contend str to cite to your Houor, : Although a par act O caKa imay be ? Mt that ihe 10H Tr diatiae Ne, Namoly, coverture down another compete! de ‘Lhe fit fo, Both dofondants offer. | thut the word * interent". in witnessens first cach in | fianvial interest. Novy, Hit own behalf; and, seond- | terest, what peenniary Tho witnesses wi bh dudge revered, ir, a this cano of Potter vs, Marsh occurs the Haegonge whiely Thee to zepratice, bo more Jogi ha greater we it of authority, than Leonld pretend to reapoud to & largo pute t.on of the learned gentleman's arguinent, ‘Tho Court pays: “But in this cago, tho defondants wero offer od ag witnosues in their own bohalf, as well as tur each other, law was based solely croated by thom: tion having boen removed, it was that tho nts in the {for each partica to tho caKo, other, wero witaiesiblo' an wither But whethor the commun fav, along upon tho grounds of futerost or not, being partiew to the recotd, and necessarily uro most certainly competent ay witncsHes in If tho rational and common rale for oxeluding husband and wife upon the tion of iutore arital rotation, that disquniitie: record, tuo date! Tule stood their own bebaif.” Such ia tho lettor and such is the spirit of tho enactment, “A party ton action or proceeding may bo examine: withens, ‘Thou tho Court proceeds in his own hohalf same os any otbor saya ‘No hmitation, no qualilication, no reatric« Hon is imposod by the Iaweinukingg pawer, right then bas statute, to maka patty uhall be dop estimony, while teutity ¢” Olearly the Court to tho An excoptiounl cave, when ono ed of the Lenutit of his own hiv apponent is permitted to nono,” waid the Court, (Hore Gon, Pryor eitod 8 numbor of prece- dyuts.—Eo, Cur, ‘fntp,] DERUCTION Now, sir, what 5 FLOM FORMER DECIMIONS. is the rovult of thia lino of do- eisious—deeisens winanating not ouly trom tho conrt of primary attitmod by your jurisdiction, but ratiied and tribunal of Inet resort? What une prinetplo is thero—vvon when those courts difer upou anothor question—what ons pri plo 1s there that slands ont ratient and uncon fested ? It inthia: that a party to an uctiva, being husband or wifo, in every and in any action, when the husband and wife is not also in party fo the action on onv sida of the record or thoothor; that theu, in all thos cases, Barty to the aciia: that nl or iB, bo ho or she, hush wife, is © compotont wituess in her own or his own h versal ane, Ant with HT challengo my learuod ad all their extraordinary awl admitable research, to tod in the reports of this Stato, uinea tho act of 1537, ono solitary do- ewion wi i Kays that a wife or Vand, pacty to the action, tostifying not ay hun it ry Dusband or wife, party to tha getion, that the hunbend or wifo, iuvompotont to wife, ad iho cago muy" alno uw party to the action, wuon a party to tho action, ix testify, whon the busband’ or ha, ia not likwiso, aud Now, sir, wo have then this rato, this principle, peremptorily sud imperativoly established inthe jarusprudenco of Now York, namely, that an porson, itr any an uate Lo as a part, Party—has tao right gua party, t audin consequence only of boing parson and every id overy action, 14 entitled—hu- 1, aud merely because he in & aNb$O Ws part ® purty: ontitled to Lo admitted to tho witnoss-box and to tostity to his own or hor own behalf, prow vided ho docs not against the himbay tite action. Naw, iu the courts of contravention of with its proper Iinitations and. qualitie: Now, sir, therefore or wherefore, it ty b testify, orshe dues nat testify, or Wifo, likowise a party €0 Achallongo a solitary di this Staco wince that tin: this rule, statiay it, as 1 tons, vite tua of ns onaetniont of 1857, subsuquontly ale terad sud modilied down to 1439, ology in which it cuntrols this case Hi ay this action witness, Dut we arnyo al other process of reasoning. uobject os it now inthe phtase- Provents ituelf 19 us now and j therefore, Wo vay this pluine ww compotent aud glintswitte ttha tame conclasion by an- ‘Toe law upon the Stulide t9 In those words ¢ “No porgon offered ag u wituasy in any action or provesding before any cauit ur before wuy ofticer avting judiciully, alall be excluded be- cause ho isu party thereto,” :¥au oboarve the change in the the statute from braseology of what is was re 3857, ‘Nona question that tha de- 0 io eHse ‘Lhe deel- immed by the 63,8 appeara by refer- Not only that, AUBO My. much mare dee thoy What fritter may, by judicial eonstrnetion, tho plain Jeter of shall bo excluded tho action." Now, eir, this because of boing a party to 8 plsintif’ presenta himself, 8 party to tho action inan action of crnaiual convorsae tio, At common Inw, a4 have siroady etiown iihapmtabiv, ho would not have bern a compe- tent witness: ond why not a competent witness at common jaw ‘ely. wololy, and excitsively, Leeause ho was a party to the ietion, | ‘Phat was tho only dixability whieh ineapacitated hit, and repelled hint at ‘common law from tho witness. box. Aud this because he tewitied to an act of aduitery eormutted by ant; ko when the Lesisinture #: shall be excluded from the ho iy a parts. thon thei tervening hetwoen the p nm this ease. In Engin that no parte ox eens Dbesuetsie inte hia testimony, 8 a atnsme they h Known aa Lord Canpbell aciy. ‘That wavute. Ike this. removed the dimabilty of a party to the action tutendfs. Now ob: if Yuar flonar please: “Removed the bility of party to the avtion,” — and © thee wil ib accomplibhed. Ts did not gu fure thers but the tif yan net d an exception that the plun- minal con verantion should ug plainly that waen they ro- wncy of s party, that the jon of criminal converaation feible as a witnes: the necuwsity of an exception ropolut fit trom tie witness-box. ‘Chera i¢no res vag Chat argitnent, ifthe removal of the di ability ofa party did uot admit the Plaintio jon oi Hitl Conversation a4 a con, an, then (hee was no uecasion fur stexesption, and when they niake a pores eexcestion to that eunetm f isinaft in iow showd nob testify ia brown Lee ihey concede tint whet yor rou ve tho di ion Gf 8 party to the actin, necese tho plaimi in an action of eriminal egnver tion would bon eotwperent witness: aud. in Wright. Lam cuaivetten to. *) Twor atmost ‘utd dd tha incom 7 in an © QUESTION LIBERALS Nowy, in view of the unitarm tra of legisiativs and deetsions inl this State. na bE have ads a Hunor, su view, L827, of this unio broken eerice cf acty of lesivlati in one direetion, wilhous ebo, in th enlarging this sphete of con moviog ail the obatactes ro the adimissibility of a wituess, [suv, in view of this reries of ley tin, wo wre coufronted at the threvlola ¥ & priori arzument relative to the ve ~thas i wranght the chan contended forinu tho uct It is not to bo presumed, in the abvence nd Inniguage to the contrary, that without lature would renounca Hs old principle, reeute from its deliberate adopted patuway, ant relapse inte the obsvlete, abandonel maxims of the common law... MUS. TILTUN'S AITEUUL TOWARD THE ACTION. Thur it may ce vaiton the uthurside, and, in tree, itwas intimated,—invdeed, we have a'premonitton of it {vom the istiaiauons of my lear trends, i tgued that virtunliy Mrs. Tiwi is to this action; ut aty rate, that Khe bas au interest in tho a not it diztlay, wt least a virtnal party Now, sir, uterost,"” dtu the qaalitieaion or disquulitication of a witness. ix a ferim well known to the law. Formecly, an tas Ritionat enrrent, fad and in ta to Your nat te 1 tewhug ectivis of aud re ‘been alrenly eloped ia the di asON. Inter eat dis jantiticd a withers, Well, what interest Why, nu other uiterest but o per i A pecuniary intersat of 6 ¢ to inako © witness incompetent et interert: und it ia another iustration of the wbsurdity and bara: Jaron of the ‘old common law that, whereas an interest in the event of ini action of 6 evaut, made thy paiable min im the emtaunity wn iso: lttersnt, nurgint bo, Giaquialii wes that while 9 pe conte 10 the event of tho cause wasn dienes 1 aot Of upatont, broti- ulin, POM having thus: yet a fathor might testify against a sun, so a Kintera dauithter against her tutu elt Ho tesufy, iog mover, but Lestify Oo invalyi exty, repatation. aye, lifo iwiclt, interest, hae Mow Vilron é peat, wiv has a prod interest of chi qehe hasthe samo in ; however, that thutths eliliven ave, thet ihe Fopuio, the common law odbenei recoxtuzel ug eonstituicd ube 0 cause. Monee, ints Darbout Yery polit asuumied in of Cazpenter vs, White action of criminal eouve! oD, Aud the husvand had the auJacions impudence (my frignds would was on (he other auia) io iter hus wife as a wit. Less to prove the factor aguitery, And by what argiinent did ho and elo prove that she Was @ contnetent witness ¢ His htt nud major premiso was thet al! persons who wera partios to the exeo were, by virtue of (he net of 1837, mado competent witnesses, New, this wife of this than is virtually Gf not viltuougly) a party to tho case, and therefure ina person i Miterest, and therefore sho inn competent witness. But the Court at General Term wadigeancly scouted r, party to tho ‘Ou Wil find the te Eb is the go 2, that is nu and waid that a wife, in an action of criminal conversation, has no interest in the caue—is not a parly in intsroaty,— is mot a party directly or obliquely ‘io tho action, that it is Lrougnt solely and cxclisive- Iv for the benetit of the bus! tlonee, if your Honor pleaee, inauniweh thea ng tho act of oxcluded a lusuind and wito from textit'y- ing, the wife party toau action of criminal eon- ion, frout teslifyiu.s owly asa party to the fection. for or. neainst a party to tho action, and jmasmuch as Mr, ‘Tilton here docs not otfer hum- eel€ tu testify ayvamst his wife, a party to the ace tion, be is not within the terms or the apiit or contemplation of this statute, Mrs. ‘Vilion is within tho very ternis of tho act. Why ? Heeana her situation answers to all the conditions which tho statute preveribed aa a ground of divyunlilie estion and inconweten This is an action of criminal eonversatio: he id the wife of the plamti, and if sho were to offor herself ay a wit husk, oF to bo olfered as a witueds, then ube would bo testifying in au action — of cruuinsl conversation for or against hor haposnd, party to tha uetionn And that is What the Jaw meant; aud why st intended to ox- clude her ig obvious enough, My learnod trient conld not, with his ingouuity, have failod to etambls upon the reason, A husband cannot bring an action for erimimal couyoreation und then produce his wite asa witness in his own Vohalt, because theta might be a corrups ea spivuey butween thom, “That wae the ground for it, and an all-sutlietont ground, 3M PRYOR CuNcLUDE: Krom Ue New York tribune, dan. 30, Mr, Piyor— 2. Now, pity sippose the Maintit? hore is admitted to the wituesd-hox, and gives evidence tending to conviel, og actuals ly conyictiog, the wife of witltery, "Does that convict her; dos that tend to convict her 5 does that uceass her of crime ? No, wiry not it New York, thu Levitical law, as your Honor is aware, both husband and wile were denuuneod) to deat tor the act of adultery, which law, though yovero, must be vom d fur tte am: | bartishty, da view of tha tendency of disposition | {i modern etvilalion, whieh ia ruther to wpe plaud tho wan for hiv exploits of gailante and to hosp tho joad of ignonuln upon the wrotched and unhappy wouate = feieuds have, the Kamoin kind, though notin degree, It is un torest of fechus; | itis nn interest, Io repeat of é NUMBER 168, because, in truth, it 1s not the law of the State o 6 York. pes MR. BEACH'S ARGUMENT, S;Beach— . . , Ida not accopt, sir, the & senderod by my learnod friend. Raducod £ simple proposition, in practical application ‘8caso, tho proposition of the counasl is Uenry Ward Loecher is a witness in this an, and Theodore Tilton is not. Whatevor ENF Ward Heecher upon that’ stand imny g s wife With the defoul- S42 mo to say, however ho may stigmatize Dher, ‘e Filton. if porchanea ha xhontid swear that F 10 the tips of Theodluxe Tilton forgisenewn hos ven Inerally tendered—nay, if he should awear tia he la pad Lieodore Tilton for the wrong, vived adixeharge for tho outrage upom HH, Ue Juvties and impartinlty of tho il exchiaes Theodore Lilton from an fio amjsttations. . It presente, ein, just ehision, and if your Honor yields to’ the ton, tt effects jist that practical reanlt, y Ward cher is freo and at libersy to whatever his eonxctouco will perm tho aceamed nedacer muy atte: ant aaa witness to free bineoif from tho ace ration, and tho wronged and outraged husland taust ait with Tipe sealed and can offar to this Court and imanpysctor his action, Bex i hs conclumon of that ha theory sud mine eluevons it all ity conacquanees, you munt bo driven to it by clear and saustacte: y authority. It ls contrary to aur notions Uf justice. Ib reoms tu be coutrary to thet * of arte deneo. and works @ prax rong vhieh wonld ‘age the common nensy of fhe com: “QUANTIY OF TIT ANESTH Now. sir, fobmit this ta grave (aut not only an effecting this priovipls eauule ened ty the Wisdum awl tie cap: of tha past, but grave and) important in its relations to Taosn other subject of domestio concern an] publi submitted to your Honor, Lagren, his. that tho nw cherishes with tendernass the Tawity aud tho home, and weil it i oix, that ib iweos for f too ugree with my leamad friend that upon them rents tho le formation of ary well ted vocicty and Cavernment. It in there that then Ieenatns of yusity wid wise dum ate vishh forming the mud fur charge uf tive cxal tutic’s whit overy member of & and fron a pak a carry nvard and. of twan's eration, ty or Goverment can #tand { —virtuogs.y rtand—axce: ance of Uy anes anil thu virdie of the doe Mivetic cite. ba Larree, tno, wit, tlt thee iv mae ot boanty and sacredness ‘in the ise ef uty atteched tu tio marriage relation, Tuat idea of the contluence of two souls nin; Nag ail their adections aud sympathies auc in- terest in one, and band in usud meeting the contingencies and wiversities of lifo with mutual 1 mene td love, is weil culenlated too. Mul imagery of my luarned adver eala, sir, directly and fealinuty to atisies, but are wo to formet that in d the progress of civilization that that idew has been mangied and torn asunder ? Ave we to be blind to ths fegialntion of te prose oat® Are wo to ignore thie teh that all theso ideas have been exploded and. dentroyed by what 1 deer the vandaliem of modern tegivlation ? In swerving character. 89 tj sate, impore 2 pou the maiuten Jn dots that unity was effectually ims paired under tte notions, and the com- monlaw the wife conld not sne the husband, Sho lad no etatis ta the Go diserng rixexcept in the wide mand the exaitad equity of 2 Court of Yet sho may now brug her action. Taw the wito can hold nosoparnte UW broverty except by ante-aupiial settle- jmaut or by te decree of a Court of Equity, anid how whe may co ont inte the world and wvislo with the energies of lve, Ouee her trie iw eirele around tho conmuersial anid tas here was in the ay hearthstons, cuilivatio: thute tender soatimonts ait qualities whieh Weis obimea ber wma and tlorys Init te-day, by tie voice and power of Oo, io “isd Ucheved into the busy 3 of ife and becomes an active and independent retor in atl struggle. the cuunel tye this idea of unity, this voueesrati m Of the gdumextic circle, cavaat be torn by the rado hond of thé law, Sir. it ima been maugled and torn, ‘Tint identity of interest, that union of soul. has Lech separated not ‘only by tho voieo of Ivgal theory, Lut hy five practical appli- ealion of at to the ordinary concerns of life. My learned trvuly have produced here, wir, wou dertnl wass of authorities gathered from tho adjadicacions under tho modern law, both in ci wd in the States uf thidcountry, But, aa yuu kuew, tia rules of evidence, nay, the prineples of law ag appiicabte to” dirtinet- comuauuities of our ovn conted ¥) tte regulated by tho special Temaistion of ench State, differing im each, conflicting in each, founded upan adverse aining d:versu policies ad they ara ihe parueutar notions of tho Kpe- cial Convatinities to which thoy aro tu be applied, Money WAS THE TREER GUIDES, And iow ia tun ivu te Le adjndaed, sir? Ty ihe taw of Euglaud as it was, ov by the hw of sof todas? By. tho legivlation of our od ites, or hy the Jepisttion and tt the policy of tho Kate of New Yor! Cortaiuly, sit, by the Istter, und what neud to gather tore nueieus authoritien pronounced wader & rule gud policy inapplsable to the Preaent condition of uur Boviety, aud azxert- ing Hone of tho rigata which, by modern. feiss lattun, have beew conferred miutually pen hits band and wife. My friends ave Leen. digyang among fossils of m past generation, ‘fhoy ata gathering hery tho dead careasees of explad theories and adjudications, ad confront thow in ghastly contrast with what protessus tu be tho improvement of modern timex, Mu, wa Bra wot to bo guveriea by them. Year Honor dit to decde tins cava in conuonanco with tho ideas of this day, as thoy are extablished by the Lone inlaturo end the law of this state, ruided, Ladmit, by those genoral considerations of propetely, aud by thone rules which govern the construction and Appleations of #tatutos and dectsons, Lor ox- uininug thosy, sir, in ansver tu bi ilnstration of nny lvarned friend. aud to sid romewbat tho idea of tho veal unpructical imate which in pro- Hented by this objuction, perunt me to follow dita in uu Mlustration. Eimayine, sir, a happy, aud honored, and u cultured home, The wife a frail, aud featile, and deli eminoully ulional Rad pious in all her impulses, and, aa hag bean shown in this case, and will be shown lereaher, dovoted to the husband uf bor eaily eluice and the futhor of her children, Sie had w pastor, learned wud eminent, gifted beyout ins fellows, ono who Ktood at the very bead of his honored and sacred profession, ouv whoxo words were littened to with delerenee wil necoptanes, Alt Bir, ho had those quulities of mand and heart; he had that porauasve pouwor of vloprsace, tht iuatdions avd silver tougie, whieh would Inve an angel from parade, Ho wad lier aceopted and chosen proavher and guide. hie louked up to him with a renerion second valy to that with whieh eho recarded her Gud, Ai, Hf ani incernate Cliist led coms down with the glory of Calvary upon his veuw and the love (© saeriticn fit eyes, she could nog have bowed to him with” more obadienes and Holetrowm deterones than thus waman rene dured to hor pustor and her oartily God, Brow hoe ebitdhood, wir, eho was ander hia teachiuy wd duminion, Ifo was nlmou: uy imaate of hur homo. In ths eonttienvd of n husband aud a friend, a pupil of thin ugod, aud venerable, snd gifted man, he was woteomed with eoulidonca und affection, He oxcried upon her, ai all) bid ria, lit epectous wisdom, bis putyertul devotion, All Uw eftorts of his gifted natura wera banded to tuo seduction of this happy and beloved wita aud to tho Btatex Inshizated py hi Su, in 1650, when tho principles of Pu tanism—princi}los borrowed from the Musuiv divpousation—wore predominant itt the Govern. mment of Groat Hritam, thoso bigoted fanutic pagsod 2 law denouncing duath aguiust aduite Jbat, upen the return of rewion and tha Stuarts, that law was repealed; and it never was the law in Now Yor's, it nover was a portion of tho ease qnon law of England, that adultery was a crime, Open liceutlounnoss 8 eruny, aud indietable at | commor law, but adtitery novor was a crim at | commun lew, ‘he common lav loft adultery to the coguizauza solely of tuo cvvlustaatizal courts, Who ebuntasad st pro sadute anime, ts ths pressed it. Adituery uuver waa a evi hy the Taw of Now York 5 us natu lay it is vogufded ws u private bosing the ford Jeasor to wn action tor civil damages, but it wad noyer cousidezed & penal ofongy makin hing obuoxiuuy to a eviminal prosecution. —Uenes, althouglt tho rule coutended for by the lonmed soutleman bo sumnd in all ity parts, yoo it is ine applicuble hora, becatne the testimony whitch the plaintuY maygivo, and will glvo, though tending to convict tho wite of adultory, dues uot tend to accoso her of a crimmal offeusa, So that for vo reazone, Without detaining you with any tion OF this argument, ths second ground Dreamtet by th loarned yontleman wholly fails —faily bocause, if sound, itdoes not go to the competuncy of tho wituess, but to the ade missibility of tho teatimony ho may givo—ki- @pplicablo, becattsa it docs not tend to convict the wife of acriminal offense, aud inoporative } aguinst hor tor and mother, and sho felt, And do you wonder, sir? Is suv to bo blamed tor the act? Is this s proseeation uf her? is the action’ theroafier Prouxht by her wronget husband an avon her condumnation ? Ob! no, sit, Consider how strong ho was, aud how woak sho was. Consider how suvinisuive sho was ts his teachings, aud imagine with what a upeclowy and insidious tonsno be prepoundod to her the thoory which bo advauced, that fornication was bit a watural exproeaion of love! Ile taught her to believe in plous adultery, By slaw, but. by steady wtayt, ho led bee alone upon trail paths tu the prociplee from whieh sto foll. ‘That spducer is brought into & court of jastivo to aneter for hin urituo, iTusband wrongad, saducer guilty, stand befure tho iimuculats justice of the law, and before Whieb cacl# hay to answor for tho docds dono in toupeet to this womuu. Aud wo aro told, uir— thould ba told, sir, in such & caso, ace wrdiug te tho logis of omy — loarnod fiund—that this ased ond vouerablo and red sodueer may tako the staud aud polish al apologize for hig guilt, and present ull tho dfonses ef bis practiced and lourned ingouuity at that the husband must be wtill aud’ silo ang that this is tho law—the law which fx nots Texnctur of porsuus, & law which bolds ont sledy gui evca justice to Udgaute before it, andyith all tho sophistry of tds great powers, iny purned filund subsidizes them to eatublish that doctrine injustice aud,wrong, I say (Seu Fltth Page,