The New York Herald Newspaper, January 30, 1875, Page 2

of OLD and M owhern gentie:nan, fine specineny of ULv MA. DERN PAINT. Some of oP ke ant valuable, Also a Collection of modern and antique Furniture, Bookcases, Clocks, Curiosit nis, J 1 Sates: Feo ¢ o'clock, viz. 734 aut Parlor and Bedroom Baits, Oil Paintings, Lace Curtains, Mirrors, Bookease, Wardrobes, spring and hair Sui ., Clocks; elso dintngroom, basement, Ce clioneer. JOHNSON, J A —IERE » Furniture, Me AUCTIONEER. and kine Arts salesroom, Au strect Park row, New York. 12 o'clock, Real Estace Departmen On MONDAY roceries, Pickles Ks, Wines, € Carpets, &c., &e.. Sc. At Mousenold and Cabmet Furnitur: sed im housekeeping, &c. ho 90). 5 street, n.s., I tect off West street: lot 22x101.6. Maps Yo and particdiars &t Auctioncer’s office, No. 30 Pine street, | 5 vCTIO . A ousehond Furniture, i to be sold Till \)) MORNING, 1034 o'cloek, ry bre ia ‘binets. Jar- inieres, Bronzes, Uil Paindags, de. ; nits in Bold walnug, Dressing Bedsteads spring and hair Mate Lady's secretar o Chairs, dining room Bune, Exte: ut; Chairs, China binuer aus Tes &c. ; also urniture. He , Auctioneers, APURDAY) MORNING, ri 310 HANDSOME, PA. ¢ Desks. Tu ds, Dressing Mat ‘nsion Crockery, rep, Furniture, 7th or Sth pods city or country. SHEN, Auctionee AUCTION, t gnificent Household Furniture, at the first Glass private manston 1s West Twenty-cighth street, one block trom Broadway, near Ws o'clock. ich Parlor ost Mirrors, es, rosewood and I Bedding; library, dining room and ba ture; Glass, Chin, Silver Ware; 17 Carpe pets, Oilclo’ ton street (side Sk nglish Brassels, Three-ply and Ingrain eheap, from auction, at ar. ver 112 Fal. ton stre entra B geoee eye! sell, 2 oPelocik, 34 ave: Notions, TLL ock of Fan and Dry Goods, ¥ quantity Ribbons, ready made lxdies’ Suits, Woollens, shaw Cuulery: also large lot meu’s Clothes, Furniture, Be seads Bureaus, ) . Chairs, Parlor Suits, Carpets, &e, LL . corner Sixty= ostiy english Ale Pump, Tavies, Chairs, Mirrors, Glassware, of first class Ljguok Store;' positively in lots Dealers especially in- AUCTIONEER: Lovelock, at N xiures of a liquo HOS. H, SUL OWE & HILL! saie-—this day, Street, the Stock and MARSHALS West ienth store. IVAN, Marshal. Lhe MERE R-REGOLAR + sale this 0 y 3, at 10% o'clock, At 154 Bowery. of general Merchandise, Hardware and Cuulery, Axes, Hatchets, Hammers,’ Tacks, Screw Drivers, Vocket aud lable Cutlery, goid and si Watches, Furniture and Carpets, Cigars, Lobacco, rs, & Sale positive. De: , ido. Gin, taining Bourbon, “Brandy aud Sates. By order ofS. D, HALL, street,— “the Stock, Fur- nitare and staurant S48 rixth avonae, near Twe ad street, consisting of the tutlaod complete ¥ also, the Ales, 1 lot 1¥ desired. OHN UH. oJ Kebraas g'elock A. ange, Street Lauips, £¢. ; @ offered in one DRAPER, AUCTIONEER.—TUESDAY, and following days until sold, at 10 M. sharp. at the private residence, No. 2 West Fitty-nintn street, peremptory sale ot the Furniture of the above dwelang, compr m¢ gant sciections from the best makers, Oil Paiutings, Fors, Billiard Table, Glass, China, Gas Fixtures in ‘glass and bronze, Can be examined oly by permits from the auctioneer. ORTGACK AUCTION- cers, will sell, under 4 certain chattel mertgaze and by or: t public auction. on Monda in the lorenvon, on Uh in niture ngton Marke’ rang Room F: table Cloths Kitchen Utensils, | has been established over 3 lease has four years and six mon'hs to rin. Yo be sola in one Jot, JOHN Hi. HILLIER, ttorne ; tor Mortgagee. ARSHAL’S SALL.—HENIY DREHER & Auctioneers, by of an exee cloe SHERIFF'S SALE OF HOTEL FURNITURE, CAR- pers, & Sheriffs Auction Pelocks ai the. Mai Ei sells Monday, February 1. at » Great Jones Carpets, Oil. cloths, Pi &e. iar said hotel.” We. B. erimf. HOMAS GAPFFNLY. North William street: se 0 the Lease, Stock and Fixture eC blished room and Oys' Saloon 54 and 66 #troadway, Wiiliams- burg. Sale positive, in one or more lots. PIANOFORTES, ORGANS, &O. A =—FOR RENT, UPRIGHT, SQUARE AND GRAND « Pianos of on 7 ae second na, AB at BAINES w Pi in Rooms, 7 Union sq low tor cash; two Pianos, bee ROSEWOOD PIANOF( Pianos to rent: $5 monthl magnitice AND Stool, $100 instal- ments rece! ‘sacrifice tor ca 3 new Plane OLDSMITH’S, 26 Bleecker street, near Bowery. NEW DEP. 41. upright an paid tor; a few e bargains 5. X. BALL & CO. 1 ki ND HAND til ROSEWOOOD $10) MELODEON Fuk $8; RENT $2: carved leg iano $50; Weber Piano for reut; feven vctave Piano, GURDON & SON a ret. N UPRIGHT FINE TONED 7 OCTs PIANO- forte jor sale for $125, or would rent tor $6 a month 54 Clinton place. ast Fou to responsible parties MAGNIFICENT 7% .OCTAVE FOUR ROL cornered sicinwav & Son Pisnoforte, made to order: ak improvements; cost $900, for $25y; stool, Cover. Box tor shipping. Cal private residence 120 West Sd at, near 6th ay. FOR $10) A CHIC " ern imorovements, fron Box tor ship- bul of shippin nics, by privace ve S10 West dist st AND 8KCOND HAND y. yet low for cash, glith street, y tie apalay ORGANS UNAP m cay and an Winners of t tardaly and Diploma Honor a end at Indusriat Exbiiation WILK most Hmportaut Harp Cabinet « alo WAMLIN. CABIN M*Sroncn tree | 1874, Paris, 189: ri three y ars buy rooms, 2% Union pax 3 TO REST OR SELL—LARGE LOL: PRIC and terms fo suit the \imes. Caillat MERRELL'S, No. § Uniom square (iso Fourth avenw JPRIGHY AND sqva PIANOS A On instalments or refi; $$ upward toums, 758 Broad Way, coruer .enih $i W CAL@ PIANOS, CONCERTO as, will be sold this week at reduced ¢ monthly instalments received on ianos, $10 to $20; Oryans, $5 to $.0; second nand instru 0 $9 monthly iter Grst deposit, WATERS Broadway. ACQUAINTANCE inverview, H., box y. erald otfive, 0, 2 OF THE MATRIMONTAL ADVERT KR WILL be F 2 on Pon me ‘rice Iv conte . _ | curred. | “ w _ MUSICAL. C ARD. —DON'T PAIL HEAR THE Orchestral Mathushek Pianos: siory. Ageney, 24 West renrteenth street (op: Boven's Gardens), PRIVATe MUsICAL UNIVE TION ON PIANOVORTE WONDERFUL AND SINGING AT dence, $10 per quarter; pupils taught singing in knglish, Prewch and Italian languages; also prepared for concert. Address INSTRUCTION, box US | Herald Upiown Branéh a) “aguen AND THE ENGLISH —Teachers going to Japa ion in this pamphiet. 250, A. MARTIN, ey place. (CSSANST AND CHOIR—ONE OF THE MOST DIS. Unguished orgauists, with most excellent tesiimo- nials (Six years in preseut position), desires a position in | New York can furnish a first class double quartet, | Ad- | dress. tor ove week, ©. V., Herald Uptown pranch office, 1,205 Broadway. OMA OF MERI 1p: D'or Peterson's Am for inay T COPY OF RUB! r from Royal Gallery, Munich, purchased there by ner, In for Useful Household Furniture, in- ding Piano, Address M. A. B., Herald Uptown Branch 1 bs y IN PARIS, highest diploma, a good yor three American young ladies as sil one of the finest” and heulthicst Tausician, Wishes: buarders; she r parts Of Caris, and promises every coarfort at mouerate terms; best of reterence n. ‘Address Mme. SIMON, No. 4 rue Regis, Faubou Germain. sa DENTISTRY A BEAUTIFUL SET, $5, $8 —CONTINUOUS AL Yeeth, $10; extracting With gas, 5c. ; silver tllin Examine specimens, New York Dental Rooms, N sstablished 1854, Remember 262. Sixth avenue. ne a | MURDER IN A LUNATIC ASYLUM. A PATIENT BRAINS HIS COMPANION WITH 4 | | HATCHET, A few years ago the attention of the Commis- sioners of Charities was called to the fact that it was dangerous to leave any portable object witbin reach of the demented inmates of the Lunatic Asylum, on Blackwell’s Island, and the circum- stance was brought forcibly before their notice | | through the publication in the columns of the | HERALD of the particulars of the murder of one | | lunatic by another at the institution named, In | | that case a female patient beat cut her room- | | Mate’s orains with @ utensii called a “kid,” which | was leit in the cell, Now the Kings County Ln- | | Batic Asylum brings to light auother sanguinary warning to the Keepers o! such asylums against at | uny ume reposing confidence in the unforcunate | people consigned to their care. The event in | question ts the Killing by Stiles S. Middieton, a man about thirty-five years of age, 01 Nobie S. Benrett, Who Was sixty years old, Tne murder occurrea on Thursday aiiernoon, but the authorities in | charge of the asylum, with tiat natural aversion to | making public any occurrence that may reflect | upon themselves in their management or adminis- | tration of the trusts confided to tiem, Kept tne | | mutter irom the public as Jong as possivle. Yes. | | terday Coroner Simms was notified to hold an in- | quest, and, from bis investigation, it appears that | | on cue alternoon in question Sules 8, Middleton, a patient who has been lor severa: mouths regarded as periectly harmless, and who was accurdingiy } permitted to rvain at large throogh the corridors of the house, Went to the room of 18 keeper, Mr. Govene, and attempted to sneak away with a small hatchet, when the keeper asked dim wnat be wanted to do with it, Middieion said he wanted it to drive @ tack or two in his room. The purse refused to permit hm to take it at the time, and the jellow, who appeared quite calm and reliavie, walked away, @ud shortly afterward returned to importune him to aliow bin the use of the hatcnet. Middleton went away with it, and soon after re- turned aud setit by the side of the door, Subse- quently Mr. Govene went out, and no sooner had he turned his budk than the lunatic again cook the hatebet and went to his own apartment, where Mr. Nobie 5, Bennett, an inoffeusive, genuemanly patient, was sitting. Both men ate said to have been on the most intimate und friendly terms, and the idea of the one atlempung violence to the other never entered the minus of the nurses. The | lunatic Middieton, on returning to his room, it 18 | supposed, for there 13 LO Wi'ness of the occur. | rence, without the least provocation, struck Mr. Bennett with the hatchet on the head, | ariving the soarp blade througn the skull and into the brain, He then walked back | with the hatenet and leit it where he haa found it. Waile going through the corridors on his way back he was met by the keeper named above. He exclaimed, “I have quarreiied with Noole Bennett, and I think he is hurt; you had | better goand see him.’ The nurse on going to the room Was horrified to find the old gentieman struggling in his Geath agony. The doctor was | Summoned, DUt could Not prolong the life of the victim, Who expired Within au pour, The Coro- ner’s jury rendered @ Verdict in gecordance with toe evidence. The deceased was the father of Rev. George 5. Bennett, assistant minister at st. | Peter's Episcopal church, in State street, Brook- | lyn, The other patient, Stues S, Middie‘on, is a sou of ex-Sheriff Middleton, and he has veen an | inmate vi the asylum jor the past three years. He has been piaced in close confinement, and will not be permitted to agaiM room at larce through tne hallway. CHARITIES AID ASSOCIATION. NEW YORK HERALD, SATURD THE LONG TRIAL. | | —_——+-—— | Twentieth Day of the Great Scandal Case. THE ARGUMENT CONTINUED. Messrs. Pryor and Beach Re- ply to Evarts. SHALL TILTON TESTIFY? Interesting Law Points Raised on Both Sides. JUDGE NEILSON TO DECIDE ON MONDAY. A Proposition to Lengthen the Court Hours, Yesterday was a day of argument. Mr. Evarts | had delivered himself on Thursday from a well | filled mind as to precedents on the right of a hus- band to testify even Incidentally in a case involv- ing his wile’s dishonor, The Brooklyn pubite had been partly aware of Mr. Beecher’s desire, through his counsel, to keep Tilton off the stand, There was no opinion in | favor of Tilton testifying or going tothe wall. A great many people thought he ought to speak, | because the issue Was between himself and one other person, Even Mr. Beecher’s partisans won- | dered what reason or policy existed in favor of | Theodore’s enforced silence. Yesteraay the entire fight was over Tiiton’s Tight to testify as precedents stood. Undoubt- edly these precedents, put in thetr succession, operated against the plaintim. But the course of law, Its ilberailgation, its progress, ite tendency | to separate the wite’s individuality from tne husband and the husband's individuality from the | wife, bore toward the desire of the plaintiff's counsel to introduce the compiaimant, We need not disturb ourselves about the rele- vancy of this testimony to the issue, Everybody | knows that the contest in court is Tilton against | Beecher for damages. Without Tilton a great part | of the plaintifi’s case is document and hearsay. | Tilton in the witness stand 13 @ personality, un | eMgy, @ human representation of his alleged | wrongs, appealing as sufferer tothe jury. His | course for the past nine months has been of such ; @ character as to make lim formidable, There | 1s undoubtedly a theory with the delence that if he testifies he will make an | impression, and that he should not testify lest ne | incite whe jury. As tothe law against bis testiry- | ing, the burden on that side was with the plaintif | and the precedents with the defendant. The plaintiff's counsel, Jed by Mr. Beach, relied upon the growth of tho law as related to the sexes | wie and husband being iodividualized and made supporters or opponents, according to the charity | of the facts. In this case the husband nas as. | | sumea the attitude of ‘protecting his wile | while prosecuting her alleged seducer. He therefore claims in equity the rignt to! be the exponent: of her sin, while the explainer of the circumstances under which she | sinned, The defence regard Mr.-Tilton ag an in- | triguing, artful witness, to be shut off the stand ifpossible. His relation to-the case as a@ relator | will have more effect upon the vast public, whether | he be excluded or admitted, than anything he mignt say. If he does not speak, his testimony | will be interred. If he does speak, his feeling will , quality his oath. The law is probably agaitst tis | testifying; so have some powerful lawyera said to us. But his importance as 2 witness, both to the defendant’s honor and the great mystery itself, can scarcely be computed. | Theodore Tilton is the positive personality in this cause. His inferiority to Mr. Beecher by age | and rank has somewhat obscured him as the real | projector and sustemer of tnis case. People have | insensibly reierred to the great pulpit orator as | more than the counterbalancer in pomt of worth | A meeting of the State Charities Aid Associa- | tion was held last evening, at which the reports | of the standing committees were presented. The | Committee on Bellevue Hospital pointed out some | of the delects inberent in the present management of our public institutions to whic the attention | of the Commissioners might very properly be | called, Each imsti:ution ought to have a head | ofticer, Who could be made responsible for every- | thing in the builuing. Jt was claimed that this | would keep tue subordinates in better train, and point out @ way in which complaints could ve | entered aud remedies applied. Tne ladies also | reported that the suppites of all Kinds were kept | ou hand in iusuMcient quantiles, so that when an unusudl Dumber of persons Were sent to the o0s- pitais there Was much suffering until the de- Qeiency could be atade good. Xne question | was also raised whether the wardens and matrous ought to be permitted to take the staff of physicians and others as boarders. ‘The adairs o: Randail’s Isiand were submitted in the report of the visitors. Tue ladies have never | ceused tO complain of the manner in which the ni service is periormed at this mstivution. | ‘They confirm what the HERALD trequently | puvitshed—that degraded Women woo are sent up | jor druokenness and theit are employed co do the | scrubbing and other work in the vuilaings occu- | pied by 1,.00 children, The vile inflaence that tuese woinen are able to exert over the poor clii- aren presents a picture which may well cecasion pest anxiety in the minds of all thougntiul | ‘sons. It does not require a very pro.ound | xuowledge of political economy tur any one to de- €iae that it is poor economy to use the unpaid help of prison convicts in preierence to hiring honest aud respectable women to have charge of the apartments of the children, ‘The association adjourned to the last Thursday in Feoruary. RAILROAD ACCIDENTS. A collision occurred on the Erte Ratlway early be yesterday morning, avoat a mile from Hohokus, | Three freight trains, bound east, were following | each other closely, when the foremost train sud- | denly slacked up. The second train dashea into the rear cars, four of which were smashed. Tne | locomotive was also greatly damaged. The fire- man on the latter, James Lawson, of Port Jervis, | Was lustantly killed, ne engineer saved himseit | by jumping. The fire in the locomotive set fre to two of the cara, which were en | bacon and four, and botn were | consumed. The road was viocked up (or six hours, A reiiel train was sent from Paterson. The til- jated nreman was found crushed between tne | boller and coal bunker, having heid on to tne | brake ii (he last. The damage is about $20,000, | At the time Of the collision the second train was running at the rate of fifteen miles an wour, and, | owing to the Silppery state of the rails, it could | not ve quickly stopped. | AHuason River train, of ten cars, loaded with cattle, ran Of the track near larrytown yesterday morning. One car was upset and several catiie were killed, No serious detention of trains o@ JERSEY'S JUVENILE BURGLARS. William Clark, the youth/ul burglar, who pleaded guilty to oreaking and entering several places in Jersey City, was called up for sentence inthe Court of Quarter Sessions yesterday. He said he bad nothing to say in mitigation of punishment. He pleaded guiity to five charges, aud was sen- tenced to five yeats on each, all the terms to run | togetuer. Judge Hoffman remarked (hat the Court could send tim tor fitty yer bur it was not likely be could live so Archibald | Hiking, ao accompiice of Clark, against wom were five charges of breaking and entering, was sentenced to the State Prison for three yeurs on | the first charge and five years each on the other | four, the terms to run toge(oer, making five years | mau, William Allen, wiso an accomplice, two charges being against him jor breaking ana enter. | | tun. | larity. of his aspiring, iruculent, boyish traducer. In reality Tiiton is not a boy, buta person about | forty years old. Tilton is a mystery to his imme- | diate iriends. Some of these think that be nas | pianned his life and walked inflextbly upon a pro- | gramme as to its conduct. Otrvers think him to be a Bobemian, who has made the past a repast, and 18 using the wonderiul dramatic occasion now be- | Jore us to restore himself, He bas certainly given nerve and vigor to his counsel. Tae oid limbs of the law, like Beach and Fuller- ton, would not nave kept Tilton’s cause in mind unless they had a certain reliance upon the piain- Had he been frivoious, uncertain, egotistical, pattering, be oould not have gained their cre- dence, nor could he nave keptit. There are not, probably, in this country two more albuminous, cool, rigid attorneys thau Fullerton and Beach. Mr. Beach bas advanced in years as well asin | Practice, and reiles upon no supposititious popu- | He has little to expect from the renown he may gain in this matter. Mr, Fullerton is younger and probably more regardiul of his future. | But both of these renowned lawyers appear to be . subordinates, and associates of Tilton rather than | his superiors. Tilton i8 @ man of an unclassifiable tempera- | ment. He ts an egotist, but a peculiar one. There | are times when his enlogists can scarcely get nis countenance, and all the time bis enemies are unable to get his opposition. He has embarked | im this cause with Mr. Beecher his entire tempera- ment, which is the bulk of bis fortune. Inflexi- bly, methodically, incessantly he bas pursued this case, making almost @ profession of it, and evapo: Tating day by day the unmecessary portions, until has sublimated, condensed, arranged and made projectiio every fact in the | guignty mystery. Whether he be the sub- ject of an hallucination or the convert of a series of evidences ts to be solved by this trial, At any rate there be sits, @ sphinx, @ femaic | riddle, a male personality, a curiosity in the great drama, Before him 13 his enemy, watching him is bis wife, who must tnsensibly be a fearful colleague in this case, 1 Tliton be himseif vindicated both | his enemy and bis wife are set without the pale of | consideration. If he be not vindicated himself and perhaps bis friend are retired from the mag- Daniinous consideration of men, What the law Says On the question will be less effective than that Incisive and determinate latention of the common citizen lo get at the facts of the case without re- gard to the laws of evidence, Yesterday the court room was an arena where authorities and traditious were paraded, Very keen minds were called up to deciaim their best, | Mr. Evarts led of, Mr, Pryor followed, Aftera | rebuttal Mr. Beach spoke. These men are as di!- ferent as their arguments, They are algo so sen sitive that @ person hardiy knows what to write. | The course of democratic writing is to get rid of | the assumption and nonchalance of lawyers, who spare no pains to hurt their opponent butare very delicate of ® Class of lawyers not yet admitted , 1o the bar who watch all proceedings without re- gard to the common or the statute law—the re. | port of public opinion. | The day before yesterday Mr. Evarts made ref. | | erence totne stigmatization the barristers were getting In toils case, He tnought that the novle Attorne,# Were not to be considered as actors and | criticised as if they were playing in tne cast of ing and one jor receiving the stolen goods trom the others, was sentenced on eacli charge to | three years in the State Prison. the term on two cerges to run together and on tue other to come | meuce at the eXpiation o| the term of tie otner UWo, making six jearsin all, Aveo satd he was a | @etno work. He | d wikins to steal, | were thus engaged before Le | i | peumber and gasMtter, but coulc | k ani 1ea that he enticed ana claimed they kuew them, “Thespius.” There ts too much dignity about this trial. Every tiuwe anybody gets fouled he criti cises the weather, Not one reporter in this (Mal tisfed aj the coanse!. Roger 4, Pryor has made a figure in the Olscussion of the right of Mr. Tilton to tesths; He ts old, historic cuaracter, Who has suppressed the better known part of bimeel! in order 0 be and to prove more s AY, JANUARY 30, 1875.-WITH SUPPLEMENT, ao Of a practical being, adequate to the North aud to the changed times, There ts no person in this trial more deserving of good feeling. He ts not an enemy ol Mr. Beecher, Probably, called to Mr. Beecher’s side, he would have been a very faithiul colaborer. Pryor, however, has the Southern affection and has become !mbued with his client's cause. No fee that could be paid at the present stage of the trial would move him, He has been the scholar of his side of the case. A man Of large and varied reading, observant, Iresh, ejrnest, bold, he has entered tmto this case by tn- vitation. He was selected by Judge Morris, who had watched him and had ascertained that the Pryor of ante-bellum times was quite a different superstition from the cool, desirous and business character now resident in or near the metropolis, Nothing could be more irrelevant than the man- ner of the three lawyers—Pryor, Beach and Evarts, Mr. Pryor has not forgotten any material por- tion of the habits au manners of his latitude and extraction. Fervid, decisive, copious, indig- nant, he bas the elements which make success, He is aman and student. During this trial nis poise, monitorship, careful regulation of his cllent’s case and generous thongnt as to the points he had } to defend as well as those he had to advance have hearly made him a great practitioner, Nothing is reduced by Mr. Pryor’s success in New York, Mr. Beach, Pryor’s colleague, 18 a very perfect typeof the Northern barrister. He is surrendered to his profession, At the Bar no criticism is to be made upon him, He can be belligerent and almost terrible, and again suave.as a commercial partner. In this case he has won for himself a very high distinction, His devotion aod his urbanity have been equal; the common bellef is that, with his great fame, he has worked without a fee—not necessarily becauge his convictions are very decided, tut because im an affair at law he stands like Horatio to Hamlet, sinew to sinew.” The style of Mr. Beach is com- pact, poweriul, grave, positive. He has very little ornament, but is not lacking in suggestiveness. Above almost any attorney at the Bar he nas im, mediate resources of plain ana cogent illustra- tion. These illustrations are seldom florid; ‘hey are commonplace. Among lawyers he is what Burns was among poets. His antagonism.to the press, real or assumed, bas of itself a suggestive- ness which honest writers will consider according to its propriety im each instance. Mr. Evarts ig renowned over the,country. He is @ little man, lean from the feet to the crown. Nature has compressed intg his countenance all the faculties, most of the sensibilities and a little of ite caricature. He is sald to be desirous to be an editor. That 1s reasonable, because his argu- ments are generally editorializing. If yoa put forty objects on the plain suriace of a table and ask Evarts to connect them ail ln one sentence he can doit. No man has more fecundity, aplomb, assumption, plausibility. Re has nis features as well ag his thoughts in reip, and can drive them magnificently even upon the Judge. The Judge in this trial, unfortunately, seems to be indifferent about the lawyers, and if tb would oriag up the Propnet Samuel, tne Wandering Jew or any spirit- nal medium whatever, Netlson Would take bis owao course, We, therefore, pass the long arguments of yesterday down to the public for what they are worth. THE ARGUMENT. ‘The jury took their seats shortly before eleven A. M.. and, when Court was opened, Judge Neil- son stated that, fuding the pamptiet spoken of yesterday Was not published by the editur of the newspaper, out by an independent party, be wrote wo them aud cautioned them against preiacing each day's proceedings with objectionable com- ments, The Juage also said that the personal de- scriptions in the papers of witnesses was highly improper, and that he should not, on his own | part, refer to it again. Mr. Pryor then continued his argument a3 fol- lows:—If Your Honor picase, at the adjuarnment yesterday, the topic of discussion was whether The antecedent aud independent coimpeteucy of the plaintiff to be @ Witness in bis Own Denall had been impaired or affected —competencs, you will remember, conferred by the @ct of 1857—had been impaired or affected by the act of the 10th of May, 1867, aud 1t was entirely obvious 1t had been demonstrated by reference to the titie of the act o! 1867, by reference to its text, consideration of its pervading and prevailing 1m- port, tt was demonstratively obvious that there was No clash or colitston between the act of 1857 and the act of 1887; that, on the contrary, they covered aiferent subject matter, contemplated different ends and accomplisbed ailfereot aud dis- similar oi jects, Now, then, It 18 @ famiiiar waxim Ol the law that a tormer statute 1s nut repealed by & subsequent statute except the provisions of the two are irreconcilably incompativie, and that if the Lwo may Stand together the two shali stand, and {uit effect and operation be given to each. So, then, it resulted Jogicaly and legally that the competency to 02 a witness in his own vebali, con- Jerred upon this plainuil by the act of 1857, was not affected or disparaged by the subsequent act of 1867, Nevertheless. the research of the learned gen(leman on the other side Nas discovered and produced decision—their research hus produced ucase in the New York Supreme Cvart Reports, Wherein it was adjudicated that the act of 1867 disqualifies the platauff irom being ao witness to bis own behalt, ‘The Juage—You refer to Judge Smith’s decision. Mr. Pryor—Yes, sir; thatis the case. [t is nut the decision of a superior trivuual, but 18 tue decision of the General term of another county of ouly co- ordinate jurisdiction, ‘The Judge—1 mention in respect to the decisions of other courts other than tae Court of Appeais in this ptace, we accept them with respect and as jar as we think tuey are sounu adopt them, and in like dezree, tnougi in a less degree, we accept vhe decisions of tue States of New Eugland. Aud 1 18, therefore, right to consider that in their rea- soning they may be or may not be subjective to our Judgment to the premises. Mr. Pryor—I suppose, if Your Honor please, that the fact which you have stated, the criucism of the decisions of other courts was based apon their coniormity to reason, and I was about proceedin to exhibit, conclusively and deiereutially, an with all respect for the learned Court by whom the decision was promulgated, that this decision is absoiutely repugnant Lo reason, and nas uo shadow of ioundutioa in the decision upon which tt pur- ports to be establisned. My learned irieng, using the eense legitimateiy belonging to counsel, im- ayined that tols case Had been argued by the pro- yession With research and vigilance. But tne re- port exnibits nothing of the kind, and the deci- sion of the opinion oO; the Judge himsell, as you | Will observe, 18 embodied in this brie! para- grapn:— “Tbe plainudt was not a competent wit- Less (0 prove such mearriage.’’ Tue act o! 1867, to enable husband and wile to be witnesses lor or against each other, expressiy excepts tae cases Where the question of the adultery of the husband aud wife is iu coAtroversy, except to prove cue sormer marriage, and in CASES OF THE BIGAMY of the husband and wife, orin cases of divorce; and thus you percelve that the learned Judge | arrives at the coaclasion by BO process of reason- Ing, or 1g he sustained in the conclusion by any cl.wtuion of authorizy. But he mereiy urges it per saltum, The result is apparently upon this deci- sion, that the act of 1867 prohibits the plant! in an action of adultery from beiuga witness. But, sir, the act o1 1867 accomplishes no such thing; the decisiou, therefore, is founded upon the platn, pal- pabie misreading and misconstruction of the very act Upon wuich jt purports to be lounded. Bear im wind now, the words of the Judge, this second section of the act of 1867 fo bids tae parties in an action involving a question of adultery from being witnesses, that 18 tO say Irom being Witnesses abs. lutely and ungqualifiediy. He announces the propo- sition 1D general terms, Without reconstruction or modidcativn; whereas What are the terms of the act? ‘Nothing herein contalmed snail render uny husband or wife competent or compeilable to give evideuce for or aguimét the other, iuconpe- tent and incompellable merely to give evidence, but competent to give evidence fur or against the other in any criminal action or proceediug except #0 Jur as in an action tor adultery,” &c, Now, this sentence ts long and involved and Iii @ cursory perusal, clause ts ound tn the second tine of the that veiore the learned Justice arrived at the cop- cituing line be dropped trom bis mind and nis memory these qualifying words—namely, ‘for or against the otner.” ‘So it Was afterward thought that this act absolotely excluded tue husband or whe irom being & witness for or against each other th an action of criminal conversation, Whereas it never excluded them irom being wit- nesses for of against each other. This witness is ot ulluwed to take the stand, not because he in auy iegal sense presents hi i ior OF against his wile, lor he presents himsel, to testify against Lis WIFE'S ALLEGED SEDUCER; he proposes to testily ander oath; to testify to the alleged adultery of Heury Ward Beecher, So the learned counsel went beiore the General Term ol this department, over which presided Mr. Justice Gilvert, and it pever occurred to them that the ace of 1867 prohibited tne platnti® trom testilyig, or that it made doubtiul his competency go to testify, but on the contrary they aumitted that be Was a competent witness. $0 tg mel Was the witness that they got @ verdict ior $10,000 damages; and then they appealed to the General ‘Term, and the enterprising und 1ugentous counsel, Jndge Nelson among them (Homer a erted themselves to set aside tha: ‘the piaintif, under the act petent witness, e judgme! anotber ground; It was reversed upon se ground, Demely, that the husband conulve at the wiles aduftery, and it was never contended that he was nov £56 tent witness. Again, may tt please Your Honor,. hala erence to vulume 4 New York Supre: Report, ou will observe the case of Petrie ya. e. decided ta eeropanees tne case | o1 Dann va. Kingdom was decid year be- tore, which was alto a case of eriaainal oon. versation, 1+ wee every peeuiler ogee in many “bone to bone, | | respects, but not the particular one under con- | sideration. Then the husband was permitted to vestuly, and was permitted to testily without ques- | tion as to his competency @ witness—was per- | mitted to testily, and the result of tis was @ Ver- | «het irom whicd an appeal was taken to the Gen- | eral Term, and the case was elaborately argued, | we may suppose, certainly by the Bar, certataly | elaborately considered by the Court—and tere | Was no objection taken eiLner by counsel or by | the Generai Term of the Court that the plaintiff | bad been improperly admitted asa witness, and | there was hv hint or suggestion thar, by virtue of | be sound, that in a collateral procesting: or action between third parties the Qusband and w can- not testify jor or against each other when their testimony tends to convict them of @ criminal offence, au offence tndictgble in itself, Suppose the plaintiff here 18 admitted to the witness box and gives evidence tending to or actually convic! ing the wite of adultery, does that convict ber oi tead to convict her of crithe? No, str, not in New York. By the Levitical law, as Your Honor is aware, botn husband and wife were deuounced to death for the act of adultery, which law, though severe, Must be commended ‘ior its impartiality, In View ot the tendency and disposition of modern the act Of 1867, he way not a competent witness, On the contrary, the judgment was taken for errors 1 the admission Of the evidence of other Witnesses. But there was not a hint or suggestion by the counsel jor the plaintut in this by the Court thas the Witness was not an entirely compe- tent witness. On the contrary, by implication and by omuuing suet 8 suggeNOR, they somitred pe | erent. rve, Yor jonor, the opin- fon at the General Term Sapeareien vy duage fg. | adultery. But, upon the return of reason and the the decision in Benny, awe, whe, promounced | Pre uw in New Yors, it never. waa ® Dorion! @ decision in Dann vs, Kingdom, showing that | the law in Ne » it ne: ol in bis opinion, upon his i dilie i. the common law of Englana that adultery was ¢ SOBER SECOND THOUGHT, crime, Open licentiousness {3 a crime indic! with @ more deliberate consideration it con- | at common !aw, but adultery never was a crime a ducted him to the conclusion thet nis decision in | common . The common law lett adulcery tu Vann against Kingdom was erroneous and could | the cogmzance 01 ecclesiastical law, wio chastived not stand. Now, sir, thists just the decision, the | 1t through ‘salute auime,” as they expressed decision of a.superior court, a decision of law con- | It. Adultery never was a crime by the law of New civilization, which is rather to applaud the maa | Jor his expioits of gallantry and to heap the | LOAD OF IGNOMINY on the wretched and uphappy Woman. So in 1650, when principles of Parliament, borrowed from the Mosaic superstition, were predominant in the | governmeut of Great Britaio, these bigoted lunatics passed a law denouncing death againct g strued and unsustained by any authorities, a | York; 18 not.acrime to-day with us. It is regarded decision whtch ts Imanitestiy repngn int to any | as a civil Wrong, expo-ing the “tort teasors” statute upon which it purports te be founded, and | to @ civil action for damuges, bat it never the question 1, Will your Honor be guided vy | Wag considered. @ penal offence, that decision’ The jeatned geutieman has alleged | him obnoxious to crmainal rosecutiol another inferential reason why the pian shail | Hence, although the role contende ot be a Wituess in ils casein his own benalf, | learned geatiemen be sound tu all its parts, yet it based upon the proposition of law which he nas | 18 inapplicable here, ause the t mony which promulgated—namely, that in acollateral procee !- | the plaintiff may give and will give, though tend. Ing—that is to say, in @ case bevween third | ing to convict the wile of aduitery, does not parties—neither a usband nor wife cun give testi: | tend to accuse ner of a criminal offence. So that inony tending to criminate the other. Your Honor | for these reasons, wilhous detaining you witn au; observes the (eras Ol tne proposition. Now, the | almplitication of tis argument, the second grount first reply to this, 18 this:—Aitnough the proposi- | presented by tue learned) geatieman wholly fatis— tion be ound and valid it does not go tothe ques- | latis because It docs not go to the competency of tion here under debate. ‘Ine question here is— | the Wituess, Dut so the Admissibility ol tne testi } a8 tO this Witness, whetuer he may be sworn | mony be muy give—inapplicadle because it does as witness—whereas this proposition don’t | not tend to Convict the wile of a criminal, and in- touch the question of his competency, but goes | operative because, in truth, it is not the law of only to tntercept the delivery of particular testi- | the State of New York; The learned gentleman mony, testimony tending to criminate the wile, | endeavored to fortily is position against the com- So that, in the sight of the proposition, even if it | petency o1 the plaimciff by arguments drawn from be true, he is a competent witness, ad must be | weneral considerations vi policy. Now, sir, those worn und allowed generally to testify iu the case, | topics addressed to 4 Legislature meditauog and if the proposiuon is true, when it comes to be | the adoption of an act on the suvject would be seen if he testifies against the right, then tne gene | relevant aud might We persuasive; but Your Vemen inay interfere and stop the evidence. If | Honor sits there not tomake, but to declare the Your Hovor piease, the proposition 18 nut a valia, | law, and, upon an inauiry of what the law ts, de. sound or true proposition of law, it 18 not the | bare as to what luW ought to be is immaterial and Jaw. Itis not tne law o: England and pre-emi- | irrelevant, So, tien, notwithstanding the tempta- nently and emphatically it is not the law ol New | on presented to me by the teld of discussion York in the collateral proceeding, ie, acting | opeued by the iearned’gentieman, | conceive 1 between third parties, tending to crimimate one | huve discharged the duty imposed upon me, and I auotner. That rule ol law was thrown out in the | say the p!aintft 18 @ competent witness and should case of Rex aguinst Clevienger. It was not only | be sworn, thrown out, but I concede was adjusteated tn tuat | case, @ case Which my learned auversary as uct | discovered to be overruled, or else in the discus- | question, sir, has been anticipated by us, and t! sion he lorgot to cail Your Honor’s attcutiou to | general conduct of the argument has been the case in wh.ch it was rejected, aud the Court | signed to my learned Irend who has just a overruled it. For soon aiter, in two cases reported | dressed you. ‘ve aule, logical and exhaustive jo sixth New York Reports, that very Court which | argument which he has suumitted weil justifies originally promulgated it receded irom their posi- | that selection, and little 1% .eit 10 me but to plead tion aud anhuunced the principle, the legal rule, | sometuing, the iragments of it which have peen which eifectually overruled it im these two cases, | Comparatively untouched 5 abd )O. will nos expect Husound and wife were admitted to testily in the | me, sir, nor shuli i attempt, to review or repeat to one case, a!tnough the testimony went directly to | any extent tne considerations which have been convict the husvand of perjury, and 1m the other | already presented, but gnall confine mysell, in a case Went directly to convict them both. great degree, to remark upon those general topics PERJURY AND BIGAMY. | Whicn tuve been intréduced by our learued advere ‘This case was overraled there. But meanwhile | sary. Listening, 8.1, w his brilliant aud impressive the erroneous view had some headway, and ag | exordium { was i wo regret that | was not Your Honor is aware of the iecundlty wit which ‘Lited wich those qualtties which would enable me erroneous opinions propagate themselves, that | in sume taint and eo degree to emulate hi rule > law got incorporated in some books of law ¢ sonorous style, waich 1 Cannot and 1 shall not at aud was adopted in some courts of tits State, ai- | tempc; but | am consoled somewhat by the reflec. though the rule has been renounced In England tion that this 1s an argument upon u guestion of and the principie repudiated. Yet I trankiy ai- , law addressed to @ court—that 1 speak to @ mind mit that in some of the courts of this country itis | learned and experienced, aud not likely to be BtIL an active principle, but notin New York, | moved from its seli-possession by the declamation Never has it been the law in this State. Never has |' 0! counsel, and that declamation, sir, would to my it been recoguized as a canon of the law o! evi-{ mind lave been far more Impressive had it seen dene: by any autuentic writer. uttered in tue cause of one Who had not forgotten Mr. Pryor, alter quoting Irom Greenleaf and | the precepts taugnt by bis proicssiouul represente several other authorities, continued. In arecent | ative—on behali ef one Who has invaded tne cage in thie State (Abbott’s Reports, new series, sanctity and privacy of domestic ue, sud Who, a volume v., page 55) the Ol Insurauce Company | the evidence now stands, has seduced that wile agaiust Noble, Judge Blair propounds the prin- | Irom her allegiance and himsell induced her, be- Ciple in these words:—*That the evidence of hus- | fore is packed comiittee, Lo reveal the secrets of band and wile is undoubtedly receivabie in col- | domestic mtercourse—introduced her upon that lateral proceedings without the purpose of prov- | Occaston to viilily and abuse the husband who now ing nothing material to the issue, aud that al- | Seeks the occasivn to vindicate Limseil irom all though the evidence may tend to criminate or | aspersions, to teil to Your Honor and to tue com. contradict one or the other.” Tnat, sir, 18 the , mun.ty the true story of the sad aud lamentabie lunguage ol the law of the State of New York. In | difficulty wuich as broken up the, happy und hon. Rhode Island the rule, as contended tomby the | ored hoe und scatiered its Inmates upon the cold learned gentiemen on the other side, vad been car- | charities of the world. 1 do not, sir, accept the ried to as far an extreme, perhaps, us iu any Otner | issue Of my learned iriend, Reuuced to its simple State. It Was one of the States where this juris- | proposition in direct applicativn to this case the diction had veen eifected and vitiated by the origi- | proposition of tue couusel ia, that Heury Ward nal error propounded in Rex vs. Cleivinger; put | Beecher, upon that stand, is & witness ID chis ac m o recent care, The State against Briggs | tion, and Theodore Tijvon 1s not. Waatever (9 Rnode Island, 361), the Court of Appeais | Henry Ward Beecher may choose to say, howevel of that State 'ditered from the ‘authen- | he may stizwatize Theodore ‘Tilton, 11 perovance Ucity and the correctness of the old rule, the | he should Awear that from the lips of theodore rule contended fur by the gentiemen on the other | Tilton be has been liberated trom his charges— side, was brought directly under criticism and | nay, if he should swear that he has paid Theodore review. The case is stated by Duffy, Juuge. The | Tilton ior the wrong ani received a delendant was convicted on & charge 0: avortion | DISCHARGE FORK MIS OUTRAGE produced on Mary Flynn; the case came up ina | upon his rigut#—the practice and impartiality of Dill Of exceptions On the ruling of the Court below: | the law excludes Tueodore Lilton stom aaswertng the first exception was pased on tne fact that the | these imputatious, it presents, sir, just that come said Mary Flynb Was a single woman, aud that she | clusion, and if Your Honor yieids to the propuBle ‘Was got with child by the suid Hackett, who em- | tion it elfects just that practical resuit, that ployed the delendant to per‘orm un abortion, and | Hepry Ward Beecner is tree and at hberty to im the court below the said Hackett yas called as | testify; the accused seducer may be admitted as@ @ witness, and admitted to testify @@aiass tne de- | witness to iree pimseli irom accusation, but th lendaut, and that the testrying of each one, | wronged and outraged. huspand, with lips seals though guilty of an indictable oftence, was admit- | by the law, cannot offer to tais Court anu jury any ted, this Hackett being an accomplice to the | testimony th support of his action, Before Your abortion.” Now, the Court in onuasing. the | Honor sitall reach a conclusion of that character, judgment held the ruling of the Court b-iow to ve | So unjust I ali It theory, so mischievous in ali Ite correct in admitting the evidence. It held that | consequences, you must be driven ty it by clear Tuling of the Court below was sound and ical, | and sutisfactory euthority. It is contrary to our providing aiterward there vccurred no direct pro- | notions Of justice, and It seems to be contrary to ceedings. ers then say that the true, sound, | the tneory of our laws o1 evidence, and works @ logieal and pmiosophical rule is to admit the testi- | practical Wrong which would outrage the common mony ol the wile. On tuis subject I will cite to | sense of the community, Now, sir, I admit it la MR. BEACH'S ARGUMENT. Mr. Beach then said:—The discussion of this Your Honvr the declaration, the opinion of one } Important, * Itnot ouly affects those pr.ncipies who is a high aathority inlaw. I mean the late | estaviisned by the wisdom and experience o1 the Judge Cowen, Wuo in a note pending page 69, Puil- | past, but is grave and important as to lips un fovt note 40 uses this language: deed it woud seem to be @ settled doctrine and author- ity, and principle, that the testimony of a husband gud wile muy be received to contradict or crimle nate each other in COLLATERAL MATTERS in all cases except where one ts called to contra- aict or crimimate each other as a party to some | Uaose relations und those otner subjects of | domestic concern and public policy 1 submit to Your Honor. Lagree, sir, that the law caerishes with tenderness tue family aud the home—ana Well it 1s, sir, thavtt 18 80—jor !, too, agree with lny learned iriend that upon it resis the true town: dation of all well regulated society and yoverm meat. It is weil that these lessous of vircue aud cause.’ Now, sir, thus stands the law upon the | wisdom are taught, framing tue mind for tue dis- best authority, upon the weight aud preponder- | chaige Of those duues wuich belong to every ance of the decisions in England and by the unt- | memoer of sociciy. From them must come the jorm decisions of New York, namely, that in a col- | agents waerewith to carry onward and upward Jateral proceeding—that 1s to say, in un action be- , the great mystery of man’s creation. 1 agree that tween third parties—tne husband or wife 1s com- | DO suciety or government can staud—virtuously tent and’ compellable, certainly competent, | *taud—except upon the maintenance of the ‘here was a question wiiecther compeliable, but | sanctity and the virtue of the uomestic circle, and certaiply competent to tesitty, although that testi- | 80 1 Sgree too, sir, that there is much of ty mony tended directly to criminate the other, hus aud sacredness in ‘he dea of unity that adds to band or wile, as the case maybe, Bat, if Your | the marriage r-lations, ‘That idea of the conflu. Honor please, though the purpose of tue law be | ence of two souis mingling all their affections and m4 rs | heid that the evidence, to ve admissibie, must | upon the hypothesis that it is sound law, tnat | neither busvaud nor wite in a collateral proceed. ing can give testimony tending to criminate tue other; that is to say, tending to accuse or convict the other of @ criminal churge, and it was never heard nor uimted tuat husband or wife was incom- petent, tu @ coliateral proceeaing, to give evidence which tended merely to the disparagement or to | the infamy of the other. Instead oj wasting your time and wearing out your patience with tbe copi+ ous cltation of autuorities which I have at hand, I have selected ove authority irom the State ot New | Jersey, Where the law contended tor by my learned adversary has been pushed to as extreme an ex- tent us in any Siate. | have selected a case for | that Stute wuerein the limitarion of the rule, as 2 | now state It, is propounded by the Court, pro- | pounded with @ bold reluctance and under the con- straint Of the unuorm stress and strain of author. yy. Tne Court says:—“But tn tue case now before | this Court the charge of the husband was direct: his | charge was that he came upon bis wile in slagrante | delictu.”” AS tne imputation was direct che only coaaideration Which remaing 18, was it a criminas tion withia the meaning ol the rule? As the wile | bau been tried and acquitted the charge was of an offence lor whi e could NOL ve indicted, In | the case above referred to o1 Dem. ex dem, of Stewart N. Jonnson, 3, Har, 94, this case received | the consideration of the Court, and tt was there | charge @ crime, It was not enough rhatit aturi- | buted moral turpitude; a technical crime—tnat 18, — np act sv Its nature indictable—must be the direct | imputation of the evidence. It was admitted that this rule Was au Impericct one; that accusations | in the form oO! evidence, proceeding from husband end wife against each other, of acts highly tgno- mipious aud disgraceful, though pot indictable, would be sure to occasion family dissension; but | the suggestion was rejected, and the rule as above | stated Was adopted on the ground o} its eminent | | aad gees It was said im the brat 4 ol the bil J delivering the opinion of the Cou: ‘What crimes INVOLVE MORAL TURPITUDR we can settle witn some degree of accuracy, but what churges not amounting to crimes involve mural (raud or turpitude is exceedingly difficult of solution.” The object of the Court Was to estab- lish @ uniform and practical raie, easy to be un- derstood and applied, and the criterion adopted Was that busband and wife were inadmissible tor the purpose of directiy charging eaca other, which In it# Dature was fudicvaviec. The disqualitication did pot arise Yom tue hazard wWhica might result to the party accused of becoming subjected to & | dg ley by reason oi the evidence—that would Have been to pat the rule on the ground ot in- terest—but irom the fact that it wus sale to as- sume that all offences which were indictable were Of such disgraceful character, that if imputed by ohe Matricd person against the otaer, lit Will and want of hurmony Would be the inevitable result, Toe indictapiitty of fae offence merely ixed the grade oO! crime, which might not arge: think this rule thus adopted should not be nar- rowed, My inclination would be to extena it, if that could be legally affected, 80 as to prevent husband and wile irom charging each other with any act which is essentially iniamous in gen- ‘imation ; but the authorities do not war- piitication, aod we must adminis- ter the law as it is handed down to us.” “rhus | this Judge, euger bimseil under any circumstance to prevent toe husband or wife in @ collateral the restricuon, and aitheagh it may ‘collide With bis own ideas of propriety of the law, bas no alternative uuder the stress Of traditional gut but to obey the limitasion, which limiter proceeding to testiiy one against the other, im- | potent as he is of the limivation, irankly admits | and veneravie and gitted man he wis welc sound, though the rule be valid as Jaid | sympatiies and interests in one, and band in band down by the learned gentleman, it docs | meeting the contingenctes aud adversities of ile not touch the case. What wre the terms | With mutual encouragement and love, 1s well cal oi: the rule? We are considering it now | culatea to excite the sympataies of my learned adversary. It appeals, sir, directiy and Jeelingiy to my own sympathies; but are we to lorget that iu woat Is called the progress of civilization tuat that idea hus been mangled and torn assunder? Are We to be blind to the legisiation o1 the present? Are we to ignore the fact thatall of these ideas have been exploaed and descroyea by what I be eve to be the VANDALISM OF MODERN CIVILIZATION ? In_ 1848, sir, that state o1 afluirs was effectually ed in all 1t# iulness, By the common iaW could not sue the husband; she nad 20 the courts except in the high discretion of the Court of Chancery, yet sue may now bring her action by common jaw. ‘Phe wue could then hold no sepurate estate or personai property exe cept by ante nuptial settiement, and yet she may noW go out into the worid, ao business there, and barter and trade tn its bustest marts. Once her true sphere was in thé domestic circie, where she cultivated the graces of private lite, qualities once her grace and glory; but now, by the power wwtation, she is ushered into the busy scenes tiie, And becomes an independent accor tu alt its struggles. ‘The counsel says tis seciusion of the domestic circle cannot be torn by tne rude hand of the law; but, sir, » has been done, as will be seen by the praciical vbservatiun v1 what are now the ordinary concerns of jaw. My learned iriend has produced @ wonderful mass of tilustra tions, both from Engiand and the states of this country, Bat, sir, as you know, the rules of evi+ dence—nay, the principles of law, a8 ap- Plicadle to distinct communiies—are see ued by special legislation, and differ ip different places, being lounded upon diverse principles and diverse puiicies, But how iy this question to be adjudged by the law of Eng: land as it was, Or by the law o1 Bugiaad it ie to-day? By the legisiation of our associated States, or by the leg lou, the jaw, tue polic: of the State of New York? Certamly by the tat+ ter. What need oi gatuering these ancient author. ities applicahie only to a bygone state of alfairs & My friends have been digging among the fossils of the past, anu they are gathering here the cur casses of eXpired gencrations and controntng them with those of wodern times. Your Honor wil decide this question by the laws of this day and by the general ideas concerning all such mat- ters. In couciuding this, sir, and in auswer to the ilastrations of my learued irlends to-day, permit The to fohow With an iilustrauion, imagine, sir, a apy: honored, cultured home; the wife a frail, feeble und delicate woman, eminently devouonal pious in ali her impuises, and, as has been WD heretoiore, devoted to the husband of het ly choice and the jather o; her chudren, She haa @ pascor, learned, eminent and gilted beyond his Jellows—one who stood at the very head of bis HONORED AND SACRED PROFESSION, one whose words Were listenéd to with deference and respect, Bat he had these powers of mind over her, He had thav persuasive power of e10+ quence, that insidious and silver tongue which would lure ap angelirom ms paradise, He was net aceeptea and chosen teacuer and guide. She looked up to him with @ veneration second only ta thar wich which sue regarded her God, Nay, i am incarnate Christ had come down wish the glory of Calvary upon His brow and the love of sacrifice in His eye, she would not bow to Him with more obedience than this woman gave to her pas or and her God! From her entidhoud, sir, she was under Wis teaching and admoniiion. He wae almost an ipimate of her home. In the confluence Of # husband and 4s a iriead and pupil o1 this ages se He exerted upom With tenderness and atfection. her, sir, all ols aris, His specious wisdom, 0.8 prayeriul devotion—all the arts of bis guted nature bent for the seduction of tus nw py, Dee ira aa we the ve sake to | wend wife id mother—2nd sne fell. a tis ake vo be lnmed ioe eye