The New York Herald Newspaper, January 30, 1875, Page 3

this @ prosecution of her? Is thi fore, brought by a wronged hut against ber? For her condemnation ir! Consider how strong he was! Consider how weak ele was! Consider how suvmissive she was to his teachings, and imagine—imagine with what spacious and insiduous tongue he conveyed to her the theory of nis pians—that jornication was but the natural expression of love! belteve in ction, there- nd, ‘an action ? jh, no, He taught her to PIOUS ADULTERY, and by steady steps he led her along the flowery path to the precipice irom which fell! That sex ducer 1s brougat into a court uf justice to answer jor his crimes, The husoend, wronged, the se- ducer, guilty, stand beiore the immaculate justice Of the luw, aud beiore it each is to answer lor the deeds done to this woman, this aged and venerable and giited seducer may take the Wituess stand, and polish and apologize for bis guilt, and present all the evideuces of bis ,earned ingenuity, aud that the husband must De still, silent! And that this is law! The law, which is no respecter of persons. The law, which holds outeven justice {to ail litigants be/ore it, and that the seducer with all his great powers— my learned iriend subsidizes them to establish that administration of injustice and wrong. Lb gay no, sir! Before Your Honor will admit any” such conclusion, beiore you will approve of any. such administration, you must be driven to tt by ‘the force of an irresistable legal logic. Thank God t there 18 in my belief no such rule of law in this And we are told, sir, | according to the logic ol my learned triend, that | } Btate. There is no such injustice in the policy of | legislation. I don’t propose, sir, to examine at Any considerable length the authorities, or to comment upon them, but 1 understand our learned adversaries to declare that the policy of | the common law excluding husband aud wife as Witnesses for or against each other 1s founded upon the inviolability of the domestic relations. [ deny iat proposition, it 18 maintained, un- doubtediy, by many of the English authorities, @nd is iu One authority of this State as a ground olexciusion. But in later times, and in better considered authorities, 1 submit that the dogma has no support whatever. Now,1 reer again to the case 0: MARSH VS. POTTER already spoken of; to the opinion of Justice James, which ts the most elaborate and thorough examl- Dation, not ouly in the policy of the State decis- ions on this subject, but 1s found in our own and otuer reports, but it has veen adopted and uf™firmed by the Court of Appeals. “Upon the Competency of witnesses,” says this learned Judge, “common law proceeded in distrust of buman nature; 1t believed witnesses interested to be incapabie of verity.”” Consequently grew up under ita system of restrictions which rarely ever allowed the facts ina given case to come out fully, aod was olten an occasion of great hardship and injustice, ‘The objections to sucu a syscvem were too manifest not to call attention to tiem. Many thonghs the truth might be pro- Moted by opening all the sources of evidence, re- cCelving it from ali persons Daving the jacts bearing in the case, especially those most conversant with them. Tue parties themselves should be permitted to speak. they believed in the principies of human integri: they believed in the capacity Of human nature, a@ithough interested, to speak the truth, From such a basis of thought tuere have sprung up in England, and in some of the Svates of this country radical changes in the disability and competency of persons as witnesses. A new syztem has developed itsell, whose foundations are laid In common sense and in an enlightened wlicy, and its superiority over the old is no jopger questioned, except by the jew who have coulidence in the present and no hope jor the future and who deem our only safety ts in keep- ing fast anchor to the past.” Omitting a few par- agraps, s.r, ne says:—"‘Actions between married persons should constitute no exception to the poner tule of practice. Such suits represent ell-detined rights of action, both as concerning roperty and personal rights; suitors can insti- Rare them, courts muss entertain them, triers must try them. So in other uctions nusband and Wile may sue and can be sued, and the husband in some instances may be sued by the wie, Such actions must be entertained and tried by the , Court. ‘The simple question then is, Shall such actions be tricu in the ordinary wey or by some excepuonal method? Will the law, while it en- tertains them, say they shall be decided rightly as far as practicable, or 18 it @ matter of no conse- uence how far they may be disposed of, or i their decision ts a matter of some concern to the law as to what the law means it arrives at a re- sult consonant with the dignity of the law ana the rignts ol individuals in other cases, or shall the triers grope their way through the darkness tosucn a result? In other words, shall THE HUSBAND'S MOUTH be closed in his own benalf, wien bis wife is a co- arty, though permitted to speak if sued alone? It a rule of the common law tnat a husband and Wile can be Witnesses for or against each other. The first branch ls vased entirely upon interest, the second upon interest and public policy. All esos interested in ap action were at common jaw heid incompetent to testily; this o! course ex- cluded parties to the record. In common law a wife's civil existence was merged witn her hus- band’s; sie wasa part of him; she bad nosepa- rate right to property or action, and hence was excluded from being a witness in her own bebalt, ‘This identity o. mterest Was also the real supporc to the rule exciuding the Wile as a Witness against the husoand, In consequence of this identity of interest—and in both sentences the word ‘interest’ is italicised —husband and wile ubilormiy appeared before the court in @ iriendly attitude, Legally, their relation was one of mu- tual confidence and harmony, Tnere was every Teason to fear, tnereiore, that in view of the iti- troduction of a suit by the adversary of one or the other some testimony would be elicited which would be detrimental to the interest of one or the other, and therefrom discord and dissensions would arise between them, and the peace oi the Jamuy would thus.be jeopardized merely to serve | the ,ecuntary interests of a tnird person.” And he proceeds to cite elementary authorities, and he conciudes vy saying:—‘‘l think it clear, there- Jore, that the true principle which excludes the busband or the wile where either was a party trom being a Witness lor or against each other, the union of interest aod pi ene existing between them may be prevailed.” Aud that privilege re- fers, sir, to a confidential communication, and as | In the connection with tne idea of public policy or | the harmony of the domestic relation. It ts true that autuorities can be cited which sustaio that; it 18 with @ View Ol preserving the peace of the family, avd Wuere it is said that the admission of Buch testimony would lead to dissension, discord and even perjury, aud that the confidence exist- ing between MAN AND WIFE should be sacredly cherished. But if those case: are caretully examined iv will be found that this question in its origin and cause was not tully con- sidered. And then he proceeds to examine those cases, anu he says:—“With respect to the protec- tion of confidential communications between bus- band and wife tuere is gvod reason Jor such pro- tection at all tines, but nu such principle has been brougut ito practice. The decisions excluding husbands or Wives of partics are often accom. panied with sacred deciarations in favor ol such Protection; bufas the exclusion extended to all tne testimony, Whether it was confidential or not, and as no protection was given to conjugal confl- deuce in respect to witnesses not pariies, Who were us much within the reason the Tule as it existed, or the other class, (It may be saiely affirmed that no such rule nas as yel been estaviisnhed, As to the authorities, most 01 tbe decisions in tavor of excluding the wile were given in cases where the husbanu was excluded, and therelore no matter how strong May have been the expression o1 puolic policy, Gud in favor of preventing domestic discord, ani Bo lorth. All these decisions are consistent with the principle that interest was the ground oi ob- jection.” Ana he then proceeds tv reason upon the effect of abolishing the disqualification ot in- aad fipaily nolds in cousonance with opti tons I have read vo Your Honor, i ask Your Hon- Or’s attention to the case of Wetirkamp vs. Willet, to be found in the fourth volume of “Abbott's Vourt of Appeals Decisions,” at page 548. ‘Thas Was a case, sir, Where the Wile Was & party plain- ll and offered as a witness where the quention Was as to whetner (be property, which had been seized by the sherid, against waom the action was brought, belonged to the wiie or to tne husband, The question was whether she was a competent Witoess, and it was held that she was. And I Fead this, sir, jor ine purnyeess Oe it, tO Maintain the dvuctrine asserted by Justice James, that the exclusion of tue wise or the husband, as the case might be, was not /ounded upon the idea of DOMESTIC HARMONY, Consequently, that in an action like the present, even at common law, the objection offering & party removed, where husband and wite were a arty, the other would be a competent witness ‘ne Court say tie rule of the common law did nut prombit husband and wife trom testiying in a Gtvil action, unless one or the other or botn were parties or directly interested In the subjeci of the action, Here the husvand was nota party, nor bud he any such interest us would have dtequatitied the wile by strict common law rules. Tne action Was I No proper sense agacnst lim. He made no claim to the property taken and sold by the delen ant, and vad Do interes. in the obligation, unless, indeed, to have his debts paid from property to which he had no claim, and so jorth, Now, sir, the question of interest, the quesiion of party being | removed by legisiation, In an action of tum action affecting property, where either hus band or wile was a party to the action, the competency of the party Would be at once as- serted, When you disabuse your mind of the idea oO! pubite policy, as asserted by our learned aaver- sary; when you found the rule of exclusion upon omething cise beside the threat o: murerrupung she peace ana harmony of the conjugal relation why then, by the legisiation of modern England tnd of our state, to-day, the husband or wile as a party to any acuion Is a Compelent Witness tor or against bimoely or hersell, and sucu is tne inev- Nable logic of the Legislature. But the Court pro- teed to say, sir ‘The Coue provides that a party to an action may be examined as a witness in nis own behalf, Or in behall of any otuer party in the same manuer, and svvject to the same rules of ex. amination as any other witness, except that Retluer husband nor wiie shail be required to dis- ose any communication made by one to the other. ‘The letrer of the atavate certainty extends to married persons when they are parties not having conflicting interests; and the exception Is @ plain indication of the legislative intention to change or modily the common law rule as to the admissibility of nusband and Wife as witnesses, and yet all the argument presented by my learned Iriena, ail his even at common law, character, or an GLOWING ORATORY concerning the xanctityaua the permanence of the domestic relation, are founded exclusively pon the doctrines of the common law thu’ Wwowed by the court of last resort to have been ‘ney expressed confideuce in man; | | wife should be allowed as a witness against ber | NEW YORK HERALD, SATURDAY, JANUARY 30, 1875.-WITH SUPPLEMENT. changed by thé legislation of the present. The Feason of the latter rule (that is, the common la’ role) for not admitting the nusband and wife Witnesses againat éach other, was because of identity of interests, nor were they admitted against eacn other because this was-deemed cou- trary to the legal policy of marriage, ‘Husband and wile,” says Blackstone, “are not allowed to be witnesses lor or agatnst each other, partly because it {8% impossible that their testimony | ghoula be indifferent, but principals because of the union of persons, and therefore te they were admitted to be witnesses for ine otner, they would contradict the maxim of law, ‘no one shall be o witness in hts own cause?’ if against each other they would contradict another maxim, ‘no one 18 obliged to commit himsell.’”” You Sir, upon | What policy the common law rested, add you see, sir, how clearly this idea ol unity, of identity, of Interest, Is abrogated by the laws of this State. Says Baron Gilvert, ‘11 the husband and wile sWear for each other, they will not be believed, because their interests are absolutely the same, and therelore they can give no more credit when they atvest for each other than When @ man attests for himself, It would be very herd tf a busband “and not attest tor him. Such @ law would occasion implacabic quarreis and divisions and destroy the very legal policy of marriage." But, says this Court of late years in this State, materiai and radical changes have been made in | the law of husband and wife, and in the law of evidence and the competency and admissibility or evidence, undermining in a great degrec the uses of and practical abrogating of the common law rule. Now, if Your Ronor please, it 18 the effort ol my learned iriend to re-establish that rute, to roll back the assumed course ol progress, and cer- tainly of legislation, to ask Your Honor to re-ant mate the abrogated lessons and principles of the | past, and rule in deflance not a. of the poly but of the mandate of the present Jaw of the State. And hence, a8 I before remarked, all the authori- hes, all the principles. all tne motions of pro- priety and decency and publéc policy, whicn have been so cloquently advanced by my learned iriend, are supported only by those adjudtcations pro- nounced under a different pottcy and with aiffer- ent views, and which our court of last resort say are ABROGATED BY THE LEGISLATION ot the past few years. I asx your attention again, sir, for & moment tothe cage cited and commented upon by my learned friend, of Southwick against Southwick, in the 49th New York. In that case, if Your Honor please, the question presented was whether in an action brought by a wife against her husband to recover an alleged valance of | moneys, they Were witnesses for or against each otherin the actiun. Mr. Folger, eminent for his careiul and learned analysis of the Jaw, and for his patient industry In the formation of his opin- ton, says:—"I'he first question made in thia case | is whether the defendant was properly admitted a3 a witness in bis own behalf agaiusc the plain- tit, hig wile. it ts claimed that the provisions of the act o1 1867 do not enable the defendant to be- come @ Witness agsinst bis wife in an action m which they are antagonistic parties. I have reached an opposite conclusion. It must be conveded that she object of the enactment was to alter the com- mon law which forbade the husband or wile being ‘witnesses for or agalusteach other. | noticed a remark of ty learned adversary that, by the first section of the act of 1867, although 1t would enable the wile to be a witness against the husband in an action brought by Dim against a third pore 3 did not render the husband competent. That question, sir, was considered in this case. I will Stute what Was the object and the spirit of that law, and if Your Honor will. tollow the course of i ation, the tardy and reluctant steps by which itu been driven by public sentiment and has reached the present coudition, even bas declared in this very authority, Your Honor will find thas the Jaw of 1867 was enacted as ‘but a complement to the other invasion upon common iaw principles previously established ; that it was enacted for the very avowed purpose o| making a husbaad or wife competent for or against each otner, with the certain exceptions provided for im section two; that it Was mmteuded to uproot the whole policy of the common Jaw upon this subject, and tnat the SENTIMENTAL THEORIES upon the subject were abandoned by modern tuought and modern enactment, beautiiul and charming as they are, sir,a fit subject tor the” oratory of my lcarned friend as they are, but nota fit subject or @ discussion in a legal argument ina court of justice. I have reached the opposite con- clusion. It must be said that the odject of the enactment established and the letter of the com- mon law, where tt forbids a husband and wile being a witness for or against each other, was to make available inthe trial of issues the evidence o/ classes of witnesses whom the rules of common law excluded, It designated these classes as the husband, or apy party to the action, and as the wile, or any party to the action; it declared that all persons within these designations should be competent and compellabie to give evidence the same as y other witness; it declared further that they it 1s conceded that where the husband or wife isa party to an action and the otuer is nut, that the husband or the wile may testily, as the case mignt be.” It was conceded and agreed by Court and | connsel, althouga this was av action between husband and wie, that 1 one alone was a party Lo the action that one might bea witness, It was upon a grave discussion as to the spirit and effect Ol this Svatute of 1967, betore a learned Court, con- ducted by learned counsel, and on all sides it_ was conceded. lt was assumed aod deciared by the Court as a concession accepted by all, that where the husband or the wile was alone a party as a @ third person, that the husband or the wife, as the case might be, was a compevent wit- ness tn that action. But it ts concluded that this language does not declare an intention that he or sie may be @ Wilness for or against the other When both are purties to the actiun and antago- | nists Init. 1 ask Your Honor’s attention to an- other phase of these authorities. It is not neces- sary jor me to read, sir, the introductory review o1 the authorities, THE ENGLISH AUTHORITIES and our own, but 1 proceed to the paragraph wiuch 1 think important. But speaking o1 the old rule he says, “lt was to be maintained for the present and the juture, thut by an adherence to the rule jor the public good.” The ‘public policy,’” my learned irienas say, that by an adherence to the rule warried iolks might be in safety, out alter death or divorce 1t must be enforced, ior it could ho longer help or harm. But the statute in ques- tion discards the ruie of the common law to stana for confidential commupications netween husband and wite, it would longer exist. ‘The husband and wile may bow ve Witnesses ior and against each other in’ all cases except in those in which is ey that is, the quality on iia d @ confi. ential communication. But, sir, it is said that this is the destruction of conjugal felicity, that im its principal effect it must necessarily totroduce wrangilng and dissension into the domestic circle, and destroy that union upon which the principles of the common jaw rest. The law should be firm i a policy of that kind 1s to be pursued, and it should be universal. How is it to be preserved tf, as our Court of Appeals ruled, the husoand aud wile may sue each other, aud the husbana and wife may be witnesses against each ather. Dues not that conflict with this tdea of domestic harmony? {s not the unit; of the conjugai relation just as directly assailed, and will not ulscord and enmity be equaily propa- gated, vy allowing tne uusvand and wile to be wit- nesses against each other, andesen ty vestry to transactions between themselves, and each reflect- ing wpon the credibility of the other, And if this beauttul idea of HAKMONY AND UNION. existed to-day would not sach a law totally de- stroy it? Suppose another case :—Suppose a hus- band brings au actioa against a third party—not for the seduction of lis wue or jor enticing her | trom her home, his actions are quite admissible. | The husvand was a witness there, and who will dispute that it does not in that case necessarily involve the quarrels and dtssensions of PRIVATE CONJUGAL LIFE. The answer sets up—the auswer in this supposed case sets up—that the nusband was brutal, wa: human ai failed to provide ior his tamily—that | the wife nad just and reasonable cause tor desert- ing her home. Why, sir, don’t that at once suggest | dissensions, discord, separation, death tu the lam- uy unont And yet the husband is a competent Wilhess there against himsell, and may be called by the aelendant against himseli to establish the very [acts alleged in the arswer; and nere, sir, & withess ior himsell, either as between the hus- | Es band and third parties, are tatroduced ail the elements which strike wt the very foundation and lite of domestic telicity. These are the very ideas, sir, that my learned iriend ad- vances upon whicn he sounds his objection. I may as weil, sir, here refer to tne case on the Tin of Robinson, page 581, a case in whicu the plaintill’s wife, and the answer alleged the wile was com- pelled to leave the nouse by reason of his cruel aud inhuman treatment, he waving introduced a lewd Woman into his house and kept her there jor the purposes of sexual connection, and that the witness, ocing & witness for the defence belore trial may be tuquired of ag to the matter stated in the answer, ts compelled to answer. It makes no difference that he was Called against bimsett, for the rule of exclusion appited only where the nus- band and wie was offered jor or against the hus- bavd and whe, and the princtple of tne rule of ex- clusion was equally apphicaoie to one condition as tothe otuer. Now, Your Hohor will bear in mind that in. this argument the question of inviolability of confidential communications is not involved at al. That 18 a@ question of privilege, not of the competency of the witness, As to all other mat- ters husband and wile are competent, but they are not compellable to Atxclose those confidential communications. And Ltntok, sir, nine-tenths of the authorities produced by my learned triend irom the common law cnunciate that doctrine, THEIR BEAUTIFUL THEORLE: are founded on the idea that in regard to those confidences and commuaic#tions which spring from the intimacy and faith of conjugal ite, netiher husband nor wife cau disclose them. They are rights ol the one tn the faith of the other. They are torever sacred—sacred to the privacy of that relation where they are jounded upon the | faith of that privacy. ‘The progress of legislation upon (his sayject has been very ably analyzed and resented by my learned friend, But will Your Honor permit me to read again a anort extract | irom the opinion of Justice James? Your Honor | will remember the slow and the struggling course Of that legislation. Why, sir, disabiity of interest is removed, then the disability of party, 80 far as to | permit an adversary to cali an opposite party, then It Was removed as fo all parties with some excep- tons connected with assignees, &c, And you will perceive that up to that period all the impedi- inchs of common law as to. the competency of wit- nesses were removed, eXcept the single one of the disability of marriage. And then came tne law of 1867, conceived in the spirit and enacted in the case of Southwick vs Southwick, 49 New York, | band and Wile, dota in this country and in Eng- | been read to Your Honor. -a8 the ordinary common sense and tntelligence of for the purpose of opening all the avenues of truth; founded upon the confidence not only in the integrity, but in tne inteliigence of human Dature. First, in the integrity, that under the solemn nection Of an oath witness would tell the truth, Second, upon the intelligence of the court and jury, that if they wanuered from the truth, the el should be detected and repaired, And so, sir, Mr, Justice James says:—"O! late years mate- nial changes have been made in the Iaw of bus- land, and particularly in this State. been adinitted to * CERTAIN BRIGHTS OF PROPERTY, and, a8 @ consequence, to separate rights of ao- tion even against the husband; the marriage coh- tract lost its ancient jeature of indissolunility, and actions bet ween parties ior a breach of it were constantly before the courts, In acase of an ac- tion between these parties, whether in regard to some disputed property, or whether by husoand for diverce or Whe for separation, it 1s idie to state that they stand beiwre the Court im that amicable attitude in which, in civil suits, thoy in- variably stood before the common law. Radical changes have aleo been effected witnin the last sixteen years in the law of England in the adints- sion of and comoetency of witnesses, Lord Brouguam saying that ils general effect wat that po person should be excluded {rom in. capacity of viso that the same does not extend to par- ties enumerated, nor to husband and wife. Lord Brougham’s act. passed in 1861, in the first section renee the provis» of Lora Dumon’s act, except at rel ton made the parties competent witnesses; the third sectlon made husband and wife, parties in criminal proceedings, incompetent; but tne fourth section rendered either incapable in actions founded on adultery or breach of promise of mar- riage.” Bus 1 wil not trouble Your Honor with any further citations, Judge Neilsoo—If you can suspend your argu- ment now We will take the usual recess, ‘The Court then took a recess watt! two o'clock. ARTER RECESS—MR, BEACH RESUMES IIS ARGUMENT. The Court resumed at. two o'clock sxactly, and atthut hour Mr. Beaco, taking upat the point where be nad lett off at recess, continued his argu- ment in the tollowing language :— it Your Honor please, as I understand the argu- ment o1 the learned gentlemen on the otner side, it was divided into two branches. The first rested upou the ancient ruie anc policy of the common law, @od the other was founded upun the special legisiation of this Stare. Whe first 1 nave consid- | ered 80 far as it appears to me important or justi- | fable tn view of the argument presented, and { | pass irom it with a single remark, that tals case | presents thig singular pecultarity, tuat the de- fendant hitherto nas published bis demand to all the world tor the production of all possible evi- dence that couid be introduced against him. To li the earta he has given a public challenge, de- manding that everybody who can throw any light upon this mixed and troubled controversy should appear and present it, To-day, through bis coun- | sei, he seeks to close the principal avenue oi evi- | dence to his adversary, who awhile ago he called | upon to appear belore his chosen tribunal and ex- hibit his prool, He makes the objection of incom- | petency. it is not for me to say, sir, whether the confidence in that challenge rested upon the cir- cumstance that THE REVELATIONS WERE TO BE MADE. before his chosen judges, appointed and ruled by himself, and that to-day that cnallenge iy an- swered belore & reliable and competent tribunal and under the sanction of judicial law. At any rate, this is aremarkable inconsistency, and the fmagination will necessarily roam in the {ancies for Loe reasons Which could thus have aiered the tone of confidence and defiance on the part of the defendant. ‘The spirit of this litigation, althoagh represented by my learned irieud as a mercenary pursuit upon the part of this plainttm for money compensation (which I shall allude to bereatter), 1s by no Means an action Of that character. [t in- volves a question of higher interest to the commu- nity and to the parties. Its object is fae purnk and migntier than the mere consideration of damages, 1t looks to the vindication of one for whom vind cation 1s necessary—t. é, the plaintiff in thiv ac tion. It involves the questiou whether @ promi- nent and eminent leader of the Christianity of the age is to be stricken down by the scorn ana con- demnation of mankind, and the interest’ that | rolls around this case as connected with these | pubite and far reaching consequences 1s of tar higher and greater consideration than the techni- cal and simple question and the ultimate judg- ment for mere damages which ts to be expected alone from this jury. Undoubtedly, sir, {ne coun- sel for this defendant, in pursuit of their duty, are quite entitied to present any tecnnical objec tions to the admission of evidence which may to their jaaemet appear appropriate and proper. But whether tney know It or not, those objections which seek to exclade the light and stilt hide in darkness THE ALLEGED SIN, of this defendant reflects no credi¢ upon his char- acter and Will not aid any effort: in) his justitica- tion. I pass now, sir, to a very brief considera- tion of the law or 1867 and the decision of Justice Smith, and as | read that decision far greater im- port has been given toit than it deserves. Your Honor will be goou enough to perceive that the simple question decided In tiis case 1s 1 the husband, in an action brought bv himself tur criminal conversation with nis wife, was not a competent witness to prove the fact of marriage and ‘hat fact alone, He was offered as a witpess enerally in the case to sustain the allegation of duction, but as the statement of the accused aud the opinion of the Court, the single point and proposition of the tact to which he was tendered Was to prove marriage between himseif and wile, And mark the reasoning of the Court and tne statement of the accused. The plaintiff’ was offered to prove his marr was offered as a witness on bis own behali. This was ovjected to and the objection sustained, to which the piaindf® exceptec. It is not necessary to state the preliminary circumstances which led to the necessity of bis being offered upon that single and exclusive lact; but the Court says long been settled that m actions ior criminat conversation und divorce, and in prosecutions tor Digamy, an actual marriage must be proved, and that im these cases the cohabitasion of the parties as man and Whe, their deciaraiioas or aumissions, or the reputation of an existing marriage, or the plaintiff's acknowleagment of tae woman as his wife, and holding her out as suca to his iriends and acquaintances, her reputation in the amil a8 such, are not s"fMicient co maintain the suit.’ And he reters toa number of authorities, and shows the proof offered to the witness Dann; and plainti? was of the class held insutiicient, and was preneriy excluded within these cases. And that was the rulivg and that was the whole extent of the decision, ‘Then tt was argued, on the part of the appellant, that he was made a witness under the act of 1867, and the Couit passed that very grave and important question, witn the remark read by my learned colleague, which lask to repeat. ‘the plaintii’ was not a compe- tent witness; lor what? Not a competent witness in the case? No, sir, he was not offered as such; | he was not passed upon assuch. Tne pluntitt was a@ competent Wituess to prove such marriage. And to that extent and that only did the Court con- strue the application of the act of 1867. The.Court proceeded to say, “Ihe act of 1867 enabling the husband and wile to be witnesses jor or aguinst each ovler expressly excepts cases where the ques- tion of the aduitery of the husband or wile ts in con- troveray, except to prove a former marriage ta ac- tions of bigamy, and the fact of marriage in tions tor divorce.” And with that single remark, without any examination of previous authorities, Without any investigation Of the policy o1 the act of 1867, the Court passes that very important ques. | tion, {submit to Your Houor that in itsell 1s not | @ decisiun upon the point which ts now presented, | where the platmuf 1s offered as a witness | generally im # Cause, not only as to the) Jact of seduction or adultery, but to all the other | questions of coilateral importance and collateral | issue which have arisen and will necessarily arise in | the course 01 the investigauioo, Now, sir, I think I may be pardoned In making one single additional suggestion, suflicientiy intimated, perhaps, by my learned colleague upon the law of 1867. It has By the first section “It makes husband and wile competeut witnesses in ail cases and without any limitation. 1 have read to Your Honor ‘irom the decisions of the Court of Appeals. 1ts object, its purpose was to remove that single remaining impediment from the com- patency. Ol all Witnesses 1D all Cases Subject to the itinitatious contained in section 2 of the act. That is declared by the court of last resort. Now, tne error of Justice Smith arose irom a superiicial con- ‘The wile has | sideration of the Iimitattons contained in such | second section. He evidently misapprehended the Mect of that section; evidently ne misappited it, any gentieman will iead him to pereeive on listen- ing to the simple reading of the section:—“Notn- ing herejn contained shall render any husband or | wie competent or compellable to give evidence for oF against the other,” in any of the actions enumerated, of which we may assume this to be Now, Sir, the test, the gout of this section, 18 the words, “1oror against each other.” By the first secuon tbey are competent im all actions, upon all occasions, and between all parties. The Legisiuture then says that section shail not be con- | as quaiilying them as witnesses lor or jt each other. [% nov that, sir, the ciear reading, the plain, unambiguous langage of tne statute? And before offering nis disqualification under that section, must tt not appear that he or she {s offered a8 & witness for or against the other; | and 1s it conceivable that any judicial mind | brought deliberately to the consideration of the | Section can misconcetve its import and the prin- ciple which it contains and announces, that prin- ciple being simply ultoough the impediments of | the common jaw are removed, although ideas of | the community of the marriage relation are ex: | Ploded, although the eifect of actions between h bands and wives and the testimony from husband | and wile; may destroy the sentiment of the coo- | nnolal relauon, nevertheless they snail not be witnesses jor or against each other. ‘Then the | question at once arises, sir, in an action ot this | character, brought agaist the seuucer, is the husband to testify against him? And still leaning upon the expioded notions of the common law, friend contends he ts not, because it would interrupt and destroy the harmony vo! THE CONNUBIAL RELATIONS, But sir, this is b N action against the wife, She is not a party; it ts conceded she cannot ve @ Witness; It seeks no remedy against her, it asks, no judgment against her, and whatever may ve the final determination of thts action, she yet stands before the world and the law as the legal wedded wite o! Theodore Tilton, Wuatever judg | ment you enter is powerless to strip her of a single wiely right. She is the wie of this plaintit and entitied to all the legal considerations, and has a night so claim all the duties arising out of that re- lation, How, then, can tne testimony of the hus- band be considered as either lor or agaist her ? Those terms must be applied in a legal sens z & mast be a Witness Against her in @ legal manuer, crime or interest with tms pro- | ing 10 husband and wile; the second sec: | “It has | and she must be a party in the case, or else the | T spoke wholly upon the principle and theory of | mind events of their own history—patrior! Judgment must be such as will aifect her inter. | ests, We have shown Your Honor that po such | conseqnences can be claimed irom this action. ‘To-morrow she might file her bill for a divorce ; to- morrow she might commence proceedings Jor a separation and ior a separate maintenance, and to-morrow, notwithstanding ler inex- cusabla desertion of wer husband's home she may appear at its threshold and demand admission, Are the parties — at affected by this most miserable occurreace, the only ones Who will be thus affected? No, sir; no, sir. My friend has reierred you to the case mm 46 of Barbour, showing tuat this isa true construc: ton oF toe language of the ‘sor and against each other,” and in au action for crim, con. the wile has no suca relation by wo that idea can be better expressed, 1 will just agein refer you to the case of Southwick vs. Soutuwick in 49th New York, and if Your Honor wil examine tne case you iil find that it sustains the case, And now, Sir, what are we views under tiis legisiation tuat these judicial entries of the successive acts re- Movitig impediments to the introduction of the Witness, shows that the doctrines of the common | law bave not been imgorsed by recent legisiation, | | and has been supp rted ov the hienest court in | the State. Waat remains, thea, and why should this plaintiff’ be excluded from the witness stand? Tam ut @ loss to understand upon what principle | of policy that is advocated, Upon what pitn- ciple and policy of lew can that exclusion ve maintained y i know—I know that evidence may ve drawn trom tuis plaintiff, if he is sworn, which will reject upon the chastity and | the honor o/ his wife. I know that fact has given | and will give to my learned friend an opportupity to stump upon him the rude and opprovrieus ap- | pearance of suco discordant controversies be- | tween parties to this holy and dear relation, It 1s @ pitiiul picture—of the deserted and wronged Wile, dishonored, crushed by tne testimony of a husband. He 18 presented by his wife in an | argumentative allegory as listening to the accu- sations of her nusuand, having the revelations of her confessed dishouor publisned to the world, and yet compelled to sit Silent, without a possible auswer from the lips oi the supposed caiumniator, But tue answer of the law is tnat I have already | given, sir, ib 13 that she is not mterested im tne | event of this suit, Ail her rights remain invio~ Jate,and in any event she can claim ail the pr leges of the relation existing between her and | the plaintim, But that position, sir, has another side, Will vnat be the first revelation of unas- serted guilt? Will the te’timovy irom tue lips of the husband’be the first dark shadow which gathers upon her character? In this, or in any Other conceivaule case of seduction, isit the case which crushes earnest Womanhood?’ No, sir; no sir, The saame, the disgrace, the aestruciion which this wile suffers and must suffer starts earlier in the history of this unlortunate transaction. It 18 not the husband who reveais the wile’s dise | : tis the seducer! Long before this actton | was commenced tie dark cloud bad ensirouded | this wie, This action was not commenced until | the wile, stimylated by her seducer, had deserted the home of héeY husband, This action was now commenced until this wile, led by that seéducer, | appeared before his chosen tribunal and veaced her spieen and indignation against this usband, Long before this action was commenced this shadow had fallen over that household and the | happy and honored home was distracted and sey- ered. ‘he argument does not apply here, sir. ‘The epithet is not appropriate to the action or this case; its not appropriate to any action, because, J assert, at 18 OD invariavle trath tbat the disuonor and ruin which 1o:lows THE PATH OF THE SEDUCER commences long belore the husband is apprised of mis own dishonor. It comes in alienated love, it comes in inevitable discord and contention, it comes at lastin the clear revelation to tne dis- tracted heart o1 the husband of his wile’s seduc- tion aud dishonor, Whatever may be satd by Theodore Tiltoa upon that will not adt one jot or tittle to the agony, shame or remorse of that wile. “But this is a suit ior money, sir!’ My client i3 represented as spreading over the reputation and nonor of his wie in @ greedy chase aiter the gold | of the defendant. Why, sir, don’t the coupse! know better; irnot his associate and Your Houvor know better’ How long ago was it that in tus case and before Your Honor tie proffer was made to abandon this case ior damages it my learved iriends would but press iorward their ladictment for livel in asserting the adulery of this aetendant with his wile ? Theodore Tilton seeks no damages from tots defendant; he would not stain and burn bis paim with his gold; but he seeks, sir, vindicas | tion. The sin of this defendant nas iollowed him | with Gestructive eifcacy. This defendant has | gathered around him the comments and condem- nation of society; his fortunes have been pros- trated; those consequences which aiways follow in THE PATH OF GUILT, especially of this sin, have clung to him with tron tenacity. Itis ior no money, it 1s lor noredress, Ifthe wronged husband and the violated hom-, does the law afford no vengeance, Why, sir, It is, [ | think, @ shame, although | velieve | Giffor with my learned colleague in that respect, but 1 think it a burning shame to the law of tos State and every | other Stute where that iaw is wanting, that the | seducer may not be pursued as a criminal, or that | licentiousness Of this character 1s not punishea vy the heaviest judgment o. the law as it was con- demoed and punished by that miailibie law wich | knows no terror. But no remedy is given! What must Theodore Tilton do? Must he suffer the arrows and stings of soaiety, and sec tie seducer | triumphant and flourishing, and glorying in bis imparity, toe happiest Man in all this room’ (Mur- miirs and sensation in Court.) Does the law afford no redress? None adequate, sir, and the only | resource leit to my client given lium vy the law | Was this action. It lie had taken that otuer remedy, | condemned by tie law of the State, bat sanctioned by the common law of humanity—toat which reaches the heart and lIlle of the seducer—had he done tnat; sir, instead of standing vefore Your Honor 1n his appeal for vindication aod justice, ne | would have been a: ruigned as » criminal and in | | danger of the gibvet; and yet my imends reproacn | us lor doing this act. “You should ve quiet, Mr. | ‘suitop; you should not venture to accuse Hen Ward Beechor o1 adultery because, lorsvovh, it 1m- pltcates and criminates your wife. You have lost | her love and her society; it has been won trom you by the specious seductions of the detendant. Your home is desecrated and dishonored and your ior- \anes withered and destroyed, and the seducer, I repeat, 18 glorying in bis own )mpunity irom punishment; but still be quiet, and if you venture to adopt the only remedy which the law gave you eloquent counsel shall holu | you up to scorn and contempt of a court anda Jory aud of alt mankind.’ Weil, to my mind, there 13 sometping excessively repugnant in toe idea of civil action founded upon seduction, It hurts the better sentiments of our nature; it revolts that | affection upon which jamily at home rest, and upon Which society and government depen when the law leaves no other remedy than tha aye, sir, When the law gives to the disnonared husband no other revenge but, consistently with 1ts OWn teachings, does it become the mimsters of | the iaw to reproach the husband who resorts to that redress? Now, sir, 1 am aware that these thoughts and remarks are not pertinent to this | discussion; they do not belong to the lawo! this | argument, and this only because my learned friena | in his specious and insidious way sought to in- | culcate this idea of disgrace and dishonor fro: | the tact ot bringing this action. I bave wandered from the pefiect patn of discussion tor the porpene of remedying this mis-statement, Tuis | sau, sir, I have to submit to Your | Honor. I can but repeat the spirit of the argu- ment which my learned colleague and myself have | addressed to you. {can but implore you, out or | regard lor the great interests waicn are imvolved in your decision of this questiun; out of regacd tor | those great questions of law and of pubic policy | which are necessarily involved iu tue discussivn | and in a decision, !0 give us a decision which shail be in narmony with the spirit, ii | may call it, of our present civilization, a decision wuich shall not stand in repugnance to the principles which have been annvunced so repeatedly and so empiati- cally by the highest courts Of our State. (siignt murmufs of applause.) MR. EVARTS CLOSES THE ARGUMENT IN REPLY, Mr, Evarts at once rose and proceeded to speak as follows :— The avergion that my learned friends avow to | this money action by a hu-band respecting the | honor o1 wis wife is an ayersion that is shared by the law and by morals and by society, That my learned iriend well understands, and Your Honor, tt never was tolerated in remedies of juris- prudence upon its own motive aud tor its own sake. It was in the system of judicial procedures of the country from which we take our law ony as the step 01 sincere and honest investigation be- | Jore a jury Of the fact, because the final re vy of | the law which gave tor this great cause, divorce, | could ouly be exerted by /ariament, not upon | peeistany or examinations in committee rooms, or yy coniessiuns or collusions, but by what the law re garded as the open and sidcere investization qi the fact, M Which the Husband, governed by every con- sideration that should withhold niin i he was Not sincere. tmpelied to it by no possidiiity Ol motive except the requirements of tue law, could pot Obtain his divorce eXcept by this pub- he demonstration of tue reality of ‘the crime, shown before a jury and in the form of an acuon against the injurer of lis domestic peace estadiisa | the fact m order that Parliament night grant nim J a divorce upon esfabdlished act. And when the courts o1 England gave to ordinary judicial in+ quiries the method and the result of divorce upon | Mdicial Investigation, 16 suppressed the iniquit and the disgrace of av action jor criminal conve sutiod, permitted no husound who did not pursue bis wile with tne honest purposes of divorce to open his mouth or raise his hand against her in aby court of justice; permitted only the evidence of @ co-respondent, the deceiver, as a part of tie pro. ceedings for divorce, and excluded the husband | who had condoned his wife's fault, aud to be heard in any action tor divorce r: question of inquiry Or of prvol against auy decelver. And now It is ty the credit of Our juris. rudence and dignity and Maniiness ot our psopie. But wine for along ume our courts of equity have had this jurisdiction, cases tor criminal conv: tion have disappeared irom the annals of our law except in the very Jow ranks of ie, and under | the grave suspicion that it was for lucre’s sake, | that the case Was brought. Bat why no longer | necessary? By the system of iaw it may in the ine | vestigation bé nseini to soow the sincerity of a | husound wao did not desire a divorce, and yet did desire money or vengeance, as my learned iriend has not scrnpied to call the motive of this action. The solemn injunction of the law toa husband who finds fault with his wife is that he shail thea speak or forever alter hold his tongue. Andif he comes and receives the embrace of marriage no court hears Ms farther complaint many way to afect his desire for s3paration irom his wife, In England the samme fect closes all iiquiry tn any form concerning the ict thus forever buricd and destroyed, Now, i! Your Honor please, tn ali that | Lhad to say concerning the presentation of this | Plaintid as a witness to prove his wile’s adultery, | either husband or wile to the adultery of the other, | low vs, Bushnell, 5 Bar! | ment, been brought to tri T | ever law and society, | said that the pratintif’ was | coming here to prove nis wife's infidelity. My | learned friend has found in that an excuse for & Viiuperative invective against the defendant. | Nothing could have led my tearned triend into so | 1njudicious dnd impradent a course as tls bat the consideration that at no future stage of the case could the state of the proofs uave given him us much assisiance and support as now, Alter Uriefly adverting to the lew of 1887, to which he beiore addre-sedMimsell at considerabie lengt the learned gentieman said he cl diction to the that tat inw restrict husband aud wile irom appearing as wit- | nesses for or against each other except in cases Uthat specially came Within its purview, Se The counsel then cailed atreution to the case “of | Lucas against Brooks, 18 Wailace, 482, to the | decision readered October 7, 1873. ‘The Court held | that 1% was a rule in common law that a wile can- not appear against the husband except in civil suits brought either by the husband against the | wife or by the wile against the husband. Phat law | has not been abrogated, | THE OBJECTION TO & WIFE'S TESTIFYING against her jiusband rests soiely upon pubilc pol | icy, ‘Lo that the acts of Congress huve no applica- tion, Vice Cluncellor Jayne holds thar the stature | does Dot abrogate the old rule, Chief Justice Red | fleid, of Vermont, in the case of Mauchesier ys. | Manchester, hoias that the wile 18 not a compe- | tent Witness to testilyeitaer for or agaiust her | husband fn any civil proceeding, under the act of | 1852. By the iaw of the State of New York there heverswag aby pretence that the rale of marital | exclusion applied where neitner was a party to the suit. He cited Roscoe on the “Law of Evi- | dence,” and said, “The proposition is that al- | Uhough this husband would be exciuded i udul- | tery Were criminatly prosecutabdle, yet the rules of law allowed bin to testy here. Aduitery. 13 | Spoken of as within the rule that a witness need hot criminace himsell, When our court Englisn courts lay down the rule that a hu Wile shall not be allowed to testify to aay tacis that | criminute the otner, they held tnat they couta | not testy to adultery because it criminatea tue | other party to tue conjugal relation, ‘The laws of all the States wich make adulcery criminal, such as Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Vermont and North Carouna, exclude the testimony ot The code of procedure has uot cuanged the rutes | of the common law in tus respect. The seccion of the code as remodelled in 1869 takes away ‘he | Joundatioa of ail the cases in which It was held tat any such chinge was made. Tnat section how provides simply that no one sbail be e@X- | cluded by reason of his being a party or inter- ested, It formerly read, “A party may be exam- ined in bis own behalf or in pehalf of any other party, in the sume manner and subject to the Same rules abd examination as apy other wite | hess, except that neither husband nor wile can be required to disclose auy communiction made by one to tue other.’ Under the present reading of | the section, which ts literally the same as tue law in Maine and Vermont, a husband ts NOT A COMPRTENT WITNESS against any interest of his wile. ‘The counsel uoted the cases of Manchester vs, Manchester, 24 yermt., 649; Dwelly vs. Dwelly, 46 Maine, 377; Pile | 156; Hasbrouck vs, Van- aervoort, 9N. Y., 1,534. ‘It will not be pretended that the stature of 1867 (chap. 887) makes the hus- band competent in tis case, lor it excepts actions | Ol crim. con. Jrom the cases in which husbands and Wives are made competent to testify, It has | been expressly adjudged in the latest case in | Which the question arose that the plaintf in an action of crim. coun, is not a competent witness on his own behalf under the existing law of this State. (Dann vs. Kingdom, 1N, Y. supreme Court, 492.) In tnat case, tt the plaintiff was a competent Witness in the action lor any purpose he was com- petent to prove tue marriage, tur he was an eye- witness ot it, and the testimony of an eye-witness 1s competent cvidence, (Bart vs. Barlows, 1 Dougl., 171; Hemings vs. Smith, 4 1d., 33.) It was held that the action of Daun vs. Kingdom can be sustained only on the theory that in an action of crim. con. the husband 1s not a competent witness jor any purpose. Mr. Evarts called attention to the English cases in which the legal epithet of cases of this Kind is criminal and criminating. He cited the cases before the Ecclesiastical Court bearing on this point, such as Faucets vs. Faucett, in which ic is held by the Court that a coniession of adultery or testimony thereto made by the husbana against the wife or vice versa was Not admissible as crimi- nating the parties, The question now occurs upon the poipt, not as Lo’ the criminalty of the acuon, but as to the prudence of the Legislature in noc making ita crime, Lord Mansfield taid down the GENERAL, RULES. OF EVIDENCE in cases of criminal conversation. that though triedon the civil side of the courts, the same rigor iu regard to the exclusion or admission of | testimony as in a criminal indictment. Lord Mansfield says:—"There has never been an in stance either In a civil or criminal case where th husband or wife uas been permitted to be a Witness for or against the other except in a case Oo} nece: ity.’ This 18 not an action where the husbai is on one side and the wife on the other. This is | Ot an action agamst the wife for adultery. It ts | not an action for perjury; it 18 Dot a collateral issue, vis the trialitsel, in which the plainvur | Seeks to prove the adultery of his wife with the | delendant, and the act of 1867, which has oeen | designated the enabling clause, does not permit | the hasband or the wile to testify either as | agalust the other in an actioa for crim con. The | meaning of the Legislature is plain, that though the mouth of the husband and wile are open in ordi- | hary cases, they are to be closed in acuons whpre | adultery jorms the subject of the trial, whether | they be for divorce, bigamy or criminal conversa. | tion. Taylor, on evidence, says, the first Class Of witnesses exciuded are intefestert parties in any proceedings based upon. the | Jact of adultery. He defied the learned coun- | sel on the other side to show a rgigie | case in our courts in which it has been “ueld | that a hushana or wife could be a witness in a crem, Con, case since the passage Ol the act of 1867. Iv wouid admit etther Mr. filton or Mrs. Til'on to testify, but for the limitations, He would like to | know il a witness is permitted to come upon tne stand, with ms will dowioaut over the law, who ts | to detine the limitation? Well might the Legista- Lure stand appalled at the prospect of the husband | or wile testiying against each other where the testimony would criminate each otner. The gevius | of the policy o: Britigh limitations was strictly | lollowed here, and the counsel looked with dismay | on the fragments of disfigured evidence whicn will ensue if the will of this husbanu should oe made master over him, and the law not master over him, Mr. Evarts concluded his argument by calling | the attention of the Judgo to tie lact that the City | Court was bouna by the decision of the Supreme | Court, notwithstanding the poimt o1 argument wich had been raised to the contrary. This propo- | sition was (Mr, Evarts’) that the determination ofthe General Term of the Sapreme Court is as binding on this court as on any other court in the district. JUDGE NEILSON’S ACTION. Upon the terminauion ol Mr. Evarts’ argument, Judge Neilson, addressing the counsel, suid that he could only say to the learned genuiemen whom | he had neard on this argument that he was Jully | impressed with its Weight and importance, and he would endeavor to give it all possible attention. | He did not intend, however, to write an opinion, as he dic not consider that it was necessary tor him tg do so, He would do novhing more than give them tne statement of nts conclusions, which be would frankly state, and should ne commit any error it could be rectified. He suggested that if the counsel would agree among themselves in the matter, ib might be well to convene for tne trial during the coming week at hall!-past ten instead of eleven o’clock each morning and adjourn at hall-past four instead of lot: o’clock in the after- noon, By so doing they would greatly economize | ume aud would gain oe day in the course of the | week. Mr. Evarts replitea that a case of such magnitude | and importance a$ this had never, in his judg- | upon 80 short a notice, | and the .abor which it entailed upon the counsel | was very ureat. They could save more actual | | ume by being absent Irom the Court that extra hour proposed, which could be devoted to tie preparation of potnts in tne case, than would be | possivie were they to accede to the proposal of | His Honor, | Judge Netigon then asked some information touching Mr. Evarts’ understanding upon the | rignt ol husband and wie to testily in suits other | than crim, con. under his interpretration of the | Act of 1869, which, being imparted, the Judge re. minded the jury of Ins oft-repeated warning agatost reading the hamapapers and conversing | on the subject of the trial. Aiter which, it being | now four o'clock, the Court adjourned. And so closed the iourty week of the great | scandal case. PLYMOUTH PRAYER MEETING, GOD'S NAME—THE CITY WITH TWELVE HUNDRED GATES, There was no diminution in the atvendance at | Plymouth prayer meeting on account of the storm | last evening. After the usual exorcises, Mr. Beecher said:— | There 1s very much in the original tendencies of a man’s nature which will determine the profit which he derives irom the contemplation of Goa, All have access, or may have, to the treasury house of the universe; Whatever human mind can conceive, whatever is revealed in matter, what- is revealed in the experience of a man’s soul, Whatever is developed tn social | life, all belongs to that name above every other name—God | be cramped and limited oy the calling of Him, one name—God. It is true He revealed Himself by special names to His people of old, but it is true also that in the deepest moral nature of the Hebrews they appro- priated and made use of Goa in ther struggies the name of God. And in that res; ect you w. be struck with all the prophets and tn ; psalms how incessantly they Wind the thread o( lustory with We dave the God of Abraham and Isaac and acob, and we have *Fhon that leades: thy peopie ike a flock,” referring to the ied them through the wilderness; have no priation of God tO our own thoughts s. O God! my God! You Want the In ensity of thts se Ot ownership in God, He was the God wno establisned the world, i tuat made the sear dinan aud shepherd, the Goa of all their relations, and fe was the personal God. They had ao ampittude and variety Im association and sonai €Xperience and Nome thoughts that ve the idea of God ever familar, We have @ God who ts in dof th LORD GOD ALMIGHTY, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent—God, the Father of Jesus Corist—and He ts the God, too, of Abraham and Jacob and Isaac; we don’t care about them; they were emimeutly re: spectable, but they don't turill us, and we go on using” those old names be cause they once had ving power. Do we ac custom ourselves to imit appear to us as the anc ‘Tuere 13a want of lon aud make our God ent Hebrews did to them! appropriation, the bringing near of God tous. In this respect We are making the name of God dry and aria, | think if we had some(ming more Oriental it Wowd be more com forung. ae tuis should be empioyed is @ matter 0! consid - I exercises ‘ot public worship itis like be misjudged by the un. trained mind, batin a man’s own nousebold there are no such restrictio And how natural it would be tl you were to give tiles to God spring. ing out of tne Zution Of His fecling ior you, Suppose a man nad a single chtid, 1 does hor matter that he is much sone, he nas tis one hittie well out of which he is to draw his water of . Well, Suppose him to be anxious; the cutld is railings he Kuows Nov wWiat to ao; he is in poverty an DESTITUTE OF FRIENDS. He kneels down and says, “O Lord God, God of Shall Lrepuke it is not so great a laull, But “O God of my daring O God, who gave her to me four years ago!” uu Suppose it would oring God nearer to The old Hebrews took t * experience and s bis God, Seldom Abraham and Isaac and Jacob! am ? h him ¢ life, putit on Digh, anu it soone do'we take what is earnest and loving and give toit & iuman and personal soul, Which shail identity God with us, express it 1s Meant br the term Eminanuel— od with us, ‘There must be times when he seems as reveaied to us specially, Aud so is the thought of God and the using o iis name, bear m mina, that which brings hun nearer. All these elements, are not to be feared as trreverent, but are to make wiving titles Selaom do we him aearer. God 1s pot so great that he has fore gotten he 1s father. Here wr. Beecher gave a space for remarks, and a brother said:—“It seems to me we want @ per. sonal God, and I think the "reason We wave not is because we have got 2 smatrering of science, Is it science that 1s detrimencal to our sptrite ual nature, and can you explain it?” Mr. Beecher said:—"Weil, you urem puysician, and you know that if a man Was fed on jovd Which did not sup- ply him with lime for bones there is that in big nature which would crave for lime, so i a man has been cheated in regard to one element, there is that in lim whica revenges itself. TBus, it you take away irom religion checriuiness there will certainly be a rebound. You take noitce akers foia other churches 1t 18 always the Epise Methodist Cuurel. I{ you make the New Jorusaicm like a city, not of tweive gates, but tweive hundred, so that one cannot think of God without finding himsell over one of the gates, you will find the advantage. NEW YORK CITY. Five persons were injured through falling on slippery icewalks yesterday, The Liberal Ulub held its regular meeting last evening at Plimpton Hall, when Mr. W. L, Ormsby, Jr., delivered a lecture: entitled ‘A Known Factor in Sociology.”” William Livingston, who stabbed Lawrence Mem satt the night betore last in a liquor saloon In the Ninth ward, surrendered himself last nignt to Captain Kennedy, The Lotos Club promtses an art exhibition and musical entertainment this evening at their Club House, iu irving place. Te ladies’ reception will be given next Monday. Tne German Repubdlican Central Committee, Judge Dittenhoefer presiding, held a meeting No, s4y Bowery, last night, to complete its reor- ganization for the ensuing year. John Schwartz, Sr., of No, 8 Beach street, was knocked dowk last evening by stage No. 408, of the Fifth avenue line, at Fourteenth street and Broadway. He was severely but aot dangerously injured. Mr. Charles Trudeil, Treasurer of the Army and Navy Club, reported to toe polics last night that Alfred P, Evans, the bookkeeper of the clut bs Seeetess taking with him $550, the funds the club. The funeral of the late ex-Alderman Edwara Schlichting took place yesterday afternoon from his late residence, No. 120 East 1234 street, A | number of members of the Board of Aldermen were present, Mr. Emil Schumann, Chief Engineer of the steamer Polaris, entertained an appreciative audience last night at Steinway’s by a lecture on that ill fated Arctic expedition, illustrating it with several magnificent stereopticon views. The next lecture in tne Cooper Union Fre Course for the People will be delivered this evens ing, im the great hail, by Prot Govdale, of Harvard College, on “ Work,’ being the second of a series of four lec- tures on botany. The Committee on Contested Seats of the Re» publican General Committee met jast evening and heard evidence in the cases of the Twenty-first districé and the Twenty-third ward. The commit. tee Will make its report to the General Committee ac its next meeting. At the third social gathering of the Yale Alumai, held last evening at Delmonico’s, Prolessor Sumner wade an interesting statement retive te the introduction and pfogress of the method of teaching social science in that ustversity. Owing to the avsence of text book as yet retarded, but the Professor trus that ere long the system would realtz it. Tne Coart of Arbitration met at the Chamber of Commerce yesterday. The only case heard was that of Imhorst vs. Bensusnn, in woich the former sues for the value of 200 nogsheads of claret wine, which toe latier contracted jor, but retused to take, becaus was not delivered on time, No new evidence Was clictted and tue case was ade journed to a future meeting of the Court, and it all the success hoped Jur | ‘Will be several weeks betore a decision is given. NEW JERSEY. The jury in the Ricardo case yesterday rendered a verdict o! simple assault, the penalty of which is a fine of $25, In the Court of Quarter Sessions at Jersey City yesterday, Wiliam A. Campbell, the absconding jeweller, pleaded guilty to nine charges oj ewbex zlement. The city debt of Plainfleld—for which no means of payment are provided—amounts to $3,487. The estimate for the expenses of the city for tae present year 1s $15,00 A fire broxe out yesterday forenoon in the Amer- {can Oakum Works on Corpelison avenue, Jersey City. The fire orgmated in the fue from the Jurnace, Loss $40,000; tasured for $20,002 The city of Bordentown is iree trom debt, and about $7,009 would place the township in the same happy condition, The total amount of tax. abie property in tae townsnip is avout $1,900,000, A poruon of the eastern bank of the Morris Canal in Roseville, Newark, gave way yesterday morning, causing damage of considerable extent and a good deal of excitement. The break 1 tiirty feet wide and twemy leetdeep., Muskrate caused if, it is believed, Nobody was hurt, All the ratiroad stations on the Newburg branch of the Erie Railway, except Central Valley station, were broken into on ‘hurscay night and robbed | Of tickets, baggage and other articies, , Two of the robbers are Known as old exverts on the main line of the Erie, Lv is Supposed they are now as Fishkill, THOMAS PAINE’S BIRTHDAY, Some thirty or forty persons assembled at the Westchester House tn New Rochelle iast evening for the purpose of commemorating in a social and convivial manner the 198th anniversary of the birthday of Thomas Paine. The meeting, which Was altogether an impromptu affair, wag presided over by Major Andrew Contant, a veteran of tha War of 1812, who last evening reached the ripe age of fourscore vears, nnd who is the only surviving soidier resideut m the peigdborkood, Daring the And our thought of God is likely to | evening Major Courant enierraimed the company With some interesting personal recollections ot Paine, While the modest banquet provided for the occasion was ben iscussed, several members of the company spoke in terms of admiration oj Paine, The company did not separate uatil a late | hour, 3 | SCHOOLS, and experience, and they diversified His name, | ‘They diu not cali Him Jehovan, or Almighty. On the other band, you wil find they appeal to God by titles of the phenomena o! nature, Him tne God of light, tie God of the seasons, and inasmuch as they identified their God with narure, tt created a constant res Thinking of (he things around them y thoughts wonkd nataraily go vacx to God, And aii throug the history of their eariy fatuers Was associated with tie name Of God, as thouga there was in Him a perpetual historic clement, So, Woon they used the titles of God, 1¢ Drought to They cailed | FOUL AIR IN | To tue Epitor oF THE HERALD: | Lam glad to see yon stirring up the anthorition about the lack of venttletion in our public school | houses. It ts no wonder that contagious diseases spread rapidly whtie the poystcal energies of our ron are So vepressed by the towl air which eyare compelled to breatne torso many houre each day; aud 1 yOu cau spur up the autnoritu toareform of the condition of setiogthouses yo will be balled by Many parents as a publiy Denes factor, ilies & PARENT,