DUKE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY Digitized by tine Internet Archive in 2015 littps://archive.org/details/theocloretilsonvs31tilt 0 Theodore Tiltox YS. Henry Ward Beecher ACTIOX FOR GRIM. COX TRIED IN THE CITY COURT OF BROOKLYN, Chief Jcstice JOSEPH NEILSOX Presiding. Verbatim Report by the Official Stenographer. A^OJL. Ill TTITH PORTRAITS OF Hon. TTM. KVAETS. JOHX L. HILL. Esq. Hon. TVM. A. BEACH, HEXEY C. BOWEX. THOMAS E. PEAESALL. NEW YORK: McDIYITT, CAMPBELL k CO., LAW PUBLISHERS, Ko. 79 Nassau Street, 1875. Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1875, br McDIVITT, CAMPBELL & CO., m the Office of the Librarian of Congress, Washington, D. i\ IJhambers, the City Court of Brooklyn. Brooklyn, February 22d, 1875. "TiLTON vs. BeECHER." The nambers of your report have been of great use to me The testimony is given, as in the N. Y. Tribune, with substantia) correctness. In thanking you for your courtesy, I beg to express my respect for your enterprise. Very truly yours, J. NEILSON, Ch. J. To McDiviTT, Campbell & Co., Nassau St., N. Y. TABLE OF CONTENTS. HENRY WARD B^EOHEii. CBOSS-EX AMINATK3N Page 3 Why Mr. Beecher Preferred the New England Form of Oath 5 Mrs. Beecher 's Absence in 1871 5 Mr. Tllton's Religious Defection 6 Dissatisfaction with Mr. Tilton in the Northwest 6 Mr. Tilton's Publications on Marriage and Divorce 6 Mrs. Tilton and Mr. Beecher take Buggy Rides 10 Visit to Mrs. Tilton in August, 1870 11 The Advice Given Mrs. Tilton 14 Mrs. Morse's Letter to Mr. Beecher 16 Mr. Beecher '8 Answer to Mrs. Morse 18 Joseph Richards Contradicted 18 Mr. Beecher' 8 Intimacy with Mrs. Tilton 19 Mr, Beecher's Whereabouts in October, 1868 21 Mr. Moulton's Peremptory Invitation on December 30. . . 23 Interview at Moulton's 25-27 Mrs. Tilton's Retraction 31 The Interview of December 31 36 Why Mr. Beecher Trusted Mr. Moulton 39 The Famous Pistol Scene 40 The Interview of January 1 42 The Letter of Apology 44 Mr. Moulton's Short Statement 50 Interview at Mr. ^noulton's House ; 57 Mr. Beecher's Letter to Mr. Bowen 59 Conversation with Mr. Francis D. Carpenter 60 The Charge of Adultery 62 Proposed Settlement of the Diflaculty 63 The Agreement to Write the Letters of Feb. 7, 1871 65 Mr. Beecher's Expectations of Death 68 Interview with Mr. Tilton in February, 1871 70 The May Interview 71 Mrs. Tilton's Letters 73 Mr. Beecher Gives Mrs. Tilton a Picture 74 Explaining the Letters 75 The Clandestine Letters 78 Why the Letters were Kept Secret 79 Mr*. Morse's Letter 82 The First Blush of the Scandal 83 Mrs. Woodhull's Card 84 The Charge of Adultery 86 The Charge of Improper Advances 89 Conversations with Mr. Moulton 94 The " Ragged Edge " Letter 92 The Read ng of the True Story ^ 93 Mr. Beecher's Letter Declining the Pastorate 95 Interview with Mrs, Moulton 95 The Sofa and Kissing Scenes 95 No Remarks about a Contession to the Church 97 The West Charges 97 The Card Published in The Eagle 99 Mr. Beecher Swears that he was Not at Mr. Moulton's House on June 2, 1873 100 Appointment of the Investigating Committee 100 Gen. Batler Proffers his Services to Mr, Beecher 105; Mr. Beecher's Walks with Mrs. Tilton 104: Beecher givea Mr. Tilton Financial Aid lOt Mortgage on Mr. Tilton's House 107 Discussion Concerning " The Golden Age " lOJ; The Question of Blackmail 11] Mr. Beecher's Sermons Introducsd ! 11}; Beecher's Meeting of Mrs. Woodhull ] . 120 Condition of Mr. Beecher's Health in 1873 ! 12i> Re-Direct Examination 13i) Mrs. Tilton and the Charge of Undue Affection 13.J Mr. Beecher's Habits 13;i Meetings with Mr, Tilton 13) The Payment of $5,000 13tj SAMUEL D. PARTRIDGE. Direct Examination 137 HERMAN O. ARMOUR. Direct Examination 143 HENRY M. CLEVi-LAND. Direct Examination 150 Oross-Examination 153 His Interview with Mr. Beecher on June 2, 1873.... Page 158 Mr. Beecher Sends for Mr. Carpenter.... 164 Publication of the Tripartite Covenant 155 The Investigating Committee Appointed 162 The West Charges 166 The Committee and Mrs. Tilton's Statement 169 Mr. Tilton before the Committee 170 The Action of the Committee , 171 New Documentary Evidence 174 JAMES L, LITTLE. Dibect Examination 175 Cross-Examination 176 Re-direct Examination 177 HENRY M. CLEVELAND (Recalled) 178 Mr, Cleveland's Commission to Boston 178 Mr, Beecher's Instructions to Mr, Cleveland 181 The Charges of Blackmail 182 Telegrams in Latin and English 188 Rumored Threats by Mr. Cleveland Denied 185 Report of the Investigating Committee 185 The Evidence before the Committee 189 Mr, Tilton's Letter to the Church , 191 Mr. Shearman's Card in the Independent 193 Mr. Beecher's Reconciliation with Mr. Bowen 194 Re-dieect Examination 194 Formation and Meetings of the Committee 197 Re-cross Examination 199 FRANCIS D. MOULTON (Recalled) 200 SAMUEL D. PARTRIDGE (Recalled) 208 Cross-examination 204 Appearance of the Bowen Check 209 History of the Yellow Paper 210 Conversation about Tilton and the Spiritualists 213 Re-direct Examination 216 EDWARD J. WRIGHT. Direct Examination 217 Cross-Examination 217 ELIZABETH LAPIERRE PALMER. Direct Examination 219 The Golden Age to support the Spiritualists , 220 Fauailiarities between Mr. Tilton and Mrs. Woodhull 221 Mr, Tilton Denies Mrs, Woodhull's Charges 222 Proofs of the Scandal Shown the Witness 222 Cross-Examination 223 The Witness a Clairvoyant 225 Tlie Witness's Introduction to Mr. Tilton 228 Ttie Freedom between the Woodhalls and Mr. Tilton 2i0 The Talk about Making Mr. Tilton's Paper Radical 232 The Exhibition Made of the Proof Sheets 234 Se-dibect Examination 235 Ee-cross-Examination 235 GS^. B. F. TRACY. r irect Examination 236 J, iTRANCIS ST. GEORGE, I irect Examination 288 C ross-Examination 239 GE-^. B. F. TRACY (Recalled) V. 243 Fii it Meeting at Gen, Tracy's House 244 Co isultation at Moulton's House 244 Th ) Pistol Scene Described to Gen, Tracy 246 Pa ts of Mrs. Woodhull's Story Denied 246 Ui. Moulion Denies being Mrs, Woodhull's Informant,.. 248 Mi. Tilton Displays " The True Story" 248 On.iissions in the Preserved Copy of The True Story 251 Mr. Tilton Denies being Mrs. Woodhull's Informant 251 What Mr. Tilton could not Deny , 252 Ml . Tilton Wants the Paper Preserved 263 ftli 3, Morse Named as Mrs, Woodhull's Informant 254 Th 3 Policy of Separate Denials 256 Gea, Tracy's Alleged Remark on Lying 255 MRS. MARIA N. OVINGTON (Recalled). Cross-Examination 256 Re-direct Examination 267 IV TABLE OF CONTENTS. Re-cboss-Examination Page 258 Ee-be-dirkct Examination 258 GEN. B. F. TRACY. DiEECT Examination (Resumed) 261 Contradictions of Mr. Woodruff. 261 Mr. Moulton and Mr. Tilton Declared to be One 263 How Gen. Tracy Became Counsel for Mr. Beecher 272 Gen. Tracy's Interview with Mr. Tiiton 273 Contradictions of Mr. Tilton 275 Mr. Tilton's Proposed Statement for the Committee. ... . 277 Mr. Beecher' s Payments of Money Damaging to Mr. Moulton 2^9 The Interview at the Fifth Avenue Hotel 280 Ckoss-Examination 281 Gen. Tracy's First Consultation with Mr. Beecher 282 Gen. Tracy's Pledge to Mr. Tilton 283 Gen. Tracy's Idea of the Original Charge 285 More about Gen. Tracy's Original Pledge 285 Why Gen. Tracy Became a Witness 286 Adultery Not Mentioned as the Charge by Mr. Woodruff. 287 The True Story as Shown to Gen. Tracy 288 Gen. Tracy Seeks to Suppress the Scandal 289 Gen. Tracy Goes to Boston to See Gen. Butler 291 The Interview with Gen. Butler 293 A Statement Dictated by Gen. Butler 294 An Offer to Show the Witness's Animus 296 What was Not said between Gen. Tracy and Mrs. Moul- ton 301 Moulton's Short Statement , 301 Mr. Richard's A^ipearance Before the Committee 303 Mr. Woodruff's Information about the Money Transac- tions 304 Gen. Butler's Written opinion 304 Gen. Tracy's Activity in Mr. Beecher's Behalf ... 305 Re-direct Examination 308 Gen. Tracy advises Mrs. Moulton about Mr. Tilton. An Injunction to prevent the Destruction of the Papers. . . 310 The Conversations with Mrs. Moulton August 18 311 WILLIAM A. BEACH. Couseuts that Mrs. Tilton may Testify 313 WILLIAM M. EVARTS. Declines to call Mrs. Tilton 313 CHARLES C. STANLEY. Direct Examination 315 Cross-Ex AMINATION 816 GEORGE W. MADDOX. Direct Examination 319 Cross- Examination 320 JOHN SWINTON. Direct Examination 322 Cboss-Examination 322 ALBERT BERGHAUS. Direct Examination 325 Cross- Examination 326 HENRY OTIS FOX. Direct Examination 329 Cross-Examination 330 WILLIAM FORCE. Direct Examination 322 Cross-Examination 333 LAWRENCE S. KANE. Direct Examination 334 Cross-examination 334 THEODORE H. BANKS. Direct Examination 335 Cboss-Examination 337 Re-dieect Examination , 238 JAMES W. STILLMAN. Direct Examination , 338 Cross-examination 339 HENRY P. McMANUS. Direct Examination 34O Cross-Examination , 341 ALBERT B. MARTIN. Direct Examination 342 Cross-examination ] 345 FRANKLIN WOODRUFF (Recalled) 347 DiRBOT Examination 347 Cboss-Examination hss Gen. Tracy's Interview in the Union ... ... . . . .... 359 The $5,000 long a mystery to Mr. Woodruff Page 368 Mr. Beecher's Gift of $500 to Mr. Tilton's Family 364 What the $500 was for 365 The Checks for Bessie Turner's School Bills 866 A Mortgage on Mr. Tilton's House 367 The Accounts with WoodruH" & Robinson 367 Mr. South wick Censured for giving Mr. Tracy Points 372 Re-Direct Examination 372 Re-Cross Examination 373 HANNAH. M. MIDDLEBROOK. Direct Examination 374 A Gathering of Spirituali.sts ai Mrs. Woodhull's 375 The Witness Cowley Contradicted 375 Mrs. WoodhuU Publicly Discusses the Scandal in Boston. 375 choss-examination 876 Re-Direct Examination 379 Re CBOS8 Examination 379 JOSEPH H. RICHARDS (Recalled) 379 JOHN BREMER. Direct Examination 385 Cross-Examination 385 STEPHEN PEARL ANDREWS. Direct Examination 389 Meeting of sociologists at Mr. Tilton's 389 Mrs. Woodhull's Visitors named 391 Mr. Tilton's Visitors 392 Mr. Tilton's Introduction to Mrs. WoodhuU 393 Important Contradictions of the Witness Woodley— The Writing of the WoodhuU Scandal 394 The Scandal Article Written by Mrs. WoodhuU and Mf. Andrews 394 The Cowley Interview at Mrs. Woodhull's 396 The Rossel Procession , 397 Mr. Claflin's Call at Mrs. Woodhull's , 398 Cross-Examination 399 Mr. Andrews' Relations to the WoodhuU Paper The Mediumistic Exhibition 400 Mr. Tilton's Terms of Familiarity Used— Mr. Tilton and Mrs. WoodhuU 401 More about the Writing of the Scandal 402 Mr. Tilton's Sympathy with Mrs. Woodhull's Reforms 40S Mr. Andrews' Labors for Social Reforms 404 Re-Direct Examination 404 Mrs. Woodhull's First Allusion to the Scandal „ MRS. S. A. BRADSHAW (RecaUed) 406 JOHN WOOD. Direct-Examination 410 Cboss-Examination 411 HENRY C. BO WEN. Direct-Examination 412 The Resignation Letter Delivered at a Pre-arranged Meet- ing 412 No Advice by Mr. Beecher that Mr. Tiiton be Discharged. 415 Mr. Bowen Tells how he Presented the Summons to Mr, Beecher 416 Bessie Turner's Charges not Mentioned at the Interview. 417 The Arbitration 418 The Tripartite Covenant 419 Inconsistencies in Mr. Belcher's Letter to Mr. Bowen.. . 422 Mr. Bowen's Manifestations of Friendship 423 Cross-Ex AMINATION 424 The Appointment to Meet Mr. Beecher 425 The Meeting at Deacon Freeland's 425 Mr. Tilton told of his Removal 426 The Formal Announcements of Removal 427 No Admission of Indebtedness to Mr. Tilton by Mr. Bowen 428 Mr. Bowen's Thoughts on the Arbitration 429 The Naming of the Arbitrators 430 The Woodstock Letter Returned 431 Mr. Bowen's Signing of the Covenant 431 The Meeting of the Arbitrators 433 The Announcement of the Award 434 No Stipulation Made about Burning Papers 435 The Covenant not Mentioned at the Arbitration— Contra- dictions of Me8^sr8. Storrsand Clafiin 43« Some Things Mr. Bowen does not Remember TelUng Dr. Eggle -ton 457 The Conversation when Mr. Tilton's Letter was DeUvered 438 Mr. Bowen's Call on Mr. Beecher 440 Re- Direct Examination 441 What Mr. Bowen Refused to Sign 442 Mr. Bowen Ignorant of the Scandal Letters 443 Mr. Bowen's AUegod Imputations on Mr. Beecher Ex- cluded 444 Re-Cbos» Examination 44v TABLE OF COXTENTS. JOHN NAPOLEON LONGHI. Direct EsAMrs-ATiox Page CBOSt-EXAMiNATION GEORGE A. BELL (RecaUed) Mr, Beecher and Mrs. Tilton's Domestic Troubles LEWIS C. JANES. DiKECT EXAHIKATION' ilr. Beecher's Alibi Disputed Cbo^-s-Examixation Mr. Beecher's Look of Trouble JEEEillAH P. ROBINSON (Recalled) MRS. SARAH C. EDl'Y. Direct Examtsatiok Ceoss-Exami>"atio>' MRS. EMMA C. MOULTON (Recalled) Ceoss-Exami>'ation. FREDERICK W. MITCHELL. DlEECT EXAMTS'ATIOIf CROSS-EXAiII>-ATIOX MARY c. Mcdonald. Direct Ex\mi>-atiox Ceos -Exaxikatiok THEODORE TILTON (Recalled). DiEECT EXAMKATIOK Mr. Tilton's Whereabouts in 1871-1872 Contradiction of the Witu'^-sses Giles, Gray and C>)ok., . . . . Contradiction of Mrs. Palmer Contradictions of Gen. Tracy Oonversations ■with Mrs. Ovinpton Mr. Tilton's Counterpart— Theodore H. Tilton The Red Lounge Interview Denied in Toti Mr. Tilton Denies telling Bessie Turner of his Troubles. . A Description of the Tilton House _ Miss Turner absent during Horace Greeley's Visit Oliver Johnson Contradi-^ted ^ Mr. Beecher sits on Mr, Tilton's Knee Nothing said at the Arbitration about Burning Papers. . . . The Dating of the Covenant Mr. Wilkeson'a Testimony Disputed VICTORIA WOODHULL appears with some Letters JOHN NAPOLEON LONGHI (Recalled). DiEECT EXAMI>-ATI0y FRANCIS D. MOULTON (Recalled). DiEECT EXAIIIXATIOX The Writing of th^ Letter of Contrition The Interview of Feb. 3, 1872, Denied Other Contradictions of Mr. Beecher G-n. Tracy Contradicted STEPHEN PEARL ANDREWS (Recalled). DiBF.CT E-AMI>-ATrOS- Cross- Ex amikatiok JAME« FREELAND (Recalled). Deeect ExAinN^Tioy CROeS-EXAllIVATIOX Re-Disect Examination- MRS. MARIA N. OVINGION (Recalled). DiBECT Examination Mr. Martin's Testimony Disputed CEOSS-EXAillNATION . ' CALVIN J. MILLS. Direct ExAitiNATioy HENRY C. BOWEN (-Recalled). Cross-Examination Be-Dieect Examination EDWARD EGGLESTON (Recalled). Direct Examination. Mr. Bowen Contradicted Ceos ■ -Examination Dr. Fggleston's Relations to Mr. Boweii Dr. Eggleston's New Pastorate Re-dibect Examination HORACE B. CLAFL'N (Recalled). DiEECT Examination CHARLES STORRS (Recalled). Direct Examination Cros-- Examination Be-DIEECI EXAiONATION V. .. . .'. .*.'. ' ' , . Wd 450 451 452 454 456 472 473 474 474 474 475 476 479 481 482 484 485 489 493 493 497 499 499 .^00 501 .^ni 502 502 504 508 512 512 513 514 515 516 518 519 519 520 525 527 528 531 535 587 538 540 541 543 543 544 544 545 547 548 GEORGE W. UHLEE. Direct Examination Pag© 548 Cboss-Examination WALLACE E. CALDWELL. " I'Ibect Examination 5fi8 JOHN ELIOT BOWEN. Direct Exam nation 65ft Ceo-s-Esamination 651 MARSHALL J. MORRELL. Direct examination, 551 Ceoss-Examinatiok 653 JOHN C. SOCTHWICK (Recalled), Direct Examination 553 JOHN K. PORTER. Summing up for the Defence 55T A Glance at the Groap of Accusers 557 Mr. Beecher's Supporters 55R Obstacles in the way of the Accusers 658 Mr. Beecher's Early Struggles 55« Improbabilities in the Case 561 How the Letters were spread Broadcast 'yd^ Mrs, Tilton '8 Letters and. their Lessons 563 Mr. Tilton's Friends Desert Him 664 Mr. Tilton Compared tD the Deity 564 Mrs, Tilton's Devotion to her Husband Mr. Tilton's Purpose ih Publishing his own Letters 567 The Evenintr of Mutual Confessions 668 The Origin of the Charge 568 Mrs. Tilton's Descriptions of Mr. Beecher's Calls 669 A Letter with an Unfortunate Date 571 Mrs. Tilton's Sin 571 Mr. Tilton's Ragged Edge " Letter 571 Mr, Tilton Expresses Jealousy 572 Mr. Tilton Grateful for Mr. Beecher's Visits 57S Mr. Bowen the Harlequin of the Case 673 Mrs. Tilton on Mr. Beecher's Faults 674 Mr. Tilton's Chief Misery 575 A Glance at Mr. Tilton's Better Days 676 The Letter to the Orthodox Wife 677 Mrs, Tilton's Sorrow over her Shortcomings 578 Mr. Tilton's Alien Loves 579 Ingenuity in the Selection of Dates 579 Praif e of Bessie Turner ^81 The Advances to Bessie Turner. , 581 The Contradictions of Bessie Turner 683 Mrs. Tilton's t^eturn from Marietta 685 The Stormy Scene in the Parlor 888 Mrs. Til'OD Driven to her Mother's House 688 Bessie Tu ner Int-rcedes for Mrs. Tilton 688 Bessie Turner's Disclosures 689 Mr Bowen's Testimony 690 How Mr. Bowen w,i- to'be Used by the Plaintiff 693 Mr. Bowen Presents Mr. Tiltou's Letter 598 Tbe Fateful Act of Sending the Letter 695 The Walkt.i Mr. Moulton's 596 Preeumpt on in Favor of Innocence 698 Mrs. Til on's Re'ract on 598 Procuring of the A' ology 599 Peculiarities of the Lette of Contrition 604 Tilton and Moulton Compared 605 Counterfeit Phrase imputed to Mr. Beecher 606 N-st-Hiding Defined 607 The Original Form of the Contrition Letter 6G9 Eea ons fo- Disbelieving Mr. Ti ton 610 Mr. Tilton's ebmity for Mr, Beecher 611 Mrs. Beecher's Distruct of Mr. Tihon 612 Mr. Tilton thinks Mr. Beecher should support Mrs. Tilton 613 Mr. Moulton' - Threats against Mr. Beecher 614 Mrs. Moulton's Advice to Mr. Beecher to Confess to his Church 615 Mr. Woodruff's Tet-timony 616 The Defer to the Friend in the West 619 The " True Story ' 602 The Short Repo'rt 621 The "Long R-port " for the Committee 622 Mr. Tilton's Recantation 634 Mrs. Mor-e Described 625 Mr. Moulton's Attitude to the Case. , 626 How Mr. Tilton Brought Mr. Bowen to Terms 629 Why Bessie Turner was s-nt Wt-st 630 Mr. Beecher's Letters of Resignat on 631 Mr. Moulton makes a Slip of the Tongue 631 Mrs. Moulton's Intimacy with Mr, Beecher 632 The Changing of the Charge 632 Mr. Moulton Turns on Mr. Bef cher - 635 Mr. Moulton Refuses Mr. Beecher Acctss to the Papers.. 635 Mr. Beecher's Answer to the Refusal 637 Tl TABLE OF CONTENTS. The Charge of Blackmail reavowed Page 637 The Reasons for Charging Blackmail 637 Promises made in the Plaintiffs Opening not Fulfilled. . . 641 The Attempt to Blackmail Persistent 642 The Developments of the Blackmail Plot 644 The Carpenter Card 645 Mrs. Moulton's Position 646 Mrs. Moulton's Testimony Analyzed 646 Charitable View of Mrs. Moulton s Testimony 648 Conspiracy to Bring a Crim. Con. Suit 649 Vindication of General Tracy 651 WILLIAM M. EVARTS. Argument fob thk Defence. Disturbing Influences of this Case. 655 Argumeut of Natural Propensity Met 655 The Most Partisan Defender of Mr. Beecher 656 The Committee's Vindication of Mr. Beecher 657 The Two Sampsons of the Case 658 The Charge Analyzed 659 Reasons for Making the Charge 660 The Charge Incredible under the Circumstances 661 Illogical Propositions made by the Plaintiff 663 Legal Aspects of the Suit 664 The Circumstantial Evidence 667 Joseph Richards' Testimony 668 Mr. Beecher's calls on Mrs. Tilton 670 Mr. Beecher's Gifts to Mrs. Tilton 671 First Outcroppjngs of Malace a d Envy 671 Mr. Tilton Acknowledges Mr. Beecher's Benefits 673 Katy McDonald's Testimony 678 The Rossel Procession 679 Mr. Tllton's Policy of Silence 680 The Theory of the Defence 681 Letters in the Case 684 Was Mrs. Tilton's Resort to her Mother's House a Deser- tion 687 The Beech ers Advise Separrtion 688 How Mr. Tilton Took the Advice of Scparaiion '. 690 The Stories that Mr. Boweu knew to Mr. Tilton's DIs- credit 691 Mr. Tilton's Financial Position in 1872 691 Mr. Beecher's Susceptible Point , 693 Some Instances of Bad Memory 694 The Win stea Scandal 695 The Writing and Presentation of the Resignation Letter. 697 Consequences of the Resignation Letter 699 Destruction of Mrs. Tilton's Written Accusation 702 The Interview of December 30 704 How it is Alleged Mrs. Tilton Awoke to her Sin 715 Mrs. filton's Alleged Intercession for Mr. Beecher 716 Mr, Tilton's Apology for his Wife 717 Mr. Beecher's Version of the Interview 719 Who Suggested Mr. Beecher's Midnight Visit to Mrs. Tilton 720 The Contents of Mr-. Tilton's Written A<;cusation 722 Mr. Beecher Invited to go and see Mrs. Tilton 724 The Procurement of the Retraction 725 The Law ou a Wife's Confessions 727 Mrs. Tilton's Recantation 73) Significance of the Destruction of the Accusation 73 5 The Interview of December 31 "73) TheCitharine Gaunt Letter 741 Deductions from the Policy of Silence. 745 " Nest Hiding " Interpreted \ 745 Mr. Beecher's Remorse 745 The Getting of the Contrition Letter 747 Mr. Tilton's Threat to Mr. WDkeson 748 The Source of Mr. Beecher's Remorse 751 Mr. Tilton's Distress ] 753 The Contrition Letter Analyzed 754 A New Year's Gift for Mr. Bovven ' 7.57 The Second Meeting at Air. Moulton's . ; . 758 Inquest on the Paternity of the Child Ralph 763 Mr. Beecher never Verbally Accused of Adultery. 765 Th-j Renewed Social Relations 767 Source of Mrs. Woodhull's Icformati -n 768 Mrs. WoodhuU's Relations with the Principals 772 The Policy of Silence (Considered Hi Where the Policy of Silence was Disregarded 776 Gen. Tracy's Appearance on the Scene 778 Gen. Tracy Again Defended ' 735 The Ragged Edge Letter . ' 786 Mr. Moulton's Shrewd Financial Policy [ 787 The Ragged Edge Letter Analyzed ., .*.'*.'*.. 788 Mr. Beecher Writes Again in a Hopeless Strain 71 Mr. Beecher's Spirit Aroused , 793 Mr. Moulton's Confidence in Mr. Beecher's Case . .".V. '. '. '. '. 795 Mr. Beecher's Statement to the Committee , 796 Mrs. Moulton's Testimony .*."." 793 Mr. Beecher's Alibi Page 199 The Interview of June 10 800 Mrs. Tilton Advised by Mrs. Moulton 802 Mrs. Moulton Calls on Mrs. Woodhull 803 Mr. Tilton's True Story 805 Important Witnesses Excluded by the Law 807 Mr. Beecher's Bearing Under Fire 808 The Last Plea for Mr. Beecher 809 WILLIAM A. BEACH. Closing Argument roB the Plaintiff 8U A Personal Appeal to Foreman Carpenter 815 Closing Arguments for Mr. Beecher Criticised 816 How Mr. Beecher Observed the Policy of Silence 817 Mr. Beecher not Entitled to the Presumption of Innocence 818 The Publishing of the Wife's Letters 819 Alleged Shrewdness In Selecting Dates 821 Alleged Misinterpretations of the Testimony in the Argu- ments 821 The Charge of Garbling the Letters 822 Mr. Tilton's Public Defenders 823 Mr. Beecher's Brother Clergymen against him 824 Mrs. Tilion's Recent Attitude Towards her Husband ... 825 Where the Expression " True Inwardness " Originated. . . 826 Mr. Tilton not Actuated by Revenge 827 The Early Struggle in Plymouth Church 828 The True Story 828 The Alleged Garbling of the Leiter of Contrition 829 The Announcement that the Charge was Adultry 830 Mrs. Moulton's Opinion of Mr. Tilton 831 Expressions Imputed to Mr. Beecher and Denied 833 Mr. Tilton's Speculations on the Life of Christ 837 Epithets Applied by Mr. Moulton to Mr. Beecher 838 Why Mr. Carpenter was not put on the Stand 839 Mr. Evart's Argument Considered 840 How Character should be Considered 841 Outside Opinions on the Case 843 Examples of lerical Depravity 844 Mr. Bee her'sTemperame it 847 Mr. Beecher's Utterances about Love 848 The Evidence against Mr. Tilton s Character 849 Mr. Beecher's Temperament Compared with Mr. Moul- ton's 860 The Absence of Love Letters 850 The Assertion that the Plaintiff has no Proof 851 The Requests to Burn the Papers 853 Mr. Beecher's Affairs not broght before the Arbitrators.. 855 Mr. Tilton's Version of the Interview of December 30 857 Mrs. Tilton's Love of Mr. Beecher 861 The Grandeur of Writing the Letter of December 26 863 The Paper Read at the Interview 863 Mr. Evarts' Comments on the Wife's Confession 863 Where Memory is Strong 866 Alleged Mutilation of the Catherine Gaunt Letter 868 Mr. Beecher's Ci^nquests in England 869 Drift of Public Opinion on the Case 871 The Argument that M . Beecher had not time to Sin 872 Mr. Tilton not a Cruel Husband 873 Strictures upon Mr. Richards Answerr d 876 A. B. Vlarlin Defende 1 877 Mr. Moulton's Reflections on Miss Proctor 878 The Publication of the Woodhull Scandal 879 To Whom Mr. B -wen's $7,000 went 881 C 'mm nts on the Plymouth Section 882 Ttie Powerful Influence of a Great Intellect. 885 Dr. E. B. Fairfield on Plymouth Church 887 Mrs. Tilton 887 Mrs. Tilton's Temptation 890 The ^est Charges 893 The Council 896 The Effect of Dr. Bacon's Articles 897 The Investigating Committee 898 The Bowen Letter 899 Justification for the Bowen Letter 901 Investigating Committee Criticised 902 The Law Bearing on the Case 904 The Real Issue Defined 907 The Charge of Conspiracy 908 Direct Charge of Blackmail 910 Mrs. Tilton's Confession 913 Mrs. Tilton's Retraction 917 Other Alleged Confessions by the Wife 919 Mrs. Tilton's Denial to Mr. Moulton 920 The Destruction of Mrs. Tilton's Confession 921 Mr. Beecher's Alleged Efforts at Supp ession 922 How Mrs. Tilton might have been made a Witness 923 Mr. Beecher's Confessions 925 The Letter of Contrition 926 Mr. Beecher's Gratitude for Mr. Moulton's Services 930 The Ragged Edge Letter, ii, 931 TABLE OF CONTENTS. Uxamples Drawn from the Bible Page 932 Vivid Pictures of Remorse 933 Mr. Beecher's Criticism of Dr. Storrs 937 The Lack of Denials by Mr. Beech er 938 Mr. Beecher's Offence not Unnamed 939 Mr. Beecher's Observance of the Policy of Silence 941 The Judgment Day Letter 943 The Danger to be Averted, 945 How Open Confession would have been Received 946 The Break between Beecher and Moulton 949 Mr. Moulton's Short Statement 950 Mr. Til ton's Short Report for the Committee 951 Mr. Moulton as the Custodian of the Papers 955 Gen. Tracy's Remarks about Mr. Moulton 956 Mrs. Moulton's T stimony 958 Mr. Beecher's Esteem for Mrs. Moulton 959 Mr. Beecher's Advice of Separation 951 Mr. Beecher's Alibi 963 Alleged Available Testimony not Produced 865 Mr. Tilton's Religious Creed 968 Mr. Tilton's Forgiveness of his Wife 969 Mr. Tilton's Self-Est em 969 The Charge of Improper Proposals 970 Mr. Tiltm's Challenge to Mr. Beecher in Plymouth Church 972 Mrs. Hooker's Threat to Invade her Brother's Pulpit. . . . 972 Mrs. Bradshaw's Letter to Mr. Beecher 973 Mr. Beecher's Offer to Resign 974 The Clandestine Letters 975 The " True Inwardness Letter" Page 981 The Term "Nest HifMng " 982 Mrs. Kate Carey's Tistimouy 983 Joseph Richard's Testimony. 983 Mr. Redpath's Testimony... 984 Mrs. Morse's Letters 986 The Demand that Beecher Resign 988 Mr. Be cher's Testimony about the Blackmail 990 Bessie Turner 991 Mr. Beecher's Testimony 992 Mr. Beecher on Coufesslon 995 Mr. Beecher's Orthc doxy 996 Mr Beecher's Serenity while under Fire 1010 Gen. Tracy Criticised 10 11 Mr. Beach's Pereration 1017 Requests to Charge by the Defense 1018 JXTDGE NeILSON's ChaKGE TO THE JURT 1027 The Writings of the Case 1027 The Implied and Oral Admissions 1028 The Defendant's Conduct 1029 Statements of Witnesses 1031 The Question of Damages 1033 The Charge of Blackmail 1033 Testimony Unworthy of Consideration 1034 The Investigating Committee 1034 The Request to Charge : 1035 Thb Jubt Retires to Diliberate 1039 The Jury Disagree and are Discharged 1042 TABLE OF CASES CITED ON THE TRIAL Anonymous, 17 Abb., 48, 58 Vol. Babbott V. Thomas, 31 Barb., 277 " Babcock v. Booth, 2 Hill, 181 " Baker v. Morley, Buller N. P., 28 " Barbat v. Allen, 7 Exchg. 609; 10 Eng. L. &Eq., 596 " Baxter v. Baxter, 1 Mass., 346 " Barton v. Gledill, 12 Abb., 246 " Bell??. Bell, 1 S. & T., 565 " Bennett v. Smith, 21 Barb., 439 " Bently v. Bently, 7 Cow., 701 " Berckmans v. Berckmans, 17 N. J. Eq., 453 " Betts V. Betts, 1 Johns. Ch., 197 " Billings V. Billings, 11 Pick., 401 " Blackburn Beall, 21 Md., 208. " Blade v. Nolan, 12 Wend., 173 " Boulting V. Boulting, 3 Swabey & Tr., 336 " Boyd V. Colt, 20 How., 384 " Boynton v. Boynton, 43 N. S., 380 " Bramwell v. Bramwell, 3 Hagg. Ecc, 618. " Broadwell v. Stiles, 3 Halst. (N. J.), 58. . . " Bunnell v. Greathead, 49 Barb., 106 " Burgess ■y. Burgess, 2 Hagg. Con. ,529, 534. " Burriell v. Bull, 3 Sandf. Ch., 15. " Butler V. Truslow, 55 Barb., 293 " B— n V. B— n, 1 Spinks, 248, 251; 2 Rob. Ecc, 580, 586 " Campbell v. Campbell, 1 Sc. & D. Ap., 182 " Cain u. State, 18 Tex., 387 " Card V. Card, 39 N. Y., 317 " Carpenter v. Ward, 30 N. Y., 243 " Carpenter v. White, 46 Barb., 292 " Cassin v. Delaney, 1 Daly, 225 ; 38 N.Y., 179 " Caton V. Caton, 7 Notes of Cas., 16, 21. -j Clare v. Clare, 19 N. J. Eq., 37 " Cobbett V. Hudson, 1 Ellis & B., 14 " CoUins V. Stevenson, 74 Mass., 438 " Cooper •y. Cooper, 10 La. (O. S.), 249 " Corbin v. Jackson, 14 Wend., 65dl " Count Johannes v. Bennett, 5 Allen (Mass.), 169 " Grossman 1?. Bradley, 53 Barb., 125 " Cummings v. Cummings, 15 N.J. Eq., 138 " Curtis V. Curtis, 4 Swabey & Tr., 234. ... " Dalnot V. Cotesworth, 1 P. Wis., 731 " Dalton V. Dalton, Sup. Ct. (Mass.), 1857. . " Dann v. Kingdom, 1 N. Y. Sup., 492 " Davidson v. Davidson, IDeane. Ecc, 132 " Davis V. Dinwoody, 4 T. R., 678 " nL.1,020, 1,021 1 361 1 356 in 1,022 I..! 354 III 1,022 I 360 II 472 II 747 m 1,019 IIL. 1,020, 1,024 III 1,022 in..906, 1,023 III 1,020 1 394 IIL. 1,023, 1,024 III.. 1,022, 1,024 1 164 ni...906, 1,021 1 394 1 367 ni 905, 906 1 356 III 464 m 1,023 III 1,023 m 1,022 1 360 n 293 1 361 m 729 ni.1,020, 1,021, 1,022, 1,023 ni 1,020 m 1,013 m 496 m 1,020 m 1,022 I 394, m 1,022 m 1,020 III.. 1,023, 1,024 m 728 m 1,022 in..l,019, 1,021 1 358, 366 m 1,020 1 353 Dawson 'v. Hall, 2 Mich. Sup. Ct., 390. . .Vol. I. 390 Day V. Day, 4 N. J. Eq. (3 Greene), 444. . " III 906 Dennison i'. Page, 29 Penn. St., 420 " 1 355 Derby v. Derby, 21 N. J. Eq., 36 " III 727, 799 Dillon v. Dillon, 1 Notes of Ecc. & M.... Cas., 415, 439, 442 " lU.. 1,020, 1,023 Doe V. Roe, 1 Johns. Cas.. 25 " HE 1,022 Downs i;. N. Y. C. R. R., 47N. Y., 83.... " 1 642 Doker v. Hasler, 1 Ry. & M., 198 " I 353 Dreher?;.Townof Fitchburg, 22Wis., 675 " III 1,022 Dudley v. Bolles, 24 Wend., 471 " I 696, III 464 Earle v. Picken, 5 Car. and P., 542 " III 1,022 Edwards v. Crock, 4 Esp., 39 " 1 676 Evans -y. Evans, 41 Cal., 103 " III 1,022 Farrari;. Farrar. 4 N. H., 191 " 1 394 Faussett v. Faussett, Ecc Cas., 72 N. Y. " 1 381 Faussett Faussett, 7 Notes of Cas., 88, 94 " 111.1,020, 1,021 Ferguson v. Ferguson, 3 Sandf., 307 " III 1,021 Ferrers -y. Ferrers, 1 Hagg., Con., 130... . " III 1,024 Freeman v. Freeman, 31 Wis., 235, 246... " ni....669, 1,020 Gaudolpho v. Appleton, 40 N. Y., 553 " III .'. . 348 Gardner v. Klutts, 8 Jones L. (N. C), 375 " 1 890 Gilchrist D. Bale, 8 Watts (Pa.), 366 " II 747 Giles V. Giles, 6 Notes of Ecc. and M. Cas., 97, 161 " m... 766, 1,023 Grant v. Grant, 2 Curt. Ecc, 16 " III.. 1,021, 1,023 Green v. Green, 26 Mich., 437 " III 1,020 Grover v. Grover, 5 Notes of Cas., 263. . . " III 1,023 Hadley v. Carter, 8 N. H., 40 " n 747 Hallt;. HaL, 3OH0W., 59 " I.... 360 Hammerton v. Hammerton, 2 Hagg. Ecc, 8 " m. .1,020, 1,021 Harris v. Harris, 2 Hagg. Ecc, 410 " III 904 Harris v. Rupel, 14 Ind., 209 " m 1,023 Hasbrook v. Vandevoort, 9 N. Y., 153, 154 " 1 353, 356 Hicks V. Bradner, 2 Abb. (Ct. of App.), 362 " I 383 Hooper d. Hooper, 43 Barb., 297 " 1 360 Horner v. Speed, 2 Pat. & H., 616 " III 1,022 Houliston V. Smyth, 3 Bing., 127 " III 1,023 Hunt V. Hunt, 1 Deane,Ecc., 121,129 " III 1,020 Inre. Rideout's Trusts, 10 Eq. Cas. (Eng.), 44 " 1 380 Inskeep v. Inskeep, 5 Clarke (la.), 204. . . " in 1,071 Jinkings v. Jinkings, 1 Pr. & D,, 330 ; 36 Law Journal Mat. Cas., 48 " HI 1,022 Kelly V. The People, 55 N. Y., 565 " 1 127 King V. Inhabitants of Cliviger, 2 Durnf. &E.,133 " 1 356 King V. Inhabitants of Kea, 11 East., 132 " 1 365 Tiii TABLE OF CASES CITED OK THE TRIAL. King v. King, 10 Rob. Ecc 153 Vol King V. King, 4 Scotch Sess. Cas., (2d Series), 582, 583....- " King V. Luffe, 8 East., 193 " King V. Parker, 13 Doug., 242 " Law V. Merrills, 6 Wend., 268 " Little V. McKeon, 1 Sandf., 607 " Lovedon v. Lovedon, 2 Hagg. Con,, 1 " Lowe V. Massey, 62 111., 47 " Lucus V. Brooks, 18 Wallace (U. S.), 452. " Lyon V. Lyon, 62 Barb., 138 " Malin v. Malin, 1 Wend., 625, 652 " Mai Chester v. Manchester, 24 Vt., 649. . . " Matteson v. N. Y. C. E. R., 62 Barb., 364 ; 35 N. Y., 487 " Maverick v. Eighth Ave. R. R. Co., 36 N. Y., 378 " Mayer v. Mayer, 21 N. J. Eq., 246 " McKee v. Ni Ison, 4 Cowen, 355 " McVey v. Blair, 17 Ind., 590 " Meyers 'y. Baker, Hardin, 544 " Montgomery -y. Montgomery, 3 Barb. Ch., 133 " Morris v. Miller, 4 Burr., 2,057 " Mortimer v. Mortimer, 2 Hagg. Con., 310, 313 Vol. III.. Moser v. Moser, 29 Ala., 313 Vol. Moss V. Stone, 5 Barb., 516 " Munroe v. Twistleton, 2 Peake's N. P. Cas., 219 " Nesbitt V. Stringer, 2 Duer, 26 " Newcomb v. Griswold, 24 N. Y., 298. . . { \\ O'Connor v. Maioribanks, 4 M. & G., 435. " Partridge v. Badger, 25 Barb., 146 " People ex rd. Smith v. Pease, 27 N. Y., 45; 30 Barb., 588 " People V. Badficley, 16 Wend., 53 " People v. Bennett, 49 N. Y., 144, 137 " People V. Chamberlain, 23 N. Y., 85 " People V. Davis, 15 Wend., 607 " People V. Evans, 40 N. Y., 1 " People V. Finnegan, 1 Parker, 147 " People V. Hennessey, 15 Wend., 174 " People 1). Mercein, 8 Paige, 50 " People v. Sanders, 3 Hun. 16 " People V. Schriver, 42 N. Y., 5 " People 'V. Vane, 12 Wend., 78 " Perry v. Gibson, 1 Ad. & E., 48 " Petrie v. Howe, 4 N. Y.Sup., 85 " Pope 'D. Pope, 1 Moody & Ry., 269 " Potter & Marsh, 30 Barb., 506 : 24 How., 610.. " Potter V. Ware, 1 Cush. (Mass.), 524 " Purcell V. Purcell, 4 Hen. & M., 511. .... " Queen's Case, The 2 Brod. & Bing., 284. . " Reid V. Calcock, 1 Nott. & McCord (S. C), 597 " Renner v. Bank of Columbia, 9 Wheat., 581... " Rex. V. All Saints, 6 M. & S., 194 " , 1 381 III.. 1,019 1,022 1 354 III 462 III 1,022 III.. 1,014, 1,018 III... .906, 1,021 III 1,019 1 380 m.. 1,022 1,(123 III 1,022 1 380 I .361 1 361 III 1,021 II 472 in 1,022 III 1,022 in 1,022 m.. 1,020, 1,023 905, 1,023, 1,024 ni 1,021 1 678 I... 353 III 266 n 250 III 101 1 354, 381 n 429 III 1,019 III 1,023 ni...667, 1,021 1 360, 379 1 1,024 m 1.024 III 458, 469 ni 1,023 1 354 III 924 m 819 III.... 457. 466 III 509 1 367 1 355 1 360 m 1,014 III 1,020 n 250, 111 101 III 1,014 I 394 1 368 Rex. V. Bath wick, 2 B. & A., 639 Vol. Rex. V. Hilditch, Eng. Com. L. R., 575 ; 5C. «fe P., 299 " Robb V. Hackley, 23 Wend., 50 " Robinson v, Dauchy, 3 Barb., 20 " Robinson v. Robinson, 1 Swabry & Tr., 362 " Rockwell V. Brown, 36 N. Y., 207 " Rouse V. Whiteel, 25 N. Y., 170 " Royal Ins. Co. v. Noble, 5 Abb. (N. S.), 55 " Sawyer v. Sawyer, Walk. Ch., 52 " Schaffer v. Renter, 37 Barb., 44 " Schultes V. Hodgson, 1 Ad. Ecc, 105 " Searle v. Price, 2 Hagg. Con.. 189 " Sheffield v. Sheffield, 3 Tex., 79 " Shirly v. \ ail, 30 How., 407 *' Shoemaker v. McKee. 19 How., 86 " Simmons Simmons, 1 Rob. Ecc, 566; 5 Notes of Cas., 324 ; 6 Notes of Cas. 578 " Smith V. Smith, 15 How., 165 " Smith 'V. Stickney, 17 Barb., 189 " Somers v. Mosely, 4 Tyrwhitt, 168 " Southard v. Rexford, 6 Cow., 254 " Southwick r). Southwick, 49 N. Y., 510. . . " t-tacy V. Graham, 14 N. Y., 501 " Stapl ton V. Croft, 21 Law Journ:)! (N. S.), 247 " State V. Briggs, 9 R. I., 361 " States;. Herman, 13 Iredell, (N. C), 502... " State V. Jolly, 3 Dev. & B. (N. C), 110. . . " State V. Marvin, .35 N. H., 22 " State V. Pettaway, 3 Hawks, (N. C), 623. " State V. Wilson, 2 Vroom (N. J.), 77 " State V. Woodside. 9 Iredell (N. C), 496. " Stein v. Bowman, 13 Peters, 209 " Stone V. Byron, 4 Dowl. & L.. 393 " Stone V. Ramsey, 4 Monroe iKy.), 237 " Stone V. Stone, 3 Notes of Ecc. & M.... Case, 278, 304 " Taylor v. Jennings, 7 Rob., 581 " Tavlor Riggs, 9 Wheat., 483 " Tell V. Treadwell, 5 Wend., 676 " Thayer Thayer, 101 Mass., Ill " Trelawnay v. Coleman, 1 B. «fe Aid., 90 ; 2 Stark., 191 " Trustees of St. Mary's ^j. Cagger, 6 Barb., 576 " Wehrkampt 'v. Willett, 4 Abb. (Ct. of App.), 548 " White V. Stafford, 35 Barb., 419 " Williams v. Williams, 1 Hagg. Con., 299 306 " Wilson V. Wilson, 1 Wright Vh. (O.), 128. " Winscomb v. Winscomb, 3 S. & T. 380; 10 Jur. (N. S.) 321; 33 L. J. Mat. Cas. 45, 12 W. R. 535; 10 L. T. (N. S.) 100.. " Winsmore v. Greenbank, Willes, 577, 581 " I 368 in 353 I III 397 III 458, 462, 466 1,018 III. II .1,( 320, 1,022 710 1 646 I III .368, 381 . 1,022 I 361 I 382 in ,., 1,022 III . . 1,022 I 361 I .qfi1 ni. I .1,020, 1,031 .a the Gospels 1 A. To what document. Sir 1 Q. The one that you alluded to. I refer to the answer in this case 1 A. I don't take your meaning, Sir ; ezonM me. Q. The answer that you put in to the complaint of the plaintiff In this case is a sworn answer t A. Yes, Sir. Q. It was not sworn upon the Gospels when you affixed your name and swore to the contents of it, was it t A. I think I did not, Sir. Q. Have you any recollection upon the subject ! A. I recoUect of the time of swearing to it, and where I swore to it, but I don't recollect swearing upon the Gospels. Q. Do you recollect that you did not swear upon the Gospels ! A. No, Sir. Q. Then you have no recollection on the subject, I take it 1 A. I have a recollection of everything except the particular form in which I took the oath. It was ad- ministered to me in New-Hampshire, and whatever the customary form there is, that I took. MRS. BEECHER'S ABSENCE IN 1871. Q. Following the course of the direct exam- ination, I -will now ask you whether Mrs. Beecher was not absent in the early part of 1871 from this city and from this country— from this city % A. The early part of 1871 1 She may have been gone in the month of January, 1871, but I cannot speak assuredly from memory now. She was not gone until about that time. Q. Don't you recollect that Mr. and Mrs. Moulton met Mrs. Beecher In Florida during their absence in the early part of 1871 ! A. I recollect that Mr. Moiilton spoke to me and my wife afterward of a meeting there, but Mrs. Beecher went down early In the year of 1871, and Mr. Moulton in March of 1871, and It was somewhere after the 1st of March, probably In April, that they met la Florida. 6 TE:E T1LT0N-B2 You are not able to state, as I understand you, the particular time when Mrs. Beeoher did leave for the South fn that year I A. I think I could, probably, if you will ftllow me to look at my chronology. Mr. PuUerton— Certainly. The Witness— It may have been put down there. There are a few of those [Eeferring to a paper.] I don't see any record of it given, Sir. Q. Do you recollect the duration of her absence at that time! A. I think she returned in May, Sir, but I can- not be very certain of it. Q. Can you state who was your housekeeper during that absence of Mrs. Beeoher I A. It was May, in 1871. [After thinking.] Icannot recall who it was. Q. Was it not one of your sisters? A. My sister, Mrs. Perkins, kept house for me during two seasons, two absences, but I cannot just at this moment fix the date of them. Q. Was she the only sister who kept house for you dur- ing any absence of Mrs. Beeoher? A. She was. Q. Can you now st^ite that Mrs. Perkins did not keep house for you in the latter part of 1871, when Mrs. Beecher was absent in the South? A. I don't at present feel willing to make a definite statement on that matter, because it may have been in 1872, the Winters of 1872-3 and 1873-4, but I do not remember distinctly now. Q. Was Mrs. Beecher ever absent at the South without your having a housekeeper? A. She was not; I think not. My daughter kept house for me one season, Mrs. Perkins two seasons. Q. And can you name any other person? A. I don't recollect any now. ^ MR. TILTON'S RELIGIOUS DEFECTION. Q. When did you first liear anything to the effect that Theodore Tflton had fallen from the orthodox faith ? A. Well, in that very broad form, I don't know that I exactly had heard of it until quite late, but sugges- tions of looseness and of dangerous tendencies I heard as early as 1865. Q. Looseness in what respect ? A. Looseness in regard to his theological views. Q. Well, then, you don't regard tham as orthodox, if he was loose A. I did, substantially, in the early part. I thought only that he was going through that fermenta- tion of mind which every ingenuous and active-minded man goes through, or ought to go through, by which the traditionary beliefs are changed to his present beliefs. Q. When did you hear that he had got through? A. I have never heard it. Sir. [Laughter.] Q. You never heard, then, that he was not orthodox in his faith ? A, I have heard, certainly, that he was not orthodox in his faith; but you asked me when he got through that fermentation. Q. Have you not heard, and frequently heard, that he bad settled down upon what might be termed infidel EGEEB TRIAL. notions in regard to religion? A' No, Sir; I don't know that I have. Q. In your direct examination you spoke of some arti- cles of his published in The Independent which excited some comment in the North- West. Among others you alluded to your brother. Dr. Edward Beecher. Do you recollect what those articles were, the subject of them? A. If I recollect aright, those articles— I never have read them since the day that they were published, that I now recall— they were giving the idea of the catholic mission of TTie Independent, of the largeness of its catholicity, and the comprehensiveness of the minds that it meant to include; and I recollect very distinctly saying that I regarded Mr. Tilton as stating what probably was a truo and safe thing in an inexperienced manner that would excite the fears and alarm the prejudices of a great many good men. Q. The doctrine there taught In those articles you ap- proved of ? A. There was no doctrine in them, in the technical sense of the term. Q. The policy? A. No, Sir; I did not think the policj was wise. Q. Did you think it was sound ? A. If it was not wise it was not sound. Q. Then you thought it was unsound, did you? A. I thought it was unsound in the sense of policy. Q. Did you think the sentiments were true or imtrue therein expressed? A. It was not a question of senti- ment. Sir ; it was a question of policy, the conduct of the paper. Q. Did you think the criticisms of your brother. Dr. Edward Beecher, were well foimded ? A. No, Sir ; I did not, because the criticisms were upon me. Q. Supposing you to be responsible for the paper ? A. Yes, Sir ; he thought I stiU was responsible for the paper to a degree. Q. WeU, did you approve of the criticisms, so far as the articles themselves were concerned, irrespective of any question that was imputed to you ? A. Did I Q. Approve of the articles ? A. Of the articles ? Q. Yes, Sir ? A. No, Sir ; T don't recall that I ever did. Q. Did you ever see in The Independent any article Im- puted to Theodore Tilton which you thought to be un- sound in religious doctrine ? A. I do not recall now that I ever had brought to my attention any article that dl»- oussed doctrinal questions by him. Q. Did you ever read any of his teachings that you thought were pernicious in their effect? A. I don't now recall anything except that which I criticised on the ground of an iiyudiciousness in the conduct of the paper, or a partial or an imf air statement of truths which I thought he could have stated conscientiously better Q. To what extent were complaints made of his relig>- ious doctrines and teachings ? A. That I am not able to say. Sir, except Q. So far as they came to your knowledge 1 A. I hart TESTIMONY OF HENEY WARD BEEOHEB. T «n Impression that -with -whskt are called tlie rigorously orthodox of New-England, and with what were called the orthodox of the North-West, there was a growing dis- favor to his teachings ; it was my general impression. Q. Didn't they excite distrust in Mr. Tilton as a religious teacher t A. Did they not in the mind of these men! Q. Generally, so far as you were informed of the eflfeot of his articles 1 A. My impression was that the more rig- orous orthodox were steadily being set against him, but that their place was being taken by what would be called the progressive wing of the Church. Q. Well, judging from what you heard as to the effects of his teachings upon the public or Christian mind, did you think that he was a safe Christian teacher t A. I "would not have said that I thought him to be a safe pub- lic teacher of doctrinal matters, but from the time that Ike assumed the chief management of TJie Independent, namely, from 1874 to 1875 Mr. Evarts— 1864. The Witness— I beg your pardon— 1864 and 1865 ; I did not think of him in the light of a doctrinal teacher ; I thought of him In the light of one who applied ethical matter to practical things. Q. He was the editor of The Independent, was he not? He was. Q. And it was a religious paper t A. Not in the sense of a radically religious paper. Q. In any sense was it a religious paper 1 A. Yes, Sir, I think it was in some sense. Q. Was it not regarded as a religious paper 1 A. Yes, Sir; it passed in that class unquestionably. Q. Didn't it promulgate the special doctrines of a class of Christians 1 A. It did when it was under the direction of Dr. Bacon, Dr. Storrs, and Dr. Thompson. Q. Under the direction of Mr. Tilton 9 A. I don't think ttdid. Q. Before that it did, you say ? A. Before it passed out of the hands of those gentlemen it did. Q. Had it fallen from grace in that respect 1 A- It had fallen from the grace of doctrinal teaching. Q. And assumed what character t A. It assumed far more a question of vital religious form and of vital public ethics, and discussed living questions from the •tandpoint of Christian truth. Q. Then, you never saw anything in T7t^ Independent as coming from Theodore Tilton, and never heard of any- thing, as I understand you, from any quarter, in the way of criticisms upon his teachings and sentiments, that caused you to distrust the soundness of his religious views! A. No, Sir; you don't understand me right it you understand me so. Q. Then, please set me right by what you have to say upon that subject ! A. I said that I regarded him as being in a transitional state, and as holding imperfect ▼lews which would gradually be ripened and beoome more perfect, but I had hope of him la his eareer, how« ever much I might think that certain parts of it were Im- practical or crude. Q. Did you think that he expressed his real sentiments in the articles that appeared In TJie Independent t Undoubtedly. Q. When did you first hear of his wife complaining of him in respect to his religious doctrines ! A. I cannot give you any further special date, Sir ; I think as early as —it may have been as early as 1865 or 1866, along there somewhere. Q. When was it she consulted you as to whether it was safe for her to briag up her children under such influences as he exerted in respect to religious doctrine! A. I could not recollect it any more than to say it was between a term of years. Q. Locate it as near as you can ! A. I should say be- tween 1865 and 1869. Q. Did you then learn specifically what his views were! A. I had learned from him during that time more or less of the unsettlement of his faith in the divinity of Christ. I learned also from him that he was inclined to what might be called not an unbelief in the inspiration of the Scriptures, but what is called a loose doctrine of inspira- tion. Q. Well, is not a loose doctrine unbelief , in yourjudg«» ment ! A. It depends upon how loose it is. Q. Well, as loose as Theodore Tilton's was! A, That Is too remote. Sir, and the question itself is so precise Q. As loose as you learned it to be from him or from his wife! A. I regarded his doctrine of the divinity of Christ as worse than loose; I thought that to be heretical. Q. And you learned that as early as what year! A. I cannot say, Sir. Q. Prior to 1869, 1 understand you! A. Prior to 1869, I think, but I will not be very positive. Q. Well, that being his belief upon that subject, do yon think that he was a fit man to be at the head of a re- ligious newspaper? A, I think that if he was at the head of a theological magazine he would be the last man that was fit for it, but as the head of a paper that didn't undertake to expound theology, but only the application of Christian ethics, I didn't see anything m that. Q. You thought it was well enough ! A No, Sir, not well enough. Q. It might be better! A. But it was tolerable. Q. Well, it was tolerable ; that is all ; it could be en- dured ? A It was a thing to be endured. Q. Did you not think it would be better to have soma sounder man at the head of that paper! A. I do not know that It occurred to me. Q. You road The Independent, did you not 1 A. Kot much after I left It. Q. Didn't its views accord with your own I A. Yes, 8 THE TILTON-BWECHER TBIAL, Sir, I Biippose thejr did; I miglit haye picked out of it a rast amount that did, but I didn't read it. DISSATISFACTION WITH MR. TILTON IN THE NORTH-WEST. Q. Now, Mr. Beecher, in that connection I desire to call your attention to sometliing that has been said lieretofore. Please look at tliat passage marked in red, and state whether it refreshes your recollection as to the Mr. Evarts— What page is it f Mr. Fullerton [showing book to Mr. Evarts]— The pages are imlike. [To the witness.] See if you re- member at any time of having said anything to this effect: [Reading.] Some years before any open trouble between Mr. Tilton and myself, his doctrines, aa set forth in the leaders of TJie Independent, aroused a storm of indignation among the representative Congregation- alists in the West; and as the paper was still very largely supposed to be my organ, I was "Written to on the subject. In reply I indignantly dis- claimed all responsibility for the views expressed by Mr. Tilton. My brother Edward, then living in Illinois, was prominent in the remonstrance addressed to Mr. Bowen concerning the course of his paper under Mr. TUton's management. It was understood that Mr. Bowen agreed, in consequence of proceedings arising out of this remonstrance, to remove Mr. Tilton or suppress his peculiar views, but Instead of that, Theodore seemed firmer in the saddle than before, and his loose notions of marriage and divorce began to be shadowed edi- torially. This led to the starting of T?ie Advance in Chicago, to supersede TTie Independent in the North- west, and Mr. Bowen was made to feel that Mr. Tilton's management was seriously ipjuring the business, and Mr. Tilton may have felt that his position was betag undermined by opponents of his views with whom he subsequently pretended to believe I was in league. Do you recollect that 1 A. Yes, Sir, substantially that. Q. Was that substantially true I A. It was. Sir, sub- Btantially true. Q. There was, then, a storm of indignation among the Congregationalists with regard to his views f A. Of the Korth-Westl Q. Of the North-West— and you indignantly disclaimed all responsibility for the views expressed by Mr. Tilton, did you 1 A. I did, to my brother Edward ; I was never brought into any relations with Congregationalists of the North-West, as such. Q. What gave rise to your indignation? A. Because my brother wrote me a very severe letter. Q. Well, you were not indignant at your brother ! A. I was. Q. Indignant at him— is that the sentiment expressed liere which I have read ! A. I don't know how. Sir. Q. [Reading.] "In reply I indignantly disclaimed all responsibility for the views expressed by Mr. Tilton 1" A. In reply I indignantly expressed— disclaimed all respon- sibility—for the views expressed by Mr. Tilton; my brother Edward, then living in Illinois, was prominent In the remonstrance addressed to Mr. Bowen concerning th6 course of his paper; I never was remonstrated with by- anybody but my brother Edward. Q. That is not the point— whether yo\ir indignation wa« directed to your brother Edward for having accused you of being responsible for these doctrines, or whether you were indignant at the doctrines themselves t A. I was indignant at the fact that, knowing that there was an up- rising throughout the North-West upon the subject, my brother Edward undertook, in a private letter, to hold me responsible for Mr. Tilton's views, and for the publication of his views ia the paper. Q. Well, If his views had been correct you would not have been indignant because you were held responsible for them, would you? A. I should be indignant to be held responsible for anybody's views, if I were held responsible and blamewOTthy for them ■when I was not responsible nor blameworthy. Q. Suppose the views were correct, wouldn't you defend yourself against the charge f A. I might, or I might not^ according; to circumstances. Q. Well, Sir, didn'cyou understand that The Advanu in Chicago was started to supersede TTie Independent because of the particular or peculiar views of Mr. Tilton on religious subjects 1 A. Partly. Q. Growing out of that dissatisfaction, wasn't itt A. Partly, and only partly. Q. Well, partly? A. Partly. Q. Now, Sir, I read again. [Reading.] " This led to the starting of The Advance in Chicago to supersede The Independent in the North-West, and Mr. Bowen was made to feel that Mr. Tilton's management was seriously iiyur- Ing the business, &c.1" A. Mr. Bowan made a visit to the North-West on that account Mr. Fullerton— Well, I don't care about Bowen's visit. Mr. Evarts— There has no question been asked. Mr. Fullerton— No, Sir. [To the Witness.] After my reading that are you still disposed to say that The Advance was started only partly for the purpose of superseding The Independent? A. I am, if I am rightly informed. Q. Well, what was your information at the time of the writing of this article ? A. In regard to what, Sir. Q. In regard to the object and purpose in starting The A dtJance— whether it was to supersede The Independent t A. It was in part ; this was not designed to give a do- tailed and perfect history, but a general history, a sketch, and it left out a multitude of things. MR. TILTON'S PUBLICATIONS ON MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE. Q. Yes, very well, now, what had you heard at that time as to his notions in regard to marriage and divorce, prior to December, 1870—1 mean from TTie In- dependent ? A. I had heard from various sources TJESTIMOFI OF HE NET WARD BEECHEE. 9 Q. Prom The Independent t A. What, Sirl Q. What were Ms teachings in The Independent in re gard to marriage and divorce, as you understood It ! A Do you ask me what was the opinion that at the time I formed in regard to those teachings ? Q. What were the teachings of The Independent under the direction of Mr. Tilton, in regard to marriage and di- vorce, as you understood themi A. I did not myself in- vestigate his teachings, and I only took up that which I heard spoken about them by others ; I saw that there was dissatisfaction with them. Q. What did you believe in December, 1870, his opinions to be upon that subject— namely, marriage and divorce ? A. I supposed them to be in 1870 — I cannot give any very close description of what my belief then was, only that I believed that he had enlarged the causes of divorce, and made it so facile that I regarded It as being, in its practical tendency, very mischievous. Q. Yes, Sir ; loose did you not think they were t A. I thought they were very much too loose. Q. And did you not judge so from his articles in The Independent f A. I cannot say that I did; for I am— I imust confess that I was not a great reader of them. Q. Didn't you know what they were without having read them t A. Only as I gathered it from the conversa- tion of others. Q. WeU, as you gathered it from the conversation of others, did you not think these doctrines, in that regard, were pernicious in the extreme? A. I knew that that was the impression about them in the community ; and. If I was correctly informed, that he held a doctrine of divorce that made It facile, and that caused It or put it all on the individual wish and volition; I should hold that to be a very dangerous doctrine. Q. Well, did you think a man that taught those doc- trines A. My own — excuse me. Q. Did you think that a man that taught those doc- trines was fit to be at the head of a paper such as The Independent was 1 A. If he had held doctrines of Q. No, no ; I don't want any answer of that character- not " if he had held doctrines"— but I am alluding to the doctrines which you believed that he at that time held and inculcated. A. I did not believe in any definite doc- trines that he held and inculcated ; as I have said, I was not a close reader of his articles ; I was not apprised Q. I am not referring to what you learned from reading ^e articles ; I am referring to the conviction which you had at that time— whether from reading the articles, con- Tsrsing with Mr. Tilton, or the common speech of people —judging from the information that you had at that time, did you think him to be a fit moral or religious teacher 1 A. I cannot answer your question very closely, Mr, Ful- lerton, because the question whether he was a fit moral teacher, based on groimds which I had not particidarly examined, did not come to my mind. Q. I am not asking you to give any opinion growing out of a particular examination of his doctrines ; I am asking your judgment, based upon the views that you enter- tained at that time, from what you had seen, heard, or read! A. It did not affect in my mind his general fitness for the conduct of a great paper ; It put him Into the school— the great— on this one subject there are the two extremes in tho great school. Q. Well, we won't go into extremes In the schools, or in the answers ; but, let me ask you if he did not begin at that time to shadow forth, editorially, his loose opinions of marriage and divorce 1 A. I imderstood that he did. Q. WeU! A. He shadowed those things which became substantial afterward. Q. WeU, did you think that, shadowing forth those loose opinions in a great paper Uke The Independent, that he was fit to be at the head of it ! A. It might have been. Sir, in a man that was so young and that was in the field of discussion. Q. Did you think his doctrines- the effect that his doc- trines would produce upon the pubUo mind, would depend upon his age! A. If his understanding depended upon his age, it would. Q. So that if a person is young they may with impunity teach improper doctrines ! A. A man that is young may with impunity teach crude doctrines. Q. I am not talking about crude doctrines, Mr. Beecher; I am talking about shadowing forth editorially his loose opinions of marriage and divorce ! A. I understand it. Sir. Q. Now, then A. And I understood that the shadow- ing forth was a crude holding of certain views of divorce which I beUeved age might correct ; and, at any rate, not yet expressed in any such form as to be definitely dan- gerous. Q. You heard read the article from The Independent by your counsel in this case, did you not— published prior to that time ! A. I heard it. Sir. Q. Didn't you think that that doctrine was dangerous t A. I have forgotten it. Sir. Q. You heard it read, did you not ! A. I heard it read. Q. Have you forgotten, so that you cannot caUto mlnd^ the particular features of it ! A. I cannot. Q. You understood, did you not, that it was read here for the purpose of showing to this jury that Mr. TUton's doctrines at that time were pernicious! A. I did not un- derstand it so. Sir. Q. And didn't you think they were ! A. I don't remem- ber the article. Sir ! Q. Nor its meaning! A. I do not remember the arti- cle—of course, I could not know its meaning. Q. You have forgotten it since it was read ! A. I have forgotten it, Sir ; but wUl read it and express at a later period, if you desire Oh, no, Sir; I am afraid you would forget it again. A. I surely would in less than a week. Q. Now, what did you learn from Mrs. TUton, at the 10 IHB IILION'BEEGMEB lElAL, time that she consulted you, as to ^vhetlier it was sale for lier to bring up her children under such influences, in respect to his doctrines in relation to marriage and di- vorce ? A. I don't think that that came so prominently, if at all, into our conversation. I think that her mind MRS. TILTON AND MR. BEECHER TAKE BUGGY RIDES. Q. Well, that is enougli then. You have spoken, Mr. Beecher, of two occasions when you took Mrs. Tilton out to ride ; I ask you to give, as near as you can now, the dates of those respective rides. A. I cannot give you the dates. Sir; I can do it by referring to my memorandum, I think. Q. Can you give me the year 1 A. I think it was in the early part of 1870, Sir; hut T will not he sure. Q. Just refer to your memorandum, please I A. I don't seem to see Q. Well, how early in 1870 do you think they were 1 A. They were in the early part of the year, if I recall it aright, Sir ; I thought that there was a memorandum made of these in my record, and there maybe, but I don't see it. Q. Those rides, as I understand you to say, were in a buggy? A. Yes, Sir. Q. In each instance 1 A. In each instance, I think, Sir. Q, Did you and Mrs. Tilton, on either of those occasions, alight from the buggy during your absence t A. I do not remember. Sir. Q. I wish you would tax your recollection upon that subject. A. Well, Sir ; I should be very glad to answer it, tout it is perfectly blank. Q. State where you went on the first occasion. A. I ■went, as near as I can recollect, on both occasions, to the Park. Q. And did you go beyond the Park at all 1 A. Not that I remember. Sir. Q. On either of those occasions did you go to Green- wood ? Not that I recollect, Sir. Q. Cannot you now recall that you went to Greenwood upon one of those occasions ? A No, Sir; I d-^n't remem- ber it. Q. And you cannot now recall whether yon alighted from the buggy on either of those occasions 1 A. No, 8tr ; I have no recollection at all of the details of the ride, except of the fact of going. Q. Cannot you state how long a time was consumed in these rides 1 A. No, Sir. Q. Are they the only rides that you ever took with Mrs. Tilton f A. I think that before these I had taken some fides, but I have no recollection of them definitely. Q. In what year did they occur i A. I could not say. Q. How long before the two ridea in the buggy were these other rides that you speak oft A. That Is man than I could tell yom Q. In what kind of a vehicle did you take her riding upon these occasions f A. I don^ recollect it. Sir. Q. Were not those rides that you speak of in a close car- riage t A. The rides past t Q. Other than the rides in the buggy ? A. I have no recollection whatever, Sir, of it. Q. Do you recollect where you got the carriage from! A. No, Sir. Q. Or who the driver was! A. No, Sir. Q. Can you recoUect whether any other person accom- panied you besides Mrs. Tilton 1 A. I don't rcall it. Sir. Q. Well, how many instances can you recollect when you took Mrs. Tilton riding, other than the two rides in the buggy 1 A. Two— before, none; two in the buggy, and I recollect none others. Q. I understood you to intimate in answer to a question that I put to you that you did recall other iastances. A. I believe that I made others ; I don't recall the instances. Q. Did you take her riding at any time when one or more of the children accompanied youl A. I don't recall any such. Q. Don't you recoUeot of taking Mrs. Tilton out riding in the year 1868 la a close carriage 1 A. No, Sir ; I do not. Q. Did you ever take her riding when she entered the carriage at any place other than at her dwelling ? A. I never remember any such occasion, Sir, Q. Do you recollect any occasion when Mrs. Tilton left the carriage other than at her own dwelling 1 A. I have no recollection of it. MR. BEECHER NEVER AT A PHOTOGRAPH GALLERY WITH MRS. TILTON. Q. Did Mrs. Tilton ever visit you at Peeks- kill? A. Never, I think, Sir. Q. You have no recollection of any such visit 1 A, I am quite sure there was no such visit there— that is, during my presence there. Q. Did she ever accompany you to a photograph gid- lery % A.. 1 have an impression that she did. Q. Well A. Either that or else that she— I recollect a conversation about photographs, and it may have been that she told me where Q. Well, I don't A. I have no recollection of going to a photograph gallery except a very vague one, and whether it was produced by the conversation or the visit I cannot recall. Sir. Q. Don't you recollect of her visiting a photograph gal- lery with you and being present when your picture was taken ? A. A. I do not recall it, Sir. Q. Didn't she accompany you to Sarony's in New- York 1 A. Not that ever I recollect. Sir. Q. And you cannot recall now any occasion wIkmi sIha T^STlMONr OF HEl Moompanied you to a photograpli gallery! A. No, Sir ; I cannot recall any occasion. Q. Either Sarony's or any other, as I understand you ? A. I recall no oocaalon in which we were in a gallery to- gether. _ THE VISIT TO MRS. TILTOJ^ IN AUGUST, 1870. Q. You have spoken of a visit to Mrs. Til- ton in AuguBt, 1870; how do you fix the date of that visit ! A. How I came to the date I cannot at present recollect, but I recollect making an inquiry about it and fixing on about that date ; I had an impression that it was in July, and then I investigated, or had it investigated, and fixed niwn August as the— early in August. Q. I understood you to say that you received a note from Mrs. Tilton requesting you to visit her 1 A. I did. Q. Have you looked for that note 1 A. I have not looked for that special note. I have looked for every scrap of paper that was connected with the case. Q. Where did she address the note to you? A. At PeeksMU ; I had gone to my vacation there. Q. Yes ; you cannot say whether you preserved that note ornott A. I presume it is gone, destroyed ; I have never seen it since. Q. Did she disclose to you in that note that she was ill 1 A. She said that she was ill, and should be glad to see me if I came down to the city. Q. How long after you received that note before you came to the city 1 A. I cannot precisely say ; I have an impression that I was coming to the city the next day, at any rate, and that I went on the joint errand, but I can- not say with definiteness. Q. Did you not come on purpose to see her I A. That was an added reason ; I was coming at any rate. Q. You have no distinct recollection of that now ? A. I recollect that I was coming down to the city, and that I joined the two together. Q. Do you recollect what you were going to visit the city for 1 A. No, Sir ; I do not recall it. Q. How long had you then been at PeekskUl 1 A. That I cannot say, unless I can ascertain the date in which my vacation began ; it varied by vote of the church. Q. Well, it had commenced ? A. Yes, Sir ; I was there ; the month of August originally was my whole vacation, but it had insensibly enlarged both ways. Q. You were not in the habit of visiting your parishion- ers during your vacation, were you % A. Yes, Sir ; some of them ; Mr. Claflin, if there was a funeral or sickness, I should come to see him, or any of my near friends, I should go to see them. Q. Well, not what you should do ? A. I did do. Q. I ask what you wero in the habit of doing! A. When any of my friends, within that circle that I should call like my own family friends, were in trouble and sent xub any word, I should, without hesitation, visit them. BJ WABB BEEGHEE. U Q. Did you find Mrs. Tilton confined to her bed! A. No, Sir ; to her couch, or sofa. Q. In what room! A. In the receiving room, in tlia second story. Q. And how long did that visit continue ! A. Perlu^ half an hour. Q. Did you return to PeeksMll that day ! A. That I could not say. Q. Have you no recollection ! A. No, I did not. Q. When did you return ! A. I think it must have be«ii the next day. Q. Did you call to see her more than once ! A. I did. Q. When with reference to the first call did you mako the second one ! A. About the same time the next day. Q. Then I believe you did not see her ! A. No, I did nol see her ; no. Q. Have you now in your possession any letters written to you by Mrs. Tilton which have not been produced ia evidence ! A. Not a single one that I know of, Sir. Q. Have you looked for the purpose of finding ! A. I scoured my house with my eyes to find letters that would bear upon the matter. Q. And did you find none 1 A. I found none, Sir. Q. Have you ever returned to Mrs. Tilton any letters which she wrote to you! A. No, Sir, not within my knowledge. Q. Has she ever returned any letters to you which yon wrote to her ! A. No, Sir ; not to my knowledge ; that ifl* I have never received any. Q. I understood you to say that on the second occasion when you called upon her in August that she sent down a note to you ? A. It scarcely could be called a note. Q. Well ? A. A scrap of paper — chance scrap of irregn- lar form on which she wrote. Q. Did you preserve it ! A. I did not, Sir. Q. What became of it ! A. I don't know. Sir, I am sure ; I am not a preserver of papers or letters. The Court here took a recess until 2 o'clock. BESSIE TUENEE AS MES. MOESE'S MES- SENGEE. The Court met at 2 o'clock, pursuant to ad- jouinment. Mr. Beecher was recalled and the cross* examination continued. Mr. FuUerton— I come now, Mr. Beecher, to your visit to Mrs. Tilton in December, 1870. By whom were yoa requested to make that visit 1 A. By Mr. TUton. Q. December, 1870 ; the first visit to Mrs. Tilton in December, 1870! A. Oh, I beg your pardon ; I did not recall the visit that you had reference to, Sir ; I was re- quested to come by Mrs. Morse, through Bessie Turner. Q. Where did Bessie Turner find you ! A. At my house. Q. And what did Bessie Turner say when she called upon you! A. She said that she had called at Mrs. Morse's request— I am not using her language— who 12 IHE TlLTON'BhJEGHBB TBIAL. urifihed me to come to her house and see her ; that Mrs. Tllton was there, and that she had left her husband. Q. Is that all that you recollect she said at that time ! A. No, Sir; that was the call; I then expressed my as- tonishment at such a state of affairs ; she proceeded to Bay very strong— in strong and positive language to jus- tify Mrs. Tilton in doing it. Q. What did she say 1 A. She said that Mrs. Tilton had heen so treated at home that she thought she ought to have taken some such step, or was justified in taking some such step ; that was the substance of the represen- tation; that Mr. Tilton had abused her, and that Mr. Tilton had struck her, Bessie, describing the passions into which he was accustomed — often fell. Q. I want the words, Mr. Beecher t A. I cannot give you the words. Q. The substance 1 A. I am giving you the substance. Q. Well, you say "describing;" that is not giving the fiubstance 1 A. Declared, that Mr. Tilton in his passion had on one occasion struck her ; and that he had done more; that he had made solicitation of an improper character to her, namely, Bessie Turner, and that he had on two occasions done it. I said something to her of the —there might be a mistake, or something. She stated— gave me some description of what the solicitation was. Q. Now, please state what that was f A. She gave me some statement of it. Q. Yes; the substance of that statement) A. That he had come to her bed and had told her the matter that he eolicited was no more — ^it was just as much an expression of love and affection as a kiss or as a caress. I think that phrase is very nearly in her own language, but generally I do not give her language. Q. I want the whole of the interview f A. I do not at this moment recall more than this, for substance. Q. Well, this was done by Bessie when she gave you the account of this solicitation, with a downcast look, wasn't iti A. Yes. Q. Modestly said? A. It was modestly said. Q. Did she state anything else at that time I A. I do not now recaU anything. Q. Did she enter into any particulars aa to the ill-treat- ment of Mr. Tilton of his wife ? A. Yes, Sir ; there was more ; it was enlarged, but that was the substance of it, and I cannot give further particulars or the language. Q. Can you give us any particulars at aU of the iU- treatmenti A. No, I cannot give you any particulars. Q. Well, she told you what she had seen, did she not, herself 1 A. She told me that she had seen him treating his wife with great rudeness and cruelty. Q. Did she speak of great abuse, too ? A. I cannot say that word, Sir ; the whole of it was of abuse. Q. Do you recollect at the time that you were shocked at this information t A. Of com^se I was shocked at it. Q. Did you believe what Bessie Turner told you 1 A. Yes, Sir, I supposed it was so ; I feared it was. Q. Now, did she tell you Mr. Beach— No, he modifies that. Did he believe It. Mr. Fullerton— Did you believe it was true ! A. I !>©•' lieved it just ae a man believes a thing which he has not yet verified; I supposed it to be so. Q. Did Bessie Turner visit yon more than once at that time! Mr. Beach— About that time. A. I cannot say as to that. Sir. I remember distinctly but one visit. Q. Well, have you an indistiact recollection, or an im- pression that there was another visit of Bessie Turner to you? A. No, I cannot say that I have fairly; I have looked at that, but the more I look at it the less it seems- to me there was two ; but I have had an impression that there was two, but I recall no other visit— the contents of it— but this one. Q. Did she, in that conversation, tell you anything that Mr. Tilton had said to his wife f A. She may have done so, but I do not now recall it, Sir, further than I have stated, for substance. Q. Can't you recall anything upon that subject t A. No^ Sir. Q. What did you do when you received this messageff A. I told her I would come. MR. BEECHER'S VISIT TO MRS. TILTON AT HER MOTHER'S. Q. And did you go ? A. I did. Q. How soon after you received the message! A. I cannot say ; either that day or the next day. Q. And where did you find her t A. I found her at her mother's. Q. Now, what time did you arrive at her mother's f A» I don't know. Sir. Q. Up to that time, had the relations between you and Mr. Tilton been friendly! A. I can scarcely say that we had been intimate; there was an external friendliness. Q. Well, it is for you to say whether they had been friendly or not 1 A. I have stated it as it was. Q. Extem&Uy there was friendliness between you! A. There was an external friendliness. Q. Well, Sir, as to the sincerity of that friendliness ; was it sincere upon your part ? A. On my part; he had my best wishes, my kindliest wishes. Q. And you felt friendly toward him, did you t A. I felt friendly toward him in regard to Yes, I can say that. Q. When did you last see him before your visit to Mrs. Tilton at Mrs. Morse's 1 A. I don't recollect to have seen him to speak with him since— well, over six months be fore that. Q. Before that ; and where did you last see him before that? A. I passed him in the street ; I did not stop. Q. There had been no open rupture between you t No. A THJSIIMOIST OF HEISBY WABD BEEGHEB. 13 Q. No expression of ill-feeling 1 A. No, Sir, Q. Now, -vrhom did you find at Mrs. Morse's when you igot there f A. I found Mrs. Morse and Mrs. Tilton. Q. Any one else ? A. No, Sir. Q. Did you see Bessie Turner there if A. I did not, or I did, I do not recaU it. Q. Were Mrs. Morse and Mrs. Tilton together when you Baw them first 1 A. I think they were, Sir ; at any rate they were very soon together. I do not remember whether they were actually together at the moment I en- tered. Q. Well, that was a memorable interview, was it not, Mr. Beecher 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. One that is impressed upon your mind 1 A. Cer- tainly it was. Q. Then you will be able, probably, to give us the par- ticulars of what occurred while you were there 1 A. No, Sir ; that don't follow. Q. Well, Sir, do the best you can on that subject. I want to know all that occurred from the time you entered untU you left the house. A. I entered into some conver- sation ; I stated what had brought me, and I expressed some regret. Q. Just please state what regret you did express 1 A. I cannot state to you the language that I used. Q. Well, the substance of it. A. It was the regret that there had been any occasion to call me to such a visit ; that is, that there was a misunderstanding between Mr. Tilton and his wife ; Mrs. Morse did most of the conver- sation, and she, in her practical, incisive and earnest way, gave me some statements of Q. Now, what were the statements % A. I cannot give them to you, Sir. Q. Give us the substance of them. A. I am proceeding to give you the substance Mr. Beach— Well, the substance of the statements, not the substance of the conversation. Mr. Fullerton— As to the substance of the statements that Mrs. Morse made to you. A. The substance of the statements was that her daughter had lived a life of great unhappiness, that she was subject to great cruelty, and to deprivation, and that her life with Mr. Tilton had be- come intolerable to her, and that she had come to the conclusion to separate from him. Q. Did she not descend to particulars as to this cruelty? A- She did somewhat so, Sir, but I cannot recall the par- ticulars. Q. Can't you state the nature of them ! A. I have. Q. What the cruelty consisted oft A. I cannot. Q. Did it consist of words or blows 1 A. I do not re- member that she charged him with having struck her. Q. Well, can't you recall what she said as to the nature Of the cruelty, how it was inflicted ? A. The violence of his temper was one of the elements ; the failure to be a good provider for her was another, and it ranged over Q. No, no, dont range it over. Tell us the particulars, and then we will range it for ourselves t A. I should bo very glad to recall and give you all the particulars. Q. You have already given us two particulars which a moment ago you said you could not. Now, Mr. Beecher, see if you cannot give us all the particulars. A. I will endeavor to do so. Sir, with your help ; I do not now re- call anything else than what I have stated. Q. Did she repeat any charges that Mr. Tilton had made against her f A. I do not recall now anything of that kind. Q. Did she not say that Mr. Tilton Imputed to her con- duct unbecoming of a wife, in some respects 1 A. That what % Q. That he imputed to her, charged her with conduct unbecoming of a wife ? A. I do not recollect any such language as that. Sir. Q. WeU give us the substance of what was said on that subject. A. I have given you as nearly as I can now the substance of it. I might by suggestions or otherwise, perhaps, recall something else, but I do not recall any- thing else now. Q. Well, she suffered from exhibitions of his bad tem- per, and A. Prom the effects of it ; yes. Sir. Q. And the failure on his part to provide properly 1 A. To provide properly ; and there was more, but I cannot recall the more. Q. You cannot recall the nature of itf A. Nothing fur- ther than I have stated to you. Sir. Q. Anything said about the housekeeper 1 A. I think— I cannot tell, Sir, whether I heard it then or whether that came to me soon after. I heard about the houBekeeper, but I cannot determine whether I heard it then or after Q. Well, you have related now what Mrs. Morse said f A. Mrs. Tilton sat by and said very little. Q. Now, what was that very little 1 A, I don't know Sir ; it was in acquiescence. Mr. Beach— Have that struck out. Mr. PuUerton— I want to know what was said. A. I do not recoUect now a single sentence that she spoke. Mra. Morse was the spokesman, I said. Q. Well, we have got through with Mrs. Morse ; you have told us what she said. I want to know what, if any- thing, Mrs. Tilton said on that occasion, or the substance of it t A. I do not recall, except that she said very li cle. Q. Well, it is that "very little" that I want. A. I should be glad to give it to you. Q. Well, Mr. Beecher, this was an occasion which ex cited you somewhat ; you were learning something that you did not expect, I suppose, from this family t A. I was. Q. Well, can you have f orgotton all that Mrs. Tilton, or anything that Mrs. Tilton said upon the subject of her iU- treatment from her husband 1 A. I don't think that she entered into that, but— though I am ashamed to say that I ought not to have foi^gotten, I must say it— that I have forgotten it. 14 IRE TILION-BEEOHEB TRIAL. Q. You have forgotten it 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. Cannot recall anything tliat Mrs. Tilton said ? A. I do not recall that ; indeed, if you will allow me Q. Well, I don't know until I hear what it is ; then I •will tell. A. WeU, Sir. Mr. Beach— I think we had better have answers to the questions. Mr. Fullerton— WeU, after Mrs. Tilton got through with whatever she had to say, did Mrs. Morse take up the sub- ject again ! A. I don't recollect it so accurately, in its joints and sections, as that, Sir ; it was a brief interview. Q. Let me read to you and see whether this refreshes your recollection : I immediately visited Mrs. Tilton at her mother's, and received an account of her home life, and of the despotism of her husband, and of the management of a woman whom he had made housekeei>er, which seemed like a nightmare dream. Is that correct t A. Do you mean whether I remember it now? Q. Yes. A. No, I cannot say that I remember it now, any other than in the way I have already expressed it. Q. WeU, reading that, does it not recaU to your recol- lection something more than you have given us here of the interview? A. It does not, Sir. I have said that in regard to that housekeeper I could not teU whether it was then that I heard it or soon after, hut that I had heard of it, I was sure. Q. WeU, what was the question under consideration at that interview ? A. They wanted advice of me. Q. Upon what subject? A. On the subject of perpetu- ating the separation which had begun. Q. WeU, have you given aU that occurred between you and either of those persons whUe you were there, that you can remember ? A. AU that I can remember, Sir. Q. Did you remain in the room with them untU you re- tired? A. I did. Q. How long did the interview last ! A. I don't know, Bir; but I should think the interview did not exceed a half hour ; but I am very uncertain about that. Q. WeU, Sir, did you beUeve what Mrs. Morse told you? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Did you believe what Mrs. TUton told you ? A. The impression on my miud was that they had made a true statement. Q. WeU, you beUeved them then, did you not ? A. I iuppose I did, Sir. Q. Don't you know that you did? A. I hold, if you mean by that if my impression was that these things were so, it was very impressive. Q. WeU, Sir, did not that impression amount to the dignity of beUef 1 A. Not to absolute certainty, Sir. Q. Then you distrusted Mrs. Morse a Uttle, didn't you ? A. No, I did not. Q. Nor Mrs. Tilton ? A. No ; but when I hear one side of a story I hear itr-I judge of it by its probabiUties, and it is an approximate beUef , or a heUef with many " ifs.** MR. BEECHER TAKES HIS WIFE TO SEE MRS. TILTON. Q. Well, did you predicate any adyice of what you then heard ? A. I did. Q. What was it ? A. That she should see my wife, who was a much better adviser about domestic affairs than I was. Q. Did she see your wife ? A. She did. Q. When ? A. The next day. Q. And you went with her, I heUeve ? A. I did. Q. Well, now, what statements were made to you and Mrs. Beecher the next day, when you got there, by Mrs. Tilton or Mrs. Morse ? A. None ; not to us together. Q. To you alone were there any made 1 A. They were principally made to my wife. Q. In your presence ? A. No, Sir. Q. What complaints did you hear the next day ? A. Very few ; hecause Q. I didn't ask you the number of them ? A. I don't know that I heard any. Q. Cannot you state one that you heard ? A. No, Sir. Q. Then you heard nothing new the next day, did you ? A. Nothing new the next day. Q. And even the old complaints were not repeated to you ? A. They may have heen, hut I do not recall them. Q. Where did Mrs. Morse talk with Mrs. Beeecher t i. Up-stairs. Q. She took her by herself, did she ? A. Took her hy herself. Q. Well, did Mrs. TUton make any complaints to you that day? A. She did not of anything that I re- member. Q. Well, do you remember whether she did make any or not ? A. I do not remember any definite— with any deflniteness the substance of the conversation that passed. Q. Do you remember whether she did or not make com- plaints against her husband that day ? A. I cannot aay that I recollect, Q. Whether she did or not? A. Whether she did or not. Q. Well, what occurred as the result of that interview before you left ? A. Nothing, except that I prayed with them, Q. Well, I mean a result other than that, Mr. Beecher. What was the upshot of the Interview! A. That we would go home and talk over the matter and let them know to what decision— or what advice we should give them. THE ADVICE GIVEN MRS. TILTON. Q. Yes ; you did let them know afterward t A. Yes, Sir ; my wife went there again alone. Q. And what did you say to her before she left to go there ? A. We tsftlked the matter over, more or less, I holdiag that it was not best to break up the family rel»> TU81IM0NT OF HBI tton— she InoUnlng, from wliat had been told her, and irbioli I did not hear, to believe that Mrs. Tilton ought not to continne Hying with her husband, and that was a matter of some considerable interchange of views be- tween us ; but, in the last moment, as she had got her things on to go, the room being— having company la it, and she asking me what my last word was, what I con- cluded about it— I wrote on a little scrap of paper and banded it to her. Q. This is what you wrote, I believe : I Incline to thint that your view is right, and ihat a ■eparation and settlement of support will be wisest f A. That, I think, is the Mr. Evarts— A part of it. Mr. Fullerton— A part of it. The Witness— A part of it. Q. As far as it has been given in evidence. Now, what did Mrs. Beecher state to you that Mrs. Morse had told lier in regard to this J^*rfc*/tii.^nt ? A. I don't think my ■wife told me the details; I know she did not tell me the details of her conversation with Mrs. Tilton. Q. Then you gave this advice, " that a separation and settlement of support would be wisest," on the strength of what you heard the day before from Mrs. Morse and Mrs. Tilton, did youl A. And my wife's judgment. Q. And your wife's judgment ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. And you acted upon your wife's judgment without getting at the facts of which that judgment was predica- ted! A. I did in a very considerable degi ee. I had very great confidence in her judgment in such things. Q. How long had you then been acquainted with Theo- dore Tilton 1 A. I don't know, Sir ; over— this was '70— *60— some twelve or fifteen years, I think. Q. Before giving the advice you did not see Mr. Tilton 1 A. I did not. Q. Nor communicate with him f A. I did not. Q. In any way f A. Not in any way. Q. Do you recollect the day of the month of this ! A. This was about the middle of December, Sir, or a little earlier— varying. Q. Of 1870 ? A. Of 1870. Q. What degree of intimacy had existed between Mrs. Beecher and Mrs. Tilton up to that time ? A. No great Intimacy ; they were in friendly relations. Q. Had Mrs. Beecher been in the habit of visiting Mrs. Tilton at her homet A. I think not. Sir; her health was such that she could visit very little anywhere. Q. Had Mrs. Tilton been in the habit of visiting Mrs. Beecher t A. Yes, she had called upon her several times. Q. Within what period % A. That I cannot say. Sir* Q. And do you know when the latest call was! A. I do not. Q. Wni you state the date of the latest visit that you remember! A. No, Sir; I could not give any date, early BY WAED BEECEEB. 15 Q. Can you say that she visited Mrs. Beecher in the year 1870 at any time ! A. I cannot. Q. Or in 18691 A. I cannot. Q. Can you state that she visited her at any time snbso- quent to those years? A. I cannot. Sir ; I have no associ* ation with time. Q. Can you state that Mrs. Tilton had visited Mrs. Beecher within three years prior to this interview at tha house 1 A. No, Sir ; I cannot state. Sir. Q. Mr. Beecher, you had some conversation with Mrs. Tilton, had you, at the house at that time ! A. Yes, Sir. Q. Don't you recollect of giving her counsel as to bear- ing and conttniiing patient i A. I recollect saying to her that I thought that with the blessing of God she would he able to see light yet. She was very despondent. Q. I didn't ask that question, Mr. Beecher. A. I under- stood you to ask me what counsel I had given. Q. Yes, but I didn't ask about her despondency. A. It was the foundation on which I gave my counsel. Q. I did not ask you for the f oimdation of your counseL A. Pardon me ; I will take it back. Q. IwiU forgive you, Sir. I want to know what you said to Mrs. Tilton, if you please 1 A. I cannot tell you. Q. Did you say to her, " Let patience have her perfect work V* A. I don't remember that I did. Q. Did you not so state upon your direct examination t A. How ! Q. Did you not so state upon your direct examination tn this case % A. Not any such language ; I have never said that I gave the language. Q. Well, let me read. Mr. Evarts— Do you read from the direct examination f Mr. Fullerton— Yes, Sir. Mr. Evarts— What passage ! Mr. Fullerton— WeU, I cannot designate it, ezeept hy the matter. Mr. Evarts— We have found it. Mr. Fullerton— [Reading.! I have a recollection of only one single thing that I said to Mrs. Tilton. Q. When alone ? A. When alone. " How is it," I said, " that I have been so long with 7(m and you never alluded before to me about distress in your household!" and she said that she— her general answer, I cannot give the words— was that she sought to conceal, in the hope that the difficulty would pass awaj. Then I talked to her in respect to the household relations. I recollect giving her some advice as to bearing and con- tinuing patient— " let patience have her perfect work," and I joined with her in prayer. The most of the timo that I was with her I was praying with her. A. That is true. Sir. Q. You did advise, then, patience! A. I advised i»a- tienoe ; yes. Sir. Q. And forbearance; that was after yon had heard what Mrs. Morse had to say! A. That was after; it was on the second day. It was after you heard all that Mrs. Morse and Mrai. 16 THE TILTO^-BBKCHEE TRIAL. Tilton had to say with reference to cruelty ! A. All that they had to say to me. Q. Yes? A. I had not heard what they said to my wtfe. Q. You have told us that your wife did not tell youl A. She did not in detail ; she gave me some general Q. And yet, notwithstanding that advice that you gave there, for patience and forbearance, you the next day ad- vised the separation, did you 1 A. I did. MRS. MORSE'S LETTER TO MR. BEECHER. Q. I call your attention now to Exhibit No. 7— the letter of Mrs. Morse to yourself— and to this,clause of it The Witness— Will you be Mnd enough to pass me my little satchel there, Mr. Abbott 1 That was in the year 1871, was it not? Mr. FuUerton— Yes, Sir. Mr. Shearman— January 27, Sir. Mr. Fiillerton LReading:] I did not think for a moment when I asied Mrs. B. as to your call there, supposing she knew of it, of course, as she said you would not go there without her. Do you know what call Mrs. Morse referred to In that passage? [A pause; no answer.] Mr. FuUerton [continuing]— I read still further : " I was innocent of making any misunderstanding if there was any." A. I don't recall what it meant, Sir. Q. Do you imderstand that Mrs. B.'» there refers to Mrs. Beecher? A. I don't know of anybody else ; I pre- sume it does. Q. What does Mrs. Morse mean, as you understand it, by saying, "I was innocent of making any misunder- standing if there was any ; you say keep quiet." A. I do not recall, Sir. Q. Had you directed Mrs. Morse to keep quiet with regard to any call of yours on Mrs. TUton ? A. Not that I recollect. Q. Do you recollect you did not ask her to keep quiet about any such caU. ? A. I never asked her to keep quiet about any call of mine, Sir. Q. Can you explain the language of this letter writ- ten to you 1 A. I cannot. Sir. Q. Do you know what call you had made upon Mrs. Tilton, to which Mrs. Morse referred in that letter ? A. I do not. Q. You dont understand it as referring to the call made Id pursuance of the invitation of Mrs. Morse, through Bessie Turner, do you 1 A. I don't understand It, at aU. Q. Do you understand it to refer to the call of the fol- lowing day when you and Mrs. Beecher went there? A. I do not understand to interpret Mrs. Morse's letter. Q. You read this letter when you received it t A. I Fresume I did. Q. Don't you know that you did 1 A. I don't recoUeot it. Q. Don't you recollect taking that letter to Francis D. Moulton ? A. I recollect that that letter went to FranciB D. Moulton. Q. Did you answer this letter? A. I did at the time, without doubt, and no doubt I understood it at the time. Q. But you don't understand it now? A. I don't recall the circumstances. Q. Did you call on Mrs. Tilton at any other time, about that period, other than when you called at the solicita- tion of Bessie Turner, and when you went with your wtfe the day following ? A. I don't recollect that I did. Q. Would not you be very apt to remember any such caU ? A. I do not remember. Q. Will you swear that you did not? A. I will not swear that I did not make any ; I will say that I do not remember to have made any. Q. I think your answer was that this letter of Mrs. Morse got to Mr. Moulton ? A. That it got to him ? Q. Yes. A. I don't know. I sent the letter or carried it to him. Q. Are you enabled, from your indorsement, or mem- orandum upon it, to say when it was sent, or when it waa received by you ? A. Well, I can't tell whether that is my handwriting. Sir, there is so little of it. Q. You mean there is so little" of it there ? A. So little of the writing. Q. There % A. Yes, Sir. That pencil-writing is nothing but the date. Q. Can't you tell whether that memorandum is in your handwriting or not 1 A. No, Sir, I cannot recognize it ; part of it is Mr. Moulton's and part of it is mine, and they both look bad enough. Q. Now, Mr. Beecher, I understand you to say that you now recollect no reason why Mrs. Morse should say : I did not think for a moment when I asked Mr. B. as to your call there, supposing she knew it of course, as she said you would not go there without her. I was inno- cent of making any misunderstanding, if there was any; you say keep quiet. I imderstand you know no reason and recall no event which justified Mrs. Morse in writing that ? A. I do not. Mr. Beach [to Mr. Fullerton]— He says part of this Is in his handwriting, and part of it in Mr. Moulton's. The Witness— Appears to be, but I cannot say with cer- tainty. Mr. Beach— If there is any part of that which yon thiuk is in your handwriting, just point it out. A. II there is any part, I should think it was the date. Mr. Fullerton— Please read what you think is in your- handwriting. A. [Beading.] "Received January 27th." I should not say the "71 " was, but it may be. Q. Was it received in January, 1871, according to your recollection, as now refreshed 1 A. Yes, Sir, I think it was in the early part of 1871 ; I have no other eyideno* ot it than that. 1ES11M0N7 OF HEj\RI WARD BEEOEEB. 17 Q. Did you call on Mrs. Tilton l>etween the 1st of J an- vary, 1871, and the 27th of January, 1871, when that letter seems to have been received 1 A. Between Jan. 1, 1871, and the 27th of January 1 Q. Yes, Sir, when that letter seems to have been re- ceived by you. A. I do not now recall any other visit- any visit; I was thinking of the 30th of December. Q. This difficulty broke out on the night of the 30th of December! A. Yes, Sir. Q. Are you not now enabled to state whether, siibse- quent to that date and prior to the writing of tliis lettei' of Mrs. Morse, you called on Mrs. Tilton ? A. I do not recall any caJL Q. Do you think it is possible that you could have called on her in those troublous times without its being remem- bered by you now f A. I might or might not have remem- bered it. Q. Did not Mr. Tilton, about that time, refuse liis house to you 1 A. I understood, of course, that I could not go there. Q. Did he not, ui terms, tell you not to call at his house ? A. I cannot recall that he did, although I have an impres- sion that that was either conveyed to me or stated to me. Q. When was that conveyed or stated to you ? A. I can- not say. Q. In reference to the 30th of December, 1870, when was it ? A. When was what. Sir % Q. This order or direction of Mr. Tilton that you should not call at his house i A. I cannot recall, Sir. Q. Was it before or after that date? A. I cannot say. Sir ; it must, I think from reasoning upon it, have been after. Q. Well, how long after 1 A. I do not know. Q. How soon after was it 1 A. It exists in my mind simply as an impression that there was such an injunc- tion. Q. Well, do you think that you called at his house after that injunction, and visited Mrs. Tilton, and have forgot ten it? A. I certainly have forgotten it, if I called. Q. But you cannot now state that you did not call ? A. I can state that I have no recollection of calling. Q. And that is as far as you will go 1 A. That is as far as I C8;n go. Q. Now, Mr. Beecher, do you recollect saying this: [Reading.] " In the same letter of February 7, you say : *0f course, I cannot expect to see her again without his permission, and I do not know that even then it would behest.' Why did you say that? A. Because either at the time of that letter from Mr. Bowen, or in its immedi- ate vicinity, Mr. Tilton, as I have the impression now, sent word by Mr. Bowen (though I cannot be sure of that), forbidding me ever to enter liis house again." Do you recoUect such a c[uestion being put to you, and giving such an answer ? A. I do not recollect it, but I presume it was so, if it is in the examination ; I do not recall the scenes of the examination, many of them. Q. This same letter of Mrs. Morse I again refer to, and I read the opening sentence : As you have not seen fit to pay any attention to the re- quest I left at your house, now over two weeks since, I wUl take this method to inform you of the state of things in Livingston-st. Do you recollect what that request was 1 A. I do noti Su' ; I do not know that I ever received one. Q. Do you know whether it was a verbal or a written request ? A. I have no recollection about it. Q. I read further : T. has sent Bessie with the others away, leaving my sick and distressed child to care for the four children night and day, without fire in the furnace, or anything like comfort or nourishment in the house. She has not seen any one. He says she is mourning for her sin. Did you know what interpretation to put on that ! A. I did not. Mrs. Morse's report of Mr. TUton's saying this was as I understand. Q. ]My question was whether you knew how to inter- pret Mrs. Morse's sayings as I have read them to you f A. I wanted to see exactly where the passage was ; I had not caught the passage so as to get the full understanding of your question. I see it now. Q. Well, after having seen the passage can you give any other answer ? A. No, Sir. Q. I read again : This she could endure and thrive imder, but the pub- licity he has given to this recent and most crushing of cUl trouble, is what is taking the life out of her. Do you know what she referred to by that language ? A. Where is that. Sir ? Q. "This recent and most crushing of all troubl^'~it ^ nearly midway in the letter. A. Oh, I see it ; I do not remember what I thought of it at the time. Sir. Q. Did you know to what it alluded at the time ? A. I do not recall how I interpreted it. Undoubtedly in the light of the circumstances which were fresh at the time Mr. Beach— Wait, wait. Mr. Fiillerton— If you know how you did, I would like to know now. A. I do not know how I did. Q. Then you won't tell me of course? A. No, Sir, I won't. Q. [Beading.] I know of twelve persons whom he has told, and they, in turn, have told others. Did you understand at the time what he had told to twelve persons ? A. I did not ; or at least if I did, I do not now, though I have my own supposition. Q. I imderstand you to have said that you took this let- ter to Mr. Moulton ? A. I either took it, or it was con- veyed by me. Q. Did you have any conversation with Mr. MoxQton in respect of the interpretation of that clause which I have just read, to wit : This she could endure and thi-ive xmder, but the public- ity he has given to this recent and m^st crushing of cUl trouble is what is taking the life out of her. I know twelve persons whom he has told, and they in turn have told others. A. I recollect having a general conversation with Mr. 18 THE TimON'BEEGHEB TBIAL. Movdton on tlio subject of, not this letter, but allega- tions Q. One moment. Then it is not an appropriate answer, because my question is "with, reference to that clause which I have just read ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Do you remember hairing a conversation with Francis D. Moulton with reference to that clause ? A. I cannot say that the conversation that I remember sprung from a consideration of that clause— that is, as I now recollect. Q. Do you recollect of enterinsr a complaint to Mr. Moulton that Mr. Tilton had done as is here imputed to him, namely, had told twelve persons of this most crushing trouble? A. I do not— with such a definite nvunber, and such a special and definite CLuestion. COUNSEL AND WITNESS ON THEIR DIGNITY. Q. Do you recoUect that Mr. Tilton was sent for to know whether it was true that he had told that story to twelve persons ? A. I do not know that he was sent for. Q. Do you Imow that he was present when this sub- ject was under discussion t A. Not when this subject, butwhen a kindred subject was. Q. Well, I am talking about this subject, and not a kindred subject. A. You are talking about this letter, I understand you ? Q. Yes. A. And refusing to aUow me to go outside of the letter. Q. I don't want you to go outside of the letter, of course. A. That is the reason I reply as I do. Q. Well, if you don't remember anything about this letter then it is easy for you to say so. A. I have said it. Q. But you want to go outside of the letter? A. Not at all, Sir ; not at all. Q. Well, you manifest a disposition to do it, I think. Was that clause of that letter the subject of considera. tion between you and Theodore Tilton and Francis D. Moulton? A. I do not recollect that it was. Q. Did not Mr. Tilton explain to you and give you the names of the persons to whom he had told this story 1 A. Told this clause? Q. Yes. A. No. Q. Didn't he mention the name of Mrs. Bradshaw as one of those persons? A. I do not recollect that he did. Q. WiU you swear that he did not mention the name of Mrs. Bradshaw ? A. I will not swear that he did not. Q. Did he mention the name of Oliver Johnson as one of those persons ? A. I do not remember that he did. Q. After the receipt ol that letter, and after it was placed in the hands of Francis D. Moulton, was not the allegation there that Mr. Tilton had told some persons {whether it was more or less than 12) a story in regard to yourself and Mrs. Tilton, the subject of consideration? A. The allegation A. No, Sir; I do not A. Yes ; Sir, I do not Q Answer my question, please, recollect any such thing. Q. Very well; that is an answer! recoUect any such thing. Q. Didn't he state in that conversation that he had told the story, whatever it was, to Joseph Bicli- ards ? A. I do not recoUect that he did. MR. BEECHER'S ANSWER TO MRS. MORSE. Q. I now can your attention to Exhibit No. 8 ; I suppose you have it there. A. What date, if you please ? Mr. Beach— It is without date. Mr. FuUerton— It is dateless. Sir. Mr. Beach— It is immediately after the Mrs. Morse letter. Mr. FuUerton— It is of your answer to Mrs. Morse's letter. Mr. Shearman— It is " D, Jan. 28 ;" the next thing. The Witness— What date did you say, Mr. Shearman t Mr. FuUerton— Look for it under Jan. 28. Mr. Beach— You wUl probably find it under Jan. 28 ; It is the next paper after Mrs. Morse's letter. Mr. Evarts— It is your answer to this letter. Mr. FuUerton— Have you found it ? The Witness— I have. Q. Now, I ask you whether you think you understood, at the time of the receipt of Mrs. Morse's letter, these aUusions therein made to " this recent and most crushing of aU trouble," and the fact that it was aUeged that Mr. TUton had told it to twelve persons ? A. What do I under- stand the question. Sir ? Q. Did you understand, at the time of the receipt ol that letter, to what Mrs. Morse alluded ? A. I cannot say from my recollection, that I did. Q. Have you any doubt that, at the time of the receipt of that letter, you understood the aUusions made by Mrs. Morse ? A. Have I now any doubt ? Q. Yes; now? A. I presume that I did understand them— that is, not correctly, necessarily, but that I had an understanding. Q. Did you refer to them in the answer to that letter 1 A. I cannot say that I did. Mr. Evarts— Has he answered that f Q. I wiU read it. [Reading.] Mrs. Judge Mouse,— My Dear Madam : I should be very sorry to have you think I had no interest in your troubles. My course toward you hitherto should satisfy you that I have sympathized with your distress. But Mrs. Beecher and I, after full consideration, are of one mind — that, under present circumstances, the greatest kindness to you and to aU wiU be, in so far as we are concerned, to leave to time the rectification of aU the wrongs, whether they prove real or imaginary. IbeUeve that is the last of it; the rest Is struck out— " whether they prove real or imaginary ;" you didn't ask her for any explanation of anything that she had Inserted TESTIMOI^Y OF BE:^ ki her letter, I see ! A. Do you ask me whether I did! Q. Yes. A. I did not, to my recollection. Q. I will ask you one other question in regard to this letter : [Ecading.] He [Tilton] swears, so soon as the breath leaves her body, lie will make this whole thing public ; and this prospect, I think, is one thing which keeps her alive. Did you know, at the time, what she referred to there ! A. I presume I did ; I cannot say that I recollect I did. Q. Do you know now what she referred to 1 A. I pre- sume I could make out a theory on it. Sir, if you wish. Q. Well, I think you could. A. I think I could. Q. I didn't ask you to make out a theory ; I asked you whetht r you knew, now, what Mrs. Morse's meaning was ? A. And I answered you. Q. That you coiild make out a theory. A. That I had a theory of it. Q. We don't indulge in theories here. A. It ia a ques- tion of interpretation of that letter. Mr. Beach— Not altogether. Mr. Fullerton— I didn't ask you whether you could mterpret the letter ; hut I asked you whether you now knew what she meant at the time she wrote this letter, in employing that language ? A. I have only an opinion ; I do not knorv. Q. Did you know a servant in the employ of Mr. Tilton bj the name of Kate Carey " A. I did not. Q. You didn't know one of that name ? A. I did not. Mr, Shearman — I thought there was no such person. Jtr, Fullerton— I am not accountable for what you thought. Mr. Shearman— Mr. Beach said so. He said she gave her name as Kate Carey Smith. Mr. Fullerton— She gave her name as Kate Carey, or as Kate Carey Smith, and allowed you to take your choice. Mr. Evarts- We have no choice. JOSEPH RICHARDS CONTRADICTED. Mr. Fullerton— Then you have no right to make one. [To the witness.] Do you recollect an oc- casion when you were visiting Mrs. Tilton, when Joseph H. Richards came to the house % A. I do not recollect ever to have seen Mr. Richards in that house. Q. Do you recollect any occasion when he came to the house when you were visiting Mrs. Tilton ? A. I do not. Q. Do you recollect hearing that he had been at the house at any time when you were visiting Mrs. Tilton '? A. T do not ; I may have seen him there ; I have an Indistinct recollection of seeing him, but nothing that I can be positive about. Q. Have you no recollection of an occasion when you were visiting Mrs. Tilton when Mr. Richards came to the dooi and opened it and found you in company with Mrs. Tilton? A. No, Sir, I have none whatsoever. BT WABD BEEGEEB. 19 Q. Can you say that he did not open the door ? A. I cannot say any such thing. Q. Did you hear the testimony of Joseph H. Eicftiardsf A. No, Sir; I did not hear him. Q. Have you read the testimony as reported? A. I have only read— I think I have not even read it, but it has been stated to me. Q. Now, then, I want you to state whether upon a cer- tain occasion when you were visiting Mrs. Tilton, Joseph Richards did not open the parlor door and find y^ a in close proximity with Mrs. Tilton, she retreating from you in hast^ ? A. I recall no such scene. Q. Do you say that no such scene occurred? A. I do not. Q. Mr. Beecher, were you ia the habit of visiting Mrs. Tilton in the absence of Mr. Tilton? A. Yes, Sir. Q. How frequently did you make such visits ? A. I can- not say how frequently. Q. Well, give us an approximate idea of the nimiber of visits, or their frequency ? A. I should say in general, that, with the exception of one season, I went to see her, I should say, once in two or three weeks, unless there was some special reason for going oftener. There was one season in which I was requested, and that season I went oftener. Q. How many times do you think you visited her in Mr. Tilton's absence during the year 1870 ? A. I have no in- formation, and I can get no iaformation on that subject, which would justify me in making any definite statement. Q. Did Mrs. Tilton ever show you any letters that she wrote to her husband before sending them? A. I think not. Sir. Q. Are you certain upon that subject? A. I am not. Q. Did she ever read to you any letter or letters which she had prepared to send to her husband, or parts of let- ters, relating to yom-self ? A. I do not recall any. Q. Do you recollect calling upon Mrs. Tilton on an occa- sion immediately subsequent to your call upon a family by the name of Wheelocks ? A. I do not think I can say that I do ; and yet there is something in my mind about it, but I cannot tell precisely what it is. J^m. BEECHER'S INTIMACY WLTU MRS. TILTON. Q. Perhaps I can recall it to your recollec* tion. I read from Exhibit 91 : To-day has been a quiet day. Mr. Beecher called. He is in fine spii-its, making calls. He devotes Wednesdays and Thursdays until further notice. Has 300 to make. Made 20 to-day. Enjoyed it immensely. Called on the "S\Tieelocks to-day, and kissed them all around, Lucy Wood included, he said. Do you recoUect that circumstance ! A. Yes, Sir ; it was pleasant enough to remember. Q. And did you state it thus to Mrs. Tilton t A. If she says so, I did. Q. Don't you recallitf A. I don't recall the statement to her. 20 IHJE TILTOI^'BKEGHEB TBIAL, Q. Did yon at tliat time Mas Mrs. Tilton ! A. I don't recollect that I did. Q. Will you say you did not I A. I will not say I did not Q. Were you in the habit of kissing her? A. I was when I had been absent any considerable time, Q. And how frequently did that occur I A. Very much ; I kissed her as I would any of my own family. Q. I beg your pardon. I don't want you to tell me you Ussed her as you did anybody else. I want to Imow if you kissed her. A. I did kiss her. Q. Were you in the habit of kissing her when you went to her house in the absence of her husband? A. Some- times I did, and sometimes I did not. Q. Well, what prevented you upon the occasions when you did not 1 A. It may be that the children were there then; it might be that she did not seem in the— to greet me in that way. Q. Well, do you mean by that that you didn't kiss her when the children were present ? A. I sometimes did, and sometimes did not. Q. Did you kiss her in the presence of the servants ? A. Not that I ever recollect. Q. Was it not true that you did not kiss her in the presence of the children or the servants, but did kiss her when she was not in their presence 1 A. No, Sir, it is not true in any— as I understand your question. Mr. Beach— It calls for a mere fact. Mr. Fullerton— I don't know how you unde»"8tand the question ; it is about as plam as I can make it. Did you not pui'posely omit to kiss her in the presence of the chil- dren and the servants ? A. No, Sir, I did not ; in the pres- ence of the children, certainly not. Mr. Beach [to Mr. Fullerton]— Did he ever kiss her be- fore Florence 1 Mr. Fullerton— Did you ever kiss her in the presence of Florence, the oldest daughter ? A. I don't recall ever having Florence there, but I have no doubt I have done it. Q. I read to you from Exhibit 74, being a letter of jMis. Tilton to her husband. Mr, Shearman— What date 1 Mr. Fullerfcon— Dec. 28, 1866. [To the witness.] In speaking of yoiu'self she says : During these early years, at the mention of his name, to meet him, or, better stUl, a visit from him, my cheek would flush with pleasure— an experience common to all his parishioners of both sexes. It is not strange, then, darling, that on a more intimate acquaintance my delight and pleasure should increase. Q. Do you recollect of any instance in which these things were apparent on the part of Mrs. Tilton when you visited her ? A. What tliiags 1 Q. That her cheek would flush with pleasui-e f A. Yes, Sir. Q. You did not construe that into any undue aflfection for you ! A. I did not. , Q. You thought it was proper and right f A. I did. Q. Do you remember of walking out with Mrs. TUton on any occasion other than you hare mentioned on your direct examination! A. I do not. Mr. Beach (to Mr. Fullerton]— Does he think he lias not ! Mr. Fullerton— Can you say that you did not ! A. Oh, no ; I cannot say that. Mr. Beach [to Mr. FullertonJ— Has he any Impres- sion about that 1 Mr. Fullerton— Have you any impression upon the subject? A. Well, do I understand by "walking out,»» that you mean going with her on calls or visits 1 Mr. Beach— Yes. Mr. Fullerton— I mean anything in that line ; I mean walking out with Mrs. TUton. The Witness— I asked you that question, because there are two distinct things, walking out and going out on errands, I hold to be very different. Walking out is a stroll for pleasure, or going with her to see a sick person or to see a friend ; that was the reason I asked you more distinctly what your question comprehended. Q. It comprehended the whole thing. Did you ever walk out with IVIrs. TUton 1 A. Oh I I have walked out with Mrs. Tilton. Q. How frequently? A. I don't know, Sir ; I can give you no gauge. Q. How many times, do you think? A. I should say not very frequently. Q. Do you recollect of going with her to look at the bast of Mr. Tilton? A. T do. Q. Was it in the absence of Mr. Tilton ? A. I cannot say. Q. Do you recollect whether he was home or not t A. I do not. Q. I will call your attention to October, 1871, if you have it there. A. No, Sir; I have not those letters; I have them at home, but I forgot to bring them. Mr. Fullerton— I read to you this sentence from it. Mr. Shearman— What date ? Mr. Fullerton- February 26, 1868 [reading] : Mr. B. put our baby to sleep; laid him down and covered him up the last time he was here, and said when- ever we could not quiet him to send for him and he would come. Q. Do you recollect of that visit? A. No, Sir, I do not. Q. How ? A. I do not recall it now. Q. Do you recollect of kissing Mrs. Tilton on that vlsltf A. I do not recollect the visit. Q. You do not recall it? A. No, Sir. Q. What was the duration of your visits when you caUed there? A. From five minutes to half— three- quarters of an hour. Q. Never longer than that 1 A.I don't reooUeot— I should say that would be a fair statement of their duration ; yes, I have, sometimes— I recollect now, sometimes an hour. TBSTIMONT OF HENBJ WARD BEEOHEB. Q. Did you ooirerpond witli Mrs. Tilton in her attsence! A. In her absence ! Q. Yes, from New- York or Brooklyn. A. I do not recollect that I corresponded with her more than once ; that is, that I wrote to her more than once, and I cannot §ay positively about that Q. Where was she when you think yon wrote to her 1 A. I think I wrote to her when she was at Marietta. Q. Did you keep a copy of that letter 1 A. No, Sir. Q. Did you write to her while she was at Monticello % A I do not think I did, but I may have done so. Q. I read to you Exhibit 100, Aug. 15, 1869, dated at Monticello [reading] : Mr. Beecher wrote me a very simple, characteristic let- ter, which I would inclose, save for the fear that you ■would lose it. Do you recollect that instance ? A. No, Sir ; I do not recollect it any better now. Q. Have you any doubt that that was true % A Not if Elizabeth Tilton said so. ME. BEECHER'S WKEREABOUTS IN OCTOBER, 1868. Q. I understand you to say, jVIt. Beecher, that you were in the City of Brooklyn on the 10th of October, 1868. How do you recollect tbat you were in town on that day? A. Well, Sir, I only recollect now because my attention was called to it, and I refi-esbed my memory by conversations and documents, and my re- freshed memory is that I was in town. Q. And you recollect, I believe, of being in town also on the 17th of the same month and the same year t A. In the same way I remember it. Q. Did Mrs. Tilton ever visit you at your house diiring Mrs. Beecher's absence ? A. I do not recollect that she ever did. Mr. Beach [t» Mr. FuUerton]— Will he swear that she did not! Mr. Fullerton— Will you swear that she did not visit your housed A. I will not. Q. Can you say that she did not visit your house on the 17th of October, 1868 % A. I cannot say so. Sir, but I do not recollect that she did. Mr. Beach [to Mr. FuUerton]— Or on the 10th of October ? Mr. Fullerton— Do you recollect whether or not yon viBited Mrs. Tilton on the 10th of October, at her own dwelling t A. I do not recollect that I did. Mr. Beach— That does not cover it. Mr. Fullerton— Can you say that you did not! A. I cannot. MR. TILTON'S LETTER DEiMAXDING RESIGNA- TION. Q. I now come to tlie letter of the 26th of December, 1870, Mr. Beecher. Where were you when Mr. Bowen delivered that letter to youl A At my house. Q. And on what day of the month was it ! AX think it was the 26th, Sir. Q. On the day the letter bears date! A. Yes. Sir; I think it was that day; I say"! think," because it 1b a c^uestion in my mind whether it was the 26th or 27th ; I incline to believe it was the 26th. Q. What degree of intima'o. Sir. Q. He had not been in the habit of performing the offloe of postman or letter earner, had he ? A. He had not, but we can never tell what a man may do. Q. No, I am finding that out. Did you read the letter in his presence? A. I did. Q. Was it sealed or unsealed when he handed it to yout A. It was sealed. Q. Are you quite sure he said to you he didn't know tlie contents of that letter ! A. I am. Q. And what did you do immediately aft^er reading Itf A. Do you mean what did I say i I did nothing except to express myself. Q. Then, why don't you tell me what yon said ! A I will do 80 with pleasure. I said, " This is sheer insanity ; this man is crazy," or words to that effect, Q. Is that all ? A. That was my remark, Sir. Q. What did Mr. Bowen say ? A. Mr. Bowen then eaid that he was not aware of what the contents were ; that Ite had merely taken it at Mr. Tilton's request ; that he -vraa 2a IBM TILION-B y that letter on tlie 26th, should send a somewhat peremptory message to you to come and see him at the house of a stranger f A. No, Sir; I thought that the man who would send me such a letter would send me just such a message. Q. And you thought that you would leave your prayer meeting and answer that message, did you! A. I de- termined to leave my prayer meeting and see what he had to say— or hear. Q. The request war that you should come to Mr. Moul- ton's house % A. Yes, Sir. Q. Well, did you regard Mr. Moulton at that time as a friend of Mr. Tilton's ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. An intimate friend 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. You knew he had been a classmate of Mr. Tilton 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. In his early life, did you not ? A. I knew that. Q. Did you suppose that Mr. Moulton, at that time, knew the object with which that visit was requested! A. I don't know that that matter passed through my mind at the time of leaving. Q. Why didn't you ask Mr. Moulton what Mr. Tilton wanted of you, and see whether he knew i A. I can only gay that I did not. Q. Well, did you get somebody to attend the prayer meeting in your place 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. And you went off at the beck of the man who had in- sulted you on the 26th, to know what he wanted! A. I did, Sir. Q. Now, what was the manner of Mr. Moulton when he came there % A. That of a gentleman. Q. WeU, a gentleman can sometimes be excited and be a gentleman still; was he excited! A. No, Sir; not any external excitement. Q. WeU, was there any internal excitement! A. He had the manner of a man that felt that he had an impor- tant errand. Q. Yes, and how did he manifest that! A. By his tones ; by his general manner. Q. Something a little peremptory in his tone ! A. Oh, no ! but there was something that conveyed to me the idea that he felt it to be important. Q. Well, did you regard it as probably important ! A. I could tell better after I had heard it; I thought it suffi- ciently important to go. Q. Well, I am asking what you regarded it before you heard it ! A. I thought it of sufficient importance to go. Q. Well, was there anything in the manner of Mr. Moulton on that occasion which attracted your attention, or excited your observation ! A. Yes, Sir. Q. Well, what was it ! A. It was that he had brought me a message, in a very earnest manner. Q. In a very earnest manner ! A. Yes, Sir. Q. How did his earnestness manifest itself! A. In his tone and in his general demeanor. Q. Talk loud! A. No, Sir. Q. Excited! A. No, Sir ; he was a gentleman. Q. Well, gentlemen sometimes talk loud and get excit- ed. A. But then they are not gentlemen. Mr. Fullerton— Oh, yes they are, I beg your pardon. The Witness— That is the exceptional part of the Mr. Beach [in an undertone]— I am afiaid he has not been a gentleman on the stand all the time. The Witness— We aU. of us come shoi-t in spots. Mr. Beach— I don't agree in your definition. Mr. Fullerton- Let me read now and see if you recog- nize the description given of this meeting on another oo- casion : " On Tuesday evening, Dec. 30, 1870, about 7 o'clock "—it ought to be " Friday;" " on Friday evening," then The Witness— There are many errors in that account from which you are reading. Mr. Beach— We are only reading to refresh yourroool- lection. The Witness— Yes, Sir. Mr. Fullerton : [Reading.] About 7 o'clock Francis D. Moulton called at my house, and with intense earnestness said: "I wish you to go with me and see Mr. Tilton." I replied that I ecu id not then, as I was just going to my prayer-meeting. With the most positive maimer he said: "You must go; somebody else will take care of the meeting." Do you recollect that that was about the way that the thing occurred at that time % A. His tones and emphasis were not like yours, Sir; he did not say you must go. Mr. Fullerton— Did he say you must go ! A. No, Sir, neither of those. Q, Well, is that a description of the occurrence that evening without the emphasis ! A. That is one descrip- tion of it. Sir. Q. Given by whom! A. I suppose it was given by Henry Ward Beecher. Q. Was it correct! A. According to the best of my recollection then. Q. You don't recollect any better now, do you ! A. I recollect as I have now stated it. Q. Well, that was your account of it once, was it ! A. I suppose it to be so, if it was the account given before the Committee. Q. Well, it was. Sir. Well, then you left, did you, and went with him ! A. I left and went with him, Sir. Q. Well, how did you get word to Mr. Bell to take charge of the prayer-meeting ! A. I am at a loss to know whether I sent one of my boys or servants to him, or whether I called at the door ; I had to go right past th* door. Q. Well, what was your object in going down to see ICr. TJESIIMONT OF ffENRT WABD BEECEBB, 25 Mlton t A. To see "vrhat Mr. Tilton Ixad for an object in sending for m©. Q. You didn't surmise that olijeot, I suppose 1 A. I sus- pected many tMngs, Sir ; I thought very likely the letter of the 26th would come up. Q. WeU, why didn't you say to Mr. Moulton, "I will caU to-morrow evening, "or some other day % A. Possibly, that might have been the wiser course; but it was not the course that I pursued. Q. Well, I haven't asked you about the wisdom of it. I liave made up my mind about that. I only ask you why you didn't say. A. I cannot say why I did not, except iliat it did not occur to me. THE WALK TO MR. MOULTON'S. Q. You went right away. Well, did you go to Mr. Moulton's house 1 A. I did, Sir, as I supposed, and suppose. Q. And you went in company with Mr. Moulton ? A. In company with Mr. Moulton, Sir. Q. Do you recollect what time in the evening this was 1 A. I should say not far from 7 o'clock, Sir. Q. And how far did you live then from Mr. Moulton's % A. Mr. Moulton then lived just below— four doors below St Ann's Church, on Clinton-st., if you are familiar with Brooklyn. Q. Well, I am not ; but I am afraid I am going to be- come so, though. A. I will be very happy to have you become more so. Q. Do you recollect the character of the night ? A. It was a snowy, stormy night. Q. A very inclement night, was it not % A. It was an Inclement night. Q. Did you have an umbrella 1 A. I suspect not— I usually take none. Q. Don't you recoUect that you got very wet in going down there 1 A. No, Sir ; I don't. Q. Don't you recollect that you complained of the storm going down there 1 A. I did not ; I don't think, at least, I did. Q. Well, from the time that you left your house until your arrival at the house of Mr. Moulton, what occurred between you and Mr. Moulton % A. Well, Sir, I— I cannot recall any considerable conversation between Mr. Moul- ton and me on the way down there, but I have an indis- ttnet recollection of some conversation respecting Mr. Bowen, but whether it was on the way down or between Mr. Moulton's and Mr. Tilton's, or on the way back, or all of them together, I cannot very well separate in my mind and say; that Moulton did not walk mutely by me I have a very strong impression, and that he conversed with me, but that it did not relate to the errand, I also recollect, because when I had reached about Montague or Remsen-st., I asked htm what it was th;;t Mr. Tilton wanted to see me for, and he said that Mr. Tilton would state it when I reached his house, or to that substance. Q. And what was his manner and tone when he said that? A. There was nothing very special; it was as one gentleman would say it to another. Q. Was it not peremptory in its style? A. Oh, no. Sir; it was simply the style of a man that in a gentlemanly way defers a request, and refuses a request for informa- tion. Q. Did you infer from his answer, namely, " Mr. Tilton will inform you when you get there," that he knew what the subject of the meeting was 1 A. I don't know that I inferred one thing or another ; I Inferred that he did not wish to converse on the subject. Q. Well, what inference did you draw from that! A. I don't think that I carried it any further, Sir; I think that the train of thought probably ceased there. Q. Didn't Mr. Moulton, on the way from your house to his, say to you in substance, in reply to the question that you put to him, He wishes to see you about your relar tions with his wife Elizabeth 1" A. He never said such a word. Q. Did he say in substance, " He wishes to see yon in regard to domestic difficulties ?" A. He did not. Q. And you were, then, in entire ignorance of the object of that visit, so far as anything that Mr. Moulton said, were you 1 A. I can't say that decisively; I was, in so far as anything annoimced as theierrand on which I was going, from Mr. Moulton to me; I was absolutely ignorant. Q. I am asking you so far as Mr. Moulton said anythlncr during that journey. A. I am replying to that; I un- derstood that, Sir, and so far as he said anything to me disclosing the olyect that Mr. Tilton had, I was in pro- found ignorance. Q. Do you recollect before yon started from your house that you told any one where you were going! A. I do not. Q. Were any of the members of your family at home that night ? A. I know nothing to the contrary ; I do not recall. Q. Did you see Mr. BeU 1 A. I don't recollect whether £ saw him or not ; I heard afterward that he presided at the meeting. Q. But you don't recollect of seeing him ! A. I dont recollect. Q. Do you recollect of seeing or communicating with any member of yotu* family, or any other person, aft^ receiving this message from Mr. Moulton, and before go- ing to Mr. Moulton's house % A. My mind is unsettled be- tween the two, whether I sent one of the boys, or whether I called myself, but I cannot determine which it was. Q. Well, do you remember of giving any reason to any person that night why you should leave your prayer- meettag to go to Moulton's t A. I don't recoUeot of giv- ing any reason. Q. To any one ? A. To any one. Mr. Fullerton— K your Honor please, before going to 28 THE TlLTON'BBF^aUEB TEIAL, th&t interview at the house, I think we had hetter take a bility of answering why he did not do wliat the little rest. counsel thought natural under tlie circumstances, The Court hereupon adjourned until 11 o'clock on Beecher was considerably badgered and a little Wednesday morning. confused. SIXTY-FIFTH DAY'S PROCEEDINGS. CEOSS-EXAMINATION OF ME. BEECHER CON- TINUED. THE SCENES WITH MB. TILTON AND MR. MOULTON AGAIN REHEARSED— EFFORTS OF THE COUNSEL TO INDUCE MR. BEECHER TO EXPLAIN WHY HE DID NOT ACT OTHERWISE THAN HE DID— FUR- THER EXPLANATIONS OF THE APOLOGY. Wednesday, April 14, 1875. A great crowd listened to-day to the cross-ex- amination of Mr. Beecher, wMch was continued by Mr. Fullerton. The scenes with Mr. Tilton and Mrs. Tilton on Dec. 30 ; tbe pistol scene with Mr. Moul- ton on the following night, and the scene at which the " apology " was written on Jan. 1, 1871, were described. Mr. Beecher was pressed strongly and at great length on the last topic. The interview with Mr. Tilton on Dec. 30, 1870; that with his wife on the same night; the Pistol Scene with Mr. Moulton on the next evening ; and the circumstances of the writing of the letter of " apology," or *' contrition," were the subjects touched upon by Mr. Fullerton this morning. Letters written years subsequently and Mr. Beech- CP's statement before the Investigating Committee, which contained references to these scenes and the famous document, were incidentally mentioned, and explanations were asked. But in general terms, the scope of Mr. Beecher's examination was confined to the incidents named above. Matters went smoothly and quietly untO Mr. Beecher was led up to the explanation of his famous letter through Mr. Moulton to Mr. Tilton. The exami- nation on this point was therefore most elaborate and careful and very skillful, though to gain his point Mr. Fullerton was frequently compelled to resort to what is generally looked upon as a strange device of the cross-exam- iner, to require categorical answers to very intricate questions. Another peculiarity of the <}ro8S-examination was evinced in the frequent de- mands of Mr. Fullerton, after Mr. Beecher had stated what he had done in particular cases, to know why he did not do otherwise. Under the restric- tions which prevented him from explaining his Miflwers of " Yes " or " No," and the imijossi- THE PROCEEDINaS— VERBATIM. MR. BEECHER MAKES A CORRECTION. The Court met at 11 a. m., pursuant to ad- journment. Mr. Beeclier was recalled for further cross-examination. Mr. Fullerton— If your Honor please, Mr. Beacli is un- avoidably absent tills morning, but I think that I will go on without him for a short time ; I think he will be in in the course of half an hour. Judge Neilson— You have not heard from him this morning, then i Mr. Fullerton— No, Sir; but I was aware yesterday afternoon that he would be detained a few minutes. Mr. Evarts— Mr. Shearman and Mr. Beach are both de- tained in court, in New-York, in a matter in which they are on the same side, and expect to be detained half an hour or so. Mr. Fullerton— Mr. Beecher The Witness— Will you allow me to interrupt you. Sir t Mr. Fullerton— Certainly. The Witness— T wish to make a correction of an answer which I made to you yesterday. You asked me whether I had any letters in my possession from Mrs. Tilton, and whether I had made diligent search for any. I was in- formed afterward that there are letters— several— in the possession of my counsel. The circumstance that led me to make the answer was that, as I am informed, my wife communicated letters to the counsel, during the time last Summer when the Investigating Committee were in session, without my knowledge, as I recollect now ; but after tbis trial began I ransacked the house for letters, and found none. MR. BEECHER LOCKED IN WITH MESSRS. MOULTON AND TILTON. Q. When you arrived at the house of Mr. Moulton, on the night of the 30th of December, did yon enter it In company with him 1 A. I did. Q. What did he do after entering the house 1 A. Ho 1- - ^ ^ tUo door. ' I you see him lock the door 1 A. I did. «, ^>.A he take the key out of the lock 1 A. He did. Q. And what did he do with it 1 A. I cannot aay wluit he then did with it. A. Did you not notice or observe what he did with itf A. I did not. Q. Did he make any observation when he took the key out of the door 1 A. I think the observation that lie made was afterward, when he unlorlc* fi i . < lESllMONY OF HEN <^ Did you not think It strange that he should lock the door and take out the key t A. I did not. Q. It didn't excite your ohservation— surprise 1 A. Nothing 8pe tions in regard to it. ^ [Reading.] "Saturday morning. My dear friendt Frank"— referring to Mr. Moulton, I suppose! The Witness— That is not for me to say, Sir. Mr. Fullerton— It is for you to say what you think about it. The Witness— I presume it did. Sir. Mr. Fullerton— That is enough. The Witness— Yes, Sir. Mr. Fullerton [again reading] : I want you to do me the greatest possible favor. My letter which you have, and the one I gave Mr. Beecher, at his dictation last evening, ought both to be destroyed. Please bring both to me, and I wiU burn them. Show this note to Theodore and Mr. Beecher, They will see the propriety of this request. Yours truly, E. E. Tilton. Now, after readmg that letter, I ask you whether it refreshes your recollection upon the subject as to whether you did dictate the letter, as therein declared by Mr s. Tilton? A. It does not refresh my recollection at all; I know that I did not dictate it. Q. Did you make any observation to Mr. Moulton when he read that letter to you, in regard to that allegation! A. I do not recollect making any statement to him about that at all. Q. Well, didn't you regard that as an imputation upon you— I mean the charge that you had dictated the letter, as contained la this note from Mrs. TUton % A. Yes, Sir; I considered the word as a very suspicious word. Q. But you did not defend yourself to Mr. Moulton at that time 1 A. I did not. Sir, Q. Now, Mr. Beecher, I understand you to say that Mrs. Tilton expressed a willingness to retract the charge if you did not use it to the tiyury of her husband! A. I understood it so. Sir. Q. And you promised not to so use it ! A. I did. Q. Did you, iu consequence of that promise, conclude that you would not show it to her husband! A. I cannot say that. Q. Well, did you mean when you obtatued It to show it to him 1 A. I do not now recaU that I did ; that i« a line of thought that is now first suggested to me. TESTIMONY OF HEX. Q. Wen, 70U did not show it to bim tliat niglit. A. Oli, AO. Q, You did not make known the fact to Mm, in any way, that you had it 1 A. No ; I did not interchange any further conversation with him that night, nor do I recol- lect to hare seen him, even. Q. Nor did you the next day, did yout A. ISo, Sir. Q. When you left Theodore Tllton, howeyer, to go to Mrs. Tilt on, you were under the Impression that he might ■beUere the charge ? A That if hls wif e had made such j •tatements to him really, he might believe the charge. | Q. Well, you were informed by her that she had made guch statement-s ! A I was, Q, And yet you did not go to the husband to disabuse his mind in regard to those charges 1 A. 2^0, 1 did not. Q. You were willing, then, to put tiiac rerracrion of Mrs. Tilt on in your pocket and keep it, and leavt- the husband in ignoranc-e of the fact that you Mel been vin- dicated against that charge ? A. is'ot at all. Sir ; I wa> perfectly willing to put that retraction in my pocket, and leave the husband to find out the retraction where he found out the charge. [Murmurs of applause.] Q. Ye.s. You were willing, then, that he shoiild rest under the idea or in the belief that you had committed this offense, were you % A No ; I was not willing that he should do so, nor did I think that he would do it. Q. Then you did not think after you left Mrs. Tilton, that the charge was made in good faith, did you ! A. I thought that whatever might have been the circum- stances of the making erf the charge, all that had tran- spired in my interview with Mrs. Tilton would be known to him, and that I need not Q. That is not an answer to my question, Mr. Beecher. When you left the presence of Mrs. Tilton with the re- traction in your hands, did you then believe that Theo- dore Tilton had made the charge against you in good faith t A I don't suppose. Sir, that I had that thought In my mind in any form. Q. I>id you believe that she was wearied with importu- nity to make the charge ! A I did not know what to 11 - lieve. Q. She told you so 1 A Yes, Sir. Q. Didn't you believe her? A I didn't know what to believe, Sir. A woman that had made the charge, and taken it back, both, lay before me, and I didn't knov^ •what to believe. Q. She was ill, was she not ? A. She was ill Q Didn't she tell you the circumstances attending the fignlng of that paper which she had given to her hus- band, implicating youl A. She said she had given it as the result of persistent persuasion, and that she had given It, and that it was not true ; and she then reti'acte4. it ; and lay before me as a person capable of saying first the one thing and then the other. Q. And you did not regard, then, the importunity to ▼hioh she had been anhjected ai an exoose for 'vziting RY WARD BEECHEB. 83 this paper, although untrue! A No; 11 Mr. Tilton had reason to suppose that there was something wrong, I might object to the mode of the importunity ; but he had the right to guestion his wife until he ascertained what the facta were. Q. Then you stiO. thought that, probably, he believed In the charge, did you ! A. I do not think that Mr. Tilton's state of mind, and his special belief on this and that and the other suggestion, came into my mind at aU. Q. And you had no desire to vindicate yourself, so far as he was concerned ! A. Not then. Q. Nor the next day? A. Well, I cant say whirt thoughts passed through my mind the next day. Q. You did not act upon any such desire, did you! A. No, Sir; I did not have any interview with him, nor seek any. Q. I understand you to say that you expressed a desire to Mrs. TUton that she should give you a retraction in writing, inasmuch as the charge was made in writing ! A. Yes, I understood so ; I will not be perfectly certain on that point; I understood that the charge had been made in writing, but I was— I ^as un Q. I am asfcine what you said to 3Irs. Tilton ! A. Yes; I think that I said that, but I will not be positive that gave lic-r that as the reason of making it in writing. Q. Did you not say, a moment ago, that you said to Mrs. Tilton that you wanted that retraction in writing, inasmuch as the charge was in writing I A. Yes, Sir : I said that I made that general statement, or that state- ment in substance. I now correct it so far as to say that while it is my impression that I did, I am not positive. Q. Before the writing of tliis letter by Mrs. Tilton, on The night of December 30, the retraction, I understand vou to say that she had explicitly denied the charges ^hich Mr. Tilton had made against you ? A. Yes, Sir — at least, I charged her that she knew that they were not true, and she admitted it. Q. Well, you regarded that as a full denial on her part didn't youl A. Well, I regarded it as a denial that she had made those chai'ges— I mean that she considered that those charges which she had made were true. WHAT ME. BEECHEE THOUGHT OF THE CHAEGES. Q. Yes, and she afterward put the denial in ^vl•iting, as appears by this letter 1 A. She did. Mr. Evarts— That appears by the letter. The letter -peaks for itself. Ml-. Fullerton— Yes. [To the Witness.] Now, Mr. Beecher, up to that time — up to the time of the inter- view with Mr. Tilton at Mr. Moulton's house — ^had you been made aware in anj- way that Mrs. Tilton had an undue affection for youl A. No, Sir. Q. Had you, from any cause whatever, ever suspected such a thing! A. I had not. Q. What Mr. Tilton said to 700* then, on the night of th^ 84 THE TILTON-P. SOtli, upon that subject, was the first intimation you had everreceived from any quarter whatever, that such was the lact? A. I think it was. I do not recall any other hint or intimation. Q. Mr. Theodore Tilton was the only— the first man, and, up to the time when this retraction was made, the only person, who had ever declared that such a thing was a faetl A. The only person that I recall— that is, imdue affection. Q. And Mrs. Tilton had denied it orally and in writing to you 1 A. She had. Q. Did you believe it after that 1 A. I have stated to you alieady that I was more in a state of perplexity than of helief. Q. No, no; don't get us all into a state of perplexity by a wrong answer. [Laughter.] Will you be kind enough to state whether, after the denial of Mrs. Tilton of the allegation that her affections had been transferred to you, you then believed it ? A. That I believed that she had made the charges? I don't take your point, quite, Sir. Q. No. Did you believe that her affections had been transferred to you 1 A. I say again. Sir, that I was not in a condition Mr. Fullerton— One moment. The Witness [continuing] ^to believe one way or the other. Q. Did you believe it ? A. I state again, Sir, that I was In a state of perplexity and not of belief. Q. Will you state whether, or not, you did believe that her affection had been transferred to you 1 Mr. Evarts— He has answered it. Mr. Fullerton— He has not answered it. Mr. Evarts— Why not 1 Mr. Fullerton— Why not ? Don't ask me, or I shall give an answer that you won't relish. He has not answered. Mr. Evarts— You draw the witness's attention distinct- ly to a psychological proposition whether he had a be- lief, and he has answered very distinctly that he was then in a state of perplexity and not of belief. I don't know any better answer that can be made, if it is true. Judge Nellson— It is an answer so far as it goes, but he can state whether he believed it or not. Mr. Evarts— It is a very perfect answer, because the pressure is upon the formed belief. Judge Nellson— Upon the existence of the belief. Mr. Evarts— Yes, the existence of a formed belief. Mr. Fullerton— And whether that belief did or did not exist, I propose, Sir, to find out by having a direct answer to my question. Judge Nellsoa— The witness c^m answer, Sir, according to his best recollection, whether he believed it or not. Mr. FuUerton— Yes, Sir. [To the witness.] Now, Mr. Bcecher, I put the question to you again. After Mrs. Tilton had denied orally to you, and in writing, that these charges— denied the truth of these charges, revoked them all, did you believe that she had transferred her affections ^HJfJirdR TRIAL. to you ! A. I state again tc you, Sir, that my mind wa«^ not in a state of couvicttor. Q. WoU, will you state whether you believed it or not t A. I will state that I had both the belief and theunbeUel^ and that I fluctuated from the one to the other. Q. Did you regard the fact that she had charged yott with making improper advances as an evidence of her affection 1 A. I do not think that entered into my con- sideration, Sir. Q. Did it not enter into your consideration whether her conduct in charging you wlthimmoral practices, a charge which, if true, would work your ruin, was an evidence or not that her affection had been transferred to you 1 A. It certainly was an evidence ; and yet I was not yet ap- prised of all the facts ; I felt there was more to come out than I knew that night. Q. You had not enough, then, to form a iudgment up to that timei A. If these were all the facts I had ; if thej were not all the facts I had not. Q. Then you suspended your judgment, did youl A. I suspended my judgment so far as u final judgment. At times I thought that here was the evidence that she had done it ; at other times I revolted against it, and found myself moved from that conviction. Q. Well, you hadn't the highest regard for Theodore Tilton up to that time, had you ? A. I cannot say that I had tJie highest regard for him. Q. And as between him and his wife, which did you think would be the most likely to tell a falsehood f A. [Emphatically] He. Q. You had a high regard for Mrs. Tilton, did you not t A. I did. Q. You had admired her Christian character up to that time? A. I had. Q. You had regarded her as a woman of truthfulness In every respect ? A. I had. Q. Of exalted piety ? A. I had. Q. And purity ? A. I had. Q. And yet you tell me that when she told you verbally, and put it in writing, that these charges were false, and that she was importuned to make them when she was sick. It did not convince you that they were untrue ? A. She had made charges, Mr. Fullerton, distinctly, and ad- mitted it Q. One moment, Mr. Beecher. The Witness [continuing]— And she now took them back. Q. One moment. Don't review the ground; tell me whether all these clrcimistances did not induce the belief in your mind that the charge which Mr. Tilton had made against you, that you had won his wife's aflfeotion, was untrue? A. No— and yes. Mr. Fullerton— Let it stand that way. Q. When did you expect to get further evidence upon that subject? A. I had definite expectation as to time. Sir. TESTIMONY OF EEI Q. Did yon expect to get any further evidence upon the subject? A. I did not belteve tMnps would rest there. Q. How did you expect to use tTie :.*etractiou and not use it against tlie husband who had made the lalae charge ? A. I had. no plan whatever except in a possible contin- gency which I stated to her. Q. Didn't you think Theodore Tilton had some object in making that charge ! A. I presumed he had, but he disclosed none to me. Q. What object did you think he had in \'iew in making that charge 1 A. I waited to see. Q. Had you no opinion on it 1 A. I had not. Q. Didn't you, on the theory that the charge wa« un- true, beUeve that he had an improper and a wicked object in making the charge ? A. I cannot assert that, Sir. I waited to see what was to be the end of these things. He certainly had not disclosed a line of procedure to me. Q. Well, after you went away that night with the re- traction in your pocket, did you go home ? A. I went fli"st to Mr. Moulton's. Q. And from there did you go home! A. I went home. Q. You considered this subject, didn't youl A. I did. Q. Well, didn't you consider it in the light of a false charge, known to be so by Theodore Tilton 1 A. I did not. Q. Did you consider it as a charge which Mr. Tilton be- lie^'t d id 1 A. Sometimes I did, and sometimes I did not. Q. Then you had formed no opinion about it at that time ? A. I had come to no final decision. ME. BEECHER EETUENS TO IVIE. MOULTON'S. Q. Now, after you obtained this paper you went to Mr. Moulton's, as I imderstand you 1 A. I did. Q. What did you go to Mr. Moulton's for % A. At his request. Q. When was that request made ! A. When he left me at Mr. Tilton's door. Q. In what form did he make the request! A. As near as I can recollect, he said, " Will you step in when you come back?" Q. And what did you reply? A. I don't remember ; I presume I said Yes. Q. And you went back ? A. I went back. Q. Now, I ask you again, Mr. Beecher, when you re- turned to the house of Mr. Moulton with that retraction in your pocket, did you not suppose that Mr. Moulton knew of the natm-e of the charge which Theodore Tilton had made against you? A. T don't think I thought any- thing about it, Sir. Q. You didn't give the subject any consideration? A. I don't thmk I knew anything about it ; I was not think- ixig about Mr. Moulton. Q. Were you not thinking of the only man who prob- ably believed in these charges A. No, Sir, I was not BT WABD B EEC BEE, 35 Q. You had no desir e, then, on the theory that Mr. Moulton had been made aware of these gross charges against you, to viuui :ate yourself in his mind ? A. I was not aware that he had been made a participant of any such knowledge. Q. Didn't you have reason to believe, as you then looked upon it? A. I might have had reason to believe, but I didn't believe. Q. You didn't argue it in your own mind, that Theodore Tilton had probably told Mr. Moulton in regard to it ? A. No, Sii-, I did not. Q. That Mr. Tilton told Mr. Moulton of all this, and that Mr. Moulton believed you were an immoral man, and you proceeded to vindicate yourself by showing him Eliza- beth's retraction? A. Xo, Sir. Q. You were willing, then, if Mr. Moulton did believe that you had been guilty of this gross charge, that he should remain in that belief, so far as you were con- cerned, were you! A. So far as Mr. Moulton was con- cerned in his relations to it, he was as if he had never keen created. I neither troubled myself to think what he thought of it or what he knew of it. Q. You didn't care what he thought of it ? A. That ia another question. Q. Answer another question? A. If I had supposed he had known it, I shoiild have been anxious to have learned something about his thoughts, but I neither knew what he knew, nor suspected what he knew, or thought about his knowing it. Q. If you thought of his knowing it, you would have showed him the retraction ? A. I cannot say. That ia a hypothetical case, and I might have done one thing or another. Q. What do you think you would have done if you thought he knew of it? A. I cannot say. As I feel now I might have done one thing ; as I felt then I might have done another. Mr. Fullerton— That is what I think. The Witness— I am sure of that. [Laughter.] Judge Neilson— Officer Rogers, you will have to see to this audience somewhat. This is very unusual just at present. Mr. Fullerton— Did you not promise Mrs. Tilton when you obtained that retraction that yon would not show it to her husband. A. I did not. Q. What was the exact form of the promise that you did make when you obtained iti A. I cannot give you the exact form. Q. Give us the substance of the form! A. The sub- stance of the form was a response to her objection to giv- ing any paper of that kind clearing me, lest it might be used against her husband, and I said " I shall not use it to the iniury of your husband." I got it entirely for my own self-defense, in case at any future time this matter of these charges should come up, and it should be in- fuired into by my church. 86 TEE TILION-B. Q. Did sli© explain that that paper might be used to the injury of her husband % A. No, Sir, she did not go into It; but there was somethtug about it that I did not under- stand, and did not inquire about. Q. Why didn't you ask her why that paper could be nsedtotheiiyury of her husband? A. Because I didn't think it meet, imder the circumstances, to go into a pro- longed investigation with that woman in her present state of feebleness. Q. Did you have, at the time, in your own mind, any ■way in which that paper coald be used to the injury of her husband 3 A. I do not reeoUect that I had. Q. And you told her, as I understand you, that you wanted it for your own self-defense i A. In a contin- gency. Q, What contingency 1 A. Should it ever become a matter of rumor and inq[uiry among my people. Q. Did you anticipate that it might become a rumor % A. I didn't know what might happen. Q. Or a subject of inquiry among your people ? A. I did not ; I hoped it might not, but if it should Q. But you got it to be used for that purpose, if the con- tingency should ever happen 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. And for no other purpose % A. For no other purpose. Q. And you thought it would be necessary to have it for that purpose 1 A. I thought it certainly would. Q. I show you now Exhibit No. 6, known as the " Mid- night Letter," and I ask you when you first became ac- quainted with the existence of that letter ? A. I cannot teU you, Sir. Q. Have you no recollection upon the subject ? A. I have none. Sir, of seeing the letter. Mr. Fullerton— I didn't ask you that, Mr. Beecher. The Witness— I beg your pardon. What was the ques- tion? Q. My question is, when you first became acquainted that such a document was in existence ? A. Well, Sir, that a doouBient was in existence I knew on the next night, but that ii - ,cs this document I did not know until I had seen it. I could not know unless I had seen it. Q. How did you learn of its existence the next night ; that is, the night of the 31st 1 A. I cannot say that I knew of the existence of this document. I knew from Mr. Mouiton of the existence of a document of substantially Uke contents. THE INTERYIEW OF DECEMBER 31. Q. And where were you and Mr. Mouiton when you learned that fact 1 A. At my house. Q. That was on the evening of the Slstl A. Yes, Sir. Q. Now, will you be kind enough to state what occurred on the evening of the Slst between you and Mr. Moui- ton! A. Mr. Mouiton came to my house about 7 o'clock again, I should think, or a little after, perhaps. We went to my bed-room— the second story back room. He stood -with his overcoat on by the bureau, on one side, and » ECHEE TRIAL. stood by the bureau on the other. He said that he was the bearer of a letter from Mr. Tilton, which he would read to me. He then read a letter purporting to toe from Mr. Tilton, reciting Mr. Fullerton— Just one moment. WeU, go on with the narrative. The Witness— Reciting an alleged— or stating he f oimd, on returning home the evening before, from his wife the nature of my interview, and its results, with her ; and I think that in that letter, also, were some of the state- ments that are in tliis; I wiU not be positive of that; I will not be certain that some part of this was not read; I took neither of the papers into my hand. Q. You mean the letter in your hand? A. Yes, Sir; I took neither— no paper that he had with him then was in my hand, and upon the reading of that Mr. Mouiton said that he thought my conduct last night was not either dis- creet or very honorable, in substance; that I had no right to go down and obtain the paper or retraction that I had. I think he asked me beforehand, however, whether I had obtained a retraction, and I said I had, and he said he didn't think I had acted discreetly or wisely in that matter, not, at any rate, if my odSice was pacification and reconciliation ; that he thought it had a tendency, on the contrary, to make the misunderstand- ings wider and the feeling severer, in substance that. I argued the point with him on the ground that I thought that I had a perfect right to defend myself by obtaining such a retraction as that. He said that he thought that it was taking an unfair advantage, and I said I thought an unfair advantage had been taken of me, and there was a considerable interchange be- tween us on those points; I aflu-med, and he dissented in the matter. I asked him— I think it was then, after this preliminary talk, that he drew a letter from his pocket purporting to be one from Elizabeth, and read it to me, iu which she requested that the retraction shoTild be sent back, and I think it was in that connection that he said a retraction obtained under such circum- stances, if it was retained it would be an act of menace, especially upon the call for it of this woman. We pro- ceeded with some further remarks ; I cannot give them in detail at this present moment, but I said to him, I know, in the course of the conversation : " What shall I do? Suppose those charges are renewed, or brought up." He says : " You let me have the retraction and I will take the charges and the retraction ; I wlU either bum them in your presence, or I will defend them. They shall go together." Q. Well 1 A. I do not give his language, only the sub- stance of what was said. We talked some few moments more, going over the ground again and again, and I concluded to let him have the retraction. He represented that he was friendly to us both ; that he desired that these matters should be settled amicably,' ^nd that I might rely upon it, if I was amenable to rea TBSTIMOHY OF Em •on, that I shoTild liare his friendsliip and Ids best oflScee In preventing any mischief from coming from affairs as they had progressed thus far ; I went to the drawer where I kept my private papers, a id took the retraction and brought it hack and gave it to him ; we then had some farther conversation, and soon after that he withdrew. Q. I understand you to say you think this letter, or a p8Tt of it, was read to you 1 A. I am under that impres- sion ; I cannot affirm it. Mr. Fullerton— I read it : December 30, 1870— Midnight. My Dear Husband : I desire to leave with you, liefore going to sleep, a statement that Mr. Henry Ward Beecher called upon me this evening, asked me if I would de- lend him against any accusation in a council of ministers. Did you ask her such a question as that ? A. No, Sir. Q. I read on : I replied solemnly that I would, in case the accuser was any other than my husband. Did she so reply to you 1 A. No, Sir. Q. I read further : He (H. W. B.) dictated a letter, which I copied as my own, to be used by him as against any other accuser ex- cept my husband. Did you promise that you would only \ise that against any accuser other than her husband? A. No, Sir; I didn't promise to use it as against anything but an in- quiry among my own friends of the church. Q. [Reading:] This letter was designed to vindicate Mr. Beecher against ail other persons save only yourself. Was that expressed by her, or by you, in that conversa- tion? A. I think not. Sir. Q. [Beading.] I was ready to give him this letter, because he said, ■with pain, that niy letter in your hands, addressed to Mm, dated December 29, "had struck him dead and ended his usefulness." Did you say that to her ! A. I did not. Q. [Reading.] You and I both are pledged to do our best to avoid publicity. God giant a speedy end to all further anx- ieties. Affectionately, Elizabeth. I ask you again, Mr. Beecher, whether that letter was read to you that night, or its contents made known to you ? A. I cannot say that it was ; I have an impression that some part of it was, but I cannot aflirm it more than to a degree. Q. Did you expect the caU from Mr. Moulton that night ? A. I do not remember whether I did or did not. Q. I understand you to say that you went up stairs Into your bed-room 1 A. We did. Q. And I believe yon closed the door ! A. We did. Q. Why did you go to your bed-room t A. It was the most convenient room to go to. Q. Did you usually take visitors there ! A. Often. Q. Did you usually do it I A. Usually took them in the parlor. BY WARD BBEOBEB, 37 Q. Why didn't you hold this interview with Mr. Mool- ton in the parlor % A. Because it would be more conve- nient to hold it in the bed-room, and I wished it to be private. Q. You didn't wish, then, any one to know what that In- terview was to be ? A. No, Sir. Q. You did not know what it was to be t A. No, Sir ; I supposed it to be on this general subject. Q. Had you any intimation before you came away that he was coming at all 1 A. I don't remember that I had. Q. Well, I understand you to say that he told you it was not honorable for you to get a retraction as you got thatt A. In some part of the conversation I remember that he made that allegation. Q. Was your only reply that you thought it was honora- ble? A. I discussed with him the right of my having a shield against such a charge. Q. WeU, upon the theory that the charge was false and that you were innocent, did you think it Avas a subject for discussion? A. Innocence had nothing to do with it; if the charge was made public, and was believed by the public, innocence would not be any defense to me. Q. Did you think the retraction woidd be a defense to you ? A. I thought it certainly laid the foundation for a proper defense. ' Q. WeU, he said, also, that to give it up would piomote the object which you had in view, namely, a reconcili- ation between you and Mr, Tilton. A. Yes, Sir. Mr. Evarts— He didn't say that. Mr. Fullerton — ^Yes ; Mr. Beecher says it. Mr. Beach — He says so now. Q. Was not your object to get a reconciliation? A. 1^ object was to have peace. Q. And \ou would get that through reconciliation, would you not? A. Oh! I would naturallj- expect it. I don't imdertake to say I then thought I could get peace through reconciliation. That is a modem question, and it didn't come up in that shape in my mind at that time. Q. Did you then think you were to be reconciled to Theodore Tilton? A. If he was reconciled to me; if there was a reconciliation it would have to be on both sides. Q. And, in order to get a reconciliation, yon gave up the retraction ? A. In order to get a reconciliation through the kind offices— a better understanding and a settlement of all misvmderstandings through Mr. Moulton, I expected to have a reconciliation. MR. BEECHER INTRUSTS HIMSELF TO MB. MOULTON. Q. Did you think that Theodore Tilton had any just cause for anger because you had obtained this re- traction? A. I didn't think that he had a just cause of anger from my obtaining that retraction. Q. Well, then, in what way were you to be reconciled, you two gentlemen 1 A. Through the kindly offices 9i. 38 TEE TILTON-BEFjGREB TRIAL. Mr. Moulton bringing us together and having explana- tions. Q. And 80 you gave up the retraction in order that you* might he brought together and have explanations, did you? A. No ; I gave up the retraction upon persuasions to that eflfect, namely, that that would be better accom- plished—a mutual understanding and reconciliation— than it would for me to keep the retraction and leave Mr. TUton in a repugnant and excited state of mind. Q. In what sense did you expect to have a reconcilia- tion, or desire a reconciliation, on the theory that the charge was false, and that Theodore Tilton Imew it to be false 1 A. Ah ! I knew it to be false. Q. Well 1 A. I didn't say that Theodore Tilton knew it to be false. Q. Before giving up your defense, why didn't you as- certam something about that and investigate iti A. There were various interviews in which it could be come at. Q. I ask you why you didn't come at it in one of those various interviews ? A. Because I thought I could do better. Q. To give up yom* defense to Theodore Tilton 1 A. To give up the whole difficulty, so that there should be no need of a defense, Q. Would you get rid of the difficulty if it were a false charge, and if he knew it to be false 1 A. If he thought it were a true charge, and should renew it, there might be difficulty. Q. Did you not contemplate that condition of things as possible 1 A. No, I don't think I did ; I certainly didn't think the whole ease through. Q. Didn't you think it probable that he would renew the charges ? A. I don't recollect that I thought that ; I have no distinct recollection of that. I did think that Mr. Moulton was in possession of the ground, and with the knowledge that I had, and on his assurance that the matter could be amicably adjusted through his kind offices, I did nothing to continue the irritation of Mr. TUton. Q. Now, Mr. Beeoher, Mr. Moulton, you say, was a friend of Mr. Tilton's ? A. I imderstood so. Q. And an intimate friend of his 1 A. I understood so. Q. You knew he represented Mr. Tilton in this dif- ficulty 1 A. I understood it so. Q. And came to you for the purpose of getting you to go to Mr. Moultou's house ? A. I understood so. Q. And that he afterward came to you and got that re- traction 1 A. I understood that. Sir. Q. And yet you were willing to trust your defense into the hands of that probable enemy, the man who had brought the charges against you ? A. He was not my probable enemy. Q. Theodore Tilton was not your probable enemy 1 A. Mr. Moulton was not my probable enemy. Q. I aay you were willing to trust this defense of yours into the hands of your probable enemy, Theodore Til- ton 1 A. Mr. Moulton pledged himself on his honor that that should remain in his care and keeping ; the one with the other. Q. Or destroyed i A. Or destroyed, if I preferred. Q. You were willing to give it up to the friend of Theo- dore Tilton t A. I was willing to give it up to Mr. Moul- ton under the persuasions that he offered to me. Q. Were you induced to give up this retraction in con- sequence of what Elizabeth said in this note that you refer to 1 A. I deferred to her wish in that matter to a considerable extent. Q. Very well, now, when you deferred to the wish of the woman who had made this charge against you in writing, did you suppose that she had made it under coercion, or did you suppose that she had made it volun- tarily? A. I don't recollect that that train of thought passed through my mind. Q. Well, wouldn't you probably have deterjnined that question in your own mind before you A. I hardly think Q. One moment— before you gratified her desire in that respect, namely, to give up your defense ? A. Will you be kind enough to state the question again ? I interrupted it, so that the connection is lost in my naind. Q. I understand you to say that the request of Mrs. Tilton, in this letter which was read to you, that you should give up this retraction, had something to do with your conclusion to give it up ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Very well; now when you gave it up, I want to know whether you regarded Mrs. Tilton as haviag made this charge against you under coercion, or whether you came to the conclusion that she made it voluntarily ? A. Well, there was a case again. Sir, of very divided judg- ment. Q. Then I ask you this question; in that divided judg- ment, why didn't you ascertain something in regard to the good faith of Mrs. Tilton— learn whether she had acted voluntarily or under coercion and duress, before you gratified her wish in giving up that which was to de- fend you against the world ? A. A woman who had made a charge against Q. No, I ask why you did not? A. I don't know. Q. You don't know; weU, that is satisfactory. Sir. Moulton, T understand you, was to stand between you and harm ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. What harm did you anticipate, that he might ward off? A. The harm of being charged by an indignant hus- band with offering improper advances to his wife, with her written charge at his back. Q. You thought it would be just as well to give this re- traction to Mr. Moulton, for him to keep, as to keep it yourself? A. I thought that he would keep It with the charge, and that, as a gentleman of hon )r pledged to me, and I supposed him to be a gontleraau of honor, and of high honor, I considered it just as safe ia TESTIMONY OF HENEF WARD BJ^JECUBB, 89 Ills hands as it would be in mine, and lie swore that they should stand together, the one and the other. Q. That was done before you gave it to him, I believe 1 A. That was done, I think, before I gave it to him, Sir. Q. And you gave it to him although you thought this charge might be renewed ? A. I did. Q. You anticipated then, as I understand you, that at some future day Theodore Tilton might renew these charges against you when you gave up the retraction 1 A. I don't think that it took on that definite form ; I thought that trouble might come from the knowledge of such a charge having been made ; but I do not know that I definitely thought it would come through that or any other channeL Q, Let me read to you. Do you remember this [read- ing]: Moreover, from the anger and fury of Mr. Tilton, I ap- prehended that this charge was made by him—" as made by him," it should be, of course— and supported by the accusation of his wife, was to be publicly pressed against me ; and if it was, I had nothing but my simple word of denial to interpose against it. Do yovi remember that ? A. I do not. Q. Will you look at it, and see if— [handing a book to witness]— did you not say that when accounting for the condition in which you were on the 31st December, 1870, and the Ist of January, 18711 A. Very likely; but I do not recall it now. Sir ; till I refresh my memory. Q. Well, refresh. A. [After looking at the book.] I presume that this is so. Sir. Q. Is it true, then, that anticipating that your enemy might renew his attack you gave up your shield of de- fense! A. This is Q. And gave it up for that reason ? A. This is . an ac- count, Sir— purports to be an account of my feeling the next day. Q. On the 1st of January % A. On the 1st of January. Q. The next day ? A. The next day ; yes. Q. Well, so I understand it. A. Yes; I thought you were speaking still of the 31st. "WHY MR. BEECHER TRUSTED MR. MOULTOK Q. Well, I ask you again, Mr. Beecher, ■whether, regarding it as probable— I will say, even an- ticipating on your part that the charge might be re- newed, did you consent to give up your defense ! A. I consented to change my mode of defense, and to have that document kept by a faithful friend, on his word of lionor, to be used if ever it should be necessary, so that I •bould have the document and the friend also. Q. And you chose the intimate personal friend of Mr. Tilton, one with whom you had a very slight acquaint- ance, to be the custodian of those papers! A. I chose a gentleman of— a member of one of the best firms in the City of New- York, whom I had seen on several occasions, and believed to be a very cultivated literary man, as well rhieRs man, whose wife was a member of my church, and whom I thought to be a good man, true and hon»r> able. Q. You did not then suppose, did you, that he knew of the nature of the charge against you 1 A. I don't suppose that I had any thought about that. Q. Didn't you regard it as impoiliant to ascertain whether Mr. Moulton at that time did understand the nature of the charge ! A. Whether I thought it im- portant or not, we did not go into that subject. Q. Mr. Moulton was not a member of your church t A. He was not. Q. Well, why didn't you select some other person, dome more intimate friend, some member of yom' church, to be the custodian of that paper ? A. I did not select any- body—I did not select anybody. Q. Why didn't you deposit it in the hands, then, of some other person with whom you were more acquainted 1 A. He was the person that presented himself to me and seemed to me as fit as any person that I could have selected. Q. Now, Mr. Beecher, had you at that time come to any conclusion as to how much Mr. Moulton knew in regard to the nature of the charges which Mr, Tilton had pre- ferred against you ! A. I did not know how much he knew; the very correspondence that he brought showed that he must have had some knowledge of it, but I did not ask him what his— the degree of his knowledge or the history of it were. Q. Did you rest vmder the impression that Mr. Moulton believed the charge which Mr. Tilton had made against you? A. I don't recall that matter. Q. Well, Mr, Moulton, you say, was a very worthy and respectable gentleman" and a member of one of the largest firms in Brooklyn 1 A. Yes, Sir ; in New- York. Q. Did you not think it of some consequence that yon should vindicate yourself in his mind if he were ac- quainted with those gross charges against you? A. I did not. Q, Well, why didn't you ask him— why didn't you say, "Mr. Moulton, do you know about this business, and what do you believe in regard to myself," so that you might vindicate yourself? A. I did not do it ; what were the special reasons acting at that time which led me not to do it I cannot recall. Q. Well, you were anxious, of course, to secure and en joy his good opinion, were you not ? A. I had the same anxiety that I have as toward you. I prefer your good opinion to your bad, and I would his, but in this matter he presented himself to me Q, Well, I understand that, I know he presented him- self. Mr, Evarts— It is a question of general reasoning in the witness's mind why he did not do a certain thing. Now, if he cannot be allowed to answer Judge Neilson— The witness has a right to assign the reason called for, imdoubtedly. 40 THE TILTON-BEEOHEB TRIAL. Mr. FuUerton— The simple question was whether he was not anxious to have Mr. Moulton's good opinion. Mr. Evarts— They are not inquiring as to any external Hact at all, hut are trying to get at the operations of his mind. Judge Neilson— Yes. Mr. Evarts— And then where the witness tries to give fhem the operations, or the non-operations, or whatever there was in the matter in his mind, why, they say that it l8 not an answer to the question. His mind does not operate as the cross-examiner's mind operates. Every man's mind operates its own way, and you must deter- mine, before you undertake to fathom a man's mental operations, whether you will take his answer or not. Mr. Fullerton— Well, I have determined that, and I have got his answer, and don't want anything more. I bave got everything that is an answer to the question. Mr. Beach— Mr. Evarts is not reasoning from the ques- tion put to the witness. Mr. Fullerton— That is his difficulty with that discus- ilon. Mr. Evarts— I will take care of my difficulty. Your dif- ficulty is the precise inquiry put to the witness— one I say the witness has a right to answer. Mr. Fullerton— Well, I say I do not interrupt a proper answer. Mr. Eviirts— It is a question of fact. Mr. Fullerton— And my word goes as far upon that Question of fact as anybody else's. Judge Neilson— The witness has a right to state any- thing that is in any degree responsive to the question. Mr. FuUerton— Certainly he has, hut he has no right to go Into a long discourse on that subject. Mr. Evarts— The question of length has nothing to do with it. You have asked him the operations of his mind ; if it takes half an hour to give them you must take them. Mr. Fullerton— I asked him whether he was not anxiovis to secure and enjoy the good opinion of Mr. Moulton ; that is a simple question, and neither the elo- guence of the witness nor of his counsel can change the nature of the question, nor of a proper answer. Judge Neilson— It is a very pointed question. Mr. Fullerton— Yes, Sir, and it admits of yes or no; there is no doubt about that. Judge Neilson— Well, you say it has been answered suf- ficiently. Mr. Fullerton— It has toeen answered sufficiently. Mr. Evarts— Well, but you stopped him. Mr. Fullerton— I did stop him, certainly ; I stopped him "When he got through. Mr. Evarts— Oh, no. Mr. FuUerton— And I hope to have even success with you. Mr. Evarts— People stop themeelves when they get through. [Laughter.] I Mr. FuUerton— No, there are some people who dont stop Avhen they get through. The Witness— Mr. Fullerton, wiU you be kind enough to call for the reading of my answer ? Mr. FuUerton— Yes, Sir ; Mr. Reporter, the witness de- sires you to read the answer. Mr. Beach— Read the question and answer. [Last question and answer read by the Tribune stan- ographer.J Judge Neilson— It is hardly worth while to commence a new topic, Mr. Fullerton. [It being near the hour of recess.] Mr. Fullerton— No, Sir, inasmuch as we haven't got through with the old one. The Court here took a recess until 2 o'clock. THE AFTERNOON SESSION. The Court met at 2 p. m., pursuant to adjourn- ment. Mr. Beecher was recaUed, and his croBs-examin»> tion resumed. Mr. FuUerton— Mr. Beecher, after you got this retrac- tion from Mrs. TUton, did you show it to any one before you deUvered it up to Mr. Moulton 1 A. I did not. Q. Did you talk with any person upon the subject of the charge, and what had subsequently occurred in refer- ence to it, before the visit of Mr. Moulton on the night er8piration upoii his brow, but I cannot say whether it was profuse or sparse. Q. Did you think he removed hifi overcoat on aocount of his condition as to heat! A. I don't know whether I did or not. Q. Well, what do you think nowt A. Well, I presume he did. Q. He laid it on the foot of the bed, did he ! A. He laid it on the bed. Q. Then he sat down and talked with you some con- siderable time, did he not ? A. No, Sir. Q. Well, how long did he talk ? A. He stood up and continued talking; I don't know, it might have been five minutes, possibly ten; not, I should think, more than than that. Q. Did you think it extraordinary or noticeable at all, that he took his overcoat off, under the circumstances ? A. I did not think it extraordinary nor noticeable, in the or- dinary sense of that term ; I noticed it or I should not have remembered it. Q. Well, did you think it at all extraordinary that he should remove a pistol from his pocket before taking the overcoat off? A. No, Sir, I cannot say that I did. Q. He did noj say a word about the pistol when he took it out? A. No, Sir. Q. He made no threat ? A. No threat. Q. Nor did he make any gesture whieh indicated that he was going to use it in a hostile manner? A. No, Sir. Q. Nor did you think that he used it for the purpose of Intimidation or coercion ? A. No, Sir, I did not think so. Q. Did not think so ? A. No, Sir. Q. You did not think so at the time, and you do not think so now, do you 1 A. I do not think now that I thought so at the time. Q. Well, you do not think now that you think so now, do you? A. Excuse me. Q. What do you think about it now ? A. That he meant to intimidate me? Q. Yes, Sir. A. I presume— I think he did not. Q. You did not regard, then, the presentation of a pistol to your view in any hostile light upon his part ? A. No, Sir. Q. You recollect heretofore of making a statement in regard to that part of the interview, I suppose, Mr. Beecher. A. I recollect of making a statement before the CJommittee. Q. See tf this recalls to your recoUeotion what that statement was. [Reading.] He made no verbal threats, but he opened his overcoat, and, with some emphatic remark, showed a pistol, which afterward he took out and laid on the bureau near which he stood. I gave the paper to him, and after a few moments' talk he left. Do you reooUect making that statement? A. I don't recollect making it ; I presume I did. Q. Well, when you did make it, didn't you intend to have it inferred that that pistol was used for some pur- poses ot intimidation ? A. I intended to express in that paper precisely what at that time— what remem- brance I had at that time of that scene, and that port of it. Q. That is no answer to my question, Mr. Beecher. I am speaking now of a question of interest. Didn't you intend when making the statement which I have Just read to you, to have it inferred, at least, that that pistol w^s taken out by Mr. Moulton for the purpose of in- fluencing your action with reference to the retraction! A. I do not recall that T did. Q. Do you remember of making this statement, re- ferring to that scene, preceding what I have just read, namely : He was under great excitement. He made no yerlMd threats, but he opened his overcoat and with some em- phatic remarks showed a pistol, which afterward he took out and laid on the bureau, near which he stood. A. I do not remember making it ; I presume, if it If printed there as a part of my statement, that it is, 8Ul>- stantially as I made it. Q. And I understand you to say that you did not make it, then, with a view of having the inference drawn that the pistol had anything to do with the return of the paper! A. So far as I can recg»llect, I did not. Q. Yon did not intend at that time, or suppose, that such an inference wcftild be drawn ? A. I don't remem- ber that I did. Q. Why did you deem it necessary, then, to introduce that pistol scene into the nan-ative ? A. In order that I might give, as near as I could, the picture that rose to my memory. Q. I imderstand you now to say that the pistol was not exhibited at all, even the butt of it, until after you had agreed to give up the paper— had got it from your private drawer or desk, or whatever it was, and was returning to hand it to him ? A. That is my impression now, although I am not, as I stated before, positive that I have got the order just right. Q. This was on Saturday night, If I recollect right, Mr. Beecher? A. Saturday night. Q. Was there any arrangement that you should see Mr. Moulton the following day ? A. I think there was. Sir. Q. Who suggested it ! A. I don't know. Q. Well, what object had you iu meeting him the next day ? A. I say I don't recollect. I only know that the next day I was in a state of expectancy, so that I reason that there must have been the arrangement the night before, but I do not remember any arrangement making the night before. Q. Well, you would not expect him unless the arrange* ment had been made ? A. No, that is the reason I saj that I think an arrangement had been. Q. And you don't know what object was to be aooom- plished by the meeting the next day f A. I do not recall 43 TUB TILTON-BJ^EOHBB IBIAL. Q. Tou don't recall what was to toe said or what was to be done t A. No, Sir. Q. Or what wae to be discussed! A. No programme was laid out, and no plan suggested that I recall, at all. Q. Well, was the hour fixed for the meeting the next day! A. I recollect expecting him in the afternoon; that is the nearest that I can come to It. Q. Well, don't you think, then, that an hour had heeai appointed in the afternoon? A. I presume that there had been a period, perhaps not a particular hour, but to be after dinner and afternoon. Q. Well, it was on Sunday, was it not t A. It was on Sunday. Q. But it was not connected with any religious exercise that he came there? A. Oh, no, Sir; we had no prayer, or any singing gof any kind ; it was entirely a conference —a friendly conference. THE INTERVIEW OF JAN. 1. Q. Well, do you UBually hold friendly con- ferences on Sunday of that character 1 A. No, Sir ; oh, no. Sir ; I very seldom hold sttch friendly conferences on any day. Q. The reason why I ask you the question is to know whether the object of that meeting then would not be Impressed upon yoxir memory so that you could tell us what it was 1 A. No ; I do not think that it did. Simday afternoons, you know, are my leisure afternoons for rest- ing. I preach only morning and night, and seldom T am occupied in the afternoon, which would make It verj natural that if there was to be an appointment the next day, it should follow in the afternoon. Q. Was it not agreed between you and Mr. Moulton on the night of the 31st, when you separated, that he should call upon you the following Sunday afternoon and report to you how Tilton received the return of that retraction ? A. Very likely, but I have no remembrance of it what- ever. Q. Have you no impression upon the subject? A. None, except that it springs from reasoning. Q. Well, do you recollect what time he arrived there on the 1st ? A. Yes ; about 3 o'clock. Q. And where did your interview take place ? A. fn the study, third story back room, Q. In the presence of any one ? A. No, Sir. Q. What was said and done during that interview, Mr. Beecher ! A. Well, Mr. Fullerton, I shall be obliged to say again as I said before, that, in many respects, the order and altogether the language is gone from me ; I have a general sense of the order of the topics, but I will give you as well as I can the substance of the conversa- tion that took place, if you wish, continuously; or shall I follow your questions 1 Q. T^ell, teU us how the conversation opened. A. As nearly as I can recollect, after the uaual courtesies, and some few words, Mr. Moulton spoke to me of. the wisdom of my— that the wisdom of his suggestions the night before had been shown by the way in which Mr. Tilton received the account from him, and also the retraction— or an account of the retraction; I thtok that opened it, and it passed on, but by what stages, I can»ot recall now, to the discussion of Mr. TUton's position, the very great reasons that he had for excitement, and seA'^erity even, and that he was suffering unjustly all round ; that was the impression that I have of the opening, and that naturally- led us to talk of Mr, Bowen, and of his rela- tions to Mr. Bowen, and then of my relationa to Mr. Bowen in regard to the business matter; and that led me to give a description to him of the interview with Mr. Bowen on the 26th, if that was the date, of which he was very particular, and wanted the interview in detail, and I undertook to give it to him, and he then said that Bowen had played traitor to both sides, that he was my enemy and that he was his enemy, and that I had been misled, and I had done very great wrong to Mr. Tilton, and especially in receiving from Mr, Bowen any tales or stories respecting Mr. Tilton's moral character. He told me that he had been his schoolmate, that he had known him from childhood therefore ; he spoke with very great positiveness and eflFectiveness about that. , He mentioned, I think, that there had been a discontinuance for a short time because of their changed business relations, but it had been an intimacy resumed, and he said that he was — he assured me with the strongest asseverations that neither in regard to intemperance, nor in regard to im- maculate chastity, was Mr. Tilton subject to the criti- cisms or the stories that had been told upon him, that they were base slanders and outrages upon him; and he spoke with a good deal of feeling on the subject, and I spoke with a good deal of feeling on the subject. He re- ferred to the stories that had been circulated about ma by Mr. Bowen, as I knew, and my feeling, when conscious of being innocent, at having such tales reported about me, and how much more in the case of a man like Mr Tilton, and in his present circumstances, when he had been stricken off from his profession, and in a manner that left a stain on his reputation, and was now without occupation, and without means of subsistence, and who also found great distress in his household— not that relief which a man might in times of distress exi>eot in his* own family. He went into some special statements in regard to some of the persons whose names had been mentioned. He told me that he had personal knowledge ol the falsity of some of those stories, and— I will not say personal knowledge, but that he of his own self knew that they were false. Well, this occupation ran through, I should think, in various phases and forms— ran through an hour, and I became convinced, if I had not been already, that I had joined hands in Q. That is not a part of the question. A. I beg pardon* Well, I told him substantially that— not in those words— that I was satisfied .on his testimony that I had bee* TESTIMONI OF HE^EZ WARD BEECEEB, greatly misled ; that I had believed those stories of Mr. Bowen I admitted, and that I had some reason for be- lieving them, because I had received such an account from Miss Bessie Turner, and certain stories from Mrs. Morse in regard to them. He assured me that the stories were false. Q. Well, -svere you accounting for the advice that you gave as to a separation then ? A. I was accounting — I cannot say about that, because I am not giving now any- thing more than the substance of the narrative ; but when he spoke to me in respect to my readv credence of Mr. Bowen's tales regarding IVIr. Tilton, I recollect that I partly defended myself, or rather Reused myself some- what feebly by saying that I had been prepared to hear from him such things by the relations of Bessie Turner ; and I told him what Bessie had said, and also many statements that at times had been made imder great ex- citement by Mrs. Morse. Q. Well, you felt grieved that day, I understand you, at something that you had done towards Mr. Tilton ? A. I think I did. Q. Well, did you explain that to him i A, Well, I did ; I do not know that I explained it ; I poui-ed it over him; I gave expression, not so much of an analysis and a bill of items, of statements; as the conversation went on and T became more and more free to speak and let my feelings out, I did pour out Q. Well, now, Mr. Beecher, the information that you got from Mr. Bowen— had you used that in any way, to the prejudice of Mr. Tilton 1 A. I had lent my ear to it, and had advised Mr. Bowen that I thought that he was a tainted man, and that it would not be practicable to keep him on The Independent. Q. Yes % A. And, probably, not on The Brooklyn Vnion. Q. Well, didn't you advise in regard to The Independent, tn reference to the articles which he had written, and which you yourself had seen, or which you knew of 1 A. I do not recall, now, I may have made some allusion to those. Q. Didn't you advise him with reference to TTie Brook- lyn ZTnion in the light of your own observation for a series of years prior to that interview 1 A. Didn't I advise Sir. Bowen! Q. Yes 1 A. You ask me whether I stated to Mr. Moul- tonthatlhad! Q. Didn't you advise Mr. Bowen in reference to the continuation of :Mr. Tilton's services upon The Brooklyn Union in view of the idiosyncrasies and peculiarities of Mr. Tilton which you had made personal observation of, for several years prior to that Interview! A. Pardon me ; do I understand you to ask me this question now, in- dependent of this interview of Jan. 1 ; or, do you go back to that interview of Mr. Bowen's, and ask me as a part of that Interview ! Q. Why, you didn't advise Mr. Bowen on any occasion except Dec. 26! Mr. Evarts— He asks a proper question. Judge Neilson— He goes back to the interview with Mir; Bowen. Mr. Fullerton— I am speaking of yotir aclvice to Mr, Bowen, which took place on the 26th. I ask you whether you did give the advice with reference to the continuar tion of the services of Mr. Tilton on The Brooklyn Unions in the light of your own experience and observation of Mr. Tilton's peculiarities 1 A. Yes ; in the light of his peculiarities, not of doctrinal statement, and not of socialistic statement, but in the light of my experience of him as a manager, and especially as a cooperative wo*ker in a party, or in a cause. MR. MOULTON EXCUSES ME. TILTON'S FREAKS. Q. Well, Sir, that is an answer now f A« Yes, I am thankf uL Q. How ! A. I am glad that at last I understand yon. Q. Well, I am glad that you are glad. That advice, then, was not given upon the strength of anything that :Mr. Bowen told you ! A. It followed tn the conversa- tion. Q. It was not given on the strength of anything that Mr. Bowen told you, was it ! A. In tegard to The Brooh- lyn Vnion ? Q. Yes. A. It was given on the Q. Now I ask you a simple question. A. I am going to give you the answer. Q. Not an answer to my question. The question ad- mits of an answer " yes" or " no." Mr. Evarts— It does not require an answer " yes** or "no." INIr. Fullerton— Well, I require it. Mr. Evarts— Well, you have no right to. Fullerton— Well, I think I have. The Witness— WiU you repeat the question, then, that I may see ! Q. Wa-3 the advice that you gave to Mr. Bowen on that occasion in reference to the continuation of the services of Mr. Tilton in The Brooklyn Vnion predicated of any thing that Mr. Bowen told you? A. Partly. Q. Partly! A. Partly. Q. Did he teU you anything that induced you to believe that he would breed discord in the party ! A. No. Q. Did he ten you anything that induced you to believe that he could not follow but must lead ! A. No. Q. Nothing of ,that kind! A. Oh ! that is another ques- tion ; there was something of that kind, but that was not it. Q. Well, that is what you told Mr. Bowen, wasn't it 1 A. I told Mr. Bowen my own telling, but the groimds oa which I told it you are asking after. Q. Yes. A. And I say in part it was what Mr. Bowen told me — tn part it was what I knew. Q. Yes, Sir ; now, then, did Mr. Tilton convince yon. 44 THE TILTON-B BOtwitlistaiiding your own observation and experience with Mr. TUton, that he was a flt editor 1 A. Mr. Tlltont Q. Mr. Moulton, I should say. A. I beg pardon. Will jrou repeat the question t Q. Did Mr. Moulton convince you on the Ist of January that Mr. Tilton was a fit person to he at the head of TTce Brooklyn Union, notwithstanding your own observation and experience in that regard 1 A. He convinced me in 80 far as the reasons were moral. Q. Well, what moral reasons were there which induced you to advise Mr. Bowen that he should not or ought not to remain in The Brooklyn Union ? A. That he was a tainted man in his moral habits. Q. You gave that as a reason why he should not remain In TTie Brooklyn Union, did you 1 A. That was a part of the whole conversation, and the whole conversation re- lated to both papers, and it was not divided up, chapter and verse, so much for The Independent and so much for The Union, Q. Did Mr. Moulton convince you on the first of Jan- uary that the story of Bessie Turner was untrue T A. He told me that it was absolutely untrue. Q. He convinced you of it, did hei A. I was satisfied that I had made a mistake. Q. Were you satisfied that It was untrue 1 A. I didn't believe it to be true. Q. You believed that Bessie Turner had told you a falsehood, then 1 A. I believed just what Mr. Moulton Baid. Q. Did you believe that Bessie Turner had told you a falsehood? A. No; I believed that she had told me a Belf-deception. Q. Deceived? A. That she was deceived. Q. You thought that she might have been deceived in Baying that she was taken up out of her bed and A. Precisely what Q. One moment. We can't talk two at a time. You thought she was deceived in saying that she was taken In his arms and carried from her room iato his, did you 1 A. In the construction that she put upon it. Q. You thought she was deceived in saying that he said to her that the expression of his love, as he desired to express it, was as natural as kissing or caressing, did you? A. I was satisfied that she had misapprehended it. Q. Altogether? A. Altogether. Q. Were you satisfied that no such thing occurred? A. No ; I don't know that I went into it to that extent. Q. You thought It might have occurred, and that Bessie T'UTier was under a wrong impression about it, did you? A. Tf there was some foundation, and then it was denied by Mr. Moulton to me Q. Did Mr. Moulton tell you that he was present when that occirrred, and knew about it personally? A. No; I don't recollect that he did. Q. How did he tell you that he knew anything about Itl A. He spoke as of his own knowledge. JEECHEB TBIAL. j Q. Then you thought he must have been present, didn*l you? A. No, Sir. Q. Well, tell me what argument Mr. Moulton made use of on that day to convince you that the story of that young girl was false 1 A. That is precisely what I want to do. Q. Well, then, you are gratified? A. I shall be if I do it successfully ; he said that there was something that happened of that kind, and that Bessie Turmer never— it would not have entered her head that it was an impro- priety if it had not been for Mrs. Morse, and that she had pointed out— given a motive to it that led Bessie Turner to think worse of it than she would if she had been left to her natural inclination. Q. He told you that ? A. That is what he told me. Q. And that you believed? A. That I took for tb« truth. Q. Did he tell you how he knew that % A. He did not. Q. Didn't you ask hitn ? A. I don't recoUect that I did, Q. Were not you anxious to find out the basis of his judgment ? A. I was anxious to have him excuse Mr. TUton. Q. Were not you anxious to find out the basis of his judgment ? A. No, Sir. A. And therefore you asked no question ? A. I did not ask any question. Q. Well, did he convince you that Mr. TUton had not abused his wife, as was represented by Mrs. Morse and Mrs. Tilton on the 14th of December, if that was the date when you were there 1 A. As it regards that, I have only an indistinct recoUcction that he said to me something like this— that "as it respects Mr. Tilton he is a man of moods, a man of genius." I don't know that he used that word, but he aUuded to his peculiar mental constitution, that he was a hasty man, and that in moods he may have done rude things, or improper things, but there never was a tender- er-hearted man, he told me, in this world ; that his wife could lead Mm with a thread, if she would only take the right way, and that he said he had been a kind husband and a kind father to his family, and a good pro- vider for them— not in those words, but that was th« asseveration, in the most unmistakable form, that Mr. Tilton, while he might at home have the infelicities that husbands sometimes have, who are, nevertheless, aiy counted very good men — ^that stiU he was at home an exceUent, kind husband and father. Q. And you believed it ? A. I did. Q. Did he say that he knew that from personal obsei^ vation ? A. No, Sir. Q. Then you disbelieved what Mrs. Morse said, and Mrs. TUton 1 A. I did not bring them mto comparison. Q. Why didn't you consider what you had heard from Mrs. TUton and Mrs. Morse ? A, I did not enter into a comparison of what I had heard before with what I tbea heard. TU8TIM0NI OF EE:^- Q. Didn't you say to Mr. Moulton, in yindicarlon of | yourself, •■' Wtxy, I v^as sent for ; I went to tlie liouse and heard tMs 3tory from the lips of tlie wife herself and her motlier^" A. I don't recollect using any aucli words. Q. Then you did not give >iim any information at all , upon the subject as to what led you to give the advice that you had given as to separation ? A. I merely recol- lect giving Mm a general statement of the advice th.at I liad given, but not in an argumentative nor in a rhetori- cal form. Q. You relied upon what he told you as a matter of hearsay rather than upon what Mrs. Morse and :Mrs. Tilton told you as a matter of observation andespeiience i i A. I certainly took his word at that time against all | comers, Q. Yes, very welL Xow.^Ir. Beecher, you have given us what Mr. Moulton said in vindieation of Mr. Tilton upon that occasion. Did you say anything at that time in regard toyom* grievance — namely, the ao-usatlon— the false accusation, as you say it was, that was brought against you, of improper advanaes to his wife ? A. I stated, as near as I can recollect, that the charge of | alienating Mrs. i Q. Xow, just drop that, if you please ; that is not the point of my question. I am talMng about the improper advances that had been charged- Did you say one word to Francis D. Moulton on that day about tliat subject! A. I denied it. Q. Why didn't you so state it in your direct examina- tion ? A. I don't know why I did not. There are a good many things in my direct examination that I did not i state. i Q. Well, I don't know how they got there. A. I mean there are a great many things in this history that I C'.d not state. Q. In what connection did you deny the charge on the first day of January 1 A. I don't know, Sir, what con- nection ; I don't know the connection ; it came up in the course of the conversations. Q. Can you tell us in what language you framed that denial ? A. So, Sir. Q. Can you tell us in what connection in that conversa- tion you made the denial i A. No. Sir. Q. Can you tell what brought forth the denial from you ? A. The general conversation took that drift. Q- You told him then that the charge was false, did : you 1 A. I did. Q. Did you say what the charge was ? A. I do not re- member that I repeated the charge. Mr. Beach fto Mr. Fullertonl— Was the term used— ** improper advances ? " Mr. Fullerton— Wae the term " improper advances " used 1 A. I don't recollect that that phrase was used. I Q. Was the term "improper solicitation," or any i Wndred term, used? A. The term of impropriety of con- I RY WABB BEEGBEB. 45 duct toward Mrs. Tilton— in what phraae I cannot say; but that subject was conversed about Q. Between you and himi A. Between mo and him* mostly by me. THE LETTER OF APOLOGY. Q. Xow, under what circumstances was there anything put in writing on that day? A. At the close of our interview, or toward the close, perhaps twenty min- utes to half an hour, somewhere along there ; I cannot state distinctly how long. Q. How did it occur that anything was put in writing t A. It occurred In consecLuence of the strength of my feel- ings of sorrow and of regret. He said, on hesiring it, that, if Mr. Tilton could see what he saw, or could know how I felt, as he believed I did feel, it would remove from his mind the conviction that I was his sinister but his real enemy, and that gave rise to some conversa- tion further. I on that suggestion made manifold direo- tlons to the contrary, and at last, on the result of that, he said: " Why won't you write this to Mr. Tilton ? It will bring all this mischief to an end. He thinks you are his enemy, and that you are determined— that you are injur- ing him." I said— I hesitated a moment, and then I de- clined. He itrged me again that it would he a very use- ful thing if I would make a representation to Mr. Tilton of my real dispositions and of the things that I had said in that conversation to him ; and finally I said to him, " Well, make a memorandum yourself of them," and he took the pen and sat down at the table and commenced making a memorandum. I was walking to and fro, and he occasionally would ask me, when I was speaking rapidly and with some empha- sis—he would say, ••' Did you say" so and sol or " Do you say?" or something to that effect, and I would check my- self for a moment to make some reply— "Yes," or " sub- stantially that," or something like that, and then would repeat— repeated one thought and another thought, at- tempting to go over in my mind, somewhat, the points of the conversation that had immediately preceded this, and which concerned my feelings toward Mr. Tilton and his family; that was the last part of the interview before the reading of the memorandum. Q. Didn't you say in the commencement that you. would give it to him in confidence ? A. No, Sir. Q. Or in trust! A. No, Sir. Q. Did Mr. Moulton write these words of his own to Ution, at the head of this letter, " In trust with F. D. Moulton ?" A. I know nothing about it. Q. It was not suggested by you ! A. No, Sir. Q. That it should be in trust ! A. No, Sir. Q. Nor did you think he was going to take it la trtist, did you ? A. I don't know that I thought anything ahont that at that ttme. Q. Was there anything gaidupon tliat subject 1 A. Not that IrecalL ^ THE TILTO^-B Q. Well, did you repeat to Mm what you expected lie would take down t A. I repeated to Wm my sentiments on the topics that I thought he would take down. Q. Your sentiments? A. I repeated to him my feel- ings and sentiments. Q. Did you not expect that he would use the words that you employed ? A. I knew he could not. I am a hard man for a reporter to follow, and he certainly could not follow me in writing. Q. "Well, under the circumstances in which this letter was written, you might wait for him to put it down, prohably, if you wanted him to record it. Did you not want him to record your sentiments in your language t A. No, I did not ; that is, I should have had no ohjection if he could have recorded it in my language, hut I did not expect that he would attempt to do it, more than to catch a figure here and there, or some phrase. Q. Were you not very anxious that the exact state of your feelings should he conveyed to Mr. Tiiton ? A. I re- lied upon Mr. Moulton to convey them. Q. Answer my question. A. I was not anxious that any phrase or any figure should he conveyed. Q. Answer my question. A. But that my /eeJm^f should be conveyed, I was glad. Q. You were very anxious that that should he done ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. And done properly ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. And with a view to that end you said what you did Bay to Mr. Moulton t A. That was the whole ohject of the conversation. Q. Why didn't you examine the paper to see whether he had done well what he had undertaken to do ? A. I relied upon him. Q. Entirely? A. Entirely. Q. Did you not fear that he might have said something there that you would not he willing to father ? A. Well, I hadn't said it. Q. Well, he was to repeat it to Mr. Tiiton as a thrag that you had said ? A. He was to make a representation to Mr. Tiiton of the substance of this interview. He might have made a mistake in the whole interview, hut I took it that he was a man of discretion, and would make a fair report of my feelings, with such specifica- tions as seemed proper to him. Q. Were you aware of the form in wliich he clothed it ? A. I was not. Q. Were you aware of the fact that it was put in the form of a letter, and that its salutation was, " My Dear Friend Moulton ]" A. I was not. Q. You were ignorant, then, of the form in which he clothed this matter? A. I was. Q. Did you say anything like this ? [Reading.] I ask, through you, Theodore Tilton's forgiveness, and I humble myself before him as I do before my God. A. I did not use that expression, Sir. Q. Any expression of that character 1 A. I used, gen- hUWER TRIAL. erally, a statemenr of this kind— that I had, for my error and wrong in the matter, humhlcd myself before (Jod, and I should not be ashamed to humble myself before Theodore Tiiton. Q. You had discovered your wrong, then, before Mr. Moulton came there on that day, had you? A. There had been, in Q. Had you? Had you? A. Not in its full extent. Q. Had you discovered it ? A. I had suspected a part. Q. Well, you say you had humbled yom^self before God, in consequence of the wrong you had done ? A. Yes, Sir, I had. I had seen enough of it to be very humble about it. Q. When had you made the discoverv 1 A. In the con- versation with Mr. Moulton, on the night on whicli I went to Moulton's house, and in the subsequent — in the con- versation, in some parts of it, on the night of the 31st, and in those Q. What had been said on that subject on the night when you went to Mr. Moulton's house 1 A. He had talked to me about Mr. Bowen, Wd the wrong that he had done to Mr. TRton. Q. You were not humbling yourself before God in be- half of Mr. Bowen, were you ? A. My connection with it — yes. Q. What connection had you with that ? A. I had ad- ' vised it. Q. And then you discovered that that was wrong ? A. He told me that the whole thing was false. Q. And you believed that ? A. I did. Q. Did he give you any reason for saying that ? A. Oh, no, not that I recall ; that is, he gave me his assevera- tions—as I supposed, an impartial person. Q. And you came to that conclusion on that night ? A. I came to more or less of a conclusion that night that I had got wrong, and that I had been the injurer of Mr, Tiiton. Q. You did not think of the injury inflicted upon you in charging you with this immoral conduct, did you ? A. I don't recollect that I specially brought that into connec- tion with the injmy done by me to Mr. Tiiton, through Mr. Bowen. Q. I am speaking of the injury inflicted upon you by Mr. Tiiton iu making this charge against you. Mr. Evarts— He has answered. A. If the charge was a correct one, he had not injured me. Q. Was it correct to charge you with making improper solicitatious with his wife ? A. If he had the evidence of it, or thought he had, there was no impropriety in charg- ing it upon me. Q. Well, when this letter was written on the Ist of January, had you made up your mind then whether that charge was made in fcood faith or in bad faitb t A. I sup posed that TESTIMONY OF WARD BEECREB. 47 Q. Had you made up your mind t A. I was proceeding to tell you, Sir. Q. Answer my question. You can tell me whether you had made up your mind, by simply answering yes or no. A. But it Is not true of the first part of the interview, and It is true of the last. Q. I don't understand your answer. A. That shows tjiat I could not answer it hy yes or no. [Laughter.] Q. Well, it shows also that you have not answered it yet, A. In the opening of the conversation my mind was inclined to thjnk that T had got myself in a very had pl;;-.;, and that I had done great injustice to Mr. Tilton; an i as tlie conversation went on and I received from Mr. Moulton light on one and another topic, I became entirely satisfied that I had done wrong to Mr. Tilton, a Q. Now, jNIt. Beecher, that is as foreign from my ques- tion as anything can possibly be. A. I was coming to it. Q. Coming to it 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. "Well, you start too far off. [Laughter.] I ask you whether on tne 1st of January, at the time of this inter- Tiew, you had made up your mind whether the charge against you was made In good or in bad faith ? Mr. Evarts— That is the precise point of the answer that has been given, that at one part of the Interview he had not, and at another he had. Mr. Fullerton— Well, did he stop there 1 Mr. Shearman— He has answered it, and then you ask him to explain, and when he explains, you are not satis- fled. Mr. Fullerton— I didn't know that you had arrived, Brother Shearman. [Laughter.] [To the witness.] Now, will you answer my question, whether, on the 1st of January, at the time of this interview, you had made up your mind whether the charge against you of improper solicitations (if that were it) was made in good or in bad faith ? A. At one period of the day of the 1st of January I had. Q. Had what— made up your mind 1 A. Made up my mind. Q. What was your conclusion ? A. My conclusion was that Mr. Tilton had reason for making that charge, that he had evidence of it from his wife that justified him in making inquisition and accusing me. Q. Well, at what period of the day did you come to that conclusion ? A. I was proceeding to tell you, and now I shall finish what I would have finished in a word Q. Tell me the period of the day. A. I think it must have been about half-past 3 — or half-past 4, 1 should say ; it was near the close of the interview. Q. Did you maintain that opinion throughout the whole day? A. No, Sir; in the morning I did not think about it so much, nor the afternoon, but I, from that time forth, Miought that Mr. Tilton had had reason to believe that I hnd ncted wrongly toward his household. Q. In Improper advances t A In improper advances. Q. Improper solicitations 1 A. Improper solicitations. Q. How did you think he had come to that conclusion — upon the strength of what evidence t A. Upon his wife's written statement to liim. Q. You did not believe, then, that that statement was coerced from her, did youl A. I don't know what you would include in the word "coerced." Q. What do you include in it 1 Answer my question In the light of the meaning wbich you give to it. A. Coer- cion I should consider a degree of violence that never was pretended upon her. Q. Very well ; we will adopt her own language, then. Did you believe that it was obtained through importuni- ty—when she was "wearied with importunity, and weak- ened by sickness ?" A. I had no doubt that it had been procured from her when she was weak and sick, and by persistent inqidry. Q. And you thought that she had told a falsehood about it to Mr. Tilton, did you 1 A. I certainly did. Q. And you remained of that opinion during all the New Year's Day while this paper was being prepared, did you? A. Yes, Sir; during the time that that was in preparation. Q. Then you supposed that Mr. Tilton was acting in good faith in making this charge against you ? A. I sup- posed that he had reason to think that I had been a wronger of his family. Q. Then I will ask you again, when you came to that conclusion that Mrs. TUton had told a falsehood about it, and that Mr. Tilton was acting in good faith in making the charge against you, why didn't you hasten to vindi- cate yourself to him by telling him that it was untrue f Mi\ Evarts— Telling whom ? Mr. Fullerton— Mr. TUton. The Witness— Will you be good enough to state the question again. Sir i Mr. Fullerton— I will let the stenographer read it. The Tribune stenographer read the last question, as quested. A. I thought I was doing it, Sir. Q. By this letter of January 1 ? A. By Mr. Moulton. Q. By Mr. Moulton ? A. By Mr. Moulton. Q. In what way 1 A. This whole interview was a vin- dication and explanation, and was to be carried by him to a man that was excited, and whose interview with me would not be likely to be pacificatory in aU respects. Q. Well, let me read this to you, and I want you, if you please, to i)oint out as I go along where there is any ex« planation to Mr. Tilton to convince him tliat his charge against you was wrong : [Reading.] I ask, through you, Theodore TUton's forgiveness, and I humble myself before him as I do before my God. He would have been a better man, in my circumstances, than I have been. I can ask nothing except that he will re- member aU the other hearts that would ache. I wUl not plead for myself. I even wish I were dead ; but others must live and suffer. I will die before any one but my- self shall be inculpated. All my thoughts are running 48 TRB TlLTON-BK'dJOREIi IBIAL. toward my Mends, towao-'d the poor child lying there and praying -with her folded hands. She is guiltless, sinned against, bearing the transgression of another. Her for- giveness I have. I humbly pray to God that he may put it in the heart of her husband to forgive her. I have trusted this to Moulton in confidence. Where do you find there any explanation or any assever- ation upon your part that you were not guilty of the ofltense with wliich you stood charged 1 A. That is not my document. Q. I understood you to say, however, that you had a conversation with Mr. Moulton iu which you expressed to a very considerable extent the sentiments in this let- ter ? A. I said that the sentiments in that letter were a part of my conversation, but I did not select the senti- ments that he was to report. ME. BEECHER'S DENIALS WHEN THE APOL- OGY LETTER WAS WRITTEN. Q. Now, then, wiU you tell us, if you please, what it was that you said to Mr. Moulton, at the time that this letter was written, exculpatory of yourself, and vindicating 3'ourself against the charge that had been made against you ? A. Nothing at the time the letter was writing, that I remember. Q. Before the letter was written what did you say t A. In the course of the conversation I denied the truth of Mr. Tilton's impression that I had done wrong to liis household intentionally. Q. Did you deny the Improper solicitations 1 A. I de- nied the whole charge that had been brought against me. Q. Did you aslr him to convey any message to Mr. TU- ton upon that subject % A. I did not, that I recaU. Q. In dictating the points, or the heads of what you j wanted him to say to Mr. Tilton, did you dictate anything j exculpatory of yourself? A. I never dictated a point, nor a word, nor indicated what I wanted him to write. Q. You wanted him to write something, didn't you? A. No, I did not. Q. You knew that he was writing something? A. It was his own volition, his own choice. Q. You knew that he was writing something to use with Mr. Tilton, didn't you 1 A. I knew that he was makiag a memorandum for his own use. Q. With Mr. Tilton! A. With Mr. Tilton. Q. For the purpose of conveying to Mr. Tilton your sentiments % A. For the purpose of conveying to Mr. Til- ton his impres-ion of the interview with me. Q. Then, why didn't you convey to Blr. Tilton, through that same channel, some vindication of yourself? A. How did I know but it was there? Q. Where ? A. In that channeL Q. I have asked you to tell me what you said In the con- versation with Mr. Moulton vindicatory of yourseU. A. And I have told you that I expressed to him my convic- I tion that I had not intentionally wronged Mr. Tilton nor j his household. i Q. Did you charge him with anything to say to Mr. i Tilton on that subject ? A. I did not. I Q. Why not f A. Because it didn't come in my way to I do it. I Q. You were not anxious, then, to vindioate yourself I with Mr. Tilton ? A. That does not f oUow, I Q. Well, why didn't you send some message to Mr. i Tilton that this charge, although you thought he believed i it to be true, was untrue ? A. The whole interview would I obliterate that if it were faithfully represented. I and i Mr. Tilton were not in controversy personally, then, directly. Mr. Moulton, as the common friend of the two, was a peacemaker between us, and I expressed myself to him that he might go and express himself as he thought wisest to Mr. Tilton. Q. You expressed your sorrow for what you had done t A. I did. Q. But you didn't send any special message to him to vindicate yourself ? A. I don't recoUect that I did. Q. Did you not regard that as important f A. It seems not. Q. WeU, don't you remember whether you did or did I not at that time ? A. I have no recollection of it, Sir. I Q. Then the gravest charge that was brought against ; you was lost sight of in your grief for what you had done against him, was it ? A. I cannot say that it was. Q. Now, in that conversation with Mr. Moulton ou that day, was the term "improper relations," or "improper advances," or " improper soUoitations " used ? A. I can- not recall that the words—those phrases— were used upon that occasion. Q. Well, you regarded that as the most serious charge against you, did you not? A. The substance of the charge was recognized; but whether it was done by Q. Did you not regard that as the most serious charge agains fc you ? A. Whether the substance of the charg e Q. Did you not regard that as the most serious charge against you? A. The Q. Improper solicitations ? A. Certainly, that ■was fbs most serious part Q. And yet you did not single it out and vindicate yonr« self against it by sending any message to Mr. Tilton 1 A* I did not send any message to Mr. Tilton. I understood that Mr. Moulton was my message. Q. But what message did you give him to Mr. Tilton in regard to the charge against you 1 A. Ko message whatever. ^ THE EXPRESSIONS IN THE LETTER OP APOLOGY. Q. Very weU; then he was not the messen- ger for that purpose 1 A. He was himself a message in his peaceful feelings toward both parties, his sympathy TESTIMONY OF HENBY WARD BEEOHEB, 48 iritli both, and his detenxdnatioiito so explain matters as tbat both should be reconciled. Q. I call youx attention now, Mr. Beeoher, still further %o this document : [Reading.] " He would have been a better maa in my circumstances than I have been." Did you say anything to that effect t A. I did not say that sentence that I recollect, Sir, but I said something which I can weU understand might have been put down, for short, in that sentence. Q. Did you say anything that conveyed that sentiment ? A. I did. Q. I read another sentence : " I can ask nothing except that he will remember aU the other hearts that would ache." Did you say anything that conveyed that idea ? A. Not in that bold way, Q. How did you say it f Did you say that in substance ? A. Not in its apothegmatic form, as it stands there. Mr. Beach— That answer refers merely to the form of th« expression. Mr. Pullerton— Did you express that sentiment, whether you clothed it in that language or not ? A. I discussed with him Q. Did you express that sentiment 1 A. No ; not in that close way in which you press me for an answer. Q. Vfery well. Something alrin to it? A. I can give f on almost the very thing. Q. Something akin to it % A. Something in that neigh- borhood, Sir. Q. I read again: [Reading.] " I will not plead for my- self. I even wish that I were dead," Did you express any such sentiment as that % A. That does not represent any sentiment that I expressed, Q. Did you say anything in substance like this: "But others must live and suffer 1" A. I spoke of others living and suffering. Q. Then, again, did you say this in substance : " I will die before anyone but myself shaU be inculpated?" A. No. Q. Did you say anything of that nature % A. I said Bomethiag in that neighborhood. Q. Did you say this : " All my thoughts are running to- ward my friends, toward the poor child lying there and praying with her folded hands 1" A. That reminds me of some things that I said in respect of Mrs. Tilton. Q. Something of that character? A. Under the im- pression produced upon me by that interview that night. Again, did you say this : [Reading.] " She Is guilt- less, sinned against, bearing the transgression of another 1" A. No, not as it stands there, I did not. Q. Did you say anything of the same meaning % A. No, not the meaning that that has there. Q. Didn't you intend to convey that idea f A. I did not, in any such sense as it stands there. Q. But in some other sense t A. I intended to convey aaaother sense whioh that faila to express. Q. Again : [Reading.] " Her forgiveness I have. I hum- bly pray to God that He may put it into the heart of her husband to forgive me V* A. No, Sir, Q. Did you say nothing of that kind 1 A. Nothing ol that kind in the fore part of that sentence at aU. I may have expressed a desire for Theodore's forgiveness for any injury I had done him in his household. Q. What part of # do you say was not said by you f A. " Her forgiveness"— I never said that I had her forgive- ness. Q. That was an invention of Moulton, was it 1 A. I cannot say about that, Sir. That is his docviment, whion he can answer for better than I. Q. Now, Mr. Beecher, when that paper was finished, do you say that you did not read it 1 A. I say that I did not read it. Q. And do you say that it was not read to you ! A. I say it was not read to me. Q. WeU, why didn't you read or have it read to yonf A. I didn't care about it. Sir. Q. Didn't you care what was in it? A. It was— I cared about what he should represent to Mr. Tilton, but there were notes for his direction. Q. But you put your name to it? A. Well, Sir, I put my name, not to the truth of that statement, but to the fact that I had given this in trust after a conversation with him. Q. And you gave something in trust to Moulton with- out knowing what you gave him ? A. I gave him that paper in trust, to signify that he had had a conversation with me, and that he would represent to Mr. TUton what were the results of that conversation. Q. You gave it to him in trust ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Well, did you regard it as his composition or yourst A. I regarded it as his. Q. Then you gave his property to him in trust 1 A. He wanted me to make it my property. Q. One moment. You gave Moulton's property to Moulton in trust, did you ? A. I did not f egard it as property, Sir. Mr. Beach— Well, production, then. Mr. Pullerton— Production ? A. I did not regard it in that light of a production. Q. Well, you gave this paper, whatever it was, regard- ing it as Moulton's, to Moulton, in trust, did you ? A. To Mr. Moulton ? Q. Yes. A. No. Q. You know what the meaning of the words "in trust** is of course, Mr. Beecher, don't you ? A. I did. Q. You know that you cannot give another man's prop- erty to that man in trust, don't you ? A. I know that I can give a statement of an interview, a memorandum of which he has made— I can authenticate the errand on which he goes with that memorandum i^i his hand. Q. Without knowing or caring what is in it? A. On the trust that I had» that he had made only a memoraa- 50 TEE T1L10:N'BBE(JBER TBIAL. dum that would bring back to Ms mind the points, the salient points, of the conversation, that he wanted to mse. ^. Bring baok to his mind the salient points of the con- versation that he wanted to use, and which were to be used for your benefit 1 A. For both of our benefits. Q. For yours as well as his? A. For both. Q. Well, for yours 1 A. For both; and therefore for mine. Q. "And therefore for yours;" lam glad you added that. And therefore what you intrusted to him to be used in part for your benefit, you did not know or care what was in it ? A. I cannot say that I didn't care what was In it. Q. I understood you to say so a moment ago ? A. You understood me, then, when I was speaking less heedfully than I am now. Q. That is not my fault. A. I know it is not, Sir ; it is mine. Mr. Evarts— This discussion is unnecessary. Mr, Fullerton— You get it up and then say it is not necessary. [To the witness.] Didn't you put your name to the paper for the purpose of authenticating it ? A. I put my name- — Mr. Beach [To Mr. Fullerton]— Oh, make hint answer. Mr. Fullerton— I ask you that question, and I want you to answer. A. I did not put my name to that paper for the sake of authenticating the form of its contents. Q. You say, " I have trusted this to Moulton in confi- dence." A. Yea, Sir. Q That is your handwriting, I believe 1 (Showing paper to witness.] A. I think it is, Sir. Q. Well, have you any doubt about it 1 A. No, Sii-, I nave no doubt about it ; I think it is, Q. I will ask you again, Mr. Beecher, and give you the opportunity to explain it, if you desire to, or can, why, upon that occasion, in an interview so full of interest to yourself and in which you were expressing your regret for what you had done, you didn't take some step through the agency of your mutual friend, as he has been called, to convey to Mr. Tilton your denial of having made any improper solicitations of or advances to his wife ? A. It was a part of the interview. Q. I now ask you again to give to this jury any message that you sent by Mr. Moulton, any word that you spoke upon that subject coupled with a request that it should be communicated to Mt. Tilton, or any other thing that you did for the purpose of accomplishing that end—name- ly, your own vindication in the mind of Mr. Tilton 1 A. I sent not one line, or one word, that I remember, to Mr. Tilton ; I— if you will allow me to go on Q. That is an answer to my question. A. That is suffi- cient. MR. MOULTON'S SHORT STATEMEN T. Q. Mr. Beeclier, I understand you to say that the fii'st statement of MP. Moulton was read over to you. on the 13th of July, 1873— '741 Mr. Evarts— That is what you call the short statement t Mr. Morris— Yes, the short statement. Q. Am I correct I A. I thought you expressed a judg- ment to me, Sir ; I beg your pardon Q. Well, I, after some delay, put it in the shape of an interrogatory. Am I correct in supposing that you said on yom* direct examination that you read over the first statement of Mr. Moulton 1 A. No, Sir ; I did not read it over. Q. Or that it was read to youl A. It was read in nay- presence. Q. And what did you say when your judgment was asked in regard to it 1 A. I said very little. Sir— very little? my judgment was not asked in detail about it. Q. WeU, you gave it in bulk, did you 1 A. I gave an answer to his inquiry. Q. Well, what was the inquiry ? A. I cannot put it ex- actly, but it was whether I thought that that was an honorable and fair statement to make (that is, if I have my mind upon the same statement that you have) ; and I replied that I— that that was what he could judge of as well as I, or that he must determtae by his own sense of honor and good judgment. Q. Well, didn't you say something besides thatf A. Not that I recall, Sir. Q. Didn't you say something approbatory of it ! A. I do not think chat I did. Sir. Q. Didn't you say so down stairs in the presence of Mrs. MoulHon ? A. I did not, Sir. Q. Well, it was read over to you ? A. It was read to me. Q. You made no objection to iti A. I made no ob- jection to it. Q. I wiU read it, and then ask you some questions in regard to it : [Reading] Gentlemen of the Committee : I appear before you^ at your invitation, to make a statement, which I have read to Mr. Tilton and Mr. Beecher, which both deem honorable, and in the fairness and propriety of which, so far as I am concerned, they both concur. The parties in this case are personal friends of mine, in whose behalf I have endeavored to act as the umpire and peacemaker for the last four years, with a conscientious regard for all the interests involved. I regret, for your sakes, the responsibility imposed on me of appearing here to-night. If I say anything, I must speak the truth. I do not believe that fho simple curiosity of the world at large, or even of this Committee, ought to be gratified through any recitation by me of the facts which are in my possession, necessarily in confi- dence, through my relations to the parties, the personal dilferences of which I am aware, as the chosen arbitra- tor, have once been settled honorably between the par- ties, and would never have been revived except on account of recent attacks, both in and out of Plymouth Church, made upon the character TBSTIMONI OF RKXBY WABD BEECHEB. 6i of Theodore Tilton, to whlcli he thouglit a reply nocemasy. If ttie present issue is to t)e settled, it must be, in my opinion, by the parties themselves, either together or separately, before your Committee, each taking the responsibility of his own utteictnces. As I am full}' conversant with the facts and evidences, I ghall, as between these parties, if necessary, deem it my duty to state the truth, in order to final settlement, and that the world may be well informed before pronouncing its judgment with reference to either. I therefore sug- gest to you that the parties first be heard ; that if then you deem it necessary that I should appear before you, I will do so, to speali the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I hold to-night, as I have held hitherto, the opinion that Mr. Beecher shoiQd frankly state that he had eommirted an ofi"ense against Mr. Tilton for which it was necessary to apologize, and for which he did apologize in the language of the letter, part of which has been quoted; that he should have stated frankly that he deemed it necessary for Mr. Tilton to have made the de- fense against Dr. Leonard Bacon which he did make, and That he (Mr. Beecher) should refuse -feo be a party to the reopening of this painful sub- ject, n he had made this statement, he would have stated no more than the truth, and it would have saved him and you the responsibility of a further inquiry. It is better now that the Committee should not report ; and, in place of a report, Mr. Beecher himself should make the statement which I have suggest- ed ; or that if the Committee does report, the report should be a recommendation to Mr. Beecher to make such a statement. Q, This was read to you on the 13th of July, 1874 ; that has already been proved. Now, Mr. Beecher, when that paper was read to you, how long had the Bacon letter been published ? A. T do not loiow that that paper was read to me, Sii-. Q. Well, A\hat is your best judgment upon the subject? A. A paper was read to me Q. I did not ask you that. A. But whether it was that paper, or the whole oi that paper, T cannot state. Q. What is your best judgment upon the subject % A. My best judgment is that that paper was completed probably after the substance of it was read to me, but I— that is only a supposition. Q. Well, I did not ask you to indulge in suppositions— now, pardon nic. A. You asked my best opinion— judg- ment, Q. I ask yvtur best opinion whether that paper was read to you 1 A. Parts of that paper I recollect, but 1 cannot affirm that it was all read to me. Q. Can you atTfiirm that it was not aU ceud t. yon i a . i cannot affirm that it was not all read. Q. What 18 your best judgment whetLer that U the paper that was read to you on the 13th of July, 1874 ? A. I do not recall a good deal of it. Q. What is your best judgment 1 A. My best judgment is thpt a part of that paper was read to me, possibly the wliole, iiut 1 do not recall the wJioJe. W(.1l. v\-heji that paper, or whatever paper it was, WH^ rf>>k i <-o you, how long had the Bacon letter been pub- lished? A. I do not now remember, dii-. Q. Do you recoUect the date of the publication of the Bacon letter ? A. No, Sir ; I don't recall it. Q. Well, it was long prior to this, wasn't it ? A. Well, that I could not say. Q. Well, it was prior to any statements before the Com- mittee, wasn't it? A. Yes, Sir; of course it was prior to that, but I cannot give dates without refreshing nay memory. Mr. Sheai-man- It was June 21. Q. You read the Bacon letter, didn't you? A. I did not. Q. Anybody read it to you? A. I heard a statement of its contents. Q. You knew that it quoted a part of this letter of Jan- uary 1, did you not ? A. I was told that it did. Q. Were you told the form in which it was copied? A. I was told that there was an extract from that memoran- dum of Mr. Moulton's in it. Q. Who told you of it? A. I have forgotten whether it was Mr. Cleveland or Mr. Shearman, or who it was; I was in conference with several gentlemen, and I don't recall which one informed me. Q. Did you have a statement of the contents of the Ba- con letter in writing ? A. The drift or substance of it. Q. Who made out that statement ? Mr. Evarts — In writing ? The Witness— I didn't have it in writing. :Mi'. Fullerton— Oh, I thought you did. Well, did you leam in what form this letter of January 1 was quoted in the Bacon letter ? A. Only that there .was a portion of it. Q. Y'es ; did yon learn the form of the portion ? A. Not by reading it. Sir. Q. Did you leam the form of the portion of it ! A. I did not. Sir. Q. Very weU ; you knew what reference was made, did you not, in this fii'st statement of Mr. Moulton in this ex- pression : I hold to-night, as I have held hitherto, the opinion that Mr. Beecher should fi-ankly state that he had com- mitted an offense against Mr. Tilton for which it was necessary to apologize, for which he did apologize in the lanaiiage of the letter, part of which has been quoted. A. I don't recollect to have heard that sentence. Sir. Q. Don't recollect whether it was read to you or not ♦ A. I don't recollect it, Sir-. Q. Now, Mr. Beecher, when did you first hear of tills letter of January 1, 1871 ? A. This memorandum 1 Q. Yes 1 A. I first— you mean after it left Q. Your hands ? A. It never left my hands. Q. Never left ? Oh ! WeU, it is not worth while to play upon words. A. I know, but you cornered me so many times that I was afraid of you. [Laughter.] Q. No, you ain't afraid— when it left your hotise t A. After that time I do not recall seeing it until 1874 ; I never saw the original document again until I saw it In thi^ room. 63 THE TILTON-B: Q. Well, upon this subject of its liavmg left your liands. Did you never have it in your hands ? A. I don't think that I did, Sir. I had my hands on it, if you will not think I am trilling. Q. Well, you A. I signed it, of oovu-se, and had to toooh it, hut other than that I don't think that Q, What did you do with it when you signed it % A. Let it alone. Q. Did not hand it to Mr. Moulton I A. No. Q. Well, then, your hands left Ut A. My hands left it ; yes, Sir. Q. When did you next see it after your hands left it? A. In the court-room, when it was presented in evidence. Q. When did you next hear of it ? A. I think it was in December of 1872. Q. And from whom did you hear of it 9 A. From Mr. Tracy. Q. Mr. B. F. Tracy? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Had he then seen it, as you understood? A. I can- not say. Q. Did he give you what purported to be its contents ? A. No ; he did not recite its contents. Q. And no part of its contents? A. No ; he did not re- cite any part of it. Q. Did he recite the substance of it ? A. He did not. Q. Very weU ; pass from that then to the next occasion you heard of it from any other person. A. Well, then, T —I am confused about that ; I don't know that I could tell you accuiately after that when I next heard of it. Q. Well, as near as you can tell. A. I heard it rumored that there was a paper in existence that was very damag- ing to me. Q. But you did not learn its contents? A. No. Q. Nor its form? A. No. MR. BEECHER'S LATER KNOWLEDGE OF THE APOLOGY. Q. Well, pass from that, then, now to any oilier person or occasion when you heard of it ; please state A.. The only time that I ever heard of it with any distinctness that. T recoEoct was from Mr. Moulton him- self. Q. When was that ? A. Immediately after Mr. Tracy's visit of which I have spoken. Q. Did he show it to you ? A. No, Sir ; he said it was burned up. Q. That is the next that you heard of it 1 A. That is the next I heard of it. Q. When was that ? A. It was a day or two after I had Been Mr. Tracy. Q. In the Fall of 1873— December, 1872 1 A. It was in the Winter of 1872, maybe early in 1873—1 cannot say. Q. Now, of whom else did you hear anything of it? A. I don't recollect. Sir, anytMng of it again unMl I heard that there was to be an extract from it in a cferd proposed to be printed by Mr. TUton about June of 1373. EGHEB IBIAL, Q. Did you see that extract? A. I did not, Sir. Q. Did you know in what form it was, or shape t A. No, I did not. Sir ; I only Q. That is an answer; pass then to the next ocoaslon when you heard of it? ]VIr. Evarts— He wishes to qualify it. Mr. Fullerton— Oh, I don't object to his qualifying it I The Witness— I heard it stated, what the substance of it was. From whom ? A. From Mr. Kinsella. Q. When? A. When he came to see me on Monday morning, the 2d of June. Q. 2d of June? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Did he state the substance of it to you? A. He stated— I don't know that he stated the substance, but he stated the drift of it. Q. The drift of it ? A. Yes, Sii'. Q. Didn't he give you a copy of it ? A. No, Sir. Q. Did he have a copy of it ? A. Not that I know of. Q. Did he state to you in what form it was written? A. In what form originally ? Q. The memorandum was— in what form it existed ? A. Oh, no ; it did not enter into the conversation in that form. Q. Well, that is the 2d of June, 1873 ? A. 1873. Q. Now, have you narrated to me all that you ever leai-nedin regard to that paper up to that time? A. I don't know that I have. Q. Didn't Mr. Claflin teU you something about iti A. He inquired about it of me. Q. But gave you no information in regard to it? A. He asked information of me rather than gave me any. Q. Now, Mr. Beecher, tax your recollection, because it is important. If you have omitted to state any informa- tion that you derived in regard to this letter or memoran- dum, whatever it may be called, at any time within the limits inquired of, I want you now to state it. A. I don't recall it, Sir, except the statement made to me by MT' Tracy. Q. That you had given us? A. Yes, Sir; that is the most distinct that I recollect ; and then I should say the next was, perhaps, Mr. Claflin Q. WeU, he inquired? A. He inquired; the next was my brother, Dr. Edward Beecher ; he inquired. Q. WeU, you have omitted that ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. He only inquired ? A. I saw him, and I remembered it ; he inquired. Q. He gave you no Information, though? A. No; same as Mr. caaflin. Q. Yes. A. Then, that which I have mentioned to you of 1873 ; these inquiries of Mr. Claflin, I think, came after '70— but , I won't be certain about that ; I think tbe next, after the pubUcation of the Bacon letter, I learned from Mr. John Russell Young of T?ie New York Jlerald. Q. When was thotl A. That was some time in the TJSSTIMONY OF BEN BY WABD BEECHBB. Sttmmer of 1874 ; probably July, but I won't be pos- itive. Q. Did you learn then its contents? A. I did not . Q. Didn't yon see a copy of it then? A. I did not. Q. Well, bad you never, up to that time, learned its contents I A. I bad learned from Mr. Tracy wbat was tbe drift of it. Q. Tbe diift of it, but not its contents? A. Not its Q. Only tbe substance % A. Not iu detaiL Q. Not in detain A. No. Q. Wbat did Mr. Tracy say to you in regard to it! A. He spoiie to me of that letter, and I told bim tbat Mr. Beacb— No, not wbat you told bim. Mr. FuUerton— What did Mr. Tracy say to you ? A. I cannot recall tbe language. Q. Did he profess to repeat it in tbe language in which it was written ? A. I do not know tbat he did repeat it in so many words ; I know tbat be made such a state- ment of it tbat I got quite an idea of wbat it was. A LIVELY ENCOUNTER BETWEEN COUNSEL AND WITNESS. Q. Did lie teU you it purported to be a letter or a memorandum? A. I don't recall tbat, Sir. Q. Now, Mr. Beecber, if up to that time, June 1, 1873, you bad no information in regard to tbat letter other than wbat you have told us, then will you please to ac- count for the lang-uage of the letter you wrote on that day to Mr. Moulton, which was as follows : ^ Sunday Morning, June 1, 1873. My Dear Frank : The whole earth is tranquil and the heaven is serene, as befits one who has about finished bis world-life. I could do nothing on Saturday— my head was confused; but a good sleep has made it like crystal. I have determined to make no more resistance. Theo- dore's temperament is such that the future, even if tem- porarily earned, would be absolutely worthless, filled with abrupt charges, and rendering me liable at any hour or day to b& obliged to stultify all the devices by which we have saved ourselves. It is only fair that be should know that the publication of the card which he proposes would leave him far worse off tl^an before. Tbe agree- ment was made after my letter through you was written. Then, did you know at tbat time that it was in the form of a letter, and written through Moulton 1 A. Why, it was very simple, Sir. The thing was called a letter. It might have been called paper— anything; but I bad already bad my interview with Mr. Tracy in the Decem- ber of 1872, and that letter was written on Sunday, June 1, 1873. Q. But you have told us tbat Mr. Tracy did not give you a copy of it, or state its form ? A. He did not state its form, but he stated its substance and intent. Q. Did be state to you tbat it was in the form of a let- ter, written through Mr. Moulton? A. I do not recall tbe designation which b© gave to tbe paper, but the drift and contents of the paper be spoke of and somewhat aaalyzed. Q. I am not talking about the drift or contents; I am asking you this question: In the light of tbe information which you say you bad got of tbat letter up to June 1, 1873, how did you oome to write as follows : " Tbe agree- ment was made after my letter througt you was written t** A. Very obviously I gave the first— I did not sit down and make an accurate title to it; I took tbe title tbat happened to come to my mind. Q. You say to-day tbat it was not your letter. How did you come to think on tbe 1st of June, 1873, that it was your letter ? A. It was spoken of to me as sncb by Mr. Tracy. Q. I asked you but a moment ago whether Mr. Tracy informed you that it was in the form of a letter, and yon told me he did not. A. I said Mr. Tracy informed me of it as a communication from me through Mr. Moulton to Mr. Tilton. Q. When did you say tbat, pray ? A. I say it now, if I didn't say it before. Q. Didn't you say a moment ago that Mr. Tracy gave you such information ? A. I said to you that Mr. Tracy spoke of tbe document, without quoting it, and that be gave me quite an analysis of it, and I added that he stated it as a document which did come from me to Mr Tilton. Q. Didn't I put tbe direct question to you, in so many words, " Did Mr. Tracy teU you tbat it was in the form of a let . er written through Mr. Moulton?" and did you not teU me, " No, he did not?" A. I stUl say Mr. FuUerton— No, no, not what you still say; it Is what you did say. A. I don't know. Sir ; I cannot t«ll about tbat. Q. Well, do you now say tbat you remember tbat Mr. Tracy told you it was in the form of a letter written through Mr. Moulton? A. I cannot say that be used those m>rds. Q. Did be say anything that conveyed to you tbe idea tbat it was a letter written by you through Mr. Moulton t A. He conveyed to me Mr. FuUerton— Answer my question. Did be convey that to you? The Witness — ^Excuse me. Mr. Fullerton— I have. The Witness— WiU you repeat the question, or bave tt read? Mr. Fullerton— I will have it read. [To tbe Tribune stenograper.] Please read the question. The Tribune stenographer read the question as follows: Did be say anything tbat conveyed to you tbe idea that it was a letter written by you through Mr. Moulton t Tbe Witness— You wish me to answer that 1 Mr. Fullerton— You asked that to be read with a vienr of answering it? The Witness— Yes, Mr. Tracy spoke of tbe document Mr. P\illerton [to tbe Tribune stenographer] — IBmA tbe question again, please. 64 TEE TILIOI^-B. The Tribuno atenograplier read the question as follows: Did lie say anytMng that conveyed to you the idea that it was a letter written hy you through Mr. Moulton 1 The Witness— He said to me Mr. Fullerton— No. Mr. Evarts— You asked for what he said. Mr. Beach— We don't ask for what he said ; we ask if he said that. Mr. Fullerton— If he conveyed that idea to him. Mr. Evarts (to Judge Neilsonl- They ask him not what he said, but ask him if he conveyed an idea to him : and when he undertakes to say what he said, they object to it as an answer. Mr. Beach— Yes, exactly we do. Mr. Fullerton— Is that a proper answer 1 Mr. Evarts — They are not to judge if it didn't convey an idea. Mr. Fullerton— I don't ask any one to judge but the witness ; I ask for bis judgment as to what it conveyed at the time of the communication, and no one else's. Mr. Evarts— You asked whether Mr. Tracy conveyed to him an idea. Mr. Fullerton— Yes. Mr. Evarts — Not whether there was an idea conveyed. Mr. Fullerton— I aslii^d whether Mr. Tracy conyoycd the idea that it was a letter written by him through Mr. Moiilton. Mr. Evarts— After you get through with what Mr. Tracy conveyed to him, then, you cdu ask him that ques- tion. Mr. Fullerton— I thank you for the privilege,, but I don't enjoy it until I get through with tlie question I have already put. Mr. Evarts— I am talking of the question you asked liim— that he has a right to answer— what Mr. Tracy told him. Mr. Fullei-ton- He has no right to answer that. I don't want to know what Mr. Tracy told him, but I want to kQow the fruit of what Mr. Tracy told him. Mr. Evarts— The fruit 1 Mr. Fullerton— Yes, the fr>iit ; did he get the idea from from what Mr. Tracy told him, whether it is in that form? Judge Neilson— It is a very simple question. Mr. Fullerton— It is. Judge Neilson— I don't think it calls for a conversation. Mr. Fullerton— No, Sir. Judge Neilson— Although, after he answers your ques- tton, perhaps he may state in regard to that. [To The Tribune stenographer.] Read the question. Mr. Beach— Wait. Mr. Fullerton— Did you get the idea, from what Mr. Tracy told you, that this paper was in the form of a let- ter wiitten by you through Mr. Moulton 1 A. I got the Q. Did you get that idea? A. No, Sir EGHJBJB TEIAL. Mr. Fullerton— Very well ; that Is an answer to ray question, Q. Then, Mr. Beecher, where did you get the informa- tion from that enabled you to say, as you did in the letter of June 1, 1873 : " The agreement was made after my letter through you was written t» A. I don't hold that that was the accurate language. Mr. Fullerton— One moment. I ask you a question. Mr. Beach [to the witness"!- You mean to disclaim that language ? A. No, I don't mean to disclaim the language ; I mean to disclaim an idea that I have not been allowed to teU. Mr. Fullerton— I ask you where you got the information which enabled you to say that ? A. I cannot say, Q. I ask you this question, whether it was not from a recollection of the fact that j<)u did write that letter through Mr. Moultoa ? A. No, Sir, it was not. Q. Then, tell me where you got the information that enabled you to say that. A. I cannot tell you. Mr. Fullerton — Vf^ry well. Mr. Beach— Leave it there. Mr. Fullerton— We have got that. Q. Now, when was it you saw Mr. John RusseU Young in regard to that paper t A. In the Summer of 1874. Q. Do you recoUect the month ? A. I do not, positively, but I think it was in July. Q. And Where lid you see himi A. At my house. Q. In Brooklyn 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. Did he offer you a copy of the paper? A. He did not. Q. Did he offer to read the paper to you 1 A. He did not. Q. Did he offer in any way to make known the contents of that paper to you ? A. He did not. Q. Did he offer in any way whatever, through his ovm agency or through the agency of any other person or per- sons, to put you in the way of getting at the exact con- tents of that paper? A. He did not. Q. Did you not tell Mr. John Russell Young, in sub- stance, that you ditln't wish a copy of that paper, or that you didn't wish to see it, or that you didn't wish to learn its contents— you wanted to have it said upon the trial of the case that you had never seen it until it was produced in court? A. I don't recollect saying any such words to him. , Q. Did you say that to him In substance t A. I do not think I did. Will you say you did not say it? A. I say, according to the best of my recollection, I did not. Q. Did he not profess to have with him what purported to be a copy of that letter ? A. He did not. Q. DM he tell you that he had seen a copy of it, or the letter itself? A. He told me that he had seen an original document. Q. Of yours ? A. Of mine ; that is, signed as an original document, represented to be mine. TESTlMOyi OF HE} Q. Did rell 7011 tliat tie had examined yoiir signature to that document to see whether it was genuine. A. He did. Q. And did you imderstand him as referring to the let- ter of Jan. 1, 1871 1 A. I did. Q. Did he tell you where he had seen it. A. He did. Q. Did you then deny its authenticity 1 A. I did not. Mr, Beach [to Mr. Fullerton]— Or disclaim it in any form, Jlr. Fullerton— In any of the conversations you had Mr. Beach -With Mr. Young ? Mr. Fullerton— Either with Mr. Young, or with your brother, or with Mr. Claflin Mr. Beach With Mr. Yoimg, Mr. Fullerton— Did you disclaim the authenticity of that letter? A. I don't remember; I did not to Mr. Toung, Q. You are sure of that! A. Yes, Sir. Q. Did you say that in siibstanee to Mr. Young without reference to the trial! A. I had no conversation with Mm ah out the trial. Q. Did you say that you didn't want to know the con- tents of the paper at all — wanted to be in a position to say you didn't see it 1 A. I dont think I did. Q. Nothing of that kind! A. Nothing of that kind that I can recall. Mr. Fullerton— Now, Mr. Beecher, I call your attention to this first statement of yours, dated July 15, 1874. [To Judge Neilson.] If your Honor please, that is a long document, and it will occupy more time than we have left. Judge NetLaon [to the jury]— Get ready to retire, gen- tlemen. Please be here to-morrow morning at 11 o'clock. Mr. Mallison [the Clerk]— The court stands adjourned mitil to-morrow morning at 11 o'clock. The court thereupon adjourned imtil 11 o'clock on Thursday. SIXTY-SIXTH DAY'S PROCEEDIXGS. ADJOUENilEXT UNTIL APEIL 19. MB. FULLKRTON ILL— A^T ATTACK OF VERTIGO "WITH FEVER. Thuesday, April 15, 1875. The great crowd assembled to-day to hear the further cross-exammation of ilr. Beecher was disap- pointed at an adjournment in consequence of the ill- ness of Mr. Fullerton. He was attacked on the night of the 14th with vertigo, to which he is subject ; and yesterday when a Tribu^te reporter saw hira was suf- fering from fever. In view of his condition it was sug- gCv^ted tijat the court should adjourn until April 19, •nd to this Judge Xeilson consented. :by ward beecher. m THE PEOCEEDiNas— ^t:rbatim. THE COURT ADJOUENED TO MONDAY. The Court met at 11 a. m., pursuant to ad- journment. Mr. Beach— If your Honor please, I am very much pained to say that Mr, FiiLLerron does not feel well enough to proceed with the further examination of Mr. Beecher to-day. He is, as your Honor knows, subject to attacks of rertigo, and has suffered from one of them dui-ing the pendency of this trial. He ha> striven very hard to force himself to a continuation of his duty, and is now iu the ante-room, hut feels himself in such a condi- tion that he would expose himself to a serious catastro- phe if he shoidd endeavor further to labor in the case during the day. I have consulted with our learned friends upon the other side and they are very cordial and emphatic iu the expression of their wish that Mr. Fuller- ton should consult his own physical condition, and it ha« been suggested between ils whether it would be proper to adjourn simply for the day, until to-morrow morning, or, as we are near the close of the week, to take a recess until Monday-next. My own opinion is, that the condition of Mr, Fnllerton is such that it wotild be very doubtful whether he would be fit to proceed with the trial t-o-morrow. I, how- ever, submit that entirely to the wishes of my learned ad- versaries and to the discretion of yoiu' Honor, expressing, however, my strong conviction that it would be desirable on his account to take a recess until Monday next. I would very gladly, Sir, undertake the discharge of his duty, and to pursue myself the further examination and endeavor to close it without his presence, but there are j two reasons which dissuade me from that course. Thd first is, that I have not prepare-d myself by examining the minutes of Mr. Fullerton's preparation for cros&- examination, nor do I myself feel as if it would be safe for me to undertake that duty. Mr, Evarts — If your Honor please, it is well understood in our profession and by the bench that a lawyer is imder every motive to carry his exertions to the extreme of endurance and exposure, and I have no doubt that Mr. Fullertoji has had that disposition. But we cannot on our side be at all insensible to the utter impropriety of a lav^-ye^ who finds himself, in the progress of a case, ex- posed to be reduced in strength and health, going on under any extraneous considerations. It does not ad- vance the cause ; it does not improve the prospects of getting through to go on when the result may be a serious impairment of health. And tmder those cir- cumstances we think on our side that Mr. Ftillerton and his associat'CS should regard really, entirely, the coudi- tion of his health, and in respect to the length of adjourn ment should consult that consideration also. Judge Xeilson— Then we will adjourn imtil Monday morniug at 11 o'clock, gentlemen. The Court then ad,1oumed to Monday. THE TILlON-BKblOHER TBI AC. S6 SIXTY-SEVENTH DAY'S PROCEEDIMS. ME. BEECHER AND EX-JUDGE FULLER- TON AGAIN FACE TO FACE. BESUMFnON OF THE CROSS-EXAMINATION— EXPLA- NATIONS OF THE ALLEGED CLANDESTINE COR- RESPONDENCE. Monday, April 19, 1875. The knowledge that the crisis of the great trial had been reached, brought together a crowd that packed the Brooklyn City court-room. The corri- dors leading to it were thronged with a noisy crowd that fought for admission almost desperately when- ever the door was opened for those who were entitled to enter. During the recess, a dozen men taking ad- vantage of a temporary opening of the outer door, rushed in, and attempted to push their way into the court-room. The doorkeeper rallied his assistants, and a lively scuffle ensued before the intruders could be expelled. On the bench, with Judge Neilson, sat an unusual number of spectators, among whom were the Hon. Thomas H. Nelson, of Indiana, formerly United States Minister to Mex- ico ; the Hon. William C. Williams of Syracuse, N. Y.; the Hon. E. A. Farrington of New-York, Judge John L. Thompson of Chicago, Judge David A. De- pue of Newark, N. J.; Judge D. S. Wilson of Iowa, the Hon. Hendrick B. Wright of Pennsylvania, the Hon. R. S. Armstrong of Cuba, N. Y.; J. W. Griffith of Newark, N. J.; A. C. Davis of New- York, and Jushie Yoshida Kiyonari of Washington, D. C, En- voy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Japan to the United States. In the audience-room sat the Rev. Edward Eggleston, the Rev. Thomas Armitage, D. D.; the Rev. Henry M. Storrs, D. D.; Col. Henry Beecher and Mrs. Henry Beecher, and many others. Mrs. Tilton was not present. Mr. Beecher, before the court opened, stood for several minutes in earnest consultation with some of his counsel, while Mr. Tilton sat near ex-Judge Morris, busily making notes. Upon taking the stand Mr. Beecher bowed low to the Judge. He held in his hand a small bouquet of delicate flowers. In resuming the cross-examination Mr. Fullerton who exhibited at first his wonted courtesy of mau- ler and softness of voice, but perceiving what he considered to be evasion in the witness's replies, he assumed a sterner demeanor, and put his questions rapidly and in a harsh tone. These tactics were not without their effect on the witness, who stumbled and hesitated in his speech more than he is accustomed to do. Wlienever the witness appeared to hesitate in answering, Mr. lllton, who sat facing him, would look sternly into his face. There were several passages at arms between the witness and Mr. Fullerton, the former desiiing to extend his an- swers beyond the simple words "Yes," or "No,'* while the skillful cross-examiner insisted on having short replies. Once Mr. Beecher, who seemed to feel hampered by this mode of answering, said half -re- proachfully, " Mr. Fullerton, I want to get at just what you want, and if I seem sometimes to evade you it is because I am either dull or am anxious to tell the truth." The cross-examination was intended in the first place to draw from the witness what he considered the charges against him to have been at the time of the interview between himself, Mr. Tilton, and Mr. Moulton at the latter's residence in January, 1871, and at what time he became aware that adul- tery was charged. The details of that interview, of the statement prepared soon after for Mr. Tilton at Mr. Moulton's suggestion, of the circumstances under which the letters of Feb. 7, 1871, were writ- ten, and of the interviews between himself and Mr. and Mrs. Tilton in 1871, were exhaustively gone over ; but the witness, without re- peating the same words, gave substantially the same account of these circumstances that he had on the direct examination. He under- stood that he was charged with improper or wicked proposals to Mrs. Tilton, not by Mr. Tilton person- ally, but by Mrs. Tilton in a letter which her hus- band showed him. Personally he had never denied the charge to Mr. Tilton. Jusfc before the close of the afternoon session Mr. Fullerton read from the direct examination of Mr. Beecher the passage de- scribing the interview with Mr. Tilton in January, 1871, in which after stating the substance of Mr. Tilton's charges against him, he used these words: "Then he went on to say that I had not only done all this but that I had made overtures to his wife of an improper character." A similar passage from Mr. Beecher's statement before the Examining Committee last Fall was also read. Mr. Beecher ad- mitted the inconsistency of these statements with the declaration he had just made that Mr. Tilton had not charged him with wicked proposals to his wife except through her confession, and said that if his testimony on the direct examination contravened what he now said, it was not what he intended to say, and needed correction. Several of the alleged clandestine letters of Mr. Beecher and Mrs. Tilton were agam considered. Mr. Fullerton in reading lESlUWXY OF REX RI WAED BEECBEB. 57 these letters exerted his elocutionary po^vers, and I the auditors listened Tvith undiminished attention. Mr. Beecher in explaining the eide from the •ervant ? A. Mr. Moult-on. Q. In his room 1 A In his room. Q. What conversation occurred between you and Mr. Moulton before Mr. Tilton came in ? A. It was a general conversation, and one in which he spoke— but I cannot recall the particulars of what he said— in resi>ect to Mr. Tilton and his state of feeling: and I spoke to him also in confirmation of what Q. Please tell us what you said, as well as you can, Mr. Beecher ? A. Well, I expressed my great sympathy for Mr. Tilton and my great resets for the circumstances which had been developed, in which I had been an actor, and for the injury that I had done to him, and for, espe- cially, the distress and ti^ouble that he had In his ovm. house and family, and expressed myself very -strongly as being an unwilling injurer of Mr. Tilton. Q. Did you express in substance the apologies whidl you had made on the 1st of January in Mr. Moulton's presence ? A. "Well, I went over the same topics— some of them, Sir— but I did not formulate them. Q. In substance were your apologies or explanatlCHM the same as on the Istl A. They were substantially tha expression of the feelings that I had, only modified by the reflection of a dav or two. Q. Did you regard tne apology which you made on tJie 1st of January, and those which you made afterward on the 3d of January, as meeting the charge which had been preferred against you by :Mr. Tilton on the night of the 30th uf December previous ? A. As meeting the charge of the alienation of his wife's affections, of bringing dis- cord and distress into his house. Q. You did not regard the apology then as meeting the other charge of undue solicitations? A. The other charge of undue solicitations Q. Did you regard the apology as meeting that! A, My apology that I sent to him, having denied the other, was for that which I believed to be true. Q. Your apology, then, was not designed to meet the charge of undue solicitations, was it? A. My apology had no concern— it neither was nor was not designed to meet that ; that was not in our conversation. Q. Was anything said about that on the 3d. A. I dont recall that there was a word said specifically about that on the 3d. Q. You had not denied it then to Theodore Tilton? A. Personally I never denied it to Theodore Tilton, except on the 1st. Q. You had never sent any denial by any third person to him as I understand you to say ? A. I had Q. Had you? A. I had explicitly Q. Had you sent any dbiaial by any third person to Mr. Tilton ? A. I had sent by Mr. Moulton an explicit denial of that charge on the 1st of January. Q. Tell me when you sent it ? A. On the 1st of January. Q. In what words did you frame it t A I cannot tell you. Q. Did you not teU me the other day that yon did not send any such explicit denial at all t A. I told you Q. Did you not teU me that I A. T did not, in tluit sense. 58 THE TILTON-B Q. Very well. Now, was tlie subject referred to on the 3d when Mr. TUton appeared at Mr. Moulton's house 1 A. It was not according to my memory, Sir. Q. When Mr. Tilton appeared in the room, please state what occurred I A. I only have a recollection that the eonversation was interrupted ; that he turned as if he would leave. My impression is that he hesitated as if lie would not come in— that Mr. Moiilton called him in ; that he stated to him that I had heen making some very —that I had heen making remarks about him that he oujBrht to hear, that he wished he might hear ; and Mr. Tilton came to Mr. Moulton's side of the bed, I was sit- ting on the other, and I repeated to Mr. Tilton in sub- stance this, that I had never supposed that I was doing any injury to his household, nor to him in his business relations ; that it was the furthest from my thought of anything in the world ; that in so far as I had uncon- sciously and unintentionally done injury to his wife, and through her to him, I very heartily was sorry for it, and I asked his forgiveness for it. That was the substance of it. Q. Which of the two charges did you regard as the more serious, the undue solicitations or winning of his wife's affections 1 A. It depends upon what " serious" refers to. Q. Well, refe* it to whatever you please, and give me an answer. A. In so far as my own private feelings were concerned, the charge of alienation of a man's wife's affections from him would be about as poignant a suffer- ing as I could have in one direction; but the charge of making improper advances, in so far as it affected my relation to the church and to the community, would be about as bad as it could be. Q. How did it happen, then, that that subject was not mentioned in terms on the 3d of January 1 A. That is for them to answer. Q. Well, it is for you to answer now, inasmuch as I put ■the question to you. A. I can not say. Q. Why didn't you say something in regard to that charge, which affected your moral character and your standing in the community? A. I spoke of that of which I felt consciously at fault. Q. Why didn't you vindicate yourself against the eharge if you knew yourself to be innocent 1 A. The charge was not urged again. Q. It had been urged, had it noti A. And it had been explained and denied. Q. Had it been explained and denied at the time 1 A. Yes, Sir ; if Mr. Moulton did what he promised. Q. If Mr. Moulton did what he promised! A. On Jan. 1. Q. What did he promise to do with refor' uoe— one ujo- ment. Sir— what did he promise to lo on Jan. 1 with ref- erence to the charge of improper solicitu ion i A_. Spocifl- eally iu regard to no one topic of conversation did he un- dertake—but he did undertake to represent to Mr. Tilton WECHBR TEIAL. the whole state of my mind in regard to all that which had taken place on the evening of the 30th at his house. Q. Well, you had made apologies on the 1st of January, had you not, as to the winning of his wife's affection t A. I had made Q. You had, had you not I A. Not in the strict sense, apologies. Q. Well, whatever they were, whatever you have de- tailed here as the conversation on that day took place, did it not, with reference to the supposed charges 1 A. All the conversation had reference to the supposed state of affairs in his family. Q. WeU, why did you renew your apologies so far as tho winning of his wife's affections was concerned on the 3d, without renewing your denial of the charge of improper solicitations 1 A. One was a charge that was false, and the other a charge that I supposed true. Q. And the false charge you paid little attention to f A. As it was not urged again, I paid no attention to it. Q. You waited for it to be urged again 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. Before you denied it? A. No, Sir; I do not deny things that are not urged, nor always those that are. Q. Why didn't you say to Mr. Tilton on that day, when you met him face to face, " Sir, as to the improper ad- vances, this charge is entirely untrue?" Whv did you wait to have him repeat the charge before you said any- thing ? A. I had come to that interview Q. Why did you? A. You are asking me and I am an- swering. Q. I ask you why you didn't do that, in the light that you had then and there 1 A. In the light that I had then and there, I followed the circumstances of the interview ; I took that just as I found it, as it was broken off with Mr. Moulton ; we were talking together in respect to his business relations, and in respect to the difficulty between him and his wife, and the family, and my agency in it, and not about the charge of improper advances; and when Mr Tilton came in I said to him just what I had been saying to Mr, Moulton in substance. Q. Did not Mr. Tilton say to you on the 3d, in sub- stance, when Mr. Moulton asked him to accost you : "How can T speak to a man who lias thus conducted himself?*. In substance didn't he say that t A. He may have said something like that ; I cannot give his words. Q. Don't you remember that he did 9 A. No. Q. Did you not state upon yourdirect examination t» at Mr. Tilton on that occasion said, " How can T speah to this man?" A. Well, I say now something of that kind. Q. Yes, Sir. WeU, didn't j'ou suppose that this language of Mr. Tilton was ba«i«d upon the Idea that you had been guilty of improper advauees, as well as winning his wife's affections? A. It did not cover impropet a.lvancep ml It did cover Q. Did you not supiKXie, at tLat time* A [ did lot Ti:ST12WyT OF s^x tMak anytMnsr about it ; 1 was tliiuking of tliat wMcli iest<3d mo^t on my miii(L Q. Not tlie defense of your moral cliaracterl A. Yes. Sir; I considerfd my moral character involved in vrinning Ms wife's affection. Q. All, but you did it unconsciouslv, didn't youl A. I did it unconsciously wlien I should have been conscious. ME. BEECHER DEXIES WIXNIXG MRS. TIL- TOX'S AEFECTIOXS. Q. Had you ever seen anytMng or heard of anything from Mrs. Tilton, either in word or gesture, that intimated to you that she was placing her affections upon you ? A. Not diu'ing the time of our acquaintance. Q. How did you think then that you then discovered •what was not visible i A. I ought to have been more sensitive to things that I did not see, which very likely existed. Q. Can you now in looking back upon your life with Mrs. Tilton for some years prior to the 30th of December, 1870, see an\~thing which should have put you upon your guard i A. I can now recollect many conversations that I should not have had if I had supposed that they would have wrought as they have worked— as I suppose they have worked. Q. Now can you tell us what they were ? A. I cannot xeil you what tiii\v were. Q. Canyon give us the substance of them? A. I can tell you of the expressions which I made of great pleasure in the way of her household, and what a place of peace it was, and how I was glad to resort to it, and that it was where people could not find me ; I was not run down by people that were at my door aU the time ; I spoke to her also in regard to many of my books and my works ; I spoke to her in great admiration of some of her letters which she showed me, of her own, which she' had writ- ten, one in particular; and a variety of such things; it was entering into her life, and in some sense giving her an insight into mine, Q. How long did that interview last on the 3d ? A Well, I cannot say ; I should say half an hour— half or three-quarters ; might have been a little more or a little less. Q. Well, in looking back, now, upon those interviews with Mrs. Tiltun, ore you enabled now to discover any- thing in her conduct that communicated to you that she was transferring her affections — you have told us what you said and what you did I A. Well, I do not under- stand now the question. Q. In looking back to those various interviews— of which you have given us a summary— with Mrs. Tilton, what are you enabled now to see in her conduct that in- dicates to you that you ought to have been more circum- sprct I A. I do not recall anything in Mrs. Tilton's con- duct prior to— anything— I discover now no act, and I 1 T WARD BEECREB, 69 recollect no ^ord, of Mrs. Tilton's that would indicate an overweening affection. MR. BEECHER'S LETTER TO MR. BO^N'EN. Q. At wliose suggestion did you vsrite the let- ter to Henry C. Bowen on ttie 2d of January, 1871 1 A. Well, it was, I suppose, both mine and Mr. Moulton's suggestion ; it grew out of the conversation. Q. Did it grow out of the conversation on the Istf A. Yes— No, Sir— yes; the conversation on the 1st. Q. And what did you say to Mr. Moulton with refer- ence to a contemplated letter t-o Mr. Bowen 1 A. I do not; recall it; all my recollection is that in discussing these stories, that he pronounced utterly false, that Mr. Bowen had told, and in commenting upon the addition to them that I had made, when he had: stated his word of honor that they were false, and in regard to some that he knew, personally, that they were false. Q. Now, win yon state if you please what was yonr object in writing Mr. Bowen on the 2d of January! A. My object was to disabuse his mind of the impressions that I had left upon it, I supposed, by my statements. Q. Was that alll A. That was all that I recollect now. Q. You did not expect to effect any other object ? A. I do not recollect ; I do not now recall any other motive that I had than that, to right a wrong. Q. You did not expect to do anything else than to remove any impression that you had made upon the mind of Mr. Bowen? A. So far as I recollect now that was my only idea. Q. Was it not for the purpose of reinstating htm m hia lost position 1 A. I do not recall any such motive on my part. Q. Well, how did it happen, if you were so overwhelmed with grief on the 1st, when you dictated or made sugges- tions to Mr. 3Ioulton which caused him to write the letter called " The Letter of Apology," or " Contrition," when you were walking up and down the room in such mental agony and distress, weeping profusely, thinking that you were about to lose yotu' intellect because of what you had done toward Mr. Tilton— how did it happen thai on the next day when you wrote the letter to Mr. Bowen, you did not manifest some of that feeling; can you ex- plain that? A. I was writiag to Henry C. Bowen in one case, and I was talking to Mr. Tilton's representative In the other. Q. Yes; let me read this letter : Brooklyn, Jan. 2, 1871. My Dear Mr. Bowen : Since I saw you last Tuesday I have reason to think that the only cases of which T spoke to you in regard to Mr. Tilton were exaggerated in being reported to me ; and I should be unwilling to have anything I said, though it was but little, weigh on your mind in a matter so important to his welfare. I am in- formed by one on whose judgment and integrity I greatly rely, and who has the means of forming an opinion l>et- ter than any of us, that he knows of the whole matter about Mrs. B., and that the stories are not true, and that 60 THE TILTOB-BEBGHEE TRIAL. tlie same is tbe case with other stories. To tliis I do not wish any reply. I thought it only due to justice that I Should say so much. You did not even want a reply from Mr. Bowen, it seems 1 A. I did not, it seems. Q. Well, didn't you want to learn whether you did re- move from his mind any impression that you made by what you said to him ! A. I do iipt recollect that I did. Q. Well, didn't you care ? A. I do not recollect that that came Into my mind at all. Q. Well, didn't you care whether your letter effected the object or not? A. I do not recollect that I had any eonsideration of that kind. Q. What good did you expect that letter would do to Mr. Tilton? A. It would take away the strength— what- ever force there was in my statements to Mr. Bo wen. Q, Which was but very little, you say % A. But little, but whatever there was of them. Q. Did you go to see Mr. Bowen ? A. I did not. Q. Have any interview with him, or correspondence •with him upon the subject? A. None. Q. And that is all that you said, and all that you did, In regard to the injury which you supposed you had in- flicted upon Mr. Tilton through Mr. Bowen? A. I took it all back. Q. Is that all you said or did? A. That is all that I said or did, as far as I recollect now. Q. You sought no interview with Mr. Bowen ? A. None at all. Q. Sent no message ? A. Sent no message. Q. And had no correspondence other than the letter I have read ? A. And had no corresiwndence other than that, so far as my memory now serves me. CONTERSATION WITH FRANCIS D. CAR- PENTER. Q. Do you know a geDtleman by the name of Mr. Carpenter; Frank Carpenter, I think, he is called? A. Yes, Sir; I know a Mr. Frank Carpenter. Q. Did you have any conversation with him, about the 1st of June, 1873, in regard to this difficulty ? A. About the Ist of June Q. I refer to a conversation in Plymouth Church. A. I have but an indistinct recollection that I saw him there. Q. Did you not say to him in Plymouth Church, on or about the Ist of June, 1873, in substance as follows : Have you seen Theodore ? He is going to publish my letter?" A. I do not recall any such expression. Q. Are you enabled to say that you did not make use of that language ? A. I do not recall it at all. Sir ; accord- ing to the best of my recollection I did not. Q. And in reply to that expression of yours do you re- member of Mr. Carpenter's saying : " What of it !" A. Ko, Sir. Q. And of your saying : •* It will ruin me, and him, too ; for he cannot rise upon my mini** A. I do not reooUed any such thing, Sir. Q. Then, I must ask you whether in such a conversa- tion you did not mean by the phrase "my letter," the letter of January 1, 1871 ! A. I do not admit the conver- sation, and I cannot give an explanation to a converse tion I do not admit. Q. I understand you, however, that you do not denj positively that such a conversation was had ? A. Ac- cording to the best of my recollection there was no suoli conversation. Q. Is that all that you will say upon that subject I A. That is all I can say, Sir. Q. Do 3^ou recollect after this conversation, or after a conversation, that Mr. Carpenter walked with you to Ml. Moulton's house 1 A. I remember walking either to Mr. Moulton's, or to my own, one evening with Mr. Carpen- ter. Q. One Sunday evening ? A. I think it was either a Friday night or a Sunday ; it was after some meeting ; my impression is THE PROPOSED STATEMENT FOR MR. TIL- TON. Q. I now caU your attention to Exhibit No. 49, and ask you whether it is in your handwriting! [Showing paper to witness.] A. This is in my hand- writing. Sir. Q. I will read it, because I wish to ask you some ques- tions in regard to it. [Reading.] " The statement of Mr. B. being read, and if striking favorably, then a word sent substantially thus to the Committee." The " Mr. B." re- ferred to there, or mentioned there, is yourself isn't It f A. I presume so, Sir ; I don't know. Q. Had you not therefore prepared a statement to be read before the Committee ? A. I don't know anything —what date this is. Sir ; there is no date given to it. Q. I am not speaking of the date; I am speaking ol the substance of the thing. Don't you remember that» before writing that, you had prepared a statement for the Committee ? A. No, I don't, because I don't kno-w when this was written. Q. Can't you tell by the contents when It was written! A. No; I think very likely it was written after the state- ment was in hand ; it might have been written after the statement was given ; I cannot give the date. Q. Wasn't it written with reference to your statement bearing date July 15, 1874 ? A. I presume it was. Q. Very well ; that is satisfactory. Then the " Mr. B.** mentioned there was yourself, wasn't it? A. I presume it was. Sir. Q. And the statement referred to— wasn't it the state- ment that you had prepared for the Committee, and which has been given in evidence here ! A. That doesn^ follow at all. Q. Well, I ask yon whether It doesn't follow! A. I TESTmo:NY OF rb:s oaimot t-ell, Sir, unless you will T€ll me wliat; ttie date ol | the document is ; I cannot tell wliettier it refers to tke statement tliat I meant to make or to the statement that I did draw up and make. Q. Don't you imow whether that refers to a statement that had already Tieen drawn out— drawn up hy you 1 A. I do not, Sir, nor does the document show it. Well, don't reason it. A. It was only a reason in the way of statem.ent. Q. Well, I don't want a reason la the way of statement, l)ecause there might be two opiaions ar^ to whether the document stated it or not, and I cannot stop to reason with you now. fReading.J " I have been tlMrough years acting imder conviction that I had been wronged, but was under the imputation of being the injurer. I learn from a friend that 3Ir. B."— that is Mr. Beeclier, isn't it ? A. I have already stated. Sir, that Q. There is another Jtlr. B. tliere, if you please ? A. I think it very likely to be. Q. Don't you suppose it was? A. I presume that it ■was, Sir. Q. [Beading.] "I learn from a friend that Mr. B., in Ms statement to you, has reversed this and has done me Justice. I am willing, should he consent, to appear before you with him, and, dropping the further statements which I felt it to be my duty to make for my own clearance, to settle this painful domestic difficulty, wMch never ought to liave been made publicly, tin ally and amicably " Mr. Evarts — That ought to be made public." Mr. Fullerfl&n— Yes — "which never ought to have been made public, finally and amicably "—for whom did you prepare th^t statement! A. I cannot state certainly, Sir. I have only a vague recollection of circumstances which led to some such coimsel as is embodied in this. Q. For whom did you prepare the statement ? A. I do not know. Q. Did you not prepare it for Mr. Tilton to make ? A. I cannot say with certainty, but I presume so. Q. Very well, wasn*t it to be submitted to the CJommit- tee after your statement was sent in ? A. I cannot state that it was, Sir. Q. "The statement of Mr. B. being read, and if striking favorably, then a word sent substantially thus to the Ciommittee "—what Committee did you refer to there 1 A. Well, Sir, I think you are all on ilie wrong track about tliis. Q. WTiat Committee did you refer to ! You shall not get me on any other track for tlie present. A. The In- vestigating Committee. Q. W^hat Committee did you refer to in that statement \ Judge ifeilson— Don't make observations, Mr. Fuller- ton. Mr. Fullerton— I will not if the witness does not. He •will not tell iue that I am on the wrong track unless I pat him on The right one. The Witness— I made it mereiy as a suggestion. Mi*. Ful- lerion. BY WIBB BEEGREB. 61 I Mr. Fulierton— I made the answer merely as a sugges- tion. Can you tell me what Committee you referred to when you penned that document ? A. I presume that the Committee is what is caUed the Investigating Committe© of Plymouth Church. Q. Of Plymouth Church? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Very well [reading]: "The statement of Mr. B. be- ing read, and, if striking favorably, then a word sent substantially thus to the Comsiittee"— you designed, did you not, that your statement should be read to the Com- mittee before the statement referred to liere was made, did you not? A. WILL you be kind enougli to say tliat again, Sir % Q. Let me read it again [reading]: " The statement ol Mr. B. being read, and if striking favorably, then a word sent substantially thus to the Committee"— you designed before the word was sent to the Committee there referred to, that this statement of yours should be read, did yoti not! A. This statement designed it. Q. The statement designed it — very well ; and that waa a statement you designed for Theodore lilton to make f A. I did not. Q. Where were you when you drew that? A. If I recollect aright I was witb. Mr. Moulton. Q. For what purpose did you draw it \ A. Suggested by him— drawn up to see how it would look and how it would act. Q. WeU, have you made up your mind how it looks by this time i A. Well, it looks very suspicious, Sir, as you handle it. [Laugh.ter.1 Q. Yes, I think it does. Was tlie statement sent to the Committee! A. My statement was sent to the Com- mittee. Q. I show you the statement of July 15, 1874, and ask you whether that note was not written prior to the writ- ing of that statement I A. I cannot say, :Mr. Fulierton. Q. Now, on your direct examination, did you not say that you read this statement, '•' Exhibit No. 49," to Mr. Moulton? A. I don't recollect what I said; whether I said I read it to him— I imtiuestionably did read it to him. Q. You did read it to him \ A. Yes, Sir. Q. Where ? A. I cannot recall; I say I unquestionably did. Q. Was it drawn, then, at your suggestion, or at hist A. His. Q. Well, were you willing such a statement should be made by Mi-. Tilton ! A. I was willing to consider it, but I never perfected it. Q. Were you willing that that statement should be made by Mr. Tilton? A. I do not recall whether I was or not. Q. WeU, what earthly object had you in drawing it up I A. To see how it was, as a basis for consideration. Q. Very well ; after you drew it up, and formed a basU for consideration, did you consider it ? A. I considered it, but nothing ever came of it. Q. Were you willing that it should be made by Mr. Tfl. THE TILTON-BEEORER TBIAL. ton to the Committee ! A, I cannot say whether I was or not, from any recollection that I have. Q. Have you no impression upon this subject! A. A ya^e impression. Q. When you drew that paper, did you know that the charge against you was adultery ? A. I do not know it. Q. Had you never heard of it up to that time 1 A. I think that the first that I heard— ^ Q. No, no, no ; I don't ask to know the first you heard. A. I don't know what time that was. Q. With reference to the date, and judging from the contents of the paper, dial you know, when that paper was drawn, that the charge against you was adultery % A. I cannot form any such judgment as that from an un- dated document which was merely a tentative docum«it, never perfected. Q. When you diew the paper of July 15, did you know then what the charge was % A. Of July 15 % Q. It is before you A. Yes, I know it is. Sir ; there was— I can't say unless I can refresh my memory as to dates. Q. Well, I don't prevent you from doing that in any way you can. A. Well, I can only do it by ascertaining what was the time ta which Mr. Redpath came to see me at Peekskill. Q. That is the 13th 1 A. The 13th i Q. Yes, accorn except this domestic difficulty ? A. Why, we had— this was the predominant topic, but this topic wao large enough for me to have wanted to see hiia on twentj' points. Q. Was this one of the points ? A. I don't know. Q. Can you say it was not? A. I cannot say anything about it. Q. Cannot you recall anything now, Mr. Beecher, in re- gard to which you wanted to see iMr. Moulton, except it was this difficulty between yourself and Mr. Tilton at that time ? A. I cannot sufficiently recall what time to say that I remember nothing— that there was nothing— but I do not remember Q. That is not an answer to my ciuestion. Can you now recall anything that existed at that time I'hat made it necessary that you should write this note to Mr. Moulton except it was the difficulty that was then in hand ? A. I do not recall anything that specially was in hand but thia domestic trouble. Q. I do not ask you to recall specifically anything ; can you recall anything generally that was on hand at that time except the domestic difficulty that occasioned the writing of that? A. The difficulty— I presume that that note to Mr. Moulton had regard to some one or other of the developments concerning this difficulty. Q. Well, that is enough. A. Somewhere Q. That's all I wanted. A. Well, I am very anxious to know just what you want, and if I seem sometimes to wander, it is not because I want to evade you or to get rid of the truth, but because I am either dull or because T am anxious to tell the truth. THE PEOPOSED SETTLEMENT OF THE DIF- FICULTY. Q Now, I read from this Exhibit No. 45» [KeadingJ: I have been through years acting under the conviction that I had been wronged, but was under the imputation of being the injurer. Did you learn that from Theodore Tilton ? A. Leara. what ? Q. What I have read. A. Do you mean that I got that sentence and put it into that card from him ? Q. Did you learn the fact from him that he had been for years acting under the conviction that lie had been wi'onge(i, but was under the imputation of being the in- jurer? A. I do not recall that I learned that specially from him. Q. [Reading]: I learn from you that Mr. B. in his statement to you has reversed this, and has done me justice. From whom did you get that statement or idea t A. Well, I got pretty much the whole of it fi-om Mr* Moulton. Q. And recorded it just as he told you ? A. No ; X 64 THE TlLTOIi'BB^OHEB TBIAL. ttirew it into shape, according to Ms suggestion, to ex- press tMs idea and that idea. Q. [Reading]: I am willing, should he consent, to appear before you "vrith him, and, dropping the further statements which I felt it to he my duty to make for my own clearance, to settle this painful domestic difficulty, which never ought to have been made public, finally and amicably. Were you williug that Theodore Tilton should make such a statement as that, and were you willing that the difficulty should be settled in that wayl A. After the Committee was appointed, I was Q. Now, Mr. Beeoher, if you please, answer my ques. tion. I am talking about the time when this was written. A. I cannot tell you what my trains of thought operated on; I cannot fix the date. Q. Were you willing when you wrote this, without re- gard to the date, that the difficulty should be thus set- tled? A. I was wUling that the difficulty should be kept still before the Committee. Q. Now, Mr. Beecher, if you please, were you willing that the difficulty should be settled as herein expressed? A. I was not willing that the difficulty should be settled in any other way than by an Investigation that should satisfy that Committee, Q. Were you willing that it should be settled as herein expressed? A. That— I cannot answer that question, be- cause it is not part and parcel of any of my record of re- membrance. Q. If you were unwUUng, why didn't you so state to Mr. Moulton, if he dictated this to you ? A. This was not a matter of discussion between us, but of suggestion and reflection. Q. Well, if he was to take it to Mr. TUton to see if he was wnhng, and if you were xmwilling to settle the diffi- culty m that way, why didn't you make it a matter of -discussion? A. Because at that time I had ceased to have coafldenoe in the generalship of Frank Moulton, ^d I knew that there was coming a tribimal where this thing would be sifted. Q. Then you were willing to draw up this paper, under his suggestion that it should be settled in this way, after you had lost confidence in his generalship? A. Many and many a suggestion I considered Q. Were you, after you had lost confidence in his gen- eralship, willing to draw up in writing what he dictated, embracing the terms of settlement ? A. I was perfectly willing to put in writing what he suggested. Q. And were you not willing, when you put that in writing, to have this difficulty settled in that way ? A. T ■was not. Q. And yet you put it in writing ? A. I put it in writing, evidently. Q. And you think you gave it to him to sho w to Mr. Tilton for him to consider ? A. I think I gave it back to him for oonsulting with Mr. Tilton« or with anybody Q. And at the same time when he was going to oftosult Mr. Tilton to see whether he was wlUing to agree to it, youwereunwUlingto agree to it ? A. I did not believe it would come to anything. Q. Were you willing to drop the whole thing and agree to the settlement in this paper, which you gave him and which you put in writing at his suggestion ? A. He gave me a suggestion that it should be settled in that way, and I wrote it off to see how it would look, and gave it back to him. Q. At the same time in your heart you did not mean to settle it in that way ? A. At the same time I didn't be- lieve it would be worth that. [Snapping his finger and thimib.] Q. Tell me, were you willing to accept these terms of settlement at the time these papers were drawn? A. I was not if they implied a lack of investigation. Q. K they implied a lack of investigation? Ans'vror my question; don't try to evade it. DIFFICULTIES BETWEEN LAWYERS. Judge Neilson— The word " evade " was used . to a witness early in the case by one of the learned coun- sel, and the cotmsel then was requested not to use it. Mr. Fullerton— How, Sir ! Judge Neilson— The word "evade," I say, was used by some of the counsel early in the case to a witness- Mr. Beach— That is me. Sir. Judge Neilson- And the counsel was requested not to use it. The counsel probably forgot that request. Mr. Fullerton- 1 did not forget it, Sir. I hope I never will forget a word from the Court when it is necessary. Judge Neilson— It was not addressed to you at that time; but you are requested to accept it as addressed to y©u now. Mr. Fullerton— I wiU, Sir; but at the same time I must confess I think the word was properly us^ I asked Mr. Beecher three times in succession a distinct and em- phatic question, and three times I did not get an answer. Mr. Evarts— You got an answer. Judge Neilson— You should remember that you are ex- amining a layman, and that he is in a new atmosphere here. Mr. FuUerton— Well, Sir, he talks more than half tbe time. Judge Neilson— Well, it Is his profession to talk. Mr. Evarts— This is not a trial of wits. We are engaged in a solemn proceeding. The counsel has very great priv- ileges and the witness has very solemn duties, andcer^ tainly we ought to be able to proceed without this scuf- fling. Judge Neilson— That is understood. Mr. Fullerton— Well, Sir, If those observations of the counsel were addressed to the witness, they are all well enough, and I hope they will have their froitSk the TJE8T1M0NF OF HEl^ wltnees.] Now, be Mnd enongli to tell me, Mr. Beeclier, wlietlier, when you delivered tliat paper The Witness— I wish to ask Ids Honor whether I am under rehuke from the Court. Judge Neilson— No, Sir. The observation that I made was addressed to the coxmseL The observation which tttb counsel has just made was a suggestion that Mr. Bvarts's remark might be beneficial to you. I don't know about that, however. Mr. Evarts— That is a part of what I call scuffling. Mr. FuUerton— Well, you were one of the scufflers. . Mr. Evarts— Oh, no. MB. BEECHER'S UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT. Mr. Fullerton— Q. When you gave that state- ment [Exhibit 49] to Mr. Moulton to show to Mr. Tilton, were you willing that the difficulty should be settled as indicated in the paper itself 1 A. An answer yes or no cannot make the truth appear. I cannot answer tihat question yes or no, without explaining. Judge Neilson [To the witness]— Answer in that way, Sir. A. The paper was a suggestion of a settlement, which implied, as I understood it, that Mr. TUton should clear me before the Examining Comiuittee in some man- ner ; and I was quite willing to have any clearance from him before the Examining Committee that should satisfy them. Q. Well, were you willing, then, that the whole thing should be dropped if he cleared you before the Examin- ing Committee! A. I was wilUng to have it dropped whenever the Examining Committee Q. Answer my question; were you willing to have the whole investigation dropped if he cleared you before the Committee % A. If he satisfied the Coromittee. Q. If he satisfied the Conmiittee i A. Yes. Q. Very welL Did you expect him to satisfy the Com- mittee by making this statement : [Exhibit 49.] *♦ I am willing, should he consent, to appear before you with him, and, dropping the further statement which I felt it my duty to make for my own clearance, to settle this painful domestic difficulty, which never ought to have been made public, finally and amicably." A. Mr. Fullerton, that would depend entirely— this was not any proposition of mine; it was not a determined document Q. That is not an answer to my question. A. I am eoming to it. I was perfectly willing if he would go be- fore the Committee and make such a statement as ex- onerated me, la their judgment, to stop all furtl»r proceedings and statements. Q. And was that paper drawn with a view to have it disposed of in that wayl A. That was Mr. Moulton's plan, as I imderstood it. Q. Wasn't it your plan 1 A. No, Sir. Q. Were you willing that that plan should be eflBectuated UZ WABD BEEOHEB, m when you handed that paper to Mr. Moulton t A I waa willing Q. Were you willing that that plan should be effeotop ated when you handed that paper to Mr. Moulton 1 A. As I have explained it, I was. Q. Look at the paper I now show you and say In whose handwriting it is, if you know. A. I don't know, Sir. I don't think I ever saw it whatever. Q. Wasn't that written at yous Aonae, in your presence f A. Not that I recaU, Sir. Q. Is it not written on paper such as you use at your house ? A. WeU, yes, I use some such, or have used it, at various times ; it is what we call common French note paper. Q. Do you recognize it as having been written in your presence ? A. No, Sir. Q. There is one question that I omitted to ask in refer- ence to the interview of Januarys. When Mr. Tilton manifested an indisposition to address you, and Mr. Moul- ton addressed him, didn't Mr. Moulton say to him, tn sub- stance, ** You ought to be satisfied .with the letter which Mr. Beecher wrote to you through met" A. No, Sir, nothing like it; he repeated to him— the language was— the language had reference to the statements that I then and there made— that I had made an apology such as one gentleman could make to another, and that one gentle- man could honorably accept from another. Q. And the former letter was not referred to I A. No, Sir. ^ THE AGREEMENT TO WRITE THE IjETTERS OF FEB. 7, 1871.. Q. I call your attention now to the letters of Feb. 7, 1871. [Exhibits 9, 10 and 11.] I wish you to state what preceded the writing of those letters which caused them to be written ? A. WeU, Sir, the question of the es- tablishment of Mr. Tilton in business was a question up- permost in our minds, largely, and the restoration of harmony and peace and comfort ia his family as an in- dispensable condition of doing good work. I had learned from Mr. Moulton that Mr. TUton's wr£e was not doing her part, and that he was subject, aside from all other harassments and anxieties, to be received with sullen looks and distressful complaints at home, and that Mrs. Tilton had said that Mr. TiLfcon and Mr. Moulton and I were consulting together for the interests of Jtlr. Tilton, and leaving her quite out ; and that it was indispensably necessary, she thought, that there should be some influ- ence brought to bear upon her, that she might do her share in the rebuilding of the family and of affairs ; and my influence with her was invoked in order to lead her to feel that Mr. Moulton, who coimseled me, was a good counselor for her likewise ; and on that suggestion and in that spirit those letters were written. Q. At that time yoa were laboring under the Imprcs* 66 TEE TILTOJ^'B. tion that you had won this lady's affections, were you? A. I was. Q. Was anything said as to the feeling which Mr. Tilton entertained toward you at that time! A. Was anything •aid— where do you mean, Sirl Q. I am talking about this same interview that you have given a part of i A. You were asking me about the letters of February 7! Q. Yes. Mr. Evarts— In what the witness has said he has not referred particularly to any interview. Mr. Beach— What he asked him was about the prelimi- nary state of affairs which led to the writing of these letters. The Witness— I beg pardon then. This was not a single Interview ; it was a conversation. Mr. PuUerton— Well, in any of those conversations an- terior to the writing of these letters of Feb. 7, was there nothing said about Mr. Tilton's feelings toward yonl A. I don't recall anything of that kind. Q. Was it not agreed that there should be three letters written ? A. It was. . Q. By whom were they to be written 1 A. I was to write one to Mr. Moulton to be shown to Mr. Tilton, and Mr. Tilton, I understood from Mr. Moulton, should write one also. Q. To be shown to whom ? A. I don't recall to whom. Q. Was it not to be shown to you ? A. I presume so. Sir; but I don't distinctly recall about that; naturally I know what my own letter meant better than I know his ; I don't recall about his. Q. I am not talking about what the letters meant ; I am talking about the agreement to write the letters. A. Well, the agreement Q. You were to write one, were you not ? A. I was to write two. Q. One to Mrs. Tilton? A. One to go to Mrs. Tilton. Q. And one to go ? A. And one to go to Mr. Moulton. Q. Mr. Tilton was to write one that was to go to you, •was he not? A. He was to write one that was to go to Mr. Moulton. Q. Very well. Now were those three letters written ? A. I understood so ; my two were. Q. Didn't you see the third one? A. I cannot say whether I saw it at that time, or heard it at that time; I have seen it. Q. How soon after that did you see it? A. I cannot say. Q, Did you not see it very soon after that t A. I cannot say about that. Q. Didn't you see it at the time it was written ! A. I i3or'! tliink I did ; I c vnnot say; I don't recollect it. Q. Will you swear that you didn't see it at that time ? A. 1 will not , Q. Was it not shown to you On the 7th of February, 'hJCHEB TRIAL. 1871, by Mr. Moulton ? A. I don't recollect that il wa«i, Sir. ^ THE LETTERS READ. Q. Well, I will read it, and see if that will recall it to your recollection. [Keading] ; Brooklyn, Feb. 7, 1871. My Very Dear Friend: In several conversations with me you have asked me about my feelings toward Mr. Beecher, and yesterday you said the time had come when you would like to receive from me an expression of them in writing. I say, therefore, very cheerfully, that, notwithstanding the great suffering which he has caused to Elizabeth and myself, I bear him no malice, shall do hun no wrong, shall discountenance every project (by whom- soever proposed) for any exposure of his secret to the public, and (if I know myself at all) shall endeavor to act toward Mr. Beecher as I would have him under similar circumstances act toward me. I ought to add that your own good offices in this case have led me to a higher moral feeling than I might other* wise have reached. Ever yours affectionately, (Signed) Theodore Tilton. ' To Frank Moulton. Q. Now, do you remember that that letter was shown to you by Mr. Moulton at or about the time that it was written ? A. I do not ; I hardly think it was. Q. I call your attention to the one that you wrote to Mr. Moulton on that day. [Reading] : February 7, 1871. My Dear Mr. Moulton : I am glad to send you a book which you will relish, or which a man on a sick bed oxigM to relish. I wish I had more like it, and that I could send you one every day, not as a repayment of your great kind- ness to me— for that can never be repaid, not even by love^ which I give you freely. Many, many friends has God raised up to me ; but to no one of them has he ever given the opportunity and the wisdom so to serve me as you have. My trust in you is implicit. You have also proved yourself Theodore's friend and Elizabeth's. Does God look down from Heaven on three unhappy creatures that more need a friend than these ? Is it not an intimation of God's intent of mercy to all tliut each one of these has in you a tried and proved frienil? But only in you are we three united. Would to God, who orders all hearts, that, by your kind mediation, Theodore, Elizabeth, and I could be made friends again. Theodore will have the hardest task in such a case ; but has he not proved himself capable of the noblest things! Now, Mr. Beecher, at that time this charge of improper solicitations was still resting upon you, was it not ? A, No, Sir ; I don't think it was ; it certainly was not urged. Q. I didn't ask that. Had Mr. Theodore Tilton taken it back ? A. I don't know that he had, by any formal act, taken it back. Q. Answer my question. Had he taken that charge back ? Mr. Ev£«rts— That is an answer. Mr. Fullerton— No. it is not an answer. The Witness— His wife had taken it back. Q. Had /te taken it back? I aui not talking about hia wife ? A. He had not made it. TESTlMOhY OF HE. Q. Didn't lie make it on the nigM of the 30th ? A. He made it a« ti statement from his wife. Q. Oh, he didn't make it on his own account, then % A. He made it on her authority. Q, Did you regard it simply as a charge made by Mrs. Tilton ? A. I certainly did. Q. And not a charge of Theodore Tilton? A. As a charge that he repeated to me, from her. Q. Didn't you understand him as making that charge on his own behalf against you ? A. I have no doubt that he supposed the charge to be as she had written it to him, at that time. Q. On the 7th of February did you suppose that he then believed in the charge? A. I cannot tell about that. It certainly did not, by word nor conduct Q. One moment ; I am not asking you about that. Did you believe, on the 7th of February, when you wrote that letter, that he still believed in that charge ? Now it is either yes or no, Mr. Beecher. Either you believed it, or you did not believe it. A. Well, I don't think that it is yes or no. Q. Well, it does not seem to be yet, but I hope it will be. A. Will you be kind enough to state the question again, that I may see precisely the remits of it? Q. I will, Sir. On the 7th of February, 1871, when you wrote to Mr. Moulton that Theodore Tilton would have the hardest task in such case, iiud n lleged that he had proved himself capable of ihe noblest things, did you not then suppose th-it he rested under thc^ belief that you had made improper advances toward his wife? A. I doubted whether he believed any such thing as that. Q. It was a mere matter of doubt, was it ? A. All that was a matter of doubt and fluctuation. Q. No, Mr. Beecher, I don't want all that. Did you be- lieve at that time that he supposed that you had made imi»ropcr advances to his wife ? Mr. Evarts— He has answered that. Mr. Morris— Not exactly. Tlie Witness— I don't think that I did believe so. Q. At that time ? A. At that time. Q. How did you suppose at that time that the impres- sion or belief had been removed from his mind i A. That I did not reason upon; by the good offices probably of Mr. Moulton Q. He had not told you thai he did not believe it? a. No ; we had no Q. One moment, please. He had not told you this A. No, Sir. Q. Mr. Moulton had not told you that he did not be lieveiti A. I don't recall that he ever made a specifLp denial of that. Q. Upon what, then, did you base your judgment at that time that he did not believe it? A. Because he and Mr, .Moultou were willing to go into cooperation with nie in a manner that would' imply iufam ii they be- lieved it. aiY WARD BEECHER, 67 Q. That is the reason? A. That is the reason. Q. That is ( ii i . reason, is it? A. That is enough, fSuppressed ,. use.] Q. And hence you said nothing about it ? A. Of course, I didn't. Q. And you didn't ask Mr. Tilton whether he believed It or not ? A. Of course, I didn't. Q. And without knowing really whether the impression was removed from Mr. Tilton's mind or not, you wrot« that letter? A. I wrote that letter. Q. And without knowing whether the impression had been removed from Mr. Tilton's mind, did you? A. With- out knowing in any such sense as we know a philosophi- cal or a luathematical proposition. I Q. Did you come to a conclusion at that time whether he made the original charge in good faith or not ? A. I had reason to suppose earlier that he had Q. No, no, I am asking about that time. Had you made up your mind at that time whether he had made the origi- nal charge in good faith or not ? A. WeU, Mr. Fullerton, the difficulty in answering your question is not that I am imwilling, but it is that you frame the question so that you ask me to give an affirmative or a negative to con- siderations that had no existence. Q. That had no existence? A. Yes; trains of thought that would perhaps arise, but that did or did not, or which, if they did, arose only as speculations, and passed away. Q. Then can't you say so ? A. I have tried to once or twice. Q. Well, whatever you try to say, Mr. Beecher, you gen- erally say pretty well. Now, I put the question to you again. On the 7th of February, 1871, when you wrote this letter, did you then suppose that the original charge of Theodore Tilton— improper advances— made against you, had been made in good faith? A. T don't know that that came into my mind at all in the making of the letter. Q, And you were in doubt at that time whether he still believed the charges true ? A. I don't think it was the subject matter of consideration. Q. You did not think of it then? A. I made the letter* with an entirely different Intent. Q. One moment; did you think uf it at that time f A. I can't say that I did at that fcinie. I Q. Well, did you care at that time whether they were made in good faith or not i A. Oh, of course T should, if ill'' subject had been broached to me. Q,. Didn't you take Interest enough in the subject to broacli it yourself 1 A. T took interest In It, but of a different sort. Q. But not an interest that led you to broaoJi the sub- ject? A. Not an interest that led me every time that I sat down to write a letter to go through all the questions that you now put to me. Q. I am uot talking ubout writing letters now ; I am : ns^king ahout the time of writing the letters when theao 68 THE TILION-Bl Interviews -were liad. A. I can't tell you what I thought of Mr. Tilton at that period— you are asMng me what I fbought whUe I was writing that letter. Q. I am asMng no such thing, A. Then I misappre- hended you. Q. I don't mean the particular moment when you were Inditing it on paper ; hut at that period did you believe that Mr. Tilton had made those charges against you in good faith ? A. Mr. TUton had repeated his wife's charges against me. Q. That won't do, Mr. Beecher. I don't want any such thing. I am asMag for the operation of your mind at that time. A. Yes, Sir, and I am trying to give it to you. Q. Yes. Well, tell me whether at that time it was a matter of belief with you that the original charge of Theodore Tilton against you was made in good faith ? Mr. Evarts— Of improper advances. The Witness— Improper advances! That charge had sunk, apparently, out of sight. Mr. Beach \ to Mr. Fullerton]— Move to strike that out. Mr. Fullerton— I will. I do move to strike it out, and I say again that he is evading my questions. Judge Neilson— I don't think he is. Mr. Fullerton— Well, I can't help that. If your Honor does not I do, and I will act upon that view. Mr. Evarts— Keep that until you sura up. Mr. Fullerton— No. Judge Neilson [to the Witness]— The iiuestion involves whether you remember andean state what your b(4ief was upon that subject at that time. The Witness— My general recollection is, Sir, that at that time I thought the charges had gone under— gone down. Mr. Fullerton- 1 move to strike that out. Judge Neilson [to the Witnessl— The inoLUiryls, whether at that time you believed that the charge had been made by Mr. Tilton m good faith— the charge of Improper advances ? The Witness— Originally; I believed that he originally made it in good faith. Judge Neilson— At the time of the writing of this let- ter, or about that ti^e i The Witness— At the time of writing this letter I sup- posed that he was of the impression Mr. Fullerton— Did you believe at the time when you wrote the letter that he had made the origiual charge in good faith 9 A. When he originally made it I did. Q. That is not iiiy anestlon. Mr. Evarts— Yes. A. At the time of the writing of this letter t believed that he had made it in good faith when he made it origi- nally. Bfr. Fullerton— That Is an answer. Mr. Evarts— That is the same answer. Mr. Tracy— It is the same answer. "^JEOREB TBIAL. Mr. Fullerton— No, Sir, he has never given that answer before. Mr. Tracy— I submit that he has. Mr. Fullerton— You need not submit anything about it. Mr. Tracy— I choose to ; and I shall do it without ask- ing your permission. Judge Neilson— Well, it is given now. Mr. Fullerton— Yes, Sir; it is given now. Mr. Evarts— You had better keep that until yon sum up. Mr. Fullerton— Do you propose to sum up now 1 Mr. Evarts— No ; but I suppose this is summing up. Mr. Beach [to Mr. Evarts]— If you want to sum up, begin ; it is your turn. Q. Now, will you state to this jury what Mr. Tilton had done up to that time which caused you to say that he proved himseK capable of the noblest things % A. It was the representations made to me by Mr. Moulton of his state of mind toward Mr. Bowen, toward his own pros- pects—his pluck and determination to work— toward me, and toward his own house. Q. Yes. A. I did think Mr. Tilton was acting, or en- deavoring to act, a heroic part. Q. And you thought that he would have the hardest task, did you, if you three people were made friends again ? A. I certainly did. Q. And without ascertaining directly from him whether, or what evidences he had that you had made improper advances to his wife? A. That is predicated on the ground that we were to be made friends again. Q. Yes. A. To be made friends again implies a state of facts that is totally incompatible with his continuing belief in the charges. Q. Didn't he say he wanted tosavehis wife and family from exposure 1 A. Didn't he say so when? Q. In conversation with you, just prior to the 7th of February, 1871 ? A. He certainly said he wanted to pre- vent the scandal from becoming public. Q. "^Vhat did you understand him to mean to say in his letter of February 7, 1871, when he speaks of discounte- nancing every project for any exposure of yoirr secret to the public ? A. That is his letter, and not mine; I am not conscious oE having read it. Q. The contents of it were not made known to youl A. I am not conscious of having seen it, or read it, or heard it read, or having known of it imtil a later period. Q. You go on to say in that letter : " Of course I can never speak with her again except with his permission ; and I don't know that even then It would be best." Was there any arrangement made as to any communi- cation between you and her 1 A. At that period % Q. Yes; or prior to that? A. From some source or other, I cannot determine now what, I had understood that Mr. Tilton didn't wish me to visit tn his family. TESTIMONY OF HE Q. Can you not teE. us from wliom you heard it 1 A. I cannot, Su- ; I liave searolied in vain for the source of tkat Impression. ^ MR. TILTON'S GENEROSITY. Q. I call your attention to another sentence in that letter . I wonder if Elizabeth knows how generously he has oarried himself toward me. How generously had he oarried himself toward you ? Did you refer to the original charge of improper ad- vances 1 A. No, Sir ; I did not. Q. You didn't refer to any retraction of any charge, did you, that he had made ? A. I referred to his carriage toward me, in view of the alienation of his wife's affec- tion fi"om him, and the distress which he had foimd in his own household, and my complicity with Mr. Bowen in Injuring him in Ms business prospects. Q. But you did not consider the other charge of im- proper advances, did you 1 A. I do not recall that that entered into my mind at that time, Sir. Q. Now, up to this time had you had any communica- tion with Mrs. Tilton 1 A. Not that I recollect, Sir. Q. Don't you think you would have recollected it if you had had communication with her 1 A. I certainly had not been to the house. Q. Had you recolred any letter from herl A. Not that I recall. Q. Had you written to her i A. No, Sir; I don't think I had. Q. Had you received through any other person any message from her? A. 1 do not, except through Mr. Moulton, recollect that I had. Q. Howl A. I don't know that I had, except through Mr. Moulton. Q. Well, how long prior to the writing of this letter of Feb. 7, 1871, had he forbidden you to visit his house ? A. I don't know; I cannot say. Q. Well, that had not been withdrawn at that timej had Itl A. I don't recollect that it had, Sir. Q. How had he acted so generously toward you 1 A. Through Mr. Moulton ; the attitude of his mind and the expression of feeling (which I derived through Mr. Moid- ton), and his willingness to restore the old friendship and cooperation. MR. BEECHER'S EXPECTATIONS OF DEATH. Q. Then comes the letter about Mrs. Tilton of the same date : Mt Dear Mrs. Tilton: When I saw you last I did not expect ever to see you again or to be alive many days. God was kinder to me than were my own thoughts Q. What were yoiu: own thoughts to which you referred at that time 1 A. Those tlmt I have just mentioned ; a presentment of death as respected both her and myself. I didn't believe she would live long. NRT WARD BEEORER. 6> Q. With regard to youreelf fivst— had you any idea that you were going to be overtaken suddenly by death! A. I did a good many times. Sir. Q. How % A. I did, a good many times. Q. How often? A. I could not count them, Sir; but it is not an imcommon thing. Q. WeU, in what way did you apprehend death 1 A. At this time evidently in the exceeding pressure and the exceeding anxiety that I felt. Q. WeU: "God was kinder to me than were my own thoughts." That implies that your own thoughts were unkind. Can you explain that term ? A. WeU, I don't think they seem to me to ieed explanation, but I wiU make it : God was kinder than I thought He would be. Q. WeU, if a man apprehends sudden death from apo- plexy or from trouble, do you think his thoughts are un- kind toward him 1 A. Well, Sir, that is afn expression that I presume would be tolerated in literature, without being scrutinized very closely. Q. It had not reference at aU to taking your own Ufe t A. Oh, no. Sir. Q. How 1 A. No, Sir ; no. Sir. Q. Nothing of that kind ? A. Nothing of that kind. Q. But, inasmuch as you apprehended sudden death, you thought your own thoughts were unkind— you con- sidered them so, did you? Mr. Evarts— He has not said that. Mr. FuUerton— I ask him whether he did so consider them. [To the Witness :] • "The friend whom God sent to me [Moulton] has proved, above all other friends I ever had, able and will- ing to help me in this terrible emergency of my Ufe. His hand it was that tied up the storm that was ready to burst upon our heads." By the word " our" you referred to your own and Mrs. Tilton's ? A. Yes, Sir ; to all our heads. Q. Now, don't you refer to the lady whom you were addressing? A. I referred to aU that were concerned in the trouble. Q. What storm was about to burst upon the heads Gt yourself and Mrs. TUton 1 A. Apparently the storm of a disclosure of a family diiflculty which would be scandal- ous and dangerous and heart-piercing. Q. Didn't Mr. Tilton on th« night of the 30th tear np the paper and say that that was the end of it t A. Yee, Sir— no ; he didn't say that was the end of it. Q. Did you Understand that that charge was to be re> newed against you after that ? A. I did not understand anything about what was in the future. There was no intimation of it. It was an interview with a beginning and without an ending ; that is, the results to which we were going were in suspense. Q. " He " fMoultonl "will be as true a friend to your honor and happiness as a brother could be to a sister'? '* Did you think that the honor of Mr. Tilton was In- 70 TEE llLlO^-BEmmER lELAL. volved ill ciiis matter ? A. I thought it was in very great danger of being dishonored in the public mind. Q. Howl A. By that way in which the toug-ue of scan- dal represents everything about a woman. Q. It would disho»or her, would it, if it was charged that you had made improper advances and she had re- sisted them? A. Yes, Su* ; I think it would, Q. And that is the reason you used that expression, is it I A. Not that; no, Sir ; you ask me a separate ques- tion, and you cannot carry that back through the whole document. Q. Now, Sir, that is the fli"st communicaflon that you addressed to Mrs. Tilton after th'e night of the 30th, I un- derstand youl A. I think it is, Sir; I remember no other. Q. In what light, Mr. Beecher, did you then view the conduct of Mrs. Tillon in making this written charge against you, and which Mr. Tilton had on the night of the 30th ? A. I viewed it in this light, if you ask me what was my explanation and judgment in regard to the matter Q. Yes. A. After much suspense and vacillation, I came to the conclusion that Mrs. Tilton had gradually come into a state of affection toward me, the concealment of which, then the outbreaking of which, and the anxiety Xhsiit came from domestic discord, in consequence of which, together with the indignation of her husband, has shattered her both in body and in mind to a degree in which she was scarcely responsible. Q. That was the conclusion that you had rested under on the 7th of February, 1871, was it 1 A. That was the conclusion— I will not say at that definite date, but when my mind at last subsided into a recognized theory. Q. I am referring to the letter of Feb. 7, 1871. A. At that interview— I didn't recite the whole of that inter- view of which I now speak. MR. BEECHER'S VIEWS OF MRS. TILTON'S CONDUCT. Q. Very well ; I ask you in what light you then held her conduct in making that charge against you ? A. Oh, I held her, il you judged her as you would ordi- nary persons, a very guilty person. Mr. Fullerton— Yes, Sir. The Witness— And I looked upon it with great iadigna- tion. Q. Why didn't you express something of that indigna- tion or some remonstrance, or make some allusion to this false charge which she had made against you, in this letter of Feb. 7, 1871? A. On the simple ground that when two people want to make up a diflSculty, they don't fire it into each other's faces out of pistols, or call up all the l ank and harrowing parts of it ; they let go aU they ^can in order to settle the thing amicably. I Q. You didn't feel disposed, then, to say one word to [the lady who had made the serious charge against you, in writing, and had given it to her husband ? A. And took it back again, and renewed it again. Q. And renewed it agaiu ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Very well; then it was left where it was before. Why didn't you then make some allusion to it in this letter of Feb. 71 A. Because my business was to win Mrs. TUton to the confidence of Frank Moulton. Q. And not to vindicate yourself? A. Not by any means to vindicate myself. INTERVIEW WITH ME. TILTON IN FEBRUARY, 1871. Q. You have stated, Mr. Beecher, that you had a memorable inverview with Mr. Tilton at his house in the flist part of February, 1871 ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Can't you state how that interview was brought about? A. No, Sir; my impression is that it was at hia solicitation. Q. Made to you personally or by letter? A. I don't know. Q. At what time of the day did you go to his house 1 A. My impressions are that it was early moming. Q. In what room did you have the interview ? A. In two rooms— a back bed-room on the second floor, and the front room ; left-hand comer, I think it was ; that is, the third story. Q. Was Mrs. Tilton present 1 A At the second intei- view. Q. Was she not present at the first ? A. No, Sir. Q. Did you know the object of that interview before you went to the house ? A. Not that I recollect. Q. And from whom did you learn it ? A. From Mr Tilton. Q. And how did he convey it to youl A. He didn'% state at all what the object was ; he went into a conver- sation, and I inferred the object after he got through. Q. Well, what did he say ? A. I cannot tell you wha4 he said; I can only tell you the substance and drift of the conversation. Mr. Fullerton— That is what I mean by asking the question, for you to give me the substance of it. A. It was a conversation, whatever the introductory parts were, and my general impressions were that the intro- ductory remarks sprang from the prospect and adjust- ment of more friendly relations, cooperation, or some- thing of that kind; I cannot remember definitely, but it passed to a consideration of his relations to Mr. Bowen, and the great wrong Mr. Bo wen had done to him, not ex- cluding his business relations, of which he had spoken, although I do not now recall so much about that ; I only know it entered in, and he especially felt the aspersion that had been made upon his reputation, both by what Mr. Bowen had said, and by the circumstances umler which he was ejected from the two icipers ; and it seemed to me that the drift of his wish was to show a:ted that it W£is the 2d of March ; does your recollection conform to that ! A. It was somewhere In that way. I only can judge of it, not because I saw him go, but because he met my family in Florida. THE DEPAETUEE TO THE SOUTH. Q. And do you recollect what time your family left 1 A. I think my family left late in— I think they left in February, but I am not certain, Sir ; they raried every year ; they have never left at the same time, and I think that year it was perhaps in February. Q. Do you recollect one occasion when you met the attending physician at Mr. Moulton's house, before he left for the South 1 A. I recollect meeting him often there, tout I don't recollect meeting him at that particular time ; I might have done it, but I do not recall it. Q. Well, have you no way to fix the date of Mr. Moul- ton's departm-e from the North? A. I have none; no, Sir; but I could ascertain for you from data that are sure. Q. Have you the data with you? A. I don't think I baye. Sir; I have a memorandimi. Q. Please look and see if you can fix the date of his de- parture 1 A. I Producing a memorandum.] This is one that I derived not from my own personal knowledge ; it Is put down here March 2d, " Moulton goes to Florida." Q. That corresponds with Mr. Moulton's testimony. How, do you recollect when he returned ? A. I have it, I think. [Referring to the memorandum.") April 15. •Moulton returns from Florida." Q. Now, between his departm-e and his return you leceived this letter, which has been marked as an exhibit, from Mrs. Tilton, did you? A. I don't know what letter you refer to. Sir, unless you show it to me. Q. Well, I will show it to you. Sir. Mp. Beach— You may as well adjourn now. Mr. Evarts— Well, we might as weU. The Witness— The book will do just as well, Judge Follerton. Judge Neilson— Will the jury get ready to retire ! Gen- tlemen will keep their seats. Return at 2 o'clock, gentle- men. The court then took a recess until 2 p. m. THE AFTERNOON SESSION. The Court met at 2 p. m., pttrsuant to ad- journment. Mr. Beeoher recalled. MES. TILTON'S LETTERS. Mr. Fullerton— I now place in your hands, Mr. Beecher, the letter which I aUuded to before the ad- journment. [Handing witness "Exhibit 12."] Do you recollect of receiving that letter 1 A. No, Sir. Q. Don't yourecoUect the fact that you did receive It I A. Yes, Sir. Q. And handed it to Mr. Moulton ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. The tndbrsement, I believe it was stated, is In your handwriting ? A. I think it likely that it is. Sir, although it was evidently written not as freely as I usually write. Mr. FuUerton \B.eaA\VLg\—'' Wednesday. My Dbab Friend: Does your heart bound toward all as it used! 8o does muie ! I am myself again. I did not dare to tell you till I was sure ; but the bird has simg in my heart these four weeks, and he has covenanted with me never again to leave. 'Spring has come.' Because I thought it would gladden you to know this and not to trouble or embarrass you in any way, I now write. Of com-se I should like to share with you my joy, but can wait for the Beyond 1 "When dear Frank Bays I may once again go to old Plymouth, I will thank the dear Father." I now show you "Exhibit 15,'' and I wish to consider them together. [Handing witness "Exhibit 15."] Do yourecoUect of receiving that letter! A. I don't recol- lect receiving it. Sir; I presume I received it, though. Q. And gave it to Mr. Moulton ! A. That I cannot say. Q. You recollect the fact that you received such a let- ter. A. I cannot say that I recollect the act, although seeing the letter, or hearing It spoken of, I have the strong feeling that this was a letter written to me, and that I gave it to Mr. Moulton. Mr. FuUerton— [Reading] : " May 3, 1871. "Mr. Beecheb: My future either for life or death would be happier, could I but feel that you forgave me while you forget me. In all the sad compUcations of the past years, my endeavor waa entirely to keep from you all suffering, to bear myself alone, leavmg you forever ignorant of it. My weapons were love, a larger, untiring generosity, ^.n^ nest-hiding. " That I failed utterly, we both know, but I now ask forgiveness." xMR. BEECHER'S NOVEL. Q. Before asking you any questions in regard to those letters, Mr. Beeoher, I aak you when you coni- monced writing the novel "Norwood!" At what time did I! Q. Yes, Sir. A. [Referring to memorandum.] I think it was published in TTie Xeio-Tork Ledger in 1867— in the process of 1867, during the year— and in the book form in 18GS. Q. You misapprehend my question, Mr. Beecher» 74 IBE TILTON-B When did you commence writing that book 1 A. That I oould not tell you, Sir ; it was some time in the year, I think, of 1867. Q. You have stated that you read that book, or a part of it, to Mrs. Tilton? A. I read portions of it ; yes, Sir. Q. What part of it did you read to her ? A. Well, I can- not say how much, but I recollect reading one chapter, and that was the chapter on the birth of Rose Went- worth. Q. Don't you recollect of reading other chapters to lieri A. Not distinctly ; I have an impression that I did. Q. Did you not read it all to her? A. No, Sir. Q. What is youi- impression as to the parts that you did read 1 A. The opening chapters. Q. Where did you read it to her ? A. I think at her house. Q. In the day or in the night time f A. In the day time, as far as I recollect. Q. Was her husband present or absent? A. 4^don't recollect. Q. Kose Wentworth was the heroine of that story, I l)elieve % A. Yes, Sir ; that is what I tried to make her. Q. Do you remember, in writing that book, of borrow- ing from the habit of the bird in hiding its nest a figure to illustrate the way that love might be concealed, if it were necessary ? A. I do not, Sir. Q. Do you recollect of describing Mr. and Mrs. Went- worth, and especially the peculiarities of the lady, in that lK)ok1 A. No, I had forgotten it. Do you remember using this language : [Heading.] " It would seem as if, while her whole life centered upon his love, she would hide the precious secret by fling- ing over it vines and flowers, by mirth and raillery, as a bird hides its nest under tufts of grass, and behind leaves and vines, as a fence against prying eyes." Do you recollect of writing that 1 A. I do not. Sir ; I have never read the book since the day it came out of the press. Q. Well, look at it and see if that is so. [Handing wit- ness the book, j A. Well, Sir; I know no more about it than you. I presume it is my pen. It is in my book, with my name, and I presume it is mine. Q. That purports to be a copy of "Norwood," does it not— that novel? A. Yes, Sir; I think so. Q. You don't think that has been interpolated in it ? A. No, Sir; I don't believe it has; and I want you to un- derstand that I think it probable that I wrote it; but be- fore you, whom I have learned to dread, I don't want to eay it with emphatical accuracy. [Laughter.] ME. BEECH ER GIVES MRS. TILTON A PICTURE. Well, I don't thinli it is I that you should dread, Mr. Beecher. Did you, among other things, present Mrs. Tilton with a picture called " The Trai ILutf Arbutus I" A. I did. Q. Where did you get that picture' A. Bostou. Q. When did you buy iti A. I think I had Jiad it in my lECEEB IBIAL. house for some time; I cannot say when I bought it; but that is an impression that I had it for some time in my house ; it was rather a favorite thing of mine. Q. And when did you present it to Mrs. Tilton ? A. That is more than I can say definitely ; I have an impres- sion it was somewhere about 1866, but I cannot say cer- tainly; 1866 or '67, or along there. Q. When did you commence writing that novel? A. 1867 ; it must be later that I gave it to her. Q. I think so ; after 1867 considerably, wasn't it ? A. I cannot say as to that, Sir. Q. Did you make her a present of that picture until after you had read the opening chapter of " Norwood " to her 1 A. No, Sir ; it was subsequent to that. Q. Subsequent to that? A. Yes, Sir. Q. And do you remember of describing in the book the perfume of the flower called the " trailing arbutus" aa "the breath^ of love ?" A. No, I don't remember it, Sir ; but if it is there I shall have to stand it. Q. Let us see if it is there. Speaking of that flower : [Reading.] " It is content, though lying upon the very ground. It braves the coldest Winters. All the Summers cannot elaborate a perfume so sweet as that which seems to have been born of the very Winter. It is like the breath of love. The pure white and pink blossoms, in sweet clusters, lie hidden under leaves or grass, and often under untimely snows. Blessings on thee 1 Thou art the fair- est, most modest, and sweetest-breathed of all our flow- ers!" Do you recollect that? A. No ; I don't recollect it, but I am willing to own it. Q. That, I believe, is in the opening chapter? A. I don't know how that is. Q. Be kind enough to look and see. [Handing witness the book."} A. I know that this— if you will excuse my in- terpolating a word Q. 1 wm hear what it is first. A. Well, I know that this chapter was one that I read to Mrs. Tilton, especially the chapter containing this trailing arbutus. Q. That I understand ? A. Yes. Q. And that is the reason I called your attention to it, A. I know it was, and I wanted to inform you. Q. Well, what I know you needn't tell me. A. Yes. Q. It is what I don't know that I w^ant to get from you. Is that in the opening chapter] A. No, Sir, I guess not; it is Chapter V. Q. Well, did you read that chapter? A. I think I did; if that is the chapter that contains the birth of Rose, I read it. Q. Well, is it not ? You will see that Rose is boru about five minutes after' that. [Laughter.] A. Well, Sir, then that is the chapter. Q. And after reading that part of it to her, describing the perfume of the arbutus as "the breath of love,** you {j'avc her the painting? A. Yea ; not immediately. Q. Well, did you in that book anywhere spe.'ik of tlie TESTlMOyT OF HEX. Impression wMch a flo-vs-er makes upon a sensitive mind 1 A- I don't know but I did, Sir. Q. Do you recollect whetlier 70U did or not! A. I do not; I sliaU enjoy the re-reading of tlie book more than I anticipated, Sir, haying the pleasure of hearing you read it. Q. Well, you force me to say that I doubt whether you will enjoy it a great deal in the end, Sir. If you won't make such observations I won't reply to them. Let me read it again : [Reading.] ** The image which a flower casts upon a sensitive plate Is ;iimply its owm splf-form ; but cast upon a more (Sensi- tive human soul, it leaves there not mere form, but feeling, excitement, suggestion." Do you recollect that 1 A. No, Sir ; I think it is a very good idea, [Laughter.] Q. Perhaps you will recollect it when I show it to you 1 [Handing witness the book.] A. No, I don't recollect it ; but I tind it in the book. Q. Now, do you recollect in that book of associating the song of a bird with a " love-call," as it is termed 1 A. No, Sir, I do not. Q. Let me read and see if you can remember it. Speak- ing of the characters in this book, it goes on to say : " While they thus sat in the open door, talking of the loved and absent,, and both of them thinking down deeply in the silence of the heart, of other things, which their lips would not reveal, a robin flew into one of the trees in the meadow, and began singing that plaintive call for its mate which one hears so often in Summer. It is the robin's sweetest and most spirited song, and few strains there are that surpass it in tenderness, clearness and brilliancy. Rose had always associated this evening robin eong with the idea of a love-call to one absent. To-night it seemed more yearning and passionate than usual. She followed the bird with her eye. At first he sat patiently and sang. Then, as if sui-prised that no response fol- lowed, it gave new force to its calL Now, growing rest- less, it changed its place, singing in turns, from several trees, and checking itself nervously, as if really alarmed at last, lest it were forsaken. It seemed to Rose to gay : ' The night is coming on. Where is my love ! Oh t ifi he harmed % Am I forsaken V " Do you recollect that 1 A. No, Sir; it is beautiful, I think, whoever wrote it. [Laughter.] I am willing to own It, Mr. Fullerton. EXPLAmXG THE LETTERS. Q And don't 70U ihluk that in these two letters which I have read to you from Mrs. Tilton, that she borrowed iJiese figures of speech from that book in order that you should imderstand them ? A. No, Sir, I don't think she did. Q. Well, I will take up the first one : Does your heart bound toward all, as it used ?" Do you know what she meant by that i A. I suppose I do. Q. Please tell me how you interpret it I A. Well, Sii', -will you be kind enough to give me that date 1 EY WAED BF.ECEEB. 7S Q. It is indorsed, " March gth." A. Yes, March 8th. I suppose it to refer to the interruption which had been happUy teraainated between all of us, of concord and friendliness, and that we were coming together again in kindly relations, and that there wae to be no animosity left, no enmity. Q. And it was reopening the broken associations, wa« it ? A. No, Sir; it was cementing the broken chains. Q. Very well; any way. You are familiar with the works of Hannah More, are you! A. I am asliamed to say I am not. Q. Have you read them 1 A. Never. Q. Any part of them 1 A. No, I don't think I ever did, anything, not even " Cceleb's in Search of a Wife." Q. Well, I read from Exhibit 74, being a letter from Mrs. Tilton to her husband. [Reading :] " Mt Eeloved : I have been thinking of my love for Mr. B. considerably of late, and those thoughts you shall have." The Witness— What date is that, Sir I Mr. FuUerton— 1866. [Reading:] " I remember Hannah More says : ' My heart in Its new sympathy for one abounds toward all.' " Q. Don't you recollect that Hannah More expressed that sentiment at the time that she fell In love! A. Do I recollect Hannah More expressing that when she fell In lovel Q. Yes, in one of her works ! A. I never read them, I informed you. Q. Did you ever hear Mrs. Tilton make use of that expression? A. No, Sir, not that I recaU. Q. Have you no other interpretation, then, to give, than what you have given, of this first sentence : " Does your heart botmd toward all as it used! So does mine." A. That is the only meaning that I suppose it had; that ia the only meaning tha^ I should derive from it, Sir, wltii the knowledge of the surrounding circumstances. Q. [Reading:] "lam myself again." Did you interpret that in the same way ! A. I interpreted that to be the re- covery from that state of despondency, and, as it wa« called, sullenness in which she had been. Q. Did any explanation of it pass between you and liei' in regard to the charge that she made of improper ad- vances % A. No, Sir. Q. Nothing of that kind ! A. No, Sir. Q. You had never sought any explanation 1 A. That which she explained, as I understand Q. Did you ever seek any explanation ? A. No, Sir. Q. [Reading:] "But the bird has sung in my heart these four weeks. I did not dare tell you till I was sure." How did you explain that! A. She did not dare tell me that she had gained a victory over herself, showing that she felt like a Christian woman, until she had put it to proof, and of the assurance that she was in a spirit of love toward her husband, and of concord- Q. Tliat is the way you thought it i A. That is how I Interpreted it. W TEE TILTON'B Q. "But the bird has snng m 1117 heart these four •weeks." Didn't you suppose that she borrowed that from the figure that you used in this book that you read to her? A. Bless your heart, no; it was about four weeks ago that we had had the interview. Q. Exactly. Was not she rejoicing over the fact that you had made — as you say — up, the difiiculty with Theo- dore Tilton, early in February, 1871 ? A. It was about lour weeks stace the difficulty was made up, and she was rejoicing in that she herself was in— by the making up of the difficulty, and by the victory over herself, she was in • state in which she dared to tell me now, her pastor, that she was happy, and it was permanent. Q. But, Mr. Beecher, the difficulty was made up in the first half of February, was it not? A. The interview Q. Was it not made up then 1 A. Well, Sir. Q. Is not that the time that you kissed aU around 1 A. That is the time we kissed all around. Q. Very well % A. And made up, externally. Q. Very well. One moment. You remember that, don't youl A. I do. Sir. Q. It was about the fourth week after that she wrote this letter, was it not ! A. I suppose it was. Sir ; I am not certain. Q. How did It happen, do you think, that she did not make it known to you before the lapse of four weeks 1 A. She had to test herself. Q. To see whether it was real or not! A. To see whether it was real or not. Q. WeU, it appeared to be all made up, so far as ap- pearances were concerned ? A. Many a man joins the church and falls from grace. Q. Well, don't join the church now, Mr. Beecher ; I don't want that brought in here at all. A. But I am answer Ing, really, the spirit of your question. Q. You needn't illustrate it. The kiss went around there, and tokens of amity all around ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. You supposed it was tben all made up? A. I did, Bir. Q. ** The Spring has come." Do you say that that is an extract from " Norwood ?" A. I will, if you will hand it to me. Sir ; I don't remember it. [Taking the book.] Q. And a star at the bottom ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Do you know what it refers to ? A. No, I do not, Bir. Q. You cannot interpret tbat t A. I c^not, Sir. Q. "Because I thought it would gladden you to know this, and not to trouble or embarrass you in any way, I now write." How did you imderstand that? A. Well, I understood it just as it is, if I understood it at aU. I have no disttact recollection of running through an interpreta- tive process of every line of that letter. Q. I ask you now how you Interpret iti A. How I now Interpret it! Q. Yes. A. Well, I Interpret It In that way. In what way! A. That she did not wish to give me iJECHEB TBIAL. concern, and wanted to reassure me that everything ynm right with her. Q. Did she think that you had any concern after lear- ing there In February, 1871, when the kiss went round f A. ShemightveryweU think that I would be concerned whether or not she and her husband would get along to- gether. Q. " Of course I should like to share with you my joy» but can wait for the Beyond." A. That is. Heaven. Q. Or was it the future of this life ! A. Oh, no, Sir; It is written with a big " B " there, and means Heaveii. " Beyond, beyond this lower sky," Watts says. Q. WeU, let us not have a hymn given out now 1 [Langb- ter.] A. But you were asking me what it meant. Q. Exactly, and you can give it to us without giving out a hymn, I take it ? [Reading :] "When Dear Frank says I may once again go to old Plymouth, I will thank the difeir Father." Q. What was the arrangement, if any, about going to old Plymouth? A. I don't know; that was something between her and Frank Moulton. Q. Had you ever heard anything upon the subject! A. No, Sir, not that I recollect. Q. Nothing in relation to that at all? A. Not that I recollect. Sir. Q. Was there nothing said about it at the time that yon had notice not to visit Mr. TUton's house any longer I A. Not a word; no, Sir. Q. Well, we will take up the other letter of May 3» 1871. [Reading:] " My future, either for life or death, would be happier could I but feel that you forgave me while you forget me." Q. How did you interpret that f A. Well, Sir, I cannot tell you. I don't remember receiving and reading the letter, and I don't remember the first impression upon it» " In all the sad complications of the past year my en- deavor was entirely to keep from you all suffering, to bear myself alone, leaving you forever ignorant of it." A. Well, Sir? Q. Did you interpret that at the time t A. I presume I did at the time. Q. Do you remember what the interpretation was t A. I do not remember what the interpretation was that I made at the time. Q. Well, can you give us the one that you make now t A. I will If you will be kind enough to let me see the letter. Q. Certainly. [Handing witness the letter.] A. Well, I imderstand it that she felt that she had done me wrong, and in a very delicate way she intimates that consciousness, and asks forgiveness, and she says during the past year she tried — she knew that I had blamed her— under the representations made to me— for her not taking her share in the rebuilding of the family, and consulting private feelings, and she gives her general and delioatt allusion to that in these words : " My weapons " TTJESm02^Y OF EiJJ^BJ WABD BEEOHEE. n 0, No, no, I liave not got to tliat 1 A. Oli, I beg pardon. [Beading:] ** In all the sad complications of tlie past year my en- deavor was to entirely keep from you all suffering, to bear myself alone, leaving you forever ignorant of it." "Well, tlie troubles tbat came up in ber bousebold during the year past, so far as possible I was not to be annoyed by. Q. Well, you were sent for on tbe 14th of December to go to the house, were you not ! A. No, Sir, I was sent for to go to Mrs. Morris's— I mean Mrs. Morse's. Q. Well, I said to the house where she was ! A. But then she is not referring to that period. Q. One moment ! Don't go too fast. Her diflBculties were made known to you then, were they not 1 A. Some of her difficulties were made known, but you ask me the Interpretation of that letter. Q. Yes. A. And I interpret it by saying that I xmder- Btand it to refer not to the period of 1870, but to the se- quent period fi'om 1S70 to the date. Q. Why, Sir, it is written on May 3, 1871, and speaks of the complications of the past year i A. Oh, then, it does Include. I did not notice the date of it. Q. It does include I A. It does include that. Q. She does not, as you think, refer to the fact that you were there in the December previous and heard what do- mestic difficulties there existed, did you i A. That did not occui" to me. Q. Didn't it occur to you that there was some other difficulty that she was laboring under that she alluded to? A. I thought it very likely there were many, and I think so yet. Q. Now, don't you think it was this diffictilty that she had confessed to her husband 1 A. No, Sir. Q. And made him promise not to reveal iti A. I don't believe any such thing as that. Q. You do not 1 A. No, Sii-; I believe It included all the scene of her ti'ouble with her husband on my account. Q. Well, now, will you tell me, if you please, what dif- ficulty or what trouble or what suffering there had been during the past year— I mean the year preceding the writing of this letter to which she made reference and which had not been made known to you ? A. There was a great deal. Sir, of which subsequently I became aware. Q. Subsequent to the receipt of this letter? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Then you did not interpret it in the light of that tnowledge ? A. No, Sir ; but I now see. Q. But interpreting the letter in the Light of the knowl- edge that you had on the day that it was received A. I say Q, One moment. Will you t«ll me what suffering or •what trouble she referred to there that had not been made known to you? A. Mr. FuUerton, I have told you already that whatever she meant in that letter I do not remember what I interpreted it at the time I received it, and you ask me what I interpret It now. and T now say I i understand it differently. Q. I don't ask you what you interpret It now. Didnt you regard it as referring to a difficulty between hereelf and her htiaband which was not made known to you on the 14th of December, when you were Mt Mrs. Morse's t A. I cannot say that I interpreted it so, for I do not re- member what impression it made on my mind at the time. Q. You did learn afterward, however, that Mrs. TUton haeilson— Hehas answered your question, and the Buggestion is that he may wish to explain— which you will recognize as proper, I suppose. Mr. Fullerton — If it is proper I will recognize it. Sir. Under present circumstances, when he says "no," I think that is a full answer; if it is not a full answer, he can state so. Mr. Evans— The witness is stopped in the midst of an answer which he has a right to make. Counsel finding enough in the answer, to satisfy him, has no right to stop the witness's mouth. Mr. Fullertcn— It does not follow that it is wrong to stop the witness in his answer, if it is an improper answer. Judge Nellson— No ; in the formal sense the question is OF EENRT WARD BEECEER. 79 answered; but yet, if the witness, for his own protection and benefit, thinks explanation is proper, he has a right to give it. Mr. Fullerton— An explanation of that answer. Judge Neilson— Or any qualification. Mr. Fullerton — Or any qualifleation of that answer^ certainly ; but he was going on. Sir, to do something be- side that, which I objected to. Judge Neilson— I don't know what would be the effect of what he was going to do. Mr. Evarts— You are assuming that he was going to do something beside that. Mr. Fullerton— I assume it, because it appeared iu the answer as far as it had gone. Mr. Evarts— My proposition is that the witness has a right to answer a question and not be controlled in that answer unless he is giving illegal evidence. Mr. Fullerton— "Well, that is my proposition exactly. Judge Neilson— Well, you agree. Mr. Fullerton— Yes, Sir; and, inasmuch as he was gi"ving illegal evidence, I propose to stop him. Mr. Evarts— That you assume by stopping him. Mr. Fullerton— I have a right to assume it. Mr. Evarts— No. Mr. Fullerton— Let us go back and have that question and answer read. Judge Neilson [to the Witness]— Do you feel that you wish to make any explanation in regard to the last an- swer ? The Witness— All that I wished to say, Su\ wa« that it was impossible for me to explain those terms unless I was allowed to say what I had in my mind iu writing those terms. Judge Neilson— Well, that is a sufficient exi^lanation. WHY THE LETTEES WERE KEPT SECRET. Mr. FiiUerton— Well, that is not tlie evil that I was trying to ward off, by any means. "Why did you say that it would be safe for her to do it \ A. Because she had asked me not to let the letters of hers which related to her inward and private feelings be seen by Mr. Moul- ton. Q. She h^id requested that ? A. She had requested that in the letter to which this is an answer. Q. Well, I don't ask you that ; I don't propose to bring in any other letters. Was there no other reason why you. thought it would be safe ? A. It would be safe also be- cause I was so much away that her letters were liable to be — to fall into other hands to whom confidential com- munications of this kind, delicate ones, should not fall ; and it was both that her letter would be safe, so far as that is concerned, and that its contents should be safe, so far as they were to be made known to Mr. Moulton. Q. Wa.s there any understanding, then, between you and Mrs. Tilton, that some of her letters were tiveu to 80 THE TILTON-B Mr. Moulton f A. She understood that I had given them to him. Q. How did she understand it! A. Because Mr. Moul- ton had talked with her about them. Q. How do you know that 1 A. Because I understood from him that he had. Q. Mr. Moulton told you, then, that he had delivered A. That he had spoken with Elizabeth about letters that came from her to me. Q. And what did he tell you about it 1 A. I don't r member, Sir, except the fact that he had spoken about talking with her. Q. Can't you give the substance of what he said 1 A. No, Sir. Q. You only recollect the fact that he said something upon that subject ? A. That is all that I recollect, Sir. Q. Well, I will read on : " It would be safe, for I am now at home here with my sister." A. Yes. Q. Well, did that make it any safer! A. A great deal safer. Q. Your wife was away, was she not! A. She was. Q. And that would not have been so safe, would It! A. It would have been safe, perfectly eaf e for her, but if she was gone and my sister was not there, the letters were liable, therefore, to be misled or lost, or might fall Into hands that ought not to have them. Q. Who opened your letters in the absence of yourself and your wife ? A. I opened them. Q. In the absence of yourself and your wife ! A. Oh, I think they were not opened, Sir ; they were taken by the servants, and, or ought always to be, put where they would be safe, but were not always. Q. Well, your servants had no authority to open let- ters? A. No, Sir; but they had a habit of misplacing a good many papers. Q. How? A. They had a habit of misplacing a good many letters a«d papers. Q. Do you recollect where your wife was at this time ! A. What is the date, Sir ? Q. Well A. Ohl January; I presume she was in Florida, Sir. Q. And which of your sisters was there ! A.* Mrs. Per- kins. Q. Now, was there any correspondence between you and Mrs. Tilton after this letter that I have just called your attention to ! A. I received a letter from her after that ; I do not recollect that I wrote her again. Q. I did not understand your answer, A. I say T re- ceived a letter fi-om her, but I do not recollect at the present moment of writing any other myself. Q. I call your attention now to "Exhibit No. 18." A. Yes, Sir; I know what that is. Q. Do you recollect of writing that letter! A. Yes, Sir. WOHEB TBIAL. Q. It Is January, 1872, 1 belieye It Isl A. The 20fll Of January, 1872. Q. I will ask you here, Mr. Beecher, how you sent fheie letters to Mrs. Tilton! A. I do not recollect, Sir. Q. Have you no recollection upon the subject 1 A. Not the slightest. Q. Can't you teU me whether you sent them by mail or by private conveyance ! A. I cannot ; I recollect sending one by Mr. Moulton— the 7th of February letter ; that l9» I put that into his hands, but I do not recollect In regard to the others. Q. Well, were you in the habit of sending her letters \sf mall? A. WeU, I wrote so few that a habit could hardly be predicated about it. Q. You state ra this letter: " I shall be in New-Haven next week to begin my course of lectures to the theological classes on Preach- ing." How did it happen that you communicated that fact to Mrs. Tilton ! A. I thought she would be interested to know it. Q. Did you communicate it to the rest ol your congre- gation by private letters ? A. No Q. You did not ! A. I did not, Sir. Q. Mrs. TUton— was she the only one you communi- cated the fact to ! A. By word of mouth to a very many. Q. Did you write to any other member of your flock f A. I don't know but I did, and I don't know as I did. Q. What made you think she would be interested to know that you were going to New-Haven! A. Weill flattered myself it would be interesting to almost an^ body to know that I was going to deliver a course of leo- tures in Yale. Q. So you sat down and wrote that fact to the lady who, you thought, had transferred her affections to you, and created a great domestic diflaculty ! A. When I was writing to that lady in regard to matters, I mentioned that incidentally after I had got through the other thmgs. Q. Did you not want to account to her for your absence • A. No, Sir, I did not. Q. Hadn't you called upon her just prior to thatt A. I had called to see her, but did not see her. Q. Did you go by appointment ! A. No, Sir. Q. Then you went without an appointment ! A. I went without an appointment as near as I can recollect ; I do not remember any appointment. Q. Do you recoUect the time of day yon called t A. I do not. Q. Do you reooUect whom you saw when you did call f A. I don't. Y. Do you recollect whether or not you had been re- quested to call ! A. 1 do not. Q. Do you recollect whether yon went of your own mo- tive ! A. I do not, though I suspect I did. TESTIMONY OF HEyRT WARD BEECHEB, 81 Q. Don't you recollect tliat it waa tn the daytime ? A. I don't, but I presume it was. Q. Do you know where Theodore TUton was when you went t A. I do not. Q. You went to make a call upon her, did you I A. I •went to make a pastoral call upon her. Q. Well, weren't you afraid that those pastoral calls would result in the same difficulty that A. Yes, I had tear, and, therefore, I never allowed myself to talk with her on anything but religious topics. Q. Well, how did you think that she would be interested In knowing that your wife took boat for Havana and Florida on the following Thursday ? You say in this let- ter, " My wife takes boat for Havana and Florida on Thursday!" A. Well, just at that time it was the most interesting fact, almost, that I had, and I natui-ally would impart it to a friend. Q. How intimate had Mrs. Tllton and Mrs. Beecher been prior to the writing of this lette- ^ \. I cannot say that they had been intimate, but they were acquaintances. Q. Had they exchanged calls since December 30, 1870 % A. I don't know. Q. Don't you know they had not ! A. I don't know. Q. You don't know of any such caU, however 1 A. I don't know of any. Q. [Reading :] I called on Monday, but you were out." Mr, Shearmai— It should be " Wednc-?day." Mr. PuUerton— Weil, "on Wednesday,"' then, " but you were out." A. Yes, Sir. " My wife takes boat for Havana and Florida on Thurs- day"—" I called on Monday, but you were out." A. On Wednesday. Q. WeU, did you go to New-Haven? A. I presume I did. Sir ; I went three successive Winters. Q. Is that the time that you met Theodore Tilton on the cars i A. January, 1872 ; no, Sii-. Q. That was not the time 1 A. No ; I thhik not. Sir. Q. WeU, Mr. Beecher. you did not permit yourself to talk to Mrs. Tilton upon anything but religious subjects ? A- WeU, that is the general designatioii ; I don't mean that— absolute exclusion of any reference to other topics. Q. WeU, how many times had you been to see her when such conversations were had? A. I think I had seen her but three times before the writing of this letter. Q. But three times ? A. I think that was the extent. Q. Now, before the writing of this letter, in any of the oaUs that you made was there any aUusion to the fact that you had been charged with improper soUciations 1 A. Never; not once. Q. No explanation, or word? A. Not one particlei; never an aUusion to it— that I recall, I mean, of course. Q. Let me show you Exhibit No. 20 ? A. Yes. Q. When did you write that? A. I cannot say with ■any deflniteness. Sir ; I can only give my impression. Q. In what year ? A. I should aay that— I can't say ( certainly, but I have an impression that this was written, in the FaU of 1871, but I cannot say certainly. Sir. Q. Why do you fix the FaU of 1871 as the probable tune for writing that letter ? A. WeU, the grounds for it are, I admit, not very stable, and I take them because I cannot get any other, for I reaUy don't recoUect the note ; it has no date to it; it is a mere bit of paper Q. WeU. I am asking you how you fix the time as hav- ing been in the FaU of 1871 ? A. Because I recoUect that, at the time, Florence brought me a Uttle note; I think it was from her mother, who was in trouble about her mother, and wanted to see me, and I— my impression is that I sent back this note, saying, " If you don't see me Friday night, you wUl next week Friday night ;" that is my prayer-meeting night. Q. [Reading:] "My Dhab Mrs. Tilton: If I do not see you to-morrow night, I wiU next Friday, for I shall be gone aU the forepart of next week. Yours, truly, " H. W B." Now, have you a recoUection that that was tn reply to a note brought to you by Florence ? A. I would not say it positively, but I have an impression that that alludes to a scene that I recoUect of that kind ; that is my best recoUection. Q. WeU, why did you fix Friday as the time you would see her? A. Because that was the time when persons having errands with me stopped aft^r prayer-meeting to talk with me. Q. But you don't say Friday evening! A. Didn't need to. Q. Well, was there any necessity for underscoring " Fi'iday ?" A. WeU, it is the next week. Q. Yes? A. "I am gone aU the forepart of the next week, but I shaU be home at the Friday night prayer- meeting, and wiU see you," Q. Does it say " Friday night prayer-meeting ! " A. No ; Friday. Q. WeU, you woiUdbe home Friday? A. That would not be understood by you, but it would by my parish- ioners ; the habit was to see me on my Friday night meetings. Q. But you don't say " Friday night " there, Mr. Beecher ? A. I know I don't. Q. Please look at " Exhibit No. 40." Do you recoUect the receipt of that letter ! A. No, Sir. Q. Do you recoUect the fact that you received it ! A. I do not recoUect the fact that I received it. Q. Do you recoUect what you did with it ? A. No, I don't. Sir. Q. Didn't you take it to Mr. Moulton ? A. I presume so, if it came from him. Q. It certainly did. A. I presume, then, I took it to him. Q. What object had you tn view in taking it to him 1 A. Same object I had In taking aU my papers to him. Q. Please state what it was! A. That it might he safe. 82 TEB TILTON-BEECREB TBIAL. Q. And that Is the object you had in giving it to Mr. j Moultonf A. That is the object, and keeping him in- foriQ'ed of what I knew in respect to the family. Q. Did you explain to Mr, Moulton what that letter meant as you understood it! A. Not that I recollect. Q. What is the date of it, Mr. Beechert A. Oct. 20 or 24; it is very indi8tino1>— 24th. Q. What is the year f A. No year given. Q. Do you recollect the yearl A. I do not, Sir. Q. Have you no way of fixing the year! A. Only sug- gestively. Q. Well , suggestively fix it. A. If that is true which I suppose, it was the year in which May Bradshaw was married ; but now I cannot tell you what that year was. Q. Was it not 1871 1 A. I do not recall. Q. Let us read it, and see if it will brmg it to your recollection. [Reading :] MES. MORSE'S LETTER. "MtDear Son" Perhaps you may as well state now why she called you her son? A. Well, we were at a wedding which I attended (and I think it was May Bradshaw's, but I am not certain about that), and in the off parlor, the back parlor, Mrs. Morse and I were thrown together, and she was stating to me her trials and troubles, and, among others, that she was separated from her children, and that her sons were not living with her, and that her daughter was substantially separated from her, and she was in great trial— she had nobody to advise with or to consult, and I said to her, " Well, consult with me as tf I was your son; I will give you all the help I can." Q. How much were you her senior ? A. That is a ques- tion that I never proposed to her, and I have not the slightest idea how old she was. [Laughter.] Q. You were her senior, were you not 1 A. I don't know, Sir. Q. You have no judgment upon that subject 1 A. No, Sir, none, Q. You think that is the way she came to address you as " my dear son?" A. I know no other way. Q. Because you told her to consult you as if you were her son ? A. Because she came to me saying that she had no son, or no person to consult, and I said, *' Consult me." Q. Well, perhaps this last sentence will throw some light upon the subject : [Reading.] " When I have told darling, I felt if I could, in safety to yourself and all concerned, you would be to me all this endearing name. Am I mistaken? Mother." Was there any suggestions made between you and her, that gave rise to that expression 1 A. None that I remem- ber, Sir. Q. Did you answer that letter 1 A. Not that I recollect, Sir. Q. I will read another, and see if it wUl throw any light upon the subject. [Reading :J - Do you know T think it strange you should ask me to call you son?" Did you ask her to call you *' son ?" A. In no other way than I have stated. Q. No other way? A. No other way. It was not for my sake ; it was for hors. Q. But she says in her letter : " Do you know I think it strange you should ask me to call you * son ' " 1 Had you asked her to call you " son?" A. No. Q. Did you explain any of these things to Mr. Moulton when you carried the letter to him ? A. I don't believe I did. To explain a letter of Mrs. Morse to Mr. Moulton was not our habit. Q. She says in this letter: " I wiU promise that the * secret of her life.' as she calls it, shall not be mentioned." Whose life did she refer to there, as you interpreted the letter? A. It is not for me to say, for I don't rec- ollect ; it is not my language. Q. The language was addressed to you, was it not 1 A. It was. Q. And you took the letter to Mr. Moulton to have it kept safe? A. Yes, Sir ; but it was Mrs. Morse's letter to me about what Mrs. Tilton had said, and now you ask me to say what two women said— what I thought about It. Q. Yes, I ask you what you did think about it 1 A, And I tell you I don't know. Q. Did you know then ? A. I don't suppose I did. Q. You formed no opinion about it ? A. I don't sup- pose I did. My impression is that I did not read the let- ter. Q. Let us read a little further [reading]: " My darling spent most of yesterday with me. She said all she had in the way of money was $40 per week, which was for food and all other household expenses aside from rent, and this was given her by hand by Annie Tilton every Saturday. If you know anything of the amoimt it takes to find food for eight peo- ple, you must know there's little left for clothing. She told me lie (T.) did not take any meals home, from the fact she could not get such food as he liked to nourish his brain [laughter] ; and so he took his meals at Moulton's. Just think of that! I am almost crazy with the thought. Do come and see me. I will promise that the 'secret of her life,' as she calls it, shall not be mentioned. I know it's hard to bring it up, as you must have suffered intensely, and we all wiU, I fear, till released by death." Now, did you know what she referred to there, in thus addressing you ? A. Do you. ask my present knowledge f Q. At the time you received that letter, didn't you know what Mrs. Morse referred to in spenking of tlie secret of Mrs. Tllton's life, which she was not to mention in your presence ? A. I reply to you specifically about that sentence, what I have told you generally about the whole letter, that I do not remember what I thought about the contents of it. Q. Di(ln'<^ you think it referred to the domestic trouble TESTmONY OF EEXR fa that fainily ? A. I caDnot say that I thought It did, when I have just stated th^t I don't rememher what I thought. Q. Never mind enlarging upon it. Did you not think it referred to the charge that Mr. Tilton had. made against you of Improper solicitations! A. I do not rememher what I thought about it in any way, manner, or sort. Q. It was a thing tliat did not make any impression n your mind, was it! A. My impression is that I did not even read it, =^ . Ho w ? A. My impression is tliat I never read tlie let- \ tr through. Q. What did yon want it kept safe and take it to Mr. Moulton for, then! A. Mr. Moulton was the depository • iretty much of all the papers that related ia any way dii-ectly or indirectly to this case. Q. Oh ! did this letter relate to this case 1 A. It related to it by this, that Mrs. Morse and Mi'. Tilton were adver- saries. Q. "Well, did yon read It far enough to find that out 1 A. 1 tnew that, Sir, without reading that letter. Q. You did! A. Yes, Sir. Q. Did you instinctively know, without reading it, what was in the letter, so as to come to the conclusion that it related to this dilflculty, and so take it to Mr. Moulton for safe-keeping ! A. A letter from Mrs. Morse would go t-o Mr. Moulton anyhow, whether I knew the contents or not Q. That is not what I asked you t A. It is the substance of what you asked. Q. Xo, it is not. If yon did not ascertain the contents of that letter by reading it, how did it happen that you took it to Mr. Moulton upon the theory that it related to some difficulty that existed between yourself and Mr. Tilton. or between Mrs. Morse and Mr. Tilton? A. Mr. Fuilei ton, you take a letter and. glance your eye over it, and see what its contents relate to, and then you don't care about going through it Q. Is that the way you did ! A. I presume that is the way ; I don't recollect. Q. You think you looked into it far enough to see that it r>-lated to this matter 1 A. Just enough to see that it was a complaint about Mr. Tilton and his family. Q. Did you look at that letter just enough to see that it referred to the difflcnlty in that family, speaking of this secret of Mrs. Tilton's which was not to be mentioned in your presence if you came to see her ! A. I don't recollect it. Q. Now did yon go In pursuance of that letter! A. Go where ? Q. Where the letter asked you to! A. I don't know as it did ask me to go anywhere. Q. WeU, I will have to ask you to read it and see. [Otfering witness the manuscript letter.] The Witness— I beg you will let me read the print, Sir ; the writing is very fine, and with very pale ink. 7 WAED BE JSC EBB. 83 Mr. PuUerton— Certainly, Sir. A. [After looking at the letter.] I don't now see where she asks me to go any- where ; T don't perceive what your question pertains to. Q. Did you go to see Mrs. Morse after the receipt of that letter! A. Not that I know of. Sir. Q. Have you no recollection whether you did or not! A. I have no recollection. Q. Where was Mrs. Morse residing at that time ! A« That I cannot say, Sia Q. You have no recollection where she was at that time! A. I have none, Sir. THE riEST BLUSH OF THE SCAM)AL. ^ Q. Now, Mr. Beectier, when did you first hear that this scandal had got out! A. I don't know; I should have to think that matter up. Q. Well, Sir, we wlU give you plenty time to do so. A. [Aftei a pause. 1 Do you allude to the fact that there was a difficulty between Mr. Tilton's family and mine— and myself ? Q. I allude to this scandal. I use the generic term. Judge Nf-il son— In any form ! Mr. Fullerton — In any of its forms or ramifications. The Witness— I think the first iatimation I had of it was the card of Mrs. Woodhull ia May, 187i. Q. In '71, was it ! A. Yes, Sir. Q. You are quite sure that was the first 1 A. No, Sir. That is the first that comes to me. Q. Do you recollect hearing at any time th.it Mr. Tilton had told it to any number of persons ? A. This scandal ! Q. Ygs. "A. I do not now recall at this moment any— I heard of his repeating injurious stories of me. Q. That is not it? A. WeU, that is what I want to know, whether you refer to that, or whether you refer Q. I am referring to this scandal in any of its ramifica- tions ? A. Yes, Sir. I do not recall hearing that it had got out nntU the intimations of the card. Q. Do you recollect the letter of Mrs. Morse, to which I called your attention last week, in which she spoke of twelve persons to whom Theodore TiLton had told thlA. story! Mr. Sheai-man— No, that is not what she said. Mr. Fullerton— Well, it is it substantially. Mr. Shearman— No . Twelve persons whom he had told, she did not say what. Mr. Fullerton— Mrs. Morse says : " I know of twelve persons whom he has told, and they in turn havo told others !" A. Told what, Sir. Q. I am not under examination. A. No, but I ask In order to be able to answer your question. Q. I am reading all that there is here. Do you recol- lect that 1 A. Allow me to see it, if you please. Sir. Q. Certainly, Sir! A. [Having looked at the letter.] I cannot say that I recollect about this letter. I can recol- lect that there was a time in which the subject of Mr. Tilton's speaking about his family troubles was discussed 84 THE TILTON-BEEGHEB TBIAL. between Mr. Moulton and myself, but I clon't recollect it as associated with this letter, though it may have been 80 and probably would be. Q. How is that % A. I recoUect that Mr. Moulton and I talked about the allegation that Mi-. Tilton had disclosed the family diflSculties that existed to several persons— to many persons. Q. Did you understand that he had disclosed the family difficulties, and at the same time disclosed that you were the author of the difflculxiea 1 A. I don't recollect about that. Of couise there could scarcely be any other under- •tanding than it. Q. Did you not take this letter to Mr. Moulton to the end that he might ascertain from Mr. Tilton whether the allegation was true that he had told any persons of the difficulty 1 A. Very likely; though at this moment I don't recall that; I presume that was the reason of taking it to him. Q. Don't you recoUect that, after you had taken it to him, Mr. Moulton sent for Mr. TUton—and don't you recoUect that an interview foUowed between you three gentlemen 1 A. I remember that there was an interview between us on the subject of whether he had made re- ports, but partly it was whether he had made reports about what was caUed the Bowen scandal, and partly whether he had also spoken about the difficulties in his own family as connected with me. Q. Now, what took place between you on the latter subject I A. I do not recaU what the result was, except, tn general, that I received from Mr. Moulton the assur- ance that it was not so. Q. Was not Mr. TUton, after he came there and became one of the three, asked whether he had told the story about any difficulties, and if so, to whom ? A. Very pos- sibly, Sir, but I don't recall it. Q. Don't you recoUect 1 A. I do not recoUect it. Q. Don't you recollect that he denied having told it to twelve persons, and that he went on to state to whom he had told it 1 A. I do not recaUthat. IrecaUin general that this was discussed and that Mr. Moulton assured me, either then or afterwards, that that statement was exaggerated; and also I received from Mr. TUton a denial of the substantial aUegation that he had told it to twelve persons— that iw, to many persons. Q. Now, my question is, whether it was not the subject of discussion there as to whether he had not told it to some persona % A. I do not remember the discussion suf- ficiently distinctly to say. Q. Do you not recoUect that he denied having told it, except to Mrs. Bradshaw and Oliver Johnson 1 A. I don't recollect it. Q. Do you recollect that their names were used ? A. I do not now recall that I knew it then; it might have taken place, but I don't recaU it. MRS. WOODHULL'S CAED. Q. Then you heard it first, as you think, in May, 1871, when Mrs. Woodhuil published her oardt A* That, I think, is the first, Sir. Q. Where did you lirst see that card of Mrs. Woodhnllf A. It was published in the New- York . Q. Did you see it in that paper] A. I either saw it, read it, or some one stated the substance of it to me; I do not recaU the act of reading it. Q. How soon after the pubUcation of that card did yott see Mr. TUton f A. I don't know that, either, definitely; it was within a short period. Q. Did you go directly to see him 1 A. I do not reooUeot that I did. Q. Did you go to see Mr. Moulton 1 A. I don't recall ; it is quite Ukely. Q. Did you take, as you now remember, any step what- ever In regard to the publication of that card 1 A. No, I took no step ; it is quite likely that I had a conference with Mr. Moulton whether anything shoiUd be done, but I don't recaU the conference. Q. Don't you know that you had an interview with Mr. Moulton, and that it was agreed that Mrs. WoodhuU should be seen in regard to it f A. No, I do not recall. Sir. Q. Don't you recoUect that it was thought advisable that her threatened publication should be averted if it could be accomplished in any way % A. I do not recaU it, Sir. Q. When did you first learn that Mr. TUton had seen Mrs. WoodhuU ? A. It was when he told me within a few days, a day it may be, or a few days, at any rate, of the interview; he described it to me. Q. Where were you when he described it to you I A. That I forget, but I presume it was at Mr. Moulton's house; I don't remember. Q. Didn't he tell you in substance that he had had that interview with Mrs. WoodhiUl for the purpose of estah- Ushing pleasant relations with her, so as to avert that blow that she threatened to strike 1 A. He said that he meant, as I recaU it, to bring to bear upon her an influ- ence which woiUd restrain her from meddling with the domestic troubles of his f amUy. Q. And didn't you approve of that) A. Yes, Sir; in the light I then had I thought it was not an improper thing to do. Q. And didn't you thank him for his interference 1 A. Possibly I might ; I don't remember that I did. Q. Did he at that time disclose to you your plans— how that kindly influence was to be brought about ? A. I un- derstood that it was to be brought about by the exercise of his personal influence upon Mrs. WoodhuU, and by stat- ing to her that she had no righlfto attack a f eUow-laborer In th£ same field with hoi-self. Q. Did you uudo stiind that his influence was to be ex- erted in the shape of argtmient f A. Both ; but It waa TESTIMONY OF HE2i more than that, it -was to be personal influence as di.- tlnguislied from argument. Q. Didn't he tell Tou That he -would so to her house to 8te her ? A. I don't recollect that he did. Q. Will Tou state that he did not t A. No. Q. Will you state that he did not disclose to you his in- tent to go to the house and see Mrs. Woodhull for the purpose of exerting this Influence and getting a control over her so as to prevent the puhlieation of the scandal, and don't you recollect that you approved of it ? A. Xo, Sir ; I never approved of any such thing. Q. Tou did not approve of his going there? A. No, Sir ; I don't recollect ever approving of any steps ; they were announced to me after they ^vere t-aten. Q. I am speaking of ^hat -^vas said to you before Tie \eent there. A. Nothing that I recall -was said to me be- fore he went to see Mrs. Woodhull; the fli'st knowledge I haA of his seeing her was the historical account which he gave me of his interview with her. Q. Didn't he tell you before he went that he was going, and make known to you what object he meant to accom- plish? A. No, Sir: I recall nothing of that Mnd, Q. Tou say you do not recall it; do you mean to state positively that that did not take place between you and Mr. Tilton ? A. I do not beUeve it took place between me and Mr. TUton. Q. That is not an answer to my question. A. According to the best of my recollection it did not take place. Q. Is that all you can say! A. That is all I can say. Q. Tou cannot positively deny it, then? A. According to the best of my recollection nothing was said to me before his going to see her. Q. Tou cannot positively deny that it did take place i A. That is as far as I feel that I can go, Sir. Q. Tou have no positive recollection that it did not take place ! No, I don't know that I have, but I have a very positire feeling that it did not. Not so positive as to swear to it ? A. No, I would not like to swear to it. Q. When did you next see Mr. Tilton after that in- terview, in regard to this scandal ? A. That interview with whom— his with Mrs. Woodhull, or mine with him! Q. Mr. Tilton'8 with you 1 A. Oh, I don't recollect when my next interview with him was. Q, When did you next hear of the scandal after that publication of Mrs. WoodhiiLl ? A. I don't know. Sir— I am speaking now at a venture a little— my impression is j that it was not until the Fall— the scandal, you mean, as a published thing ! Q. Tes. A. I think it was in the Fall of 1872, the publi- cation of it, but T may be mistaken. Q. Now, intermediate the card of Mrs. Woodhull and the publication in the Fall of 1872— did you hear privately j that it had got out in any way! A, That there was a i BY WABD BEECRER. 85' difficulty between me and Mr. Tilton, I heard had got out. ■ Q. From whom did you hear that! A. I cannot say positiN cly. Q. What did you hear the difficulty was that had got out? A. That I cannot say— merely that there was talk about it, and that there were rumors about it. Q. Can you state what the difficulty was, as you heard it ! A. No, I cannot. Q. Did you ever hear of the difficulty before the publi- catl'.n of it in the Fall of 1872 by Mrs. Woodhull! A. Nevpr, in any detail Q. Well, in general did you hear it from any quarter ! A. Only that there was difficulty ; that was all Q. Had you never heard that Mr. Tilton charged yon with the commission of this offense ? A. No ; not that I recall. Q. Do you recollect of receiving a letter from a nephe'W of yours, F. B. Perktus 1 A. Tes, Sir. Q. Do you recollect when that was ? A. No, Sir; but I can tell you. Mr. Fallerton— Look and see, please. The Witness— I have got it down here somewhere (referring to a memo- randum). :Mr. Beach— That letter is on exhibit. Mr. Shearman— Exhibit D, 46. The Witness— What date ? Mr. Shearman— Feb. 13. The Witness — 1571 : that is too far along. By Mr. Fullerton— Look at Exhibit D, 46, and say whether it is the letter that you received from your nephew? [Handing letter to witness.] A. I presume it is. Sir ; this is his handwriting. Q. Look at Exhibit D, 47, and see whether it is yottr reply to it? A. This is my handwiiting: yes. Sir, imtil you get over to here ; this, I think. Sir, is the first draft of a letter, Feb. 23. 1S71. Q. How ! A. I think this is the fir-st draft of a letter. Q. In reply to your nephew's ? A. In reply to my nephew's. Now, are you not enabled to say you heard of thin scandal in 1871, in February! A. No, Sir. Q. Let me read a clause from your nephew's letter. [Pleading.] •• Theodore has been justifying or excusing hie recent intrigues with women by alleging that you have been detected in the like adulteries, the same having been hushed up out of consideration for the parties." j A. Tou are referring to the Bowen letter! Q. Did you understiind it as referring to the Bowen letter ? A. UnoLuestionably ; the letter will show it, Mr. Fullerton— I don't understand that it does show It. "By aUegtng that you have been detected in the like aniiilteries." A. Tes, Sir. j Q. Bowen's charges had been hushed up ! A. Certainly i they had. 86 TEE TlLTON-BMECaER TRIAL. Q. HoTT had they been hushed up % A. So far as Mr. Tllton was concerned, he had ceased to believe them, and there was no publication of them directly by Mr. Bowen, except by being whispered in his ear ; they had never gone into the news- papers, nor, that I know of, into the common air. They had worked aroimd in the various channels, which I am ignorant of, by which newsmen get hold of things. Q. How had they been hushed upl A. They had been dropped. Q. Howl A. I didn't say how. Mr. Evarts— He didn't say that. Mr. Pullerton— No, but he is saying so now. The Witness— I am saying now that I don't know how they were hushed up. (4. You did not regard this, then, as a reference at all to the charge against you by Mr. Tiltoni A. Not as I re- call it. Q. Well, let us see your reply t " Feb. 23, 1871.— Whatever Mr. Tllton formerly said against me — " The Witness— Please read on. " Whatever Mr. Tllton formerly said against me— and I know the substance of it— he has withdrawn." A. Yes, Sir. Q. Now, prior to that, Mr. Tllton had charged you with improper relations with his wife, had he not 1 A. That was not the subflect between Mr. Tllton and me. Mr. FuUerton— Answer the question. Mr. Evarts— Read the whole sentence. " And frankly confessed that he had been misled by the statements of one who, when confronted, backed down from his charges." Mr. Fullerton— I know what the sentence is. I will give you a great many more than you want before I get through. Mr. Evarts— You cannot, Mr. Fullerton— I am going to ask questions in i?egard to this in detail. Mr. Evarts— But I propose, when the witness is asked concerning a written letter, that half a sentence shall not be put to him as if it were a whole sentence. Mr. Fullerton— I did not read half a sentence and put it to him as if it was a whole one. Judge Neilson— You have a right to frame your ques- tion. Mr. Fullerton— I have that right, and I will enjoy it. [To the witness.] I will ask you this question. fReading.] " Whatever Mr. Tilton formerly said against me— and I know the substance of it — he has withdrawn." Now, I ask you whether prior to the date of this letter he had not charged you with having had improper rela- tions with hia wife? A.— [To Mr. FullertonJ— I cannot answer the truth without making a statement besides yes or no. THE CHARGE OF ADULTERY. Q. Can yon tell me whether the charge was made prior to Feb. 23, 1871 1 A. You ask me for the Interpretation of that letter. Mr. Fallerton— I am not eisking you for any interpreta- tion at all. The Witness— It is an interpretation you ask of me. Mr. Fullerton— It is not. I ask you whether, prior to February 23, 1871, Mr. Tilton had not made the charge against you of having had improper relations with his wife 1 A. He never made such a charge against me. Mr. Fullerton— Well, we will settle that question now. Now let me read from your direct examination ; I won't read the whole of it ; " that I had— that in consequence of the differences which had sprung up by reason of my conduct, his family had well nigh been destroyed; that I had suffered my wife and his mother-in-law to conspire for the separation of the family ; that I had corrui>ted Elizabeth, teaching her to He, to deceive him, and hide under fair appearances her friendship to me; and that I had made her to be— that I had— that he had married her one of the simplest and purest women that he ever knew, and that under my influence she had become deceitful and untrustworthy ; he said that I that had tied the knot in the sanctuary of God, by which they were to be bound together in an inseparable love, had also reached out my hand to untie that knot, and to loose them one from the other ; he then went on to say that not only had I done this, but that I had made overtures to her of an improper character.*' Mr. Evarts— Read the rest of that. The Witness— Will you read the whole of it, please. Sir f Mr. Fullerton [reading]—" And again I expressed some surprise, probably, by my attitude— I don't recollect that I talked— but he drew from his pocket a strip of payer about that [producing a paper about live inches by one and a half]— like that, and read to me what purported to be the statement of his wife to him that Mr. Beecher had solicited her to become his wife, to all the intents and purposes which were signified by that term, or sub- stantially that." Q. Now, didn't he charge you with improper advances t A. Strictly speaking, he did not. Q. Well, I don't want anything but strictly speaking— I want you to strictly speak, and answer the question I put to you : Didn't he charge you with having improper relations with his wife ? A. I do not consider that he did, strictly and literally speaking. Q. Did you give the evidence that I have just read in your direct examination! A. I presume I did; I have not read it since. Q. Is it true as I read it ? A. I presume it is true in the sense in which I meant it. Q. Ditln't you understaurl yourself as saying in the evi- dence tlmt he made the charg(>rtrf t and then fortified it TIJSTIMOyF OF HFJyEF WARD BEECEEB. 87 by producing tlie certificate of his wife I A. If I used the word " oharge " Q. Did jou understand yourself as saying that 1 A. Please repeat the riuestion. Q. Didn't you understand yourself in your direct ex- amination as saying, " Mr. Tilton made the charge of im- proper overtures to his wife, and then produced a certifi- cate of his wife in substantiation of the charge ?" A. I didn't intend to be so understood, Sir. Q. You did not ; yery weU ; let it stand there. Let me read to you and see whether you ever said this at any other time He then declared that I had injured him in his family relations ; had joined with his mother-in-law in producing discord in his house ; had advised a separation ; had alienated his wife's affections from him ; had led her to love me more than any living being ; had corrupted her moral nature, and taught her to be insincere, lying, and hypocritical ; and ended by chai'ging that I had made wicked pi-oposals to her 1" A. Very lifeely I said so, Sir. Q. Now in saying that, did you refer to the same inter- view between you and Mr. Tilton on the 30th of Decem- ber, 1870? A. I did. Sir. Q. Then I go back to the letter. Well, I will put this question to you : Do you mean now to say that Mr. Tilton did not on the night of the 30th of December, 1870, charge you with having made wicked proposals to his wife ? A. I mean to state Q. Do you mean to state that that didn't take place ? A. I mean to state that he charged me, according to my present Q. No, no ; now, Mr. Beecher, if you please ; I don't "want what you suppose. AN INACCURACY IN THE DIEECT EXAMINA- TION. Jndge Neilson— That is the only way, to let the witness answer, and if the answer is not proper we can strike it out, or a part of the answer. Mr. Fullerton — I ask him if he now means to say that Mr. Tilton did not make that charge against him on the night of the 30th of December, 1870. He either means it or he does not mean it, and he can tell us by a simple answer Judge Neilson— He might mean it in one sense and not mean it in another sense. I think we must take the answer. Mr. Bcacli— Wv; ask him if he didn't mean a certain spe- «iflc thing, and V. he rher a certain specific thing did not occur upon thai> occasion. He begins an answer by say- ing, I do uicKii tliis or that. That is not an answer to the question. 3y giviue: a different sentence or a differ- ent thing that he lueana is not answering a specific ques- tton whether he means the pai-ticular thing emboilied in the question. I snbmit upon a cioss-oxamination we are ' : 'm' tkI to accept answers of Lhat chai-acter. I Judge Neilson— The Avitness ought to answer as directly as he possibly can of course. Mr. Fullerton— If he did n't mean it he can say BO. Mr. Evarts— If he did mean it he can say so. Mr. Fullerton— Yes. Mr. Evarts— And if he did mean what lie iaf going to say now he can say that. That he can do. Mr. Fullerton— Yes. Mr. Evarts— They think the coimsel have a right to catch a witness between a "yes" and a "no" when neither of them is telli»g the truth. Mr. Fullerton— I don't know what your object may be in examining a witness. That i.s not my object now. I know without any aid fi-om the counsel on the other side that Mr. Beecher can say whether he meant a certain thing by what he said. Mr. Evarts— He can if you will let him. Mr. Fullerton— I will. Mr. Evarts— You cannot stop his mouth. Mr. Fullerton— No, I cannot stop his mouth, and that is not the only one whose mouth I have not been successful in stopping. Your Honor will perceive that Mr. Beecher meant to say that he was charged with improper ad- vances by Theodore Tilton on the night of the 30th of December, 1870, or he wa^ not so charged in his judg- ment. I don't want any oration about it. I wish to know simply the operation of his own mind, the judg- ment he formed in regard to that interview. It certainly is a very simple question. Judge Neilson— What you readjust now was not from his direct examination. Mr. Fullerton— What I read first was from the direct examination. What I read in the second place was what Mr. Beecher said upon another occasion. Judge NeUson [to the Tribime stenographer]— Read the last question, Mr. Stenographer. The Tribune stenographer read the CLuestion, as follows : Q. " Do you mean now to say that Mr. TUton did not, on the night of the 30th of December, 1870, charge you with having made wicked proposalfii to hia wife 1" Mr. Evarts— Your Honor is aware the whole inquiry has been upon the point whether the husband made the charge, as distinct from making the charge that the wife had communicated < o lilm. Judge Neilson- Now, suppose the witness should answer that Mr. TUton slid make that charge. It would be legiti- mate on a redirect examiuation to inquire on what he alleged it was founded. Ml-. Beach— Undoubtedly ; but this difficulty, if your Honor please, arises upon the volunteer declaration of the witness that Mr. Tilton did not charge him with mak- ing improper proposals to bis wife. Mr. Evarts— Excepting through his wife. Mr. Beach— Not excepting through his wife, but that I he feud a paper or statement of bis wife's making that 88 THE TlLTOB-BEEflHEB I RIAL. Imputation. Now Ve have read what lie stated on his direct examination. We liave read wiiat he stated upon another occasion, wherein he explicitly declares that Mr. Tilton did mate these charges, and we now ask him, for the purpose of enabling him to rectify or. confirm the declaration which he has made within a few minutes, whether he meant to say Mr. Tilton did not upon that occasion make that accusation. We don't ask him what he does mean to say ; we ask him whether he meant to say that. Judge Neilson [to the Witness]— Give us the best an- swer you can. The Witness— From my present point of view % Judge Neilson— Yes. The witness— I do not regard Mr. Tilton as having made that charge personally. He charged Mr. FuUerton— One moment. Did you say that? [Read- ing.] *' He ended by alleging that I had made wicked pro- posals to her. Until he had reached this I had listened with some contempt, under the impression that he was attempting to bully me, but with the last charge he pro- duced a paper purporting to be a certifled statement of a previous confession made to him by his wife of her love lor me and that I had made proposals to her of an im- proper nature." Q. Do you recollect that ? A. I think very likely those are my words. Q. Precediag the confession of his wife or the produc- tion of the certificate of his wife, did he not charge you with having made improper proposals to his wife I A. No ; I do not think he did, Sir. Judge Neilson [to the Witness]— The inquiry is whether he said anything on that subject. The Witness— I know it ; I can tell very plainly what the whole is, but I am not allowed to. Sir. It is a very simple matter, indeed, in my view, but, of course, I must defer to the better judgment of counsel. Mr. Fullerton— After having charged you with making improper proposals, did he produce a paper purporting to be a certified statement of a previous confession made to him by his wife 1 A. Do you ask me f Q. Yes ! A. I think not. Q. You think not? A. I think not. Q. That statement then is not the truth f A. 1 think it is inaccurate Q. And your direct testimony was inaccurate upon that subject 1 A. If it contravenes what I state now it needs correction. The Court here adjourned imtil 11 o'clock on Tuesday morning SIXIY-EIGHTH DAY'S PROCEEDINGS. CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE DEFENDANT STJLL IN PROGRESS. NATUKE OF MK. TILTON'S ORIGINAL ACCUSATION— THE " RAGGED EDGE " LETTER— THE PAYMENT OF THE MONEY TO MR. MOULTON FOB THE GOLDEN AGE— GEN. BUILER'S RELATIONS TO THE CASE— THE TESTIMONY OF MRS. MOULTON AGAIN CON- TRADICTED—DEACON bell's TESTIMONY called IN QUESTION. Tuesday, April 20, 1875. Mr. Fullerton resnmed the cross-examination with questions concerning Mr. Beecher's belief as to whether Mr. Tilton, apart from Mrs. Tilton's letter of confession, had personally charged him with making improper proposals to her. Mr. Beecher em- phatically repeated his previous declaration that Mr. Tilton had not personally made that charge. When questioned as to what he meant by his former testimony that Mr. Tilton had ended a long talk by " charging him with wicked proposals to his wif e,^^ Mr. Beecher explained that he had used the word "charge" in a general sense, as synonymous with "state" or "declare." It was not used in a "spe- cific," but " generic" sense. Mr. Beecher's letter of Feb. 5, 1872, to Mr. Moul- ton was brought up again by Mr. Fullerton, who made the witness go over the principal parts of it almost word by word. Mr. Beecher explained that his proposed resignation of his pastorate was only conditional. The point was that he feared it might appear that he was using his church as a "smuggling place," and to disprove that he was willing "to step down and out." Mr. Beecher said that it was his custom when waiting for Mr. Moulton to lie down on the sofa, and on account of his hay-fever he always spread a newspaper or other covering over his feet to keep them warm. Perceiving this Mrs. Moulton had frequently spread a shawl or something of that kind over his feet when he was lying down. Mr. Beecher distinctly remembered the in- cidents of the interview of May 31, 1873. He firmly denied that he had told Mrs. Moulton, as she affirmed in her testimony, that she was to him a section of the day of judgment. That he lin.d not used those words he swore positively, and tit iiie best of his recollection he had not u.sed any expression akin to that. In further contradic- tion of Mrs. Moulton'a testimony Mr. Beecher re- iterated his declaration, on the direct examination^ TESTIMONY OF HE2\ thaFt lie had made no statement or confession of adnlteiry to Mrs. Moulton. The circumstances of Mr. Beecher'a departmre for Peekskill on June 2, 1873, the day on which ]Mr8. Moulton testified that he called at her house and had a long interview with her, in the course of which he said he had a poison-powder at home which he would take, were rehearsed. Mr. Beecher swore positively that he was not at Mr. Moulton's house at all on that day, and that he saw no lady entering the house as hie was leaving it. Mr. Beecher also denied that he had requested Greorge A. Bell to prevent a meeting of the deacons to consider the "West charges." One of the most interesting passages of the cross- examination was in reference to the appointment of the Investigating Committee, and Mr. Beecher's statements made before that Committee about the payment of money for Mr. Tilton's benefit. The details of the appomtment of the Coiomit- tee were described very minutely, and Mr. Beecher's relations and conversations with the various members of it, but especially with Mr. Cleveland, were made the subjects of close inquiry. The fact was developed that Mr. Beecher had told Mr. Cleveland, before the Committee was appointed, some of the circumstances of his relations with Mr. Moulton, and that Mr. Cleveland had expressed opinions favorable to Mr. Beecher. The fact was also brought out that before Mr. Beecher made his statement to the Committee Mr. Cleveland had emphatically expressed hifi opinion that blackmail had been levied upon him. Mr. Beecher said that he had never read the Committee's report, and had only heard gener- ally that it was a triumphant acquittal of himself. He had never heard what it contained about the charge of blackmail and the "pistol scene." In reference to the payment of money to Mr. Moul- ton for Mr. Tilton, Mr. Beecher declared that he had made the payments voluntarily, as an act of kind- ness, and without thinking that he was being black- mailed in any sense. He declared that if he had thought the payment of the money was going to be used as a means of bringing about a settlement of his troubles with Mr. Tilton, he "would not have paid a cent, if he had been killed for it." The witness was plied with questions as to the time when he first began to think that blackmail was being levied upon him. He insisted that at the time he made the payments, amounting in all to $7,000, he did not think he was paying blackmail, although the idea had flitted through his mind at v«ious iY WARD BEBGREB, . 89 times, which were not very well fixed, that such might be the case. The passage in his statement to the Committee, in which he said that he had paid the money because he understood that the whole difficulty would be settled by it, was read by Mr. Fullerton, and Mr. Beecher ad- mitted that it was not the same statement of his motives as the one he had just given, but said that in the sense he then intended it he would make the same statement again. Mr. Beecher remarked that there were inaccuracies in his statement before the Investigating Committee. Mr. Fullerton finally put the question whether Mr. Beecher now believed that Francis D. Moulton had intended to blackmail him. There was utter silence in the court-room. At last Mr. Beecher said, hesitatingly, " I am afraid he did.* He explained that his confidence in ilr. Moulton had been so complete that sometimes, even now, he could scarcely persuade himself that he had been guilty of levying blackmail. Mr. Fullerton insist- ing on a more direct answer to his question whether he believed !Mr. Moulton had intended to levy blackmail upon him, Mr. Beecher replied slowly, " If for his own advantage, he did n't, but if he took advantage of my generous feelings for the benefit of 3Ir. Tilton. I think he did." THE PROCEEDINGS— VERBATIM. The Court met at 11 a. m., prj^uant to ad- journment. Judge Neilson— Are you ready to proceed, Sir f Mr. Beecher was recalled. Cross-examination resumed. Judge Neilson— Officer Rogers, you must enforce silenoe to-day with this audience, on some terms. THE CHARGE OF IMPROPER ADVANCES. Mr. Fullerton — Mr. Beecher. aft^r a night's reflection, are you enabled to state now whether you re« garded Theodore Tilton as charging you with improper advances toward his wife on the night of the 30th of December, 1870 ? A. I regard him as maMng— as com- municating to me Q. No ; one moment. Now, Mi'. Beecher. A. No, Sir. Q. You did not regard bim as having made that charge against youl A. No, Sir, not in the etrict sense. Q. Did you regard him as ha Ting made that charge against you in any sense, whether etrict or otherwise t A. Yes, in a general way; regarding the taterview as a general narrative and interview, I should use that lan- guage agaia. Q. Y'est A. But if scrutinized and made exact in terms, I should say not— that he charged me with tiiot^ THB TILTON-BEEGHBB TBIAL. things which he personally knew, and repeated the charge that his wife had made. Q. Did not he make the charge in his own behalf ? A. I don't think that he did, Sir. Q. Did he profess to be the representative of his wife 1 A. He made no profession whatever. Q. You regarded this charge as a charge made by him, did you not 1 A. I didn't think of it in that light, Sir ; it was a narrative. Q. Well, the charge was tn the narrative, was it not f A. Her statement was. Q. He repeated it to you before he read the narrative of his wife, did he not, or the confession of his wife ? A. He mentioned that she had made charges against me. Q. Did he not charge you with the offense before he referred to his wife's statement 1 A. He did not charge me in that sense ; he said that his wife had made such statements and then read them. Q. Now, let me read this to you again, Mr. Beecher, aild see whether it is right or wrong. [Reading]: He charged me in substance, that, acting for a long time in an unfriendly spirit, that I had sought his down- fall, had spread injurious rumors about him, was using my place and influence to undermine him, had advised Mr. Bowen to dismiss him, and much more that I cannot remember. He then declared that I had injured him in his family relations ; had joined with his mother-in-law In producing discord in his house ; had advised a separa- tion ; had alienated his wife's affections from him; had led her to love me more than any living being ; had cor- rupted her moral nature, and taught her to be insincere, lying, and hypocritical ; and ended by charging that I liad made wicked proposals to her. Is that narrative true, of that interview! A. WUlyou allow me to see that. Sir 1 Q. Yes, Sir. [Handing witness the book.] A. The term "declare" and " charge" I use as equivalent in the narra- tive here. Q. Is that narrative true 1 A. As it is here 1 Q. Yes, as I read it ? A. In the general it is, but If you give a specific sense to '* charge," not. Q. One moment ; I don't give anytliing ; I want to know whether that narrative of yours is true 1 A. Subject to a correction. Sir. Mr. Evart«— He has a right to answer, Sir. Mr. FuUerton— He has a right to answer. Sir, and I mesn he shall answer. Mr. Evarts— He may state how far he regards It ae true and how far untrue. Mr. FuUerton— Did you regard it as true, giving the ordinary significance to the terms you employed in that Btatement? A. I regarded the word " charge" as used in that last place as only a synonym foi ' declare." Q. Very well ; you regarded yourself as being charged with improper advances, did you not? A. I did. Q. I called your attention to the correspondence be tween yourself and Mr. Perkins last night. I wish tb call your attention still further to it. The letter in reply to Mr. Perkins is Feb. 23, 1871, and opens with this expres sion: Whatever Mr. TUton formerly said against me— and I know the substance of it— he has withdrawn, and frankly- confessed that he had been misled by the statements of one who, when confronted, backed down from his charges. Did ^ou mean in that communication to convey to your nephew the idea that Mr. Tilton had withdrawn what he had said against you? A. I understood by that communi- cation that Mr. Tilton had withdrawn the charges made by Mr. Bowen and repeated by him. Q. Why didn't you refer to the charges that Mr. Tilton had made, or Mrs. Tilton had made against you 1 A. It was the special object of such a letter as that not to have that brought out into public. We were all engaged ia keeping that still. Q. One moment. That is enough. Your object was not to allude to iti A. I will not say that was the specific ob- ject of the letter, but that was a part of the advice, and what — - Q. I am talking about your object! A. Yes, I know, but it was a joint letter ; the letter was written in con- sultation with Mr. Moulton. Q. And your object was not to embrace within the meaning of the terms used here what Mr. Tilton or Mrs. Tilton had charged you with! A. I certainly did not in- tend to go into that, as I understood it. WUl you allow me to see that letter again, please 1 Q. Undoubtedly, Sir. [Handing witness the letter.] A. [After looking at the letter.] Yes. Q. Have you any further explanation In regard to it ! A. No, Sir. Q. I caU your attention now, Mr. Beecher, to another expression, and see whether you did not at one time con- sider the charge as having been made by Mr. Tilton. I read : Moreover, from the anger and fury of Mr. Tilton, I ap- prehended that this charge was made by him and sup- ported by the accusation of hi« wife was to be at once publicly pressed against me. Mr. Shearman—" As made." Mr. FuUerton— Yes, "as made," it ought to be ; it is printed wrong; "as made," "was to be at once pub- licly pressed against me." Did you not regard the charge as being made by Mr. Tilton when you made use of such language as that? [Handing witness the letter.) A. If the charge was made— I used that woid in the generio sense. Q. Now, I don't use it in any sense. A. Well, I do. Q. Well, I am asking you whether you did not think then that the charge waa made by Mr. Tilton in rhe sense in which you used that language ! A. Not in the sense in which I am now using the term "charge," but in the sense Q. Mr. Beecher, I am not asking you as to the sense in which you now use it. You understand distinctly that I TESTIMONY OF EEl am asking you as to the meaning of that phrase in the sense in which you then used the terml A. That was what I was attempting to explain to you, Sir ; that I then used the term in the generic, and as equivalent to "declare," or "narrate," or "state" to me these facts which were, in a general way, charges. But, now I un- derstand you to seek for a more specific, not generic, and tn that regard I say that, while Mr. Tilton narrated to me the matters that were under his own knowledge, he charged only by reading his wife's charge. Q. Very well, what matters did you think Mr, Tilton knew of his own knowledge at that time? A. The dis- tress and trouble in his family ; the distress and trouble between himself and Mr. Bowen. Q. Yt)u did not think he knew, of his own knowledge, that you were the cause of either of those difficulties ? A. Well, I should say he did. Q. Of his own knowledge? A. Of his own knowledge ; yes, Sir ; I think it would come within that designation. CONVERSATIONS WITH MR. MOULTON. Q. I caU your attention now to the letter of February 5, 1872 ; how long before the writing of that letter was it that you met Mr. Tilton in the cars ? A. I met him in the cars, I think, Sir, in the forepart of Feb- ruary— I mean of January. Q. Do you know the date? A. No, I do not, Sir ; not exactly. I might come pretty near it. I only know that It is probably the first half of January. Q. Now what occurred intermediate the time when you met him In the cars and the writing of this letter of Feb- ruary 5 in regard to this difficulty! A. There occurred {sotto ijocc]— January— there occurred a good deal of con- versation between Mr. Moulton and myself; and, if I recollect right, there occurred the letter of Mrs. Tilton, before they left for the West, speaking of his hardness of feeling; and there occurred also — I cannot say that I recollect now that there occurred any interview with himself except this one; there may have done; but T was put in imssossion of the facts through Mr. Monltou. and through tJiis intimaTifT. of Mrs. Tilton. I don't know whether I saw ^rrs Tilton or not. I cannot recall nil the circumstances, bixt I was in iiossession of the knowledge that he felt very greatly dissatisfied, and that he was say- ing that the difficulties into which he had found himself entangled subsequently to his publication of the life of Woodhull, and the Steinway Hall meeting— the pressure of those difficulties he was attributing to me, and saying that my church was using Its great influence as against him, and that I was tolerating my friends in Injurious rep- resentations of him, and that, while he had been the injured man and T the Injurer, I was allowing people to think that he was the injurer and I the magnanimous man that boi-e It. Q. Had the scandal then in any way permeated the RY WABD BE EC HER, 91 church ! A. The scandal— I don't know to what extent 11 was suspected, Sir. Q. Had it permeated the church at ! A. I cannot answer that. Sir. Q. What did you think at the time in regard to thatt A. I don't know that that— I held myself so aloof that I was the poorest one to know in regard to that. Q. Did you hold yourself aloof purposely 1 A. I did; I didn't allow myself to speak of it, nor allow others to speak to me, for the most part. Q. You didn't mean to learn, then, if the scandal were afloat in the church ! A. I meant to maintain absolute silence, as I had promised to do. Q. Well, did you regard the other as keeping that con- tract? A. The other side ? Q. Yes. A. I did, and I didn't. Q. Well, then, you didn't! A. Oh, both. Q. Well, you didn't ; that is, one part of it 1 A. Yet, but I did, too. [Laughter.] Q. Very well ; were you in a divided judgment about it! A. I will make the statement exactly Judge Neilson— Mr. Rogers, you will remove from the court-room any person that interrupts the proceeding!, no matter who it is ; I won't have these interruptions. Mr. Fullerton— Except the counsel, if your Honor please. Judge Neilson— Except the counsel ; yes. Sir. Mr. Beecher— And the witness. Mr. Fullerton— Why didn't you take occasion, then, in this new phase of that business, to consult some person other than the friend of Mr, Tilton in regard to it ! A. I was satisfied with the consultation that I had. Q. You still had confidence in him. A. Unbounded. Q. Well, if you had been guilty of no improper ad- vances, and regarded yourself as amenable only to the charge of winning this woman's affections, which was unconsciously done, why didn't you make a statement of that fact, so as to satisfy the public In regard to this mat- ter! A. That is the very thing Mr. Moulton insisted on ought not to be done ; that it could not be touched at all without opening and going Into an investigation, which he thought would be Injurious all round. I thought It would be to me, and he thought it would be to the family interest. Q. And didn't Mr. Moulton, at that time, regard the charges against you as of a more serious character than improper solicitations ! A. No, I don't think he did, Sip. Q. Do you know that he didn't ! A. Why, I don't kno-w what was in him, but he never made any manifestation to me of It. Q. Never spoke to you about any charge more serioua than Improper solicitations ! A. No, Sir ; he didn't speak to me even of that. Q. Well, what did you suppose Moulton believed in re- gard to this scandal at that time ! A. Well, I believed that Moulton thought there had been difficulty, and tbat 92 TEE TlLlOl^-BMErjEEB TRIAL, — at different times, I thouglit he had different notions in Ills head about it, but I never aslied him, and he never told me, unasked, and it was merely therefore passing thoughts in my mind. Q. WeU, pray, why didn't you learn from this man what his conclusions were in regard to this difSculty % A. I learned them enough for all purposes that I had in view. Q. WeU, didn't you wish to vindicate yourself in Ms opinion if you came to the conclusion or learned that he A. I had vindicated myself. Q. One moment — ^had vindicated ? A. I was an inmate of his family, his personal friend ; he admitted me to his wife's eonfldence and to her chamber ; I didn't want any- thing better than that. Q. No, even though he believed you to be guilty of im- proper advances 1 A. He couldn't believe such a thing of me. Q. You simply infer that he didn't believe it from his conduct ? A. His whole conduct was that of a man who believed me to be iunocent. Q. And in this close intimacy between you and Mr. Moulton, resulting in almost daily conferences, you never asked him the question whether he believed you to be guilty ? A. Never certainly did. Q. You never sought to find out 1 A. I know that. Q. All inference ? A. That is all you could find out by words— it is all inference. Q. V/ell, I am trying to find out something else. A. And not succeeding very well. Q. Not very well ; no, but it is not my fault. THE "RAGGED EDGE" LETTER. Q. Now in tMs letter of February 5, you state as follows : To say that I have a church on my hands is simple enotigh— but to have the hundreds and thousands of men pressing me, each one with his keen suspicion, or anxiety, or zeal ; to see tendencies which, if not stopped, would break out into ruinous defense of me; to stop them without seeming to do it ; to pre- vent any one questioning me; to meet and allay preiudioes against T. which had their begin- ning years before this ; to keep serene, as if I was not alarmed or disturbed ; to be cheerful at home and among friends when I was suffering the torments of the damned ; to pass sleepless nights often, and yet to come up fresh and full for Sunday ;— aU this may be talked about, but the real thing cannot be understood from the outside, nor its wearing and grinding on the nervous system. Now, Mr. Beecher, let me ask you what was the keen suspicion that you apprehended each one of these per- sons might indulge ? A. Will you allow me. Sir, a copy of it 1 You, perhaps, want to use that. Mr. Shearman will furnish me one. I can get one in my satchel. [Searching among papers.) Let us see ; that was a letter of 1872, if I recoUect. Q. Feb. 5, 1872 1 A. Yes, Sir. Mr. Porter— Paragraph about the middle. The Witness— I know where it is. Sir ; I am reading It. I didn't say each one with his keen suspicion, as if each one of all the hundreds had the keen suspicion. By Mr. FuUerton— Mr. Beecher, you need not explain that 1 A. I understood that to be your question. Q. What you said ; oh, no . A. No ; but that Q. I asked you what you apprehended was the keen suspicion that was indulged in as therein stated. A. I beg pardon, I thought the point of your question was to find out about the keen suspici'^n which each one of hun- dreds and thousands of men— [leadingl- To have the huudieds and thousands of men pressing me, each one with his keen suspicion. Q. AVell, what was the keen suspicion 1 A. The sus- picion that some of them had— of these hundreds and thousands of men. Q. Suspicion of what ? A. Suspicion of my moral oonr duct and character. Q. Yes, Sir. Well, didn't you want to clear up that suspicion ? A. I wanted to have it cured, unquestionably, Q. Did you expect to cure it by silence 1 A. I did. Q. And yet innocent and able to vindicate yourself t A. Perfectly innocent, and if worst came to worst, I should vindicate myself. Q. What could be worse than a keen suspicion running through your large congregation? A. My life could — cotdd kill that, if I was, Sir, to go right on. Q. Then, by silence, and going right on, you meant to leave this keen suspicion afloat through the whole con- gregation ? A. No, Sir ; I meant to make it die. Q. Not by contradicting these stories 1 A. Not by run- ning after stories. Q. Not by telling the truth, as you assert 1 A. By not telling a lie, but at the same time not speaking the truth respecting these things. Q, I read still further [Readingl : If my destruction would place him all right, that shall not stand in the way. I am willing to step down and out. No one can offer more than that. That I do offer. Sacri- fice me without hesitation if you can clearly see your way to his safety and happiness thereby. A. ** His happiness and safety thereby." Q. Well, it is transposed 1 A. Simply transposed. Q. That is the way, then, you expected to get rid of this keen suspicion that was afloat in your chiirch, by stepping down and out, was it 1 A. No. Q. You were willing to be sacrificed, were you. If they could see thereby the safety and happiness of Mr. Tilton t A. This is all conditional— that " if " at the beginning. Q. Well : " If my destruction would place him all right, that shall not stand in the way i" A. If it should ; I state it and then answer it. Q. Yes ; you were wiUtng, then, to be destroyed, were youl A. That was the feeling that I had, extravagantly expressed, I will admit, but it was the feeling. Q. Yes; and was willing to be destroyed rather than meet these keen saspicions afloat in your congregation I TESTIMONY OF HEmiT WAED BEBCEEB. 93 Not at all; tliQse keen auspicions afloat in my con^e- gation respected the rumor aet on foot by Mr. Bowen. Q. By Mr. Bowen 1 A. By Mr. Bowen, principally. Q. Oh, then it had no reference to the Tilton matter! A. It might have drawn that in, hut that waa the princi- pal trouble. Q. The principal trouble was with regard to Bowen f A. Mr. Bowen's rumors, which had been propagated by Mr. TUton. Q, Yes; it had no connection, then, with the slander or the scandal? A. It might draw that in; that was the danger, that it would do it. Q. Didn't you refer to it here! A. I don't think that I had that in my mind. Q. Oh, not at all, eh ! A. I don't think that I had that in my mind. Sir. Q, Well, " Sacrifice me," you say, " without hesitation If you can clearly see your way to his safety and happi- ness thereby." Was that Mr. Bowen's happiness or Mr. Tilton's? A. No ; any action that would bring the whole matter before the church would bring out aU that which we had kept secret. Q. Well, what did you think you had to do before the church, except to tell what you have told here to vindi- cate yourself t A. I thought, 8ir, that I should have to meet a divided church, with a party on the side of Mr. Bowen, with a large party of young men on the side of Mr. TUton, and with a large class in the church that are always very sensitive to — or of the congregation, very sensitive to any ill-rumors that relate to a minister who is in charge of them. I supposed that if it came out into the church it would go through the re^ar form of church trial. I thou^t that there was no tribunal on earth so unflt to Investigate the charges that then would come out, with statements that would come out, as a Congrega- tional Church, and I believed at that time and for a long time that there would be a conflagration that would destroy the church, and me too. Q. You preferred, then, as I understand yon, to be the subject of keen suspicion rather than to defend yourself before the church ! A. I thought, not that in the form of a deliberate calculation, but I thought that when the Charge was made aerains^ me that that ereat church was my smuggling place, and that I permitted out of that church injurious statements and criticisms upon Mr. Tilton, and that I was not careful about them, and I did not care about him so I was safe ; I declared, if it would— so far from being indlfl'erent— if it would clear him and restore him to his happiness again in his family and in his business, I would be wUiing to be saoriflced. The charge was that I was saving myself. Q. Now, answer my question; just answer my ques- tion, Mr. Beecher. You were willing to be sacrificed, and rest under those suspicions rather than defend your- self before the church, were you! A. That was not the point of sacrifice. The point of sacrifice was that I was using that church to save myself by it, and sacrlflce Mr. Tilton. Q. That is not an answer to the question, Mr. Beecher, at all, Mr. Evarts— That is. Mr. FuUerton— No, it is not. What did you mean by the expression that yeu were willing to step down and out?— resign your pastorate ! Mr. Evarts— Is his answer to be taken or not! The Witness— The whole passage has but the one meaning. Mr. Fullerton— One moment, Mr. Beecher. The Witness— I was willing Q. One moment; what did you mean by the words "I am willing to step down and out !" Did you mean that you would resign yonr pastorate! A. Yes, Sir, condition!' aUy. Q. And at that time, Mr. Beecher, the only offense that you regarded yourself as having committed, if offense It was, was that you had, unconsciously to yourself, won this woman's affections ! A. No, Sir ; that was not the way it presented itself to my mind. By unconsciously winning her affection I had destroyed her and the honse- hold and the man that was at the head of it, and I looked at it in its whole. Q. You say : I am weU-nigh discouraged. If yon too cease to trust me— to love me— I am alone. I have not another person in the world to whom I could go. Why could not you go to some relative, or some friend, or some member of the congregation, and explain all this thing! A. I could on the conditions that it was to be exposed to the public, but if it was not to be, I could not ; maintaining my honor and pledge of keeping this silent and not speaking of it, I had no one else to go to but him, and I did go to no one but him. Q. Could not you trust any member of yonr congrega- tion? A. No, Sir. Q. Not one ! A. Not one, in the condition of thiiigB. THE READING OF THE " TEUE STORY." Q. Well, It is well to know that. Now, Mr. Beecher, when were you called upon to hear the " True Story" read ! A. I cannot give you the precise date. Sir ; it was somewhere, I take it, in November, the last, or December, the first, or somewhere near that— in that neighborhood— of 1872. Q. It was after the publication of the WoodhuU scandal, wasn't it! A. It was. Sir. Q. I understand you to say that when that story waa read to you, or that part which was read to you, that he asked you whether you would be able to stand — ^if a par* ticular passage which he would read to you A. No, he did not ; I did not say so. Q. WeU, what did you say upon that subject f A. I said that he said before he began to read it that tf I conld 94 IBE limOJS-BEEOHER lELAL. stand one eentenoe in it I oonld stand tlie wliole ; and then, when lie went on and read it and came to that sen- tence, he told me that that was the sentence ; and I thought myseK I oould stand the whole If I oould stand that. [Laughter.] Judge Nellson— Silence I Mr. Fullerton— Yes ; I read from your direot examina- tion • Mr. Tilton began, sitting on the sofa, to fix Ms papers, and opened the matter to me by saying that there was one single sentence that if I could stand, he thought I would be able to stand the whole document ; and then he com- menced reading. He did not read the sentence ; he be- gan reading what was called afterward the "True Story," and read on until he came to that passage in which I was charged with asking Mrs. Tilton to be a wife to me with all that is implied in that term ; and he looked up and said : " That is the sentence that if you can stand the rest of the document won't hurt you." I made no reply. I was lying on the bed I think. He went on reading, I getting madder and madder ; and when he had finished I got up and began to walk around the room; and I said nothing; but, finally, I think he or Mr. Moulton asked me what I had to say. Q. Is that a true narration of what occurred there? A. That is substantially true, Sir. Q. Well, Mr. Beecher, how did it happen that you did not rise instantly when that charge was made against you and deny it, if it were untrue? A. Mr. Fullerton, that is not my habit of mind, nor my method of dealing with people or things. Q. So I observe. We wlU pass on then. [Laughter.] Did you understand that that was for publication 1 A. I do not recollect that there was anything definite said about that. I understood either for publication or for showing; I do not think there was anything determinate said on the subject. THE PEOPOSITION TO PUBLISH THE "LET- TER OF APOLOGY." Q. Do you recollect the time when there was a threat or a proposition to publish the "Letter of Apology," so called ? A. May 31. Q. That was the date, was it ? A. About that, Sir ; or in that vicinity ; I am not Q. From whom did you learn that it was intended to publish that? A. I cannot recall from whom. Q. That was after the publication of the Tripartite Agreement, wasn't it? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Don't you recollect who made known to you the fact that there was an interest to publish that ? A. I do not now recall, Sir. Q. Well, with whom did you converse upon that sub- ject? A. I conversed with Mr. Moulton in chief. Q. Where did you hold the conversation ? A. At his house. Q. Did you then imderstaaid what the "Letter of Apology" contained? A. I understood that it con- tained Q. Did you understand what it contained! A. No; I did not understand it in the full sense. Q. Who made use of the term "Letter of Apology*' in that conversation ? A. I do not know, Sir. Q. And what did you suggest in regard to it? A. I do not know that I had any suggestion made in regard to that. Q. Didn't you suggest that Mr. Moulton should go to see Mr. KinseUa ? A. Ah ; but that was a suggestion ia regard to a line of conduct ; I thought your cLuestion re- lated to the letter itself; I misunderstood yon, Sir. Q. Did you take any steps to prevent the publication of that " Letter of Apology ?" A. I did. Sir. Q. What did you suggest in regard to it ? A. From what had been told me— the card was never read to me, but from what Q. One moment, please. What steps did you take to prevent its publication? A. I said to Mr. Motdton sub- stantially this : " That if that is published, that is the end of things, and there will be an explosion. If you don't want that, then that must not be published ;" and he thought that he could— he told me that he could hold Mr. Tilton, and prevent the publication of it. I dotibted it, and I said to him : " If you trust to Mr. Tilton he wUI cheat yon," or words to that effect ; and he thought not ; he thought he had got a hold upon him, that he oould control him. I said, "No." " He won't publish it to-day anyhow." Said I: " You better make that thing sure "— words to that effect—" and you had better go down and see Mr. Kinsella, and see that he don't publish until yon have had time to turn yomself round and use youi- in- fluence." Q. Then it had been made known to you at that period, had it, that the publication was to be in The Brooklyn Eagle, Mr. Kinsella's paper ? A. I understood it was to be, from Mr. Moulton. Q. Had you seen the card that it was proposed to pnb- Ush? A. I had not. Sir. Q. Do you know where it was then? A. I don't know where that was. Q. Who told you what the card would probably con- tain ? A. I have said already I did not know who first. I had a conversation with Mr. Moulton on that morning in respect to it. Q. I tmderstand you to say you also at that time made known the fact that if that card was published you would resign your pastorate ? A. I did not in tliat morning's statement, that I recollect. Q. During that day ? A. During that evening I— after Mr. Moulton went down to Mr. Kinsolla's, I drew up that card upon reflection— or rather that declinative of further pastorate, and put it in my pocket, and at evening when I went down to Mr. Moulton's house. I then showed it to hlnu TEsmwyY OF EEy ME. BEECHEE'S LETTER DECLINING HIS PASTOKATE. Q, Now, wiU yoTi be kind enough to produce that resignation ? A. I cannot, Sir. Q. Haven't yon got it ? A. No, Sir. Q. "WTien did you last see it ! A. I don'treoollect seeing it since tlie evening that I showed it to Mm. Q. Then, how are yon enabled to remember its contents •o as to correct the copy that Mr. Moulton gave nsl A. WeU, it is only by the knowledge of precisely what I had In my mind at that time. Q. Yon recollect of writing a statement for the Com- mittee of Investigation, don't youl A. Do you refer to the first statement, Sir, the 15th of July statement ? Q. Yes. A. I do, Sir. Q. Hadn't you that resignation before you then % A Not that I recoUect, Sir. Q. WeU, have you no recollection upon the subject 1 A. No, Sir ; I don't thlnli: I had, but I have no recollection •which would authorize me to be positive. Q. Well, refer to the other statement— the long state- ment that you made before the Committee. A. Yea, Sir. Q. Hadn't you it then? A. Xo, Sir, I had not; not within my knowledge. Q. Well, let me read to you. [Reading] : I wrote a letter of resignation, not referring to charges against me, but declai'ing that I had striven for years to maintain secrecy concerning a scandal afLeciing a family in the church, and that, as I lia:l failed, I herewith re- eigned. The letter was never signed. A little calmer thought showed me how futile it would be to stop the trouble — a mere useless sell-sacrifice — buc I showed it to Mj\ Moulton and possibly he copied it. I have foimd the original of it in my house. A. Evidently, then, I had it, but I had forgotten that I had it ; but it passed out of my hands, and I never have seen it from that day to this, although I have made a thorough search for every paper that bears on this sub- ject. Q. Well, you didn't give Mr. Moulton the original, did you 1 A. My impression is that I did not, Sir; I put it in my pocket again. Q. Well, you say here in 1874 1 A. Yes. Q. In the month of August, I think? A. In the month of August that was published ; yes. Q. [Reading.] "I have found the original of it in my house." Do you remember when yon found it! A. No, Sir. Q. Do you remember the fact that you had it 1 A. I do not remember to have seen it at that time. Sir. Q. Do you recoUect the fact that you had it? A. No, I don't ; I should have said — except by being refreshed— I should have said that I never had seen it nor knew of it, from the evening in which I first read it to Mr. Moulton ; that was my memory, but by that statement it is evident that it was among my pai)er8. Q. Well, have you looked for it lately? A Not very 'Y WARD BE EG EE B. 95 lately T haven't, Sir, heeause I to. kit for granted it waa a thing gone forever. This wa* on Saturday evening, was It 1 A. BatiLr> day evening, Slst of May. INTERVIEW WITH MRS. MOULTON. Q. Did yon see Mrs. Moulton on Saturday t A. I sa^ her Saturday morning. Sir. Q. Where did you see her ? A. At her own house. Sir. Q. In what part of the house ? A In her chamber. Q. How long an interview did you have with her 1 A. 15 or 20 minutes. Q. Think it was not longer than that ? A. No, Sir. Q. Were you in great distress of mind at that time ? A. I was in great indignation of mind. Q. Manifest that indignation 1 A. Well, I think I did. Q. By words and conduct ] A. Both, as I recoUect it. Sir ; I walked up and down, a Uttle storm Q. Yes ? A. I denounced Mr. TUton. Q. Say anything about your stifferings of the past year ? A. I said that I had gone through enough in attempting to keep this matter quiet, and that it was treachery on his part ; he wa« insisting all the time one way or another in attempting to bring it out. I told Mrs. Moulton that my beUef waa that Theo- dore TUton wanted to have the credit of being a hero, and that he wanted somebody to get out, before the pubUo, the trouble in his f amUv, that he might appear to have kept it secret aU the time and been suffering under it, and that it was that sneaking business that I could not stand any longer; that I beUeved him to he treacherous and rotten to the root, and afterward I was very much blamed by Mr. Moulton for it. THE SOFA AND KISSING SCENES. Q. One moment, I haven't got to that. Did you Ue down upon the sofa that morning 1 A. No, Sir, I did not Ue down on anything that morning ; I bore down on Mr. TUton. Q. Well, that will only provoke repUes, Mr. Beecher ; so you had not better make use of such observations as those. At any time when you were in the presence ol Mi's. Moulton did you lie down on the sofa ? A. In that interview ? Q. At any time when in the presence of Mrs. Moulton f A. Oh ! yes. Sir. Q. At any time did she cover you up with an afghant A. Yes, Sir. Q. When was that? A. A good many times. Q. A good :^iany times ? A. Oh, yes, at least a dozen, I think ; I wiU not make it precise, but it was not an im- common thing, when I went there and was waiting for Mr. Moulton, for me to Ue down on the afghan Mr. Beach [Interrupting]— You mean the sofa. The Witness [Continuing]- And I would sometimes take a newspaper or something and throw it over my 06 ^©ct— for, If 70U will allow me to say it, sinoe I have l>een ftflaicted with hay fever I never ean lie down on a sofa without my feet becoming cold and bringing on a fit of sneezing, and so I always put some covering over me, and she very soon saw it, and it used to be quite common for her to throw a little shawl or something over my feet. Q. On how many occasions do you suppose that oc- curred 1 A. Well, I don't suppose that there was, of the times that I was there, when I was familiar and visiting there— I don't believe there was a month when she did not do me some kindness of that kind. Q. When Mr. Moulton was absent you waited for him, did you ? A. I did. Sir. Q. When was it that Mrs. Moulton gave you this " kiss of inspiration," as yon term it? A. It was Saturday night, the Slst of May. Q. Where were you then I A. In Mr. Moulton's study. Q. Did you lie down on the sofa theni A. No, Sir; I was sitting at the table. Q. At the time? A. At the time. Q. But were you at any time during that evening lying upon the sofa? A. No, Sir. Q. You have a distinct recollection of that 1 A. I know I was not. Q. Your recollection is positive upon that subject 1 A. It is very positive. Sir. Q. You ean distinguish between that visit and all the other visits that you made at Mr. Moulton's 1 A. That visit stamped itself very Indelibly on my mind in regard to such features as I recollect. Q. Do you recollect that when Mrs. Moulton was on the stand she was asked the question by your counsel whether she kissed you on that occasion ? A. I heard but a part, myself, of her testimony. Q. How ! A. I heard but a part of her testimony. Mr. Evarts— I did not ask her whether she kissed him on that occasion. Mr. Fullerton— Or any other occasion. Do you remem- ber that 1 A. I don't recollect whether I did or not. Sir ; that is a question which would Q. Was not Mrs. Moulton asked in your presence in regard to kissing you ? A. I cannot now say whether she was asked in my presence, and I learned it from hearing her, or whether I read it in the testimony, and learned it so. Q. Didn't you suggest to your counsel to ask her that question 1 A. It may be that I did. Q. Do you recollect whether you did or noti A. I thmk you are helping my memory. Q. That is what I am tryii,£? to do, A. O. I know, Sir ; you and I together will get i c out. [Laughter.] I have an impression that I did ask my counsel, and, therefore, that I must have heard it. Q. Didn't you write it on a slip of paper and hand it to himl A. I won't say about that; whether I whispered it or wrote it on a slip of paper. I won't afSrm ; but my Im- lE^ TILTON-BEEOEBB IBIAL. that I suggested it, and therefore I most liare presBion ; heard it. Q. Did you ever use this expression or Its equivalent to Mrs. Moulton, that she seemed to you like " a section of the Day of Judgment 1" A. No, Sir. Q. You heard Mrs. Moulton use that phrase, did you not, in her testimony 1 A. I am just in the same state of mind about that that I was in about the other question; whether I heard her or not does not at this moment occur to me ; that she used such a phrase I either knew from hearing or from reading the testimony afterward. Q. Didn't you use some such expression in conversa- tion with her? A. No, Sir; I don't think I did. Q. No kindred expression f A. I don't think I did. Q. Will you swear positively that you did not! A. Well, the term " kindred expression " is a very generio phrase, and I cannot tell what phrase I used out of which— out of which her imagination may have framed that. Q. I am not talking about her imagination. I am talk- ing about your appreciation of the terms. A. I did not use any such phrase as that she was a "section of the Day of Judgment nor do I recollect that I used any phrase out of which that could be naturally derived or made. Q. Did you use any phrase of that character or signifi- cation 1 A. I don't recollect that I did. Q. wm you swear that you did not ? A. I will swear that I made use of no phrase that would justify such a statement as that. Q. You wUl swear positively to that! A. That ia my best recollection, Sii'. Q. Is that all you mean to say, that that Is your best recollection ? A. I mean to say that I did not use that phrase ; and, according to the best of my reooUeotion, nothing of that kind. Q. I ask you again, wiU you go no further than to say that you don't recollect 1 A. I will say that I did not say that she was to me a " section of the Day of Judgment." Q. Well, Mr. Beecher,you are quite aware that that was not my question 1 A. No, I was not; I thought it was. Q. I asked you whether you said that, or something akin to it. A. Well, I said that I did not say that, posi- tively ; and that something akin to it, according to my best recollection, I did not say, either. Q. Now, I ask you whether you will go beyond your best reeolleotion, and say positively that you did not f A. In regard to something akin, I won't. Mr. Fullerton— Very well, then, I bave got VL [Laughter.) The Witness— Yes, Sir. TESTIMONY OF HJE^i KO REMARKS ABOUT A CONFESSION TO THE CHUECBL Q. Was there ever anything passed between you and Jlrs. Moulton in regard to a confession to tlie oliarcli i A. A confession on my part f Q. Yes. A. No, Sir; no. Sir. Q. Was there ever anytMng passed between you and herin reference to a statement ta be made by you to the cliuroli i A. No, Sir. Q. Was there no suggestion on h.er part tbat you sbould make a statement of tMs difficulty to tlie dLureh, so as to satisfy your people ? A No, Sir. Q. That was never the subject of conversation between you and her, directly nor indirectly 1 A. Neither state- ment nor confession. Q, Nor was it the subject of conversation 1 A. Not the subject of conversation. Q. In the course of the examination of Mrs. Moulton you were asked by your counsel whether she said a cer- tain thing to you, and your reply was in part, " Not of her own accord." A. No, Sir, I do not ; I think, Sir, you have made a mistake in your designation ; you say in the examination of Mrs. Moulton, and I think you have made an error. Q. Perhaps I have ; in the examination of yourself, then ! A. Yes, Sir. Q. You were asked aa to whether Mrs. Moulton did not gay a certain thing to you, and you said, in substance, that she did not, or she " never did of her own accord;" do you recollect the circuin stance 1 A. I do, Sii'. Q. What did you mean by the words " not of her own accord 1" A. Perhaps I meant what I ought not to have said Q. Never mind that. A. [Continuing.] But this is what I meant, that I believed that Mrs. Moulton had been made to make that statement by influence. Q. Who do you think exerted the influence upon her? A. I think that Mr. Moulton did. Q. And when do you think he did it ? A Ah ! I don't know; after we broke, probably. Q. In the Summer of 1874? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Well, have you made up your mind as to what par- ticular time ? A. No, Sir. Q. How ? A. No, Sir. Q. One question more with regard to the resignation. Are you quite sure that your proposition to resign was With reference to the publication of the proposed card, M you have now stated it t A. Yes, Sir. THE WEST CHAEGES. Q. Have you ever stated that yon proposed to resign in reference to the West charges t A- I don't recollect. Sir. Q. Well, did you propose to resign if the West charges were pressed ! A. I don't recollect. Sir, now. BY WARD BEECR-EE, 97 Q. Why, cant you recall to mind the Important fact whether you proposed to resign your pastorato of Plym- outh Chiu'ch upon any occasion ? A Yes, Sir, I did, on half a dozen. Q. Connected with this scandal? A. Connected with, not this partictilar one, but connected with the antece- dents. Q. Did you e-p-ar write any proposed resignation other than on May 31, 1873 ? A. I do not now recall. Sir. Q. Did you not propose to resign, and write a proposed resignation, if the West charges were pressed ? A. I can- not, without some refreshment of memory, answer. Q. Well, I am willing that you should refresh because I desire an answer. A. I have no opportunity unless you will help me, Mr. Fullerton. Q. Well, I will help you. I read as follows to refresh yoiu: memory. Do you recollect, speaking of the West charges, anything of this kind: [Reading:] I felt that we had no right to claim him [Tilton] as a member, under the circumstances, for the sole purpose of his public trial. Zvlr. Moulton insisted that everything must be done to prevent that trial, as the Examining Committee was litely to be equally divided, whether the facts stistained Mr. Tilton's plea, whether he was out of the church or not. I was so determined to carry out my pledge to Moulton for him, and do aU in hirman power to save him, even from himself, that I was ready to resign if that would stop the scandal. I wrote a letter of resig- nation, not referring to charges against me, but declaring that I had striven for years to maintain secrecy concern- ing a scandal affecting a family in the church, and that, as I had failed, I herewith resigned. A. That evidently refers to the letter of May 31, I should say. Sir. Q. [Handing book to witness. , Please read it and see whether it does or not? A. I should judge so by internal evidence. Q. You wlLL find it at the foot of the page, marked. Please read it. A. [Having looked at the book.] This is evidently referring to that. Q. Which i A. The letter of May 31— the resignation of May 31. Q. It does not refer to the West charges ? A. The West charges had originated the difficulties which brought about this decision. It did not refer to them in a primary sense, but only in their sequences. The West charges brought the whole church more or less into a state of excitement, and the state of things in the church was such as it is stated there, explicitly ; I cannot state it any better than it is stated in that paragraph. Sir. Q. When were the West charges made? A. The West charges were made— he movedflrst in the Winter of 1871, but the distinct charges were made in the Winter of 1872 and ran on— they and the consequences of them ran on clear to the Spring of 1873. Q. Yes ? A And he— yes, they ran clear into the Spring of 1873. No, let me think a moment. Mr. Beach- Yes, they did. 98 IHE TlLlOU'BEECaER TRIAL, The Witness— Mr. West's charges 1 Mr. Beach— Yes, they were pending in 1873. The "Witness— "What, Sirl Mr. Beach— They were pending in 1873. The Witness— Through the Winter of 1873 1 Mr. Beach— Yes, '72 and '73, 1 think. Mr. Pullerton— Was not the first notification of Mr. West that he was going to press these charges on June 27, 1873, or about that time? A. The charges that were made, that were formulated — there was notice about that time. Q. Were they perfected before October, 18731 I don't recollect. Mr. Beach— Still there was a movement by West in 1871. Mr. Fullerton— Yes. [To the witness.] Now when was this resignation that you speak of prepared 1 A. This one that is referred to there evidently refers to the resigna- tion which I prepared on the 31st of May. Q. What year 1 A. 1873. Q. Well, did you not write a letter of resignation when the West charges were pressed? A. I don't recollect that I did, Sir, though I recollect saying that in certain contingencies I should resign— saying it to different per- sons ; but I don't recollect writing any ; I may have done it, may have drawn up something, but I don't recollect it, Sir. Q. Didn't you see the West charges after they were per- fected ? A. No, Sir. Q. Did you learn from no one what they were? A. No, Sir, I didn't converse about them particularly. Q. Didn't you care to learn what the charges were? A. I was not particularly careful, Sir. Q. Didn't you imderstand that Mrs. Bradshaw was to be a witness to prove the charges against Mr. Tilton 1 A. I don't think that I did, except so far as her letter was concerned, but that was at a later period, if I recollect right. Q. Look at that, [Exhibit 47,J and say If you recognize the handwriting. Do you recognize that paper? A. I recognize the handwriting; it is mine. Q. Yes. I read: The Eagle ought to have nothing to-night. It is that meddling which stirs up our folks. Neither you nor The- odore ought to be troubled by the side which you served so faithfully in public. The Witness— Is it " in public," or " in politics ?" Mr. Fullerton— In public. The Witness— WeU, I think it is meant for " politics," only the " t " is not crossed ; that is my impression. Mr. Fullerton— WeU, it makes no difference ; I make no point of that. The Witness— There is no essential difference. Mr. Fullei-ton- [Reading.] The deacons' meeting I think is adjourned. I saw BeU ; it was a friendly movement. Q. What deacons' meeting did you refer to there? A. I cannot tell you what it was, now. Q. Was it not a deacons' meeting to take into consider- ation the West charges ? A. I cannot say. I suppose it was, but I don't remember this conversation with Mr. Bell about matters, except that* there was a meeting of the deacons in respect to the charges. Q. Did you see Bell la regard to it? A. No doubt. Q. Didn't you request Bell to go and break up that deacons' meeting ? A. I don't think I did. Q. Did you hear his testimony on that subject ? A. Yea, Sir, I heard it. Q. Well, don't you recoUect that what he stated wa« true? Mr. Evarts— Ah ! let us have his testimony. The Witness— I don't remember what it was. Sir. Q. Don't you recollect that you stated to Mr. Bell tliat you wanted him to break up the deacons' meeting, so that the West charges should not be pressed ? Mr. Beach— Or to prevent it. Q. Or to prevent it ? A. I don't recollect it. Mr. Evarts— Well Mr. Fullerton- 1 have a right to put the question, Sir. Q. I read further : [Reading.] The only next near danger is the women, Morrill, Brad* shaw, and the poor dear child. What danger did you apprehend from the women! A. Talking. Q. About what ? A. About me and the church and these matters. Q. Then you had heard that Mrs. Bradshaw knew something about it? A. I had heard that Mrs. Bradshaw was talking, Q. Didn't you hear that she was to be a witness in the trial, if it came on, against Mr. Tilton? A. I don't think I did at the time. Sir. Q. Hadn't you heard such a story as that ? A. I may have, but I don't recall it. Q. I read to you now the third specification in the West charges, with a view of asking you a question: [Reading. J Third : At an interview with Mrs. Andrew Bradshaw, in Thompson's dining saloon, in Clinton-st., on or about the 3d of August, 1870, Theodore Tilton stated that he had discovered that a criminal intimacy existed between his wife and Mr. Beecher. Afterward, in November, 1872, referring to the above conversation, Mr. Tdton said to Mrs. Bradshaw that he etracted none of the ac- cusations which he fonnerly made against Mr. Beecher. Witness: Mns. M. A. Bradshaw. Q. When did you first become acquainted with that specification? A. I never did. Q. You have not become acquainted with it yet, tUen f A. No, Sir, it is quite a stranger to me. Q. And is yet ? A. Is yet. Sir. Q. Do you mean to say you did not hear me read tt I A* T did ; but I am not acquainted with a m an becauso Thear TESTIMOXI OF EEXEY WAED BEECEEB. «9 his Liame. nor with a paragraph because I lij^ve heard it read. Q . You never -were made acquainted with that para- graph 1 A. No, Sir ; I never tnew anything ahout that paragraph. Q. Although the charges were made by a member of your church, affecting yourself, and brought before a committee of your church, which led, as you say, to a good deal of conversation between yourself and other members of the church, you never heard what that charge was 1 A. I did not hear that specitication. Q. Did you hear that charge ? A. That charge — no ; that was an after addition. Q. One moment if you please. After it was added did you bear it. My question covers the whole ground. Did you not hear what the charge was! A. No, Sir; I did not hear it, or Imow it. Q. And no one ever intimated to you that such a charge was in existence 1 A. Not that T Imow. Q. Will you say that they did not? A. No, I will 8»y that if they did, it made no lmpression on my mind. Q. A i:baro:e to the effect that Theodore Tilton had accused you of sexual intercoui'se with his wife Mr. Evarts— Xo, no. Mr. Fullerton— Well, criminal Intimacy with his wife — that charge would malre no impression upon your mind. Do you mean that ? A. I do, Sir. Q. We'll then I will not try to malre any impression upon it. [Laughter.] Let me read Iklr. Bell's statement. I Reading.] Mr. Beecher stated that he sent for me because he had understood— he had heard, I think the day before, that tlifre was to be a meeting of the deacons in regard to tills niatter, and that he ^vas very anxious that no meeting should take I'lace. and he wished me to go and see Mr. Hrslli-day and arrange with him that the meeting should not take place. Q. Do you recollect that? A.I do not recollect it, Sir. Q. You recollect no such conversation with Mr. Bell ? A. I don't recall it. Q. Do you mean to deny that this conversation occurred between you and Mr. Bell ? A. I don't mean to deny nor to aflfirm it. I merely say that I have no recollection of it. Mr. Evart«— Let us understand. When does Mr. Bell state this to have happened. Mr. Beach— We don't make that a part of our inquiry. We ask if he remembers any such conversation at any time. Mr. Evarts— Yes, but yon asked the question in connec- tion with these West charges, as reduced to writing. Mr. Beach — Oh, no ; it was not in connection with them. Mr. Evarts— Well, if it is admitted that it was not that •will do. Mr. Shearman— It wa« months before the West charges. Mr. PuUerton— Ah ! the West charges ran through a lone: period of time. TVr- Witness— Yes, but that had a begtnmng. Mr. Fiillerton— How, Sir ! A. They had a beginnine, however. Q. Yes, Sir ; and they might have had an earlier end if they had been tried. THE CARD PUBLISHED IN THE EAGLE. You have spoken of the 2d of June; what time did you go to meet Mr. Kinsella on the 2d of June! A. He came to my house about 9 o'clock in the morning. Q. Did you send for him? A. It was understood be- tween me and Mr. Moulton that Mr. Moulton was to ask him to come. Q. Where were you and Mr. Moulton when that took place 1 A. I was in my own house; I don't know where Mr. Moulton was. Q. You could scarcely have an understanding unless you were together 1 A. What do you mean by " when that took plaeel" Q. I mean where were you and ]Mr. Moulton when the understanding was entered into between you. A. I beg pardon ; I thought you meant the interview. Q. No ? A. I was at Mr. Moulton's house. Q. When wa« it ? A. It waa Saturday or Sunday night ; I cannot tell which. Q. The arrangement was that Mr. Kinsella wa« to meet you at your house on Monday morning? A. Yes, Sir, on his way to his oflace. Q. And you say he did? A. Yes, Sir : he came to me. Q. About 9 o'clock? A. About 9 o'clock. Q. How are you enabled to fix the time ? A. Well, I have— it is fixed because I recollect thinking about the hours that he kept, having an evening paper, and about the time that he would come down, and I held myself ready for the interview about that hour. Q. How long did the interview last ? A. About an hour, Sir. Q. What was done during that interview. A. Conver- sation in respect to Mi-. Tilton and his affairs. Q. I mean what was written. A. The card that ap- peared on that afternoon in The Eagle. Q. Who prepared It ? A. I prepared it ; I wrote it, If I recollect right, all of it. Q. When you left your house, after this interview with Mr. Moulton, where did you go 1 A. T went over— weU, I didn't leave immediately ; I had to do up some little mat- ters about the house before leaving, as I was not expect- ing to— I was expecting to be gone for a fortnight, with a slight intermission. About half-past ten I went over to ITie Christian Union office. Q. How do you recollect yon went there ahont half-past ten? A. IrecoUect of going there about half-past ten, because it was about the time I was accustomed to go on Mondays — which wa« my editorial day— to TAe Christian Union ofiice, and because I expected to be absent for two weeks, and had, therefore, more to do than usual. Q. Is that the only way you recollect the hour vou went 100 THE TILTON-Bi to the office? A. That is tlie only way I judge it to be about that time. Q. Where was the office of The Ohristian Union then? A. 27 Park-place. Q. In New-York Cityl A. Yes, Sir. Q. Did you return to Brooklyn that day ? A. No, Sir. Q. You went from there to the depot ? A. I went from there to lunch, and to the depot. Q. Where did you lunch t A. That I cannot say. Q. Where were you accustomed to lunch ? A. I had no custom. I seldom took lunch in New-York, and when I did I more often than any other way took lunch in a dif- ferent place, because I had a little curiosity to see what the places were. Q. Did you go to lunch alone that day i A. I do not recollect. Sir, of lunching except when I went up on the 2 o'clock train I arrived in PeekskUl so late I took lunch in New- York. Q. Do you remember taking lunch in New- York that day ? A. I do not recall the lunching. Q. Why do you say you lunched ? A. That was my cus- tom, and I presume that it was a fact that I did. Q. Can you name any other place where you used to lunch in New- York? A. I have lunched in Delmonico's, and I have limched at the corner of Tenth-st., u.p stairs, and Broadway ; I have lunched at a little place on the south side of the Forty-second-st. Depot ; there is a very nice little house there, or was there ; and I have lunched —I don't now recall them. These lunch-rooms were not so famUiar to me as if I was doing business in New-York. Q. What time did you leave Brooklyn to go to the office ? You said you got to the office about half-past ten. A. No, Sir; I left here about half-past ten, and got there at eleven, Q. What time did you leave the Forty-second-st. Depot ? A. I cannot say ; I know I was over there an hour. I had business to transact. ME. BEECHER SWEARS THAT HE WAS NOT AT MR. MOULTOlSrS HOUSE ON JUNE 2, 1873. Q. You are very sure you were not at Mr. Moulton'.s house on the 2d of June ? A. Very sure. Q. Quite positive ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. You swear to it positively ? A. I do. Q. Do you remember any occasion about that time, when you left the house of Mr. Moulton, of meeting a lady who was about entering ? A. No, Sir ; I do not. Q. No recollection on that subject i A. No, Sir. Q. At no time t A. No, Sir; at no time. Q. Do you recollect of seeing a lady as you were about leaving at any time ? A. No, Sir; I mean on leaving, I have seen ladies walking up and down the street. Q. No, a lady about entering, or having entered ? A. No, Sir ; I don't recall anythmg of that kind. Q. AtaUl A. No, Sir. "^JiJGMEB IBIAL. Q. Now, Mr. Beecher, will you swear that on the 2A day of June, 1873, you did not meet a lady as you were coming out of Mr. Moulton's house who was about enters ing? A. I will swear that I dittnot come out of the house on that day, and did not meet a lady coming out. THE APPOINTMENT OF THE INVESTIGATINa COMMITTEE. Q. When was tMs Committee appointed, Mr. Beecher ? A. I think it was on the 26th of June, 1874, if you refer to the Church Investigating Committeee. Q. When was it made public ? A. Well, not for some week or ten days, or something like that ; I cannot say precisely. Q. Was it purposely kept secret ? A. That was thetp work, and not mine. Sir ; I had nothing to do with it. Q. Was it purposely kept secret? A. I cannot tell you. Q. Did you make any request in that regard % A. No, Sir ; I did not. Q. Did you speak of it openly, if you did not 1 A. I did not. Q. Where were the Committee appointed ? A. In my house ; that is, the determination of who should be on the Committee was principally arranged in my house. Q. And whom did you call in to consult with in that regard % A. The first person I consulted with was Mr. Cleveland, and on that Friday night of the 26th of June, the Bacon letter having been published the day before. I was in Peekskill and came down— I did not get it until Thursday noon— and came down the next day and called upon Mr. Cleveland on my way over and announced to him Mr. Fullerton— Not what you said to him. The Witness— I was only going to express to you what I did. Mr. Fullerton— That is the reason I object. With whom did you consult ? A. With no one ; but at a later period in the evening I consulted Mr. Shearman and G^en. Tracy, I think ; I don't know whether there were more than two or not. Q. Who suggested the names of the Committee? A. I suggested them in the first instance, with the help and suggestion of Mr. Cleveland. Then, in the second inter- view, I think Mr. Cleveland suggested various names. Mr. Fullerton— I don't ask what was suggested. The Witness— In the second interview, if I recollect right, they were suggested either by Mr. Cleveland— I think Mr. Cleveland was present on the second Inter- view, but I will not be certain. Q. Ho w many persons were present during the second Interview? A. Three, if Mr. Cleveland was present; two if he was not ; but I think the three were. Q. I understood you to say in your direct examination that after the publication of the Bacon letter Mr. Moul- ton was full of schemes and devices by which the effect TESTlMOyT OF HENBY WARD BEEGEEB, m of It slioTild "be warded off 1 A. Will yon repeat my words, if you please, Sir. Mr. FuUerton— Yes, I dont oise the exact language. [Reading] : I don't reineml)er mucli about wliat "was said tliat first evening, Sir. My mind was running on other things, and Mr. Moulton had his plan, and I had dismissed from my mind his generalship, and yet my personal relations were very cordial, and my confidence in him personally was very strong, and I didn't wish in any way to hurt him, or to he indifferent to what he really seemed to me to he laboring to accomplish; yet my mind was set; I had come to the end, and I meant to have no more intermedi- ate stages, and I therefore, when this was first brought to my notice, said, "I will consider it ; I will take it into con- sideration." That is the card. That, so far as I recollect, was the first interview sub- stantially. Then again— Q. What further passed hetween you and Mr. Moulton In regard to this card and its publication, and what could he done or would be done if you assented to it 1 A. At a later— at some interview later, Mr. Moulton urged me ver 3- strongly ; as I recalled the conversation it was suh- Btantially this, that Mr. Tilton had bound himself in the presence of witnesses if I would publish thnt statement, that he would he content himself, and Mr. Moulton said if I would publish that statement he would hum everr document that he had, and that if Mr. Tilton ever imder- took to move again in the matter he would take sides with me and fight him. He expressed himseK very strongly ; I think the word he said, he would " smash" him. Now, is that a correct statement of what you said and did, and of what Mr. Moulton said and did, after the pub- lication of the Bacon letter, and with reference to its publication? A. It was substantially coi'ivct, I think. Q. Mr. Moulton had then a plan ior the purpose of doing away with the effect of that Bacon letter, had he ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. And you did not approve of it ? A. No, Sir. Q. You rejected it 1 A. I did. Q. You had come to the end? A. I had come to the end. Q, You had no faith in his generalship ? A. No faith in Ms generalship; that is, in the past ; I didn't know what he might develop in the future. Q. Were you wtUing to he guided by his generalship at that time ? A. If he had suggested anything which met my approval, I was willing. Q. Were you willing to be guided by his generalship at that time f A. I was not willing to be guided by any plan that he suggested. Mr. Fullerton— Very well, that is an answer. I want to call your attention to something else in a moment. Q. Have you never said that you lost confidence in Mr. Moulton after the publication of the Bacon letter, because be suggested no plan ? A LEGAJL DISCUSSION. Mr. Shearman — One moment. I object to that unless the paper is shown to the witness. Mr. Fullerton— What paper? Mr. Shearman— I ask if it is in writing. I object to the witness proceeding. If we are to have the question up, this is as good a time as any. I asked you [to Mr. Fuller- ton'] a question politely. Mr. Beach— You won't get an answer. Mr. Shearman — I insist upon an answer. Mr. Morris— Insist. Mr. Shearman— We may as well have the right of coimsel to interrupt settled. This question has been de- cided once before. I say that it is a rule of law that has been settled for 50 years, and I want to have it observed; and when I last cited an authority on that point (New- comb agt.' Griswold, 24 N. Y. ) I was told by the learned gentlemen it had been overruled by the Court of Ap- peals. So far from that being overruled, it was con- firmed. Judge Neilson— You mean the rule in the Queen case, in the second of Brod. and Bing. Mr. Shearman— Yes, Sir. Judge Neilson— I don't think that can be Mr. Shearman— If my friend persists in his question, I insist that my question shall be answered, whether that statement was in writing or not. Judge Neilson— You have a right to put that question preliminarily. Mr. Shearman— I have a right to put that question to the counsel, and to have it answered ; and if they say it is not in writing, they have no right aftei-ward to produce a written statement to the contrary. M*. Fullerton— Well, I cannot reply to that, because it is inappropriate to the question before the Court — entirely so. I have asked the witness whether he ever said such a thing. Mr. Shearman— I object to that question unless counsel means to say whether it is oral or in writing. Judge Neilson— I think the question imports an oral statement, to ask a man if he ever said a thing. Mr. Shearman— That is the very point I say was raised in the question. The question was put to the witness by Mr. Brougham, since Lord Brougham, whether he had ever said such and such a thing. Counsel on the other side intervened and demanded that it should be first stated whether that was in writing or oral; and the coun- sel for the prosecution in that case declined to answer that question, and it was upon that very pohat the judges of England were consulted, and it was held the counsel must answer whether they meant to allege that was an oral statement or a verbal statement. Judge Neilson— Aud if they do not, the counsel who has raised the question has the right, preliminarily, to ask the witness, Mr. Shearman— Yes ; but after that the counsel on the other side cannot take advantage of that, and produce a written statement ; they must stand by that. That is the point. 103 TEE TILION-BUJECHEE TRIAL. Judge Neilson [To Mr. Fullerton]— Is tills in writing, or is it oral 1 Mr, Fullerton— I aslr Mm if lie ever said a thing. Mr. Shearman— I ask the question he put whether it is in writing or oral. Judge Neilson— Ask him whether he ever said it, inde- pendent of the writing. Mr. Fullerton— Did you ever say to any person, in suh- stance, that you had lost confidence in Francis D. Moul- ton because he didn't suggest some plan to get out of the dlEBculty created by the publication of the Bacon letter 1 A. I do not think I did, Sir. Mr. Evarts— We understand the question to be asked under your Honor's direction ; if it was a statement in writing it must be so stated. Judge Neilson— Yes. Mr. Shearman— We shall object. Mr. Fullerton— I am going to the writing. Judge Neilson— I think this has reference to a con- versation. Mr. Fullerton— Certainly. Mr. Fullerton— In addition to that, didn't you write that in substance at one time ? Mr. Shearman [to the Witness]— You will not answer until the Court says you may. Judge Neilson [to the Witness] — I think you may answer the question. Mr. Fullerton— I will put another question : Q. Did you ever entertain that sentiment, or that be- lief 1 A. I never did, Sir. Q. See if that refreshes your recollectiom 1 [Handing witness a paper.] A. I think it likely that is mine ; I pre- sume it is. Q. I ask you if you recollect that statement ? Mr. Beach [to the Witness]— Does that refresh your recollection 1 A. I never entertained any such opinion ; I still aflarm what I said. Mr. Beach [to Mr. Fullerton]— Did he in August, 1874, entertain any such sentiment * Mr. Fullerton— Did you in August, 1874, entertain the belief or the idea ? A. What idea 1 MS. MOULTON'S SUGGESTIONS. Q. That Mr. Moulton was not worthy of your confidence, because he had faUed to suggest any mode of getting rid of the effect of the Bacon letter I A. No, Sir, not that. Q. Did you ever entertain this belief or idea : When I brought to Moulton what seemed to be the bad and treacherous things I learned of Tilton, he said : Don't believe a word of such things ; I wiU make in- quiries, and the next time I would see him he would have a plausible explanation of the whole thing, and I felt as though it was no use to attaok Tilton ; that he shed every arrow that was aimed against him. I have said this not only in reference to the impressions he pro- duced upon me, but until the time of the Council I was in an abiding faith of Mrs. Moulton's truth. Until the reply of Mr. Tilton to Bacon's letter, I never had a sus- picion of his good faith, and of the sincerity with which he was dealing with me ; and when that letter was pub- lished, and Mr. Moulton, on my visiting him in reference to it, proposed no counter-operation — ^no documents, no help— I was staggered, and when Tilton subsequently published his statement, after he came to this Committee, when that came out, I never heard a word from Moulton ; he never sent for me nor visited me, nor did a thing. A. That paragraph covers the whole period from the publication of the Bacon letter down to at least the early weeks in August. Q. Well, did Mr. Moulton propose any counter-opera- tion when the Bacon letter was published i A. No satis- fying — nothing. Q. Did he propose no counter-operation ? A. I don't know that he did, Sir. Q. Did he propose no document? A. By document there, I did not Mr. Beach— No. Mr. Fullerton— No. Did he propose no document % A. Yes, he proposed a paper. Mr. Fullerton— Well, that is an answer. The Witness— A document. Q. Did he propose no help 1 A. Yes, he proposed what he considered help. GEN. B[JTLER PROFFERS HIS SERYICES AND ADYICE TO MR. BEECHER. Q. When did you first hear of Gen. Butler in connection with this case 1 A. I think it was about the 29th of Jime, Sir. Q. Of what year 1 A. 1874. Q. And through whom did you hear it! A. Mr. H. A. Bowen. Q. Under what circumstances did you hear It f A. I was at my house, in conference with Mr. Tracy and Mr. Shearman, and I think Mr. Cleveland was called out to see a gentleman, who proved to be Mr. H. A. Bowen. Q. Didn't he come by appointment with you f A. No, Sip —not that I recollect ; I don't recall that, but I went with him ; he said he had something he wished to talk with me about, and he went with me to my study above, where we were in conference, and stated that he had just come from Washington, and had an interview with Gen. Butler, and that he, Gen. Butler, told him that he felt very deeply interested in my case, that he thought I was too great a man to be sacrificed, and that he /elt that I had not the best advisers, and that he was very sure that he could be of service to me, and that he should be in New- York la the course of ten days, and that if I wished he would give me an interview at that time, and that he thought he could pull me out of these matters whatever the facts were. That was the substance of the statement. There was some more conversation. Mr. Bowen represented the very cordial and kindly feelings thnt Gen. Butler hod toward me. lESllMONJ OF HEN Q, Difln't Mr. Bowen tell you that lie asked Gen. But- ler's permission to repeat the conversation wMch lie had with Gen. Butler ? A. I do not recollect that he did. Q. Didn't he say to you this : " I asked Gen. Butler if I might say this to Mr. Beeoher from you;" and didn't Mr. Bowen say that Gen. Butler replied in substance as follo"w^s : " I feci kindly to Mr. Beecher, and don't feel like seeing him brought into difficulty, and I have no ob- jection to your sayiag this much to him : Tell him to go to a good lawyer and take his advice and follow it closely, after telling htm the exact facts about the whole matter ;" and didn't Mr. Bowen say to you : " I have come to you, and have now told you what Gen. Butler has said 1" A. No, Sir ; there was no such thing as that said. Q. Nothing of that kind % A. No, Sir ; it was the re- verse ; it was as I have stated it. Q. Did you say in reply : *' That is a great relief ; and If G^n. Butler will act as my friend and adviser he will be the Moses that takes me through the wilderness f " A. No, Sir. Q. Nothing of that Mnd 1 A. Nothing ! Preposterous ! Q. Did you say to him, in substance, " Gen. Butler is a great man ; God Almighty permits but one or two such men to be born in a century f " A. No, Sir ; no, Sir. [Laughter.] Q. And didn't you say, " I wiU follow his advice, what- ever it is." A. I did not. Q. Didn't Mr. Bowen say to you, in substance, " Gren. Butler does not intrude his advice or opinion upon you ?" A, He did not, to my recollection, say any such thing. Q. And didn't you reply, in substance, '* I understand that % " A. No, Sir. Q. Now, Mr. Beecher, did you send any one to see Gen. Butler on that interview ? A. I did not. Q. Did you request anybody to go ? A. I did not. Q. Did anybody go on your ])ehalf % A. There did ; or, as I understood that, there did. Q. Did you communicate your interview with Mr. Bowen to any one after that ? A. Immediately I went down stairs after he had had this interview, and commu- nicated Q. One moment. Did 3'ou communicate it to any one 1 .A- I did. Q. And did that person to whom you communicated it go to Boston to see Gen. Butler 1 A. One of them did. Q. Was it not at your request 1 A. Not that I recollect. It was the result of (■ >::. sultation. Q. You agreed to it, did you ! A. I didn't make any objection to it. Q. Didn't you approve of it I A. Yes, Sir, I presume I did ; but I don't distinctly recall that. Q. When did that person go 1 A. I don't remember. Q. How soon after the interview! A. That I cannot •oy ; not a great while. Q. About how long ? A. I should say within a fort- 3i>ght, but I could not locate It more definitely. 1 RY WABD BEEGHEB. 103 Q. Can you not fix the day when the i)erson wentt A. No, Sir, I cannot ; I do not know. Q. Did the person report to you after his return f A. I have a recollection of hearuig— yes, I think I reeoUeot only one single thing. Q. Did the person who went to see Qen. Butler report to you after his return 1 A. He talked with me ; he did not make a formal report to me. Q. I don't suppose he made a formal report. Did he communicate to you the substance, or what purported to be the substance, of what took place between him and Gen. Butler 1 A. No, Sir ; he communicated to me his impression of the result. Mr. Fullerton— No, I ask you that question. The Witness— He did not. Mr. Beach [to Mr. FuUerton]— He says he communi- cated the result. Mr. Fullerton— Did he commmnicate the result of the interview ! A. He communicated to me the impres- sion which the whole interview had left upon his mind. Q. Without telUng you what took place ! A. Withomt teUing me what took place. Q. Now, who was that person that went to Boston f A* Gen. Tracy. Q. Did he go more than once 1 A. I do not know that he did. Q. Did you have an interview with Gen. Butler ? A. No, Sir. Q. Never saw him upon the subject? A. Never saw ^Itt^ up»n the subject. Q. Did you write him upon the subject f A. Never wrote htm. Q. Did you ever get any letter from him upon the sub- ject ? A. I never did. Q. Now, Mr. Beecher, I call your attention to the in- stances in which you walked with Mrs. TUton [Mr. Beach here made a whispered suggestion to Mr. Fullerton.] Mr. Fullerton— Yes, there is one question I have omit- ted. Q. In this conversation with Mr. Bowen, did you speak of Gen. Tracy as your eounsel 1 A. I do not recol- lect that I did. Sir. Q. Don't you recoUect of Mi*. Bowen asking you who your coimsel was 1 A. No, I don't recollect that he did. Q. And you don't recollect of teUtng him that Gen. Tracy was your counsel t A. I do not recoUect it ; it is quite possible, but I don't recall it. Q. It is quite possible 1 A. It is quite possible, but I don't recollect any such thing. Q. Was Mr. Tracy your counsel at that time ? A. No, Sir, not in the proper sense of that term ; he was my personal friend and adviser. Q. He was advising you 1 A. He advised me whenever I asked advice of htm. Q. Well, that is all coimsel can do, I think. Now, do 104 TRE TlLTON-RKR(]niJR TFIAL. you recollect of Mr. Butler being at Mr. Tracy's house '{ No, Sir; I don't know wliere Mr. Tracy's house is. Q. Ware you ever at Gen. Tracy's house ] A. No, Sir. Q. On no occasion! A. No, Sir ; I don't know wliere lie lives now. Q. Were you at any house in Brooklyn when Gen. But- ler was there t A. Not that I recollect, Sir. Q. Don't you recollect of consultiug Gen. Tracy in regard to your difficulties at one time when Gen. Butler was in the same house, in another room 1 A. Not that I knew of. Sir. Q. You never were informed of that fact 1 A. I was not Informed of it. _ MR. BEECHER'S WALKS WITH MRS. TILTON. Q. Now, as to your walks witli Mrs. Tilton; when did they occur ? A. I cannot give you any definite dates. It was in the early period, but whether it was in the Fall of 1871, or anywhere along there, I cannot say "With certainty. Mr. Evarts— 1871 1 He don't mean 1871. Mr. Fullerton— Yes, he does mean 1871. The Witness— Yes, I am speaking of walks with her subsequent to the breaking out of the difficulty. Mr. Fullerton— Certainly. What time in the Fall of that year ? A. I cannot say whether it was in the Fall or whether it was in tiie early Summer. Q. Where did the first one take place? A. I cannot say which was the first one. I can tell you where one of them was. Q. Well, the first one that you remember of 1 A. The first that I tell of was when going out of my house, I have forgotten for what errand, just about sundown, I met Mrs. Tilton on the corner of Clark-st. and Colum- bia Heights. She was going over toward the Heights, and I was coming away. I was surprised. We stopped and had a few words of conversation, and she turned and walked back with me, and I think walked back about as far as Hicks-st., or somewhere there; I know it was a very short walk. That was one of them. Q. And there you separated 1 A. There we separated. Q. What time of day was iti A. It was, as I have said, Just about sundown. Q. You cannot tell us the season of the year t A. No, I cannot accurately. Q. But you think it was in the latter part of 1871 1 A. I should say it was some time between— I should say even this is uncertain— but my best recollection is, it was be- tween the early Summer and the late Autumn, but I can- not say certainly. Q. When do you recollect of another walk with her in the street? A. I recollect meeting her somewliere, I should say iu the vicinity of Montague or Remsen-st., on Cliiiton, or some of those streets there, Henry or Clinton, and walking down with her— she was going home, I think ; I overtook her and walked down with her ae far as ber house, and left her there. Q. And how far was that? A. I should say it waa about as tar as from here to Montague-st. — the comer of Montague, in Brooklyn. Q. How many blocks is thatl A. I don't know how many blocks it is. Q. What is the distance in yards and rods 1 A. Well, dear me 1 yards and rods I I am not a surveyor that I should measure the distance. Q, Well, miles then ? A. Well, it is less than a hundred. Q. Less than a hundred what! A. Miles; it was from CUnton-st., in Brooklyn, or about there, in the neighbor- hood, down Livingston-st. to her house. Q. Well, about how many blocks? What is the dis- tance? Give us some idea. A. That is what I was stating; I do not recall the particular blocks; and then the blocks usually are irregular and of different sizes. Q. A dozen blocks? A. O, I should not think it was as much as that; I should not think it was more than a part of a block to Smith, and then Isotto voce} one, two, three, four— four or five blocks ; it may be a little more or a lit- tle less. Q. What time in the day did you say it was ? A. I can- not recall it, Sir; my impression is it was in the after- noon. Q. Do you recollect of any other walk t A. I do not recall any other. Sir. Q. You left her at her dwelling? A. Ileftherather door; I did not go into the gate. Q. Where were you going on that occasion? A. I don't recollect. Q. Do you know whether it was in the direction of your errand, whatever it was ? A. I do not. Q. It was not in the direction of your house, was it ? A. No, Sir ; right away from it. Q. Eight away from it 1 Were you walMng away from it when you overtook her? A. I think I was ; that is my impression. Q. You cannot recollect where you were going ? A. No, Sir. Q. You conversed with Mrs. Tilton upon those occa- sions, did you not? A. I did. Q. Any explanation of the scandal at all ? A. No, Sir. Q. You did not seek to learn from her, then, whether the charge made against you, of having won her affec- tions, was true ? A. I did not, Sir. Q. You took it for ginnted that it was so f A. I as* sumed it. Q. And yet walked in the public streets with her ? A. I did, Sir. Q. And no word was said in regard to the difficulty that existed between you and her? A. No word that I recall, or allusion. Q. Do you recollect of walking with her at any other time ? A. I do not. TIJSTIMONF OF HFA Q. Mr. Beecher, I -vriU now ask you ■wh.etlier you recol- lect of having ridden with her on any occasion otlier tlian the two buggy rides that you have already spoken of! A. I don't relies to my thoughts about Mr. Moulton. Q. Yes, certainly. Now, Mr. Beecher, I must ask you again whether you have no means of getting at the exact sum which you contributed 1 A. No, Sir; I have not. Q. Well, did you think that Mr. Tilton had any agency in getting this money at that time— t|iat is, any sum that you paid 1 A, Well, no ; no agency that I know of. The thought occurred to me at times in regard— that he knew of it. Q. Well, when Mr. Moulton got the $5,000 from you, didn't he tell you he should not tell Mr. Tilton where it came from 1 A. I don't recollect about that. Sir. Q. I wish you would tax your recollection upon that subject. Now, didn't he say to you that be should not in- form Mr. Tilton the som-ce from which that sum came 1 A. I don't recollect about that. Sir. Q. WeU, don't you think something took place upon that subject? A. All that I recall now is that he should husband that, and feed it out to Mr. TUton carefully and r^rliriously, Q. Yes, and you beUeved he would do so, didn't you f A. I did, Sir ; and I beUeved him to be as good a friend as need be. Q. And he did not say anything about concealing the source from whence it came, that you recoUect 1 A. I don't recall that he did. Sir. TJ^STIMONF OF HENBJ WARD BEECHEB. Ill THE QUESTION OF BLACKMAIL. Q, Well, did you think that Theodore Til- ton, up to tbe time you paid tlie $5,000, was levying blaclmiail upon you in any way ? A, I cannot say that I tliouglitso. Q. Had you any reason to thini; so at all ? A. I had no reason, and I don't know that I did. I may have had the suggestion flit across my mind, but it was nothing that made any serious impressiftn, Sir. Q. Well, if it didn't flit then, don't let us have it— any- thing more than flit. Let me read to you and see if you recollect this : [Rtadtug.j The full truth of this history requires that one more fact should be told, especially as Mr. Tilton has invited it. Money has been obtained from me in the course of these aflairs in considerable sums, but I did not at first look upon 'the suggestions that I should contribute to Mr. Til- ton's pecuniary wants as savoring of blackmail. This did not occur to me until I had paid, perhaps, $2,000. A. It only occured then. Q. Did It occur then ? A. I presume that that thought flitted through my mind then. Q. Did it occur then 1 A. It occurred in that sense- transient thought. Q. That you had been imposed upon, and had paid blackmail? A. That Mr. Tilton was receiving money from me, Q. Now, Mr. Beecher, if you please, did it occur to you when you paid the $2,000 that you had been imposed upon, and that blackmail had been obtained from youf A. Will you read that, if you please, again. Sir ] Q. I will [Reading] : The full truth of this history requires that one more fact should be told, especially as Mr. Tilton has invited it. Money has been obtained from me in the course of these affairs in considerable sums, but I did not at first look upon the suggestions that I should contribute to Mr. Til- ton's pecuniary wants as savoring of blackmail. Mr. Evarts— He has not said so. Mr. Fullerton— Well, wait until I get through. [Read- ing] : This did not occur to me until I had paid, perhaps, $2,000. Now, I pause there and ask you whether it did occur to you that those payments savored of blackmail when you paid the $2,000 1 A. I cannot state positively as to the time ; it certainly did not in all the earlier periods of my contribution. Q. Now, I ask you whether it occurred to you at that time, as stated here? A. I am— that which is stated there is stmirty not that it occurred ; that it did come to me. Q. Now, I beg your pardon ; you are not to give an ex- position of this language, A. I am to give an exposition of my meaning of the language. O. Xn, you are not. Mr. Evarts— Mr. Beecher's statement is that it did not occur to him before a certain time. Mr. Fullerton— Yes, Sir ; but my question is whether it did occur to him at that time, and I am obliged to you for commending it. Mr. Evarts— I did not do it for the sake of politeness. Q. I want an answer to that question ; and I am going to have an answer to the question, as to whether at that time it occm'red to him that it savored of blackmail. The Witness— May it please your Honor, I am not avoid- ing the answer at all; I only want to have the distinction made between a conviction — of an occurrence of that kind making a permanent conviction, and merely the thought passing through my mind. Up to that time I had not even thought of such a thing ; but at that time it occm'red to me; the thought began to come into my mind whether he was not making use of me for his advantage ; it was a transient impression. Mr. Fullerton— That is an answer to my question, although addressed to the Court. I understood you to say a moment ago, Mr. Beecher, that up to the time of the payment of the $5,000 it had never occurred to you in any shape or form A. That Mr. Moulton Q. And when you made the distinction, I went to Mr. Tilton and asked whether Mr. Tilton was levying black- mail upon you in any form or shape, and I understood you to say, "No." Mr. Shearman— No, he did not. The Witness— No, Sir. Mr. Fullerton— Well, one moment. Mr. Shearman— I beg pardon ; but I have taken especial pains to look over this gentleman's statements; and I say to your Honor, and in the presence of the Court and jury Mr. Fullerton— But I object to these assertions In the presence of the Court ; and I don't believe this is proper at all. I am examining this witness, Sir, and I have a right to examine him without interruption. Mr. Shearman— And I to speak Mr. Fullerton— There is no question before the Court. Mr. Sheannan— Ajid X shall not stop because of the In- solence of the counsel. Mr. Fullerton— May I ask your Honor now, at this stage, to stop the counsel until I get through with the examination. There is no question before the Court at aU. Mr. Shearman— I say that this gentleman has mis- stated Mr. Fullerton— I insist upon it that he shall not inform this witness what there is in this paper. It is evidently an attempt to do so. Judge Neilson— The whole matter is simply this : Coun- sel thinks that you were mistaken as to the fact embraced in your question. That is all ; it is very simple. Mr. Fullerton— If your Honor please, I stated to the 112 THE TILTON-BBECBER TBIAL, witness what I understood him to say in order that he might correct it if I were incorrect. Judge Neilson— It is a very simple matter. Mr. Shearman— It is a very curious coincidence that, whenever this gentleman undertakes to state verbally, and without reference to the minutes, he is so unfortunate as not to be able to state it correctly. Mr. Fullerton— I quote it word for word, and then hand it to the witness for his examination. Mr. Shearman— I should like to see It quoted word for word. Mr. Fullerton— I do quote It word for word, and then hand it to the witness for examination. Mr. Shearman— When he does that he is able to do it correctly, but never except at those times when he refers to the printed record. Mr. Fullerton— WeU, if Brother Shearman cannot be impertinent he is not anything ; so we wiU put up with his impertinence. I have not misquoted any testimony ; I have not misquoted any statement ; I have with the utmost frankness quoted word for word as it is written in the book, and then handed it to the witness for his examination. Judge Neilson— I observe you liave done that pretty uniformly, but at the same time the learned counsel might think that, although you intended to quote it cor- rectly, yet, in a given instance like this, you had commit- ted a mistake. Mr. Fullerton— Oh, what Mr. Shearman might think. Sir, 16 not of importance enough to take up your Honor's at- tention, or mine either, for a moment. Judge Neilson— He thinks it his duty to call your atten- tion to it. Mr. Fullerton— I don't know what he thinks; I only know Avliat he says is very impertinent indeed, and that he cannot be otherwise. Now, Mr. Beecher [To the stenograplier.] Will you recur to the last question and see whether I am correct % [Last two questions and answers were read by the Tribime stenographer.] Q. Now, was I correct in my understanding of what you said on your direct examination? A. I don't know, Sir. Q. Well, when did you first become convinced or im- pressed with the idea that this money had been obtained from you improperly 1 A. I think it was some time late in August, 1874, Q. In August, 18741 A. Yes, Sir. Q. And what did you think were the improper means used by Mr. Moulton to get the money from you? A. Well, Sir, I did not think— I was not— I could not make myself think he had used any improper means to get the money from me. Q. What means did he use to get the money from you that you thought were improper ? A. He used no means which at the time I dreamed were improper. Q. Did he suggest to you the payment of money? A. He did not, except in the case of the term bills, but not of the $5,000. Q. You told me a moment ago that the $2,000 and the $5,000 (as I understood you— if I am incorrect you will correct me) were paid willingly by you. A. More than wDlingly, Sir ; you were correct in your understanding. Q. You sought the opportunity of paying the money, did you not ? A. I cannot exactly^ say that. Judge Neilson— As to the $5,000. The Witness— Yes, as to the $5,000; the others were brought, from time to time, to me. Q. Ajid didn't you teU us on your direct-examination that you chided Mr. Moulton for not calling upon you for aid, as you had offered it? A. I did. Sir; I told him I thought he was altogether too sensitive and too delicate. Q. Now, did you believe that he had used improper means in taking this money from you? A. I did not, of my own self. Q. Somebody did for you, is that it? A. I was told that that was blackmail. Q. I don't want what anybody told you. don't want to get into a controversy with Brother Shearman about it. [Laughter.] [Reading:] Money has been obtained from me in the course of these affairs, in conside^kble sums, but I did not at first look upon the suggestions that I should contribute to Mr. Tllton's pecuniary wants as savoring of blackraaiL This did not occur to me until I had paid perhaps $2,000. Afterward I contributed at one time $5,000. After the money had been paid over, in five $1,000 bUls, to raise which I mortgaged the house I live in, I felt very much dissatisfied with myself about it. Now, did that dissatisfaction have its rise in 1874, as you have stated, in the month of August! A. After- ward, Sir. Q. And in the month of August, 18741 A. I think not before that. Q. Not before ? A. I think not. There are other inao> ciiracies in that statement. Q. Well, Sir, if it flitted through your mind when you had paid the $2,000 that blackmail was being taken from you, how did it happen that you afterward paid the $5,000? A. I did not consider that as blackmail, Sir. Q. You did not consider what as blackmail! A. The $5,000. Q. I didu't ask you that. A. You asked me how, If I considered it as blackmail, I paid the $5,000. A. No; you misunderstood me. A. I wiU be corrected, then, if you please. Q. If you regarded the $2,000 as blackmail, how did you happen to pay the $5,000 afterward? A. I did not consider that as blackmail, nor did I consider the other. Q. Well, we will employ other terms, then. If it had "flitted through your mind" that perhaps the $2,000 was blackmail, how did it happen that you paid the $5,000 afterward ? A. I did not consider that Mr. Moul* t>on, in levying any part of it TESTIMONY OF HEXBT WABD BEECHEB. 113 Q. One moment— leave out Mr. Moulton, if you please, Mid everybody else. I am talking about tlie abstract pay- ment of the money. A. I am talking about the same thing. Q. Well, then, don't bring In anybody. I ask you again if it flitted through your mind (to employ your own lan- guage) that the $2,000 had been obtained from you by blackmail, or that the payment of the $2,000 savored of blackmail, how did it happen that you paid the $5,000 afterward! A, Because did not savor of blackmail to me then, nor did the other until afterward. Q. After what ? A. After 1 had paid it. Q. Well, after you paid the $2,000, you thought it •avored of blackmail, did youl A. The suggestions came afterward. Q. Wen, now I ask you, after those suggestions came to your mind that it was blackmail, how did it happen that you paid further money! A. The suggestion did not oome to my mind ^hat the further money was blackmail. Q. Oh, it didn't Judge Neilson— Did not the suggestion come to your mind until after all the money had been paid over ? The Witness— The suggestion came to my mind, may it please your Honor, In this form— that Mr. Moulton was pursuing a course of perfect uprightness toward me, and honor, but that Mr. Tilton was in a position in wMeh he was willing to U5e my help for himself; and when Mr. Moulton, in the conversation, represented the great ad vantage which would be had in setting The Golden Age free from all its difflcultiea by an inmediate and Liberal contribution, and ending, therefore, its difficulties, I had not the slightest thought that it was blackmail. Mr. Pullerton— Why did Mr. Moulton tell you that liberal and immediate contributions would setTA* Golden Age on a good footing ! A. He told me that the friends of Tfie Golden Age were taking steps to do it. Q. That is what he told you ! A. That is the substance of it Q. Now, I repeat the question : If the thought flitted through your mind that the $2,000 savored of blackmail, why did you pay the $5,000 ! A. Because I did not think thai savored of blackmaU. Q. You told me a moment ago that if you had had an Idea that any of those sums savored of blackmail, yon •would not have paid them at aU! A. I didnot think they did savor of blackmail until after they had been paid. Q VeryweU. The $2,000, after it was paid, you thought savored of blackmail ! A. No, I did not. Judge Neilsoii— His statement is, that it did not oocur to him until after $2,000 was paid. Mr. Fullerton— WeR, then it did occur to hlrn. Judge Neilson— But how long afterward ! Mr. Pullerton— After the payment of the $2,000, and before the payment of the $5,000. Mr. Evarts — Oh, no ; that does not appear. The Witness— That does not appear Mr. Fullerton— It does appear. I put the question to him three or tour times, how it happened that he paid the $5,000 after he thought that the $2,000 savored of black- mail, and his answer has invariably been, because he did not think that the $5,000 did savor of blackmail. That is his answer over and over again. Mr. Evarts— That is not Ms answer. :Mr. Fullerton— WeU, I will put the question to him again. Mi\ Beecher, did it occur to you, or did the thought occur to you, or come to your mind in any way, that the $2,000 savored of blackmail before or after you paid the $5,000 ? A. The $2,000 that I had paid to Mr. Tilton ! Q. Paid to Mr. Moulton! A. Not under that designa- tion. Q. Under what designation. A. I don't think the '• blacionail" came to me tmtil after the Conmiittee's in- vestigation in 1374. Q. That is the first time! A. Idld not put that name on it, but it was put on it, and I spoke of it because we were counseling upon the subject at that time, and I called it by the name that I heard it called by. A. Who put it on 1 A. I don't know which of them. Q. Tell tis who were there, and let them diAlde the honors. [Laughter.] Where was it, and who were pres- ent? A. I don't know of any particular interview that can designate. Q. Tell me, Mr. Beecher, if you please, who it was that suggested to you that the payment of this money was blackmail! A. I think Mr. Shearman will have to take a part of it, won't he ! ME. BEECHEE'S EEFUSAL TO USE THE TEEM BLACOIAIL. Q. I thought so. Perhaps the whole of itt A. No. Then I spoke with— it must have been Gen Tracy. Q. Yes, par nobUe flratrum. A. If it was not him then it was somebody else that I don't remember. Q. You cannot remembOT who the third person was A. I cannot. Sir. Q. It never occurred to you that the payment of the money, which gave you so much joy in 1871 and 1872, was blackmail, until you had a lawyer tell you! A. I was fought with actually, and beaten into the use of that term. I defended Mi-. Moulton up and dovni, and said that he had no thought of that kind ; I would not believe it of him ; and it was in the subsequent conferences I was made ashamed of my simplicity— that it was— they told me that I was green. fLaughter.] Q. Yes. It was fought into you, was it! A. It was beaten into me by good, sound admonitions. Q. Do you think it was beaten into you by sound argu- ment ! A. I don't think it was by argument exactly. Q. Well, has it stayed in you ever since i Do you now believe it was blackmail! A. Well, I fall from grace every once in a while, and recover n:iyself. 114 THE TILION-BKEOHEB TBIAL. Q. Well, recover as best you can, and tell me whether /on believe now that Francis D. Moulton intended to blackmail you in obtaining these sums of money from you ? A. I have no— my belief is Q. No. Tell me whether you believe it now ! A. I was going to tell you, Sir. Q. Well, you can say yes or no to it 1 A. Well, just no^ I have no thought about it— in the matter. In the con- fusion and excitement of your questions that does not rest as a matter upon my mind. Q. I will give you ample time to make up a judgment upon it, and to consult with yom- two lawyers^ if you choose ; but I want to know now whether you think that Francis D. Moulton intended to levy blackmail upon you in obtaining the $7,000, or any part of that sum ? A. fWith hesitation] I am afraid he did. Q. You are afraid he did ? A. I am afraid so. I don't want to say so. Q. That is not an answer. I did not appeal to your fears; I appealed to your judgment? A. Well, Sir, I have, on that subject, no hard, immovable judgment. I found— Mr. Moulton made such an impression on me that to think evil of him is the hardest thing that I can do, and therefore, although when I am brought up to the facts by others, I am constrained to say that it looks like it, yet, when I am left to myself, my other thoughts often get the ascendency. Q. Now, then, when these thoughts occur to you that he may have done it, will you be good enough to point out any act or word of Mr. Moulton's on which you predi- cate that thought ? A. No, I cannot. Q. You cannot 1 A. No, I cannot. Q. Now I want to know, therefore, upon what this sug- gestion rests that he may possibly have levied blackmail ? A. It is upon the representation that, upon such a man as I am, the way to levy blackmail is- not to intimidate him, but to work upon his kindly feelings, and that by such delicate touches my feelings were worked upon, they knowing that generosity was a weakness of mine, and so the money was obtained by moral blackmail. Q. By your moral blackmail ? A. Yes, Sir ; by moral blackmail. Q. Is that the way the lawyers argued it with you ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. The way they beat you into it 1 A. Yes, Sir ; the way they rubbed it into me. [Laughter.] Q. The way they fought you up and down 1 A. Yes, Sir ; fought me up and down until I surrendered. Q, How long did the battle last before you surrendered 1 A. It lasted a good while. Q. How long 1 A. It ran through weeks. Q. And when was the complete victory obtained! A. T thinlc it was since I returned from the White Mountains. Q. When was that 1 A. That was in October, 1874. Q. Then you gave up i A. WeU, I gave up to this effect. that I did not say in their presence, any more, that it wa& not blackmail. Q. How? A. I had been so suitably disciplined hy them, that I did not dare to say in their presence that it was not blackmail. Q. They intimidated you? A. Well, yes. Sir. Q. They treated you worse than MoiHton did, didn't they ? A. A great deal worse, [Laughter.] [Here Mr. Fullerton consulted with the other counsel for the plaintiff.] Q. Mr. Bee Cher, your answer to the question which I put to you, whether you now believe that Francis Moul- ton intended to levy blackmail upon you has not been answered satisfactorily to some of my associates, and I put it to you again, as to your present belief t A. WeU, Sir, if you mean by blackmail that he levied contribu- tions for his own advantage on me, I do not IJiink it; but if you mean Mr. FuUerton— That is The Witness [Continuing]— But if you mean thao he levied money upon me, using my generous feelings as the instrument, for the benefit of Mr. Tilton, I think he did. Q. Now, when did he take advantage of, or use, your generous feelings? A. Well, I think he did in regard to the $5,000, though it did not at the time seem so to me, and though it is entirely an after judgment and an artificial judgment. Q. Entirely voluntary, that payment was, was it not! A. Oh ! so far as I was concerned, perfectly so. Q. You had not intimated to Mr. Moulton that you in- tended to give him $5,000 ? A. Yes, Sir ; I had. Q. Before you gave it ? A. Yes. Sir. Q. Before you gave it to him ? A. Yes, Sir ; certainly. Q. When was it ? A. After that interview I told him that after a few days I was going to contribute $5,000, and then I took steps to get it. Q. You fixed the sum yourself 1 A. I did. Q. He did not? A. No, Sir. Q. You could have fixed it at $500 or $1,0001 i could have fixed it at $1,000, or any other sum I pleased. Q. You have spoken of your return from the White Mountains— when was that 1 A. In October, 1874. Q. And it was not until after that that your lawyers subdued you into the belief that this was blackmail! A. No, Sir; I think it was after that when I became at aU manageable on that subject. Q. Your statement, however, was before that; was i not in the month of August ? A. My statement ! Q. Yes, before the Committee? A. Yes, Sir, it was; but you know that during this Q. That will do ; that is an answer! A. Yes, Sir, that IS an answer. Q. Did you not, then, before you came to the conclusion that this was blackmail in October, state, substance, that you thought it was blackmail ! A. Wir rou real it, if you please! TJESTIMOSY OF H£XRY WABD BEECEEB. 115 Q. Look, please, aud see what you said upon tliat sub- ieet. and tell me whetlier that was a final or interlocutory iudgment of youi-s, to use tlie legal plirase 1 A. [Look- ing at the book.J I presume this is my statement, sub- stantially. Q. Now, do I understand you to say that when you wrote your statement in August you had not come to the conclusion that it was blackmail that was levied upon you? A. My statement was not written altogether, Sir ; it was written and extemporized and taken down by a phonographer. Q. Well, I didn't know that it made any difference Avliether it was written or taken down by a phonog- rapher. A. You asked me about mj- icritten s'utement. Ql- Well, it was written out, was it not ? A. Not by me. Q. It was written out, was it not ? A. Not bj- me. Q. Was it not written out 1 A. It was not my written statement. Q. Was it written out i A. Not when I deUvered it. Q. Was it afterward? A. It became a written state- ment, but not mine. Q. 'When? A. After it went into the phonographer's hands. Q. "^Tien was that ? A. I cannot tell you exactly. Q. Do you remember when ? A. I do not. Q. Did you revise it ? A. I did not. Q. After the stenographer took it down ? A. I did not. Q. Tell me now when that was as near as you can ? A. When he took it down 1 Q. Yes. A. I have forgotten the date. Q. What month ? A. It was about the 14th of August. Q. Then it became a written statement, didn't it? A. Became a written statement. Q. Very weU. When it became a written statement, I understand you to say you had not made up your mind that it was blackmail. Is that so ? A. T don't recollect that I iiave said that. Q. Y^ou told me that you came to that conclusion on yom- return from the White Mountains in October ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. I now ask you whether la August, after this became a written statement, you thought it was blackmail ? A. That w;« one of the periods m which I thought it was blackmail. Q. One of the periods? A. Yes, Sir; I have stated to you that it was a fluctuating state of mind. Q. Periodical ? A. Well, not quotidian exactly ; it was fluctuating. Q. Did it wax and wane ^vith the moon m any way 1 [Laughter.] A. No, I think not, Sir. I more days thought it was not than I did that it was. Q. When you began to falter in your judgment, did the lawyers come to the attack again ? A. When I came back and talked witt them, I found myself strengthened in that conviction. 0. Were you settled in the conviction that this was blackmail in August, 1874, when youi- statement became a written statement ? A. At the time that I made my written statement I supposed it was so. Q. Were you settled in your conviction 1 A. Not set- tled. Q. Then were you willing to make a statement to go forth to the world that Francis D. Mouiton had levied blackmail upon you without its being a settled conviction in your mind that it was true ? Mr. Shearman— That is assuming that it is in the state- ment, Mr. Fullerton— It is ia the statement. Mr. Shearman— I say it is not in the statement, nor any- thing like it. Mr. Fullerton— We will put it in another form then. Q. Were you willing m August, 1874, before you had a settled conviction that this was blackmail— were you willing to say what you did say upon that subject in your statement ? A. When I said what I said in that statement I said it upon the supposition that that was my fixed impression. Q. And it became unfixed afterward ? A. Afterward. Q. How soon afterward ? A. I don't know. Sir. Q. Tell me about how soon afterward? A. I cannot say; August — September— some time in the month of September, I think, I vibrated very much the other way. Q. And you gave up this contingent conclusion, did you ? A. That it was only by a kind of— well, by a kind of figure of speech. Q. Well, did you publish anything at that time to do justice to the members upon whom any imputation might rest •? A. No, Sir, I had the fear of my lawyers before my eyes. Q You succumbed, did you ? A. I did. Q. Y^'ou were afraid to tell what you thought upon that subject ? A. Oh, when I saw them they made me think t'other way; they thought that I was a chicken-hearted man about such things, and I don't think their opinion of me was compliment a rj"^. CONYERSATIOXS OF MR. BEECHEE WITH HIS LAWYERS AND THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. Q. Don't you recollect the press generally throughout the country, so far as it fell under youi- ob- servation, denounced, in the bitterest possible terms, Mr. Mouiton for having levied blackmail upon you? A. I don't think I ever read a newspaper with that in it. Q. No allusion to it ? A. I don't think I read a news- paper during all that time that touched upon that sub- ject. Q. Did you not hear from various quarters that Mr. Mouiton was condemned in unmeasured terms for having levied blackmail upon you ! A. Not much ; I was oat of town. Q. Where were you ? A. White Mountains. 116 THE Tim ON-BRECREE TBIAL. Q. You didn't hear it tkere 1 A. I may liave heard it, but I don't recollect. Q. Don't you recollect whether you did hear it or not 1 A. I do not. Q. What occurred in October, 1874, which brought you to the conclusion that this was blackmail 1 A. The same tilings that had operated in the beginniag. Q. The talk with Mr, Tracy and Mr. Shearman, was it ? A. Mr. Tracy and Mr. Shearman, and Mr. Winslow, and Mr. Sage, and Mr. Storrs, and Mr. Cleveland, and— who else did I talk to ? I know I didn't talk to anybody about this time that did not push me in that direction. Q. You talked to them aU upon this subject of black- mail ? A. I cannot say I talked to them all, but I think it quite likely I talked to them ; Mr. Sage I recollect talking with, and I have an impression I talked with Mr. Winslow. Q. He was another lawyer 1 A. He was another law- yer. Q. He thought it blackmail, didn't he f A. I think he did. Q. Don't you recoUeot whether he did or not t A. I talked also with Mr. Bartlett. Q. What Mr. Bartlett ? A. O. E. Bartlett, is it 1 Mr. Shearman— W. O. Bartlett. Mr. FuUerton— W. O. Bartlett. The Witness— W. O. Bartlett of New-York. Mr. Fullerton— When did you talk with Mr. Winslow about it 1 A. I could not say ; it was some time Q. About what time 1 A. I talked with Mr. Winslow about it during the month of August. Q. And he thought it was blackmail then, did he! A. I have an impression that he' did. Q. You talked with these men after they were put on the Committee, did you? A. Yes, Sir. Q. And they insisted upon it to you that this was black- mail i A. Members of the Committee— I do not think I talked with them so much as I did with the lawyers that were employed by the Committee. Q. Well, did you talk with members of the Committee, whether it was as much as you talked with the lawyers, or not 1 A. I think I talked with some members of the Committee. Q What member of the Committee did you talk with about the blackmail 1 A. If I were to say that certainly of any one I should say with Mr. Cleveland and with Mr. Sage. Q. WeU, now, with any others 1 A. I cannot say posi- tively. Sir. It is quite possible that I talked with Mr. Storrs, although I do not recollect it distinctly. Q. This was before the evidence was taken before the Committee, was it not 1 A. It was while the Committee were taking the evidence. Q. Was it before your evidence was taken 1 A. I cannot aay positively about that. Q. What is your best reooJVction about itt A. I talked also with Mr. Kossiter Raymond— Bossiter W. Bujr- mond. Mr. Fullei'ton— Yes, a very excellent man, I take It. The Witness— Yes ; only his hand was heavy on me. Mr. Fullerton— Wen, you had a hard time of it, no doubt. The Witness— I did. Q. WiU you ten me what other members of the Com- mittee you talked to on the subject of blackmail? A. I cannot tell you any more distinctly. Q. And whether it was before or after you gave your evidence before the Committee ? A. I think I talked with the members of the Committee, with the exception of Mr. Cleveland probably, afterward, but I think that Q. After what 1 A. I talked with Mr. Shearman, with Mr. Cleveland, and witu Mr. Raymond while I was mark- ing my statement. Q. While you were preparing it ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. And before you delivered it to the Committee 1 A. Before I delivered it to the Committee. Q. Was Mr. Raymond a member of the Committee! A. No, Su-. Q. Mr. Cleveland was 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. What relation did you bear to Mr. Cleveland 1 A. I was his pastor. Q. Any other relation 1 A. No other. Q. Any business relation! A. 1872; at that time lie was Mr. Shearman— 1874. Mr. FuUerton— 1874. The Witness— In 1874 I bore no direct business rela- tions with him. Q. Indirect, did you bear any relations to him ! A. Yes, Sir ; he was employed by J. B. Ford & Co., who were the publishers of TTie Christian Union, by the publishing association— the managers. Q. How long before that had you appointed him on the Committee, before this conversation in regard to black- mail ? A. I requested him to serve on the Committee on the 26th of June. Q. Did he consent 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. Did he rmdertake to convince you it was black- mail ! A. He never had any other opinion. Q. Did he undertake to convince you it was blackmail ! A. I don't remember that he ever made a set-to on me, but that was the constant tendency of his view and con- versation. Q. And that was before you made your statement to the Committee ! A. Before I made my statement to the Com- mittee. Q. How did he learn the facts! A. In regard to it! Q. Yes. A. He had other experiences beside mine. Q. Had he learned them from you ! A. He had learned from me the facts in regard to my raising the money. Q. And one of this Committee who were sitting in Judg*- ment upon this case was trying, before you made your TE81IM0NJ OF Em statement l)efore the Committee, to conyince you that you had been blackmailed? A. Mr. Cleveland did not labor with me in any such sense as did Mr. Shearman and Mr. Raymond. Q. I am not raising any question of the comparative labor they performed; I am only asking you whether he did labor more or less. I don't suppose he was as effec- tive as the two lawyers. A. No; but aU he did, as I remember, was to express emphatically his opinion that tljat was blackmail. Q. And this was before your statement was given to the Committee 9 A. Before the statement was made to the Committee. Q. Now, did any others of this Conmilttee state that same thing to you I A. I cannot say that they did; I can- not recall it. Q. Now, had you not stated the facts to Mr. Cleveland before the Committee was formed? A. What facta 1 Q. In regard to the payment of this money. A. I pre- sume I had, but I cannot say. Q. Didn't he express the opinion that that was black- mail before he was appointed on the Committee 1 A. That I cannot say. Q. What is your best recollection f A. I have no recol- lection. Q. What opinion did he express about this statement you made to him before he was appointed on the Com- mittee ? A. I don't think I ever made a detailed state- ment to him. Q. 1 didn't ask you for a detailed statement. A. I don't think I ever made a statement of the whole matter. Q. I didn't ask you whether you made a statement of the whole matter. Did you make a statement to Mr. Cleveland before he was appointed on the Committee i A. $500. Q. Well? A. On aU sorts of subjects. Mr. Fullerton— Well, that is an advantage no"vr that you have gained. Q. Did you make a statement of the facts connected with your diflSculty with Mr. Tilton before he was ap- pointed on that Committee? A. I did not make any fuU •tatement. Q. I didn't ask you for a full statement. Did you make a statement, whether it was full or not ? A. I made some statements of some facts connected with it. Q. Now, did he express an opinion upon those facts which you thus stated ? A. On some of them he did. Q. And what opinion did he express ? A. I don't recall it, Sir. Q. Can you not tell us what it was ? A. No, Sir. Q. Was it favorable or unfavorable to you 1 A. Oti, it was probably favorable to me. He was a good, sensible man. Q. Yes. Upon what subject did he express a favorable opinion ? A. I dont recall the subjects that came up for oonvcrsation. BY WARD BEECHEB, 117 \ Q. The subject was this difficulty between you and Mr. Tilton? A. The subject was this difficulty— yes, Sii'. Q. Therefore you got the opinion and the judgment of one of the Committeemen before you appointed him on that Committee to investigate it ? A. Not upon the whole case. Q. Upon some part of It? A. Upon some facts in it. Mr. Fullerton— That was a good thing to do, imdoubt* edly. The Witneas— I was too glad to get any idea or any re- membrances. Q. And were you too glad to get an opinion which char- acterized it beforehand? A. I was very glad to get a man who had an opinion worthy to be expressed. Q. Was Ml*. Sage upon this Committee ? A. He was. Q. Did you talk with him before he was appointed 1 A. I do not think I did before. Sir. Q. Did you afterward? A. I did afterward. Q. And before your statement was made? A. I think not Q. After your statement was made ? A. I think it was after my statement was made, but I will not be definite about that. Q. Did you talk with any other member of the Commit* tee before he was appointed? A. I do not recollect that I did. Sir. Q. Did you talk with any other member of the Commit- tee after he was appointed, and before the evidence was given by you before the Committee ? A. I do not recol- lect that I did. Sir. Q. Did you see the report thatthe Committee read after it was made ? A. I did not. Q. You did not? A. I did not. Q. Were you present in church when the report was made ? A. I was not. Q. Did they not read the report to you ? A. They did not. Q. Did you ever read it ? A. I did not. Q. You never have read the report of the Committee! A. I never have. Q. Were the contents of that report ever stated to you % A. No, not that I recollect. Q. Have you any idea to-day what is in it ? A. I imder- stood it was a triumphant acquittal. Q. From whom did you understand that f A. I under- stood it from IMr. Rossiter Baymond, and I understood It from Mr. Raymond's friends, who gave me an account of all their doings there and various persons. Q. Pray tell me did he tell you what was In that report LQ respect to blackmail ? A, No, Sir ; I dont recollect a word about it. Q. Did he teU you what was in that report in respect to the pistol scene ? A. I don't recollect a word about it. Q. Never heard a word about that ? A. No, Sir ; I never read it, or heard it, or had it stated to me by analysis. I 118 THE TlLTON-BhKOEEB TRIAL. can only— it satisfied my friends and tlie chiuoli, and that satisfied me. Q. Wlxat relation did you bear to Mr. Sage, anotlier member of tlie Committee? A. Tliat of friendship. Q. A member of the church, was hel A. Yes, Sir. Q. No business relations with him 1 A. I had not. Q. Well, wiU you be good enough to name the balance of the Committee ? By the way, was not Mr. Sage a part owner of The Christian Union f A. He was a stock- holder of The Christian Union Publishing Association. He held four shares la 100. Q. Now what other members of the Committee were there ; will you name them 1 A. Mr. Henry W. Sage, Mr. Horace B. Claflin, Mr. Augustus Btorrs, Mr. Cleveland, Mr. S. V. White, and Mr. Winslow. A special Providence enables me to remember those six names. Q. How i A. I say that it is a special Providence that helped me to remember those six names. Mr. Fullerton— I wish Providence helped you before. The Witness— That has been my wish before this thing broke out. Mr. Fullerton— I hope He has not forgotten you. MR. BEECHER'S SERMONS INTRODUCED. Q. Now, Mr. Beecher, you have been in the habit of publishing your sermons, or having them pub- lished? A. Yes, Sir; in the habit of having them pub- lished. Q. State whether that is a volume of your published sermons ? [Handing book to witness.] A. Yes, Sir. Q. Turn, if you please, and see whether you delivered a sermon upon " The Nobility of Confession ?" A. WeU, if it is here, I did. Sir. Q. Well, is it there ? A. There is a sermon of that kind— "Nobility of Confession." I didn't notice the head- line. Mr. Fullerton— Let me read a passage to you, and see whether you recognize it. Mr. Evarts [To Mr. Fullerton]— You had better read the book. Mr. Fullerton— I will one of those days, and preach to you. The Witness— I would be very happy to see you in my pulpit. Mr. Fullerton— Shearman will be all the audience I will want on that day. The Witness [sotto voce]— And perhaps all you will have. Mr. Fullerton— What 1 The Witness— That was not meant for you, Sir. Mr. Fullerton— If I should convert him T should have my hands full. [Reading :] Nor are we commanded to confess every act before men. So lifctle has there been taught, and so ]ittl(! dis- ci-imination has resulted from roflection, or from rondiu-t, In this matter, that consciences which in the first rlaco lay dormant through years and years, not noting sin, not holding back their possessors from transgi'ession, when at last they become tremen- dously stimulated, are very apt to go to the other ex- treme. And having slept when they should have watched, they bark immensely when they should be si- lent. Conscience, therefore, frequently leads men to make the most injudicious confessions, and to make them to the most injudicious persons. I do not think we are bound to confess crimes in such a way that they will overtake us and liU us with dismay and confusion and destruction ; and not only us, but those who are socially connected with us. If your conscience is aroused and you have committed a crime, your first step is to cleanse your hands and feet fi'om aU participation in any wrong. And before confessing the act itself you should take counsel, and find out wise counsel. It is often better that past crimes should slumber, so far as the community is concerned. And that which is true of crimes is equally true of vices. There be many things that are great sins, grievous and wounding, which, hav- ing been committed, the conscience of the actor leads him to feel that there is a kind of expiation, or, at any rate, a justice, which requires that he should, with open mouth, confess that which has hitherto been secret. For- sake, surely ; to God confess ; but it does not follow, es- pecially when your confession would entail misery and suffering upon all that are connected with you, that you should make confession, merely for the sake of relieving your own conscience. Do you recollect preaching a sermon of which that is a part 1 A. No, Sir; I regard it as sound doctrine. Q. And will you tell me the date when that sermon was preached, if you please t A. Simday morning, Oct. 4, is the date put here. Q. Is the date correct? A. I have no reason to suppose it is not. Q. What year? A. 1868. Q. You believe that to be correct, do you not ? A. I suppose it to be so. Sir ; there is no reason why I should doubt it. Mr. Fullerton [To Judge Neilson]— There is not gen- erally much done. Sir, after the sermon but the benedic- tion. Judge Neilson [To the jtirors]— Will the jury get ready to retire ? [To the audience.] Gentlemen will keep their seats. The Witness— There has been no collection taken up. Judge Neilson [To the jurors]— Gentle men of the jury, retui-n at 11 o'clock to-morrow morning. Mr. MaUison [the Clerk]— The Court stands ac^ourned until to-morrow morning at 11 o'clock. The Court then adjomned until Wednesday at H o'olook. TTESniONT OF EEl^RY WaED BEECREB, 119 SIXlY-raTH DAF'S PROCEEDmGS. LAST THREADS OF MR. BEECHER'S TESTI- MOiNY. CLOSE OF THE CROSS-EXAMINATION— MES. WOOD- HUIX'S LETTERS TO HIM— FEARS OF SUDDEN DEATH— AN INSURANCE POLICY— THE RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION— TESTIMONY OF S. D. PARTRIDGE, FORMERLY CASHIER OF WOODRUFF & ROBINSON —A MEMORANDUM IN MR. TILTON'S HAND- WRITING THAT ACCOMPANIED MR. BOWEN'S CHECK FOR $7,000. V ]•>., vf* Wednesday, April 21, 1875, The cross-examination of Mr. Beeclier was finished by Mr. Fullerton to-day about 12:30 p. m. The relations between IMr. Beecher and Mrs. Victoria C. Woodhull were the first subject of inquiry. Her let- ters of Nov. 19, 1871, and Dec. 30, 1871, to Mr. Beecher, were shown to him, and he said he pre- sumed they were the letters which he had received from her, one asking for an interview with him in reference to matters in which she said he was as in- terested as herself, and the other requesting him to go to Washington and use his influence in favor of the passage of a declaratory act relating to Woman's Suffrage, introduced into Congress by Gen. Butler. The details of Mr. Moulton's advice in ref- erence to answering these letters were all restated. Mr. Beecher said that he had told Mrs. Moulton, when she asked him about the propriety of her asso- ciating with Mrs. Woodhull, that he knew httle about the latter except through the representations of Mr. Tilton and Mr. Moulton, who thought highly of her, and he did n't know but she might be " a diamond in the rough." Another subject of inquiry was Mr. Beecher's health during the year 1873, and his fears of sudden death expressed at various times. When asked whether he anticipated sudden death in 1873, Mr. Beecher said thai he could not aaswer by saying sim- ply "yes," or "no,'' and he was finally allowed to answer, "In a certain sense, yes and no." He ex- plained that his fears of death were consequent upon periods of depression. An application on the part of J. B. Ford & Co. for a policy of insurance on the life of Mr. Beecher in March, 1874, was in- troduced by Mr. Fullerton. A few questions were put in relation ito it, and then, to the surprise of everybody, Mr. Fullerto^) announced that the cross- examination was finished. Mr. Evarts at one* began the redirect examina- tion, promising to close before the hour of adjourn- ment, but several minor objections to his questions being urged, it was 1^2 o'clock before the court adjourned. The redirect examination of Mr. Beecher was confined to a few ques- tions about the application for Ufe insur- ance just introduced by Mr. Fullerton, and fragmentary matters. The remainder of Mr. Beecher's memorandum of advice concemrag Mrs. Tilton's separation from her husband was put in evidence by Mr, Evarts. The first part of this mem- orandum was introduced in the direct examination of Mr. Beecher, but the remainder was then ruled out. Mr. Beecher testified that no sister of his acted as housekeeper or resided in his family during the Winter of 1870 and '71, and that no additional su- perintendents were employed during Mrs. Beecher's absence in the South duimg that year. Mr. Beecher was allowed to explain on the redirect exam- ination that the reason he had never read the report of the Investigating Committee was because of his absence in the White Mountains at the time it was made. He heard that it acquitted him, and that his church was satisfied, and that was all he cared about. He also said that on looking back more critically he did not think he had talked with Mr, Cleveland about his payment of $5,000 for Mr. Tilton, before the appointment of the Investigating Committee in 1874. The statement made before the Committee that he paid $5,000 for TJie Golden Age in one sum because he understood it would settle the whole difficulty, Mr. Beecher explained to mean that he thought it would settle Mr. Tilton's difficulties, by financially putting him on his feet again. That the jurors are alive to the developments of the trial was shown yesterday, when one of them, Mr. Halstead, asked whether Mrs. Beecher had joined in the mortgage on Mr. Beecher's house, made to raise the $5,000 for The Golden Age. Mr. Beecher re- plied that she had done so. A NEW WITNESS ON THE STAND, There was some surprise in court when the defense introduced as their next witness, not Mr. Cleveland, but an old, gray-haired man, tall and round-shoul- dered, wearing over his eyes a large green shade, and giving his name as Samuel Dwight Partridge. JVlr. Partridge said he resided iu Orange, N. J., where his home had been for the last 12 years. From the year 1849 up to Dec. 31, 1874, he said he had been employed by the firm of Woodruff & Eobinson. With the exception of a period of about 2I2 years he was their cashier. He remembered re- 120 THE TILTON-B eeiving, in 1872, a deposit clieck of Henry C. Bowen for $7,000. It was handed to him, he thought, by Franklin Woodrulf. Accompanying that check there was a slip of paper. When Mr. Evarts produced a piece of yellow paper about six inches long by two wide, torn near one end and creased from frequent folding and unfolding, and handed it to the witness, everybody leaned forward and fixed his eyes upon the witness. He identified it as the slip of paper that had accompanied Mr. Bo wen's check for $7,000. The paper had been in his possession until April 16, 1875, when he deliv- ered it to Mr. Shearman. The slip was handed to the plaintifi"'s counsel, who inspected it, and Mr. Evarts then offered to read it, but was checked by Judge Neilson, who asked what was the object of presenting the paper in evidence. Mr. Evarts replied that he wanted to show the character of the transaction connected with the check. Mr. Beach objected to its in- troduction, and Judge Neilson at first said that he could not understand how it was material, and for the present ruled it out. After a few more questions had been asked of the witness, Mr. Evarts again offered to read it as coming from the firm of Woodruff » pose, Sir. I went to see him in the morning to know how the affair stood, and he then was of a different mind from what he had been the day before. Of the day before he was of mind that I should write an answer ; of that morning— that I should at first write an answer, then that I better not write an answer— that he could settle it j the next morning he said that he thought I better see Mrs. Woodhull ; that that would settle it better than any other way. Q. Where were you when he told you that % A I don^ recollect where. Q. You were not at his house, were you ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. When he told you that t A. Yes, Sir. Q. When he told you you had better see her, were yon at his house 1 A. Yes, and she, too, I think. Q. You had not learned from him then that his idea was that you should see her, taef ore you went to his house 1 A. No, Sir. Q. How long after that taef ore you did see her f A. I don't know. Sir. Q. About how long ? A. Well, the whole thing did not take three-CLuarters of an hour, I don't think. Q. Was she at Moulton's house at the time 1 A. I can- not say positively; she either was there or came in im- mediately, but my impressions are that she was there. Q. Well, you did have an interview with her 1 A. I did. Q. Where 1 A. In the second story front room. Q. Any one present at that interview? A. No, Sir. Q. How long did it last 1 A. Half an hour ; may be a little more, may be a little less. Q. After that iaterview where did you go f A. I don*t know. Sir ; I suppose I went home. Q. Did you go to any other part of Mr. Moulton's house f A. Not that I recaU, Sir. Q. Do you recollect what you said upon your direct ej^ aminationin that regard? A. Oh, yes, I was thinking whether I went into the other chamber— the back oham. tjhjsiimont of eenet wabd beegrer. 122 ber. I saw Mr. Moulton, and I tMnk Mr. Tilton, both, down stairs, after tlie termination of that. Q. Where did you see them? A. I think it was in the parlors, but I am not sure about that. Q. Did you leave Mrs. WoodhuU at the house when you lefti A. My impression is that she took a carriage and went away. Q. Look at that letter and say whether you received it from Mrs. WoodhuU? [Handing witness a letter.] A. I cannot say as to this, Sir— this special document. I re- ceived a communication from Mrs. WoodhuU In regard to this subject, and I presume this is it. It Was accom- panied by a letter from my sister. Mr. Evarts— Let us look at that. [Taking the letter from Mr. Fullerton.l Mr. FuUerton— While counsel are looking at that I wiU ask you if you did not relate the interview which you had with Mrs. WoodhuU, of which you have last spoken, to Mr. Tilton and Mr. Moulton? A. I gave them some ac- count of the interview. Q. Where and when ? A. Immediately subsequent, I think, Sir. Q. Where ? A. Below, my Impression is, but I am not sure it was in the parlors; it is possible that they may have come up into the room after she left, but my im- pression is that I spoke to them in the parlors below, but I am not certain about that. Mr. FuUerton then read the letter in evidence, as fol- lows: 44 Broad St., New- York, 12th, 30th, 1871. My Dear Mr. Bebcher: Mrs. Stanton and I have just had a conference about who ought to be procured to speak at the Washington Convention, January 10, 11, 12. You are aware that we intend to use every effort to persuade or force Congi-ess to pass the Declaratory Act just introduced by Gen. Butler. No single person wLom we could have would have so good and great an influence on Congress as yourself, and we hope that you may deem the occasion worthy of your attention and presence. We wiU give you either evening to yourself and arrange it just as you may desire. Please reply, and do not let it be in the negative. Let me assure you you wiU never regret it. Yours, faithfully, Victoria C. Woodhull. [Marked "Exhibit 120."j Q. Did you answer that letter? A. I have the impres- sion that I did, Sir. Q. Before answering did you communicate with Mr. Moulton ? A. I think, Sir, I made my answer and showed it to him, or I had some conversation with him about it. Q. Look at " Exhibit 42," and say whether that is the letter you wrote to Mr. Moulton after receiving the letter from Mrs. Woodhull which was last read 1 [Handing wit- ness " Exhibit 42."] A. I presume this is mine. Sir ; but I of course speak with such reservation as one would ■without the document before him. . Beach— WeU, we can show you the document. i The Witness— No matter ; I presume that Is It. Mr. FuUerton— [Reading " Exhibit 42."] Brooklyn, Tuesday Evening, January 2, 1872. My Dear Moulton: 1. I send you V. W.'s lettv-.r to mo, and a reply, which I submit to your judgment. TeU me what you think. Is it too long? Will she use it for pub- Ushing ? I do not wish to have it so used. I do not mean to speak on the platform of ei^Aer of the two suffrage societies. What influence I exert I prefer to do on my own hook, and I do not mera' to train with either party, and it will not be fair to press me in where I do not wish to go. But I leave it for ymi. Judge for me, I have leaned on you hitherto, and never been sorry for it. 2. I was mistaken about The Ch. Union commg out so early that I could not gel a notice of O. Age in it. It was just the other way, to be delayed, and I send you a rough proof of the first page and the Star article. In the paper to-morrow a line or so will be inserted to soften a Uttle the touch about The Lib. Christian. 3. Do you think I ought to keep a copy of any lettera to V. W. ? Do you think it would be better to write it again and not say so much? Will you keep the letter to me and send the other, if you judge it wise ? 4. Will you send a line in the morning, saying what yoa conclude ? I am full of company. Yours, truly and affectionately, (Signed,) h. w. b. Q. Now, Mr. Beecher, did you at that time consult Mr. Moulton in regard to anything except this difficulty— this domestic diificulty ? A. That was not— that was not, as I recollect now, consulted about at all. Q. At that period ; I do not mean on this occasion. A, Oh, yes, I talked with him about a good many subjects. Q. My question, Mr. Beeoher, was whether you con- sulted with him in regard to any matters pertaining to yourself, except that which related to the scandal ? A. Yes, Sir ; I consulted him about The Christian Union affairs. Q. About how it should be managed ? A. No, I wanted him to take some stock in it ; I told him I should be glad, very glad, to have him one of the stockholders. I thought that his business habits would be a good deal of help to me. Q. Well, do you regard that as a solicitation ? A. I do not pretend to designate things so exactly ; it was cer- tainly a conversation, and a consultation I should call it ; if I went to talk to a man about business, I should say in a general way that I consulted him about busiuess. Q. You solicited a man to subscribe to the stock of the paper in which you were interested, and you call it a consultation, or a solicitation? A. Well, Sir, if I was on the stand, probably I should say solicitation ; if I was off it, I should probablj^ say consultation. Q. Well, please remeuilier, Mr. Boecher, that you are on the stand. A. Well, I am not saying anythfng now about that. Q. Well, I ask you whether you ever consulted Mr. Moulton, using the word " consultation " in its ordinary signification, in regard to anything except this scandal f A. WeU, Sir, I consider when I say that onthest i r TUB TILTON-BEECEMR IBIAL. tFjSIUiojsy of hen. ehonld use the -word— I should use it out of deference to your desire for accuracy; but if I were to use it off the stand I should say that solicitation and consultation, under the circumstances, were substantially the same thing, and that it was merely a play upon words to make the distinction. Q. Well, we will get at it in another way, then. Judge Neilson— Mr. Fullerton, read the clause in that letter to which your question really relates ; that is the best way. Mr. Fullerton— How, Sir % Judge NeUaon— The clause in the letter to which your question really relates. If you read that in connection with it or embody it in it. Mr. Beach— The c[uestion does not refer to any clause in the letter ; it was only to a previous declaration which the witness n^.ade that he consulted Mr. Moulton upon ©p'orythinp We want, to find out what the things were. The Witness— Well, I would, in view of the sweep of that question, if you wUl allow me, change my answer, and say that I consulted Mr. Moulton about some things. Not relatiug to the scandal I A. Not relating to the acandal. Q. What were they 1 A. I cannot tell you all of them, tout I remember that for a single one. Q. Tell us some of them % A. Well, I say I told you one l>ut I do not now recall others. Mr. Beach— Any others ? A. No, I don't recall any others. Mr. Fullerton— And you still adhere to the use of the word " consultation," with reference to the solicitation for him to take stock in The Christian Union, do you 1 A. I adhere to that. Q. Well, then, I will put this question to you : Did you not write this letter to Mr. Moulton dated the 2d of Janu- ary, 18721 A. The one which you have just read ? Q. Yes ; in which you inclosed the letter of Victoria Woodhull, which I have just read, because in your judg- ment it related to the scandal. A. No ; I don't think that I had in my mind the scandal at that time. Q. It was after the publication of her card in 1871 ? A. 1871 % Yes, Sir. Q. Weren't yon apprehensive at that time that she would say or do something in reference to that scandal 1 A. I was not specially so. Q. Were you so, whether it was specially or generally ! A. I don't think that I was at that time. Q. Had you entirely lost sight of the fact that she was —that she professed to be in possession of some of the factB in regard to it ? A. No, I did not ; but I was imdcr influences that disarmed those. Q. Well, Sir, when you wrote this letter and said, " I send you V. W.'s letter to me, and a reply which I submit to your judgmert," did you not wish his judgment in reference to that rei^ly, with a view to determine its beaiing upon her subsequent action in reference to the Y WABD BEEGEEB, 123 scandal ? A. I think it is possible that that may have been in my mind, though I cannot now recall it ; that which rests in my mind now is entirely another matter. Q. Well, when I ask for that other matter, then I pre- sume we will get it, but I am asking for another thing now. A. Yes. WeU, I don't recall that that was in my mind. Mr. Beach— He says he thinks it was possible. Mr. Fullerton— Well, don't you think it was so ? A. I cannot say. Sir. Q. Was the receipt of a letter from Victoria WoodhuU asking you to join a convention at Washington a matter of so much importance that you had to caU in some one to consult as to the nature of your reply I A. A letter from Mrs. WoodhuU accompanied by one from my sister m'ging me to attend Washington, not on the general woman suffrage question, but with reference to a special theory got up by Gen. Butler, was a matter for a consid- erable consideration. Q. I ask you whether it was of sufficient importance to caU in a third person to consult with ? A. It was. Q. And it had, you think, no reference to the scandal f A. I don't say that, Sir ; I think it may have, but I cannot recall that that entered into my thought at that time. Q. Wasn't j^our idea this, to placate that woman bjr fashioning an answer that would not give her offense, at the same time refusing her request % A. Quite possibly, but I don't recall that that entered into my thought at all at the time. Q. WeU, what did Mr. Moulton say in regard to your proposed reply 1 A. He said that he thought that my thinking it too long was— it was not too long ; that the remarks which I made in favor of woman's STiffiage in general were all very well, and, he thought, opportune, and that he regretted that the reasons for not going ex- isted ; he thought it would be a good thing for me to go, but if I had other engagements, lecture engagements and others, why it could not be helped, and that, under those circumstances, the letter was good enough. Q. Did he give you any reason for saying he thought It would be a good thhig for you to go ? A. No, I don't re- member that he did. Q. Didn't he say that he thought it would be a good thing, because you would have an opportunity of exert- ing a kindly influence over that woman ? A. I don't recollect that he did. Q. WiU you say that he did not? A. I can say, accord- ing to the best of my recollection, that he did not. Q. But you will not swear positively that he did nott A. I wiU not swear that he did not, positively. Q. When was it that Mrs. Moulton asked you in regard to the propriety of her associating with Mrs. WoodhuU! A. That I cannot quite determine, Sir ? Q. As near as you can, please determine it ! A. I think it was in the year— it was in the Fall of 1871 or tn the Summer of 1872, or somewhere along there. 124 TEE ULTON-BF^BOHEB lElAL, Q. Please state again what reply you made to Mrs. Moulton when she questioned you upon that suhject. A. I said that I didn't know much about Mrs. Woodhull, ex- cept from the representations of her husband and Mr. Tilton; that they thought exceedingly highly of her, and that, if their thoughts were correct, I supposed that she was a rough diamond, perhaps ; but, at any rate, so far as she was concerned, I did not think that her seeing her at her house would iiyure her. Q. Had you the fullest confidence in Mrs. Woodhvdl at the time? A. No, Sir. Q. Did you state that fact to Mrs. Moulton i A. I don't know that I had ; I think I stated to her that my first feelings about Mrs. Woodhull had not been favorable. Q. Yes. A. [Continuing.] And that the modification Of them, and the suspended state that I was in, was the result of the very positive statements of Mr. Moulton and of Mr. Tilton to me. Q. Well, were those positive statements of a character which induced you to be willing to associate with Mrs. Woodhull? A. No; I had no call; I am in a situation in which I cannot associate with ten thousand most worthy people. Q. Now A. WeU, letters in HIS REFUSAL TO PRESIDE AT STEINWAY HALL. Q. But had you been asked at that time to preside at Stein way Hall? A. That is more than I can Bay to you, Sir ; but I thiuk not ; I don't know about that, 8tr ; I cannot fix the date near enough. Q. Well, you did not preside at Stetnway HaU 1 A. No, Bit, I did not. Q. And you have given us the reason, I believe ? A. I think I have. Q. That you did not believe in her doctrines? A. So far as I knew them; I never professed to know what they were. Q. You knew them far enough to refuse, did you not ? A. So far as that was concerned I said to Mrs. Woodhull that it was not my habit to preside at public meetings at all, and I saw no reason, in her case, why I should change my habit, and that as respects the appeal which she made ; that I believed in her views, and therefore, as it was a forlorn hope struggling for existence, it would be In accordance with my life-long habit to fight on the weak side for the reform that was coming up. My reply was that that was not an argument to me, because I was not apprised of aU her views ; I had not read anything of hers, but that so far as I did know, as I presumed her social theories were, I was not in accord with them. Q. Yes; and therefore that was a reason why you wotild not preside? A. That, in connection with the uni- form habit of declining aU such work; I declined it on this ground, that it was not convenient for me. And then, when she urged it on the groxind that I was in sym- pathy with her, I said I was not, for I was not informed of her views, but in so far as I presumed to know what they were, I was not in accordance with them. Q. Didn't you say you would not take a step in that direction? A. I don't reooUect now; I mi^ht hare used Q. Didn't you say, so far as you had become acquainted with her views, that you loathed and abhorred them! A. In so far as her views at that time were concerned, I don't thmk that I said that, though I may possibly, but I don't recall it. Sir. Q. Very well. Why didn't you state to Mrs. Motdton, then, what your views were in regard to Mrs. Woodhull, when she asked your advice in regard to associating with her ? A. That was not the question. Q. How? A. That was not the question; the question that she proposed to me was, what I thought about Mrs. Moulton. Q. Mrs. WoodhTill ? A. And that Prank wanted— Mrs. Woodhull— and that Frank wanted to have her in hli house ; and that at first she had been disinclined to do it, but that she wanted to do what Frank thought was best and right, and wanted to know what I thought of her. Well, I stated to her : '* I don't know much about Mrs. Woodhull, and aU that T do know I have derived from Frank and Mr. Tilton in regard to her;" but, at any rate, I said, I did not think her meeting her occasionally would be any damage to her. We did not go into the question of her social theories a particle. Q. Now, at that time, didn't Mrs. Motdton tell you the object that her husband had in view in wishing her to aB> sociate with Mrs. Woodhull ? A. Not at all. Sir. Q. Wasn't it stated to you, in substance, that it was for the purpose of exercising a kindly influence over her t A. It was not, Sir. Q. And controlling her action with reference to yont A. It was not. Sir. Q. Nothing of that kind was said ? A. No, Sir ; nothlni; of that kind was said ; no allusion to it. CONVERSATIONS WITH MRS. WOODHULL. Q. Now, will you state what other meetings you had with Mrs. Woodhull ? A. Let me see ; I believe one in 1871— one in Midsummer, 1871 ; then the one at the dinner at Mr. Moulton's. I do not, at this moment. Sir, recall except those two ; they evidently made but little impression upon my mind ; there may have been a third, but I do not at this moment recall it. Q. How many times did you see her after the St.einway Hall lecture ? A. I cannot say. Sir ; I cannot say, Sir ; I may have ; by looking over my memoranda I may find it. Q. Look at that letter, please, purporting to have been signed by you, and see whether it is the letter which you wrote to Victoria WoodhuU in reply to the last one that I read in evidence. [Showing witness Woodhull <& Olaf- lilt's Weekly, of the date of Jan. 27, 1871, in a bound Tol- TE8TIM0I^Y OF Hb'XRY WABL BEEOEEB, 125 mne.] A. I do not remember it, Sir; but it sounds— reads very mucli like mine, and I am 'trilling- to iudorse it ; I had an impression in recalling my letter tliat I made it nmcli longer tlian tliat, and tliis is q^uite stiort. [Letter submitted to defendant's counsel.] Mr. Evarts— We tiave no objection to liavlng tMs read a« tf it were the original manuscript. Mr. Fullerton— [Eea<71. or rather at the time when you wrote that statement ? A, I Q. One moment. Didn't you put forth those symptoms then as an excuse or reason for. or as an explanation of, | that letter ? A. I don't think I did. Sir. Q. Let me read it to you. and see whether that is so. [Readmg :] In my letter to 3Irs. Tilton f which you say was the let- ter of Feb. 7, 1S71) I alluded to the fact that I did not exi>ect when I saw her last to be ahve m.my days. That statement stands connected with a series of symptoms which I first experienced in 1S56. I went through the Fremont campaign, speakiui: in the open air three hours i at a time, three days in a week. On reu.-wing my lit- i erary labors I felt I must have given way ; I very ' seriously thought that I was going to have apoplexy or paralysis or somctliing of that kind. Xnw.Iput the question to you again. Didn't you, in that statemi^ut, put forth those sjmaptoms as an ex- planation of the letter of Feb. 7, 1671 1 A. T don't think I did, in the broad sense of the term. Q. And when, pray, did ycu come to the cunclusion that this apprehension of apoplexy was illnsive ? A. I cannot state to you any precise time, Sii\ Q. Can't you get at the time ? A. No, I dont thlak I can ; I only know that in conversation with physicians I talked about what were the symptoms of apoplexy, and | what were the symptoms of paralysis, and what were the \ symptoms of simply nervous over-action, without going ; Into it iu reference to my own caae, but to get informa- ; tion, and I became satisfied that what in the earlier stijges I supposed was apoplexy, or paralysis, was T'l-hing m the world but the result of excessive cerebral •otivlty and fitlgne — over-action of mind. U- f'on't yon know that that is the superinducing cause i 7?r WAED BEECH EE. 127 of apoplexy ? A. In many persons it is, and in many per sons it is not. Q. Were you told distinctly that you need not appre- hend apoplexy, by your physician 1 A. Well, I don't think that I ever had but one conversation with any pliy- sician. Q. Were you told distinctly by any physician that you need not apprehend apoplexy ? A. I don't recall that. Q. Was every fear removed from your mind that yon would fall by that disease ? A, No ; when I was in de- pression J thought likely I should— in periods of depres- sion. Q. Does that still continue 1 A. Yes Q, It does ? Very well A. Not that I suppose now in periods of depression that I certainly shall, but I think that I am going to die by everything in creation when I am in those down periods. Q. If you will be good enough to leave out everything in creation but apoplexy. Mr. Beecher. I shall be satisfied with your answer. I ask you whether you have now any apprehension of apoplexy at any time ? A. I do not. Sir. Q. ^Tot the slightest 1 A. I am Uable to it, but I don't apprehend it. Q. Not in the slightest degree ? A. I don't apprehen it in the slightest degree ; though it may befall me as it may befall any other person. Q. Xow, when was this apprehension removed from your mind ? A. Well, it was early ; I got over the suppo- sition that there was really any serionsness in that symptom ; I don't know the time. Q. About when? A, I don't know how long ago ; but several years— many years ago. Q. How long ago? A. I cannot say definitely, because I never made it a matter of record or of consideration. Q. Was it as long agoaslS72? A. Oh, I think it was before that. Q. Was it in 1S71 ? A. I think it was before that. Q. Before that ? A. I think so. Sir. Q. Then this premonition of death of which you speak in your letter of Feb. 7. 1S71, did not relate to any apo- plectic symptoms, did it? A. I beg your pardon, Sir; will you be ^ood enough to have the answer read ? Q. I cannot read the answer until you give it. A. I mean the ciuestion. Juitge ZSr«:-ilson — The stenographer will read the question. The Trioime stenographer read the question as fol- lows : " TUlu this apprehension of death of which you speak in your Irtter of Feb. 7. 1871. did not relate to any ajKK piectic symptoms, did it?" A. It did not, as I recollect. Q. What was the answer ? A. As I recollect, I say it did not. , Q. It did not? Well, in your letter on the 1st of June, 1873, in which you say : T have a strong feeling upon ine, and it brings great: 128 TEE TlJjlON-JiEEOMBB TBIAL. peace tliat I am spending my last Sunday, and preacMng my last sermon. A. [Interrupting.] Yes, Sir ; I had that very strong. Q. Howl A. I had that feeling very strong. Q. What did you think was going to be the cause of your departure at that time 1 A. Well, the sovereign and releasing hand of God. Q. Through what instrumentality? A. I did not know. Q. You hadn't made up your mind % A. It was merely a strong spiritual presentiment, that I was neat the borders of Heaven. Q. You did not think, then, that it was to be effected by apoplexy 1 A. No, Sir. Q. You had no such thought ? A. No, Sir ; no, Sir. Q. Nor by any specific disease i A. Nor by any specific disease. • Q. Well, did you look for translation ? A. Yes. Q. As Elijah was translated 1 A. No ; but as Henry Ward Beecher would be, if God should take him. Q. You had no apprehension of apoplexy at that time % A. No, Sir. Q. And you did not speak with reference to those symptoms which you had felt for years prior to that time ? A. No, Sir, I spoke then as I speak often in the pulpit, and feel oftener than I speak, that I am near the end; sometimes In sadness, sometimes in gladness. Q. Now, let me caU your attention to this, Mr. Beecher. On the Ist of Jime, 1873, you wrote a letter to Mr. Moul- ton which has been put in evidence, and which is marked Exhibit No. 26, and I read to see if this refreshes your recollection. [Keadlng.l : There are intimations in the beginning and at the end of this letter that I felt the approach of death. In regard to that I merely refer to my previous statement concern- ing my bodUy symptoms, and add that on this day I felt symptoms upon me. Now, what symptoms had you reference to, except those which were engendered in the Fremont campaign, when you apprehended paralysis and apoplexy? A. What have you read to me. Sir 1 Q. I have read to you something to refresh your recol- lection. A. Yes, Sir ; but I would like to see what it is. [Mr. FuUerton handed the book to the witness.] The Witness— I do not see it, Mr. Fullerton. Mr. Fullerton~It is right at the bottom of the small type ; the first sentence following the initials, "H. W. B." The Witness— It is the same type, only it Is leaded. Will you be kind enouF:h to read the sentence following? Mr. Fullerton— No, tSr. The Witness— All right. Mr. Fullerton— Will you be kind enough to answer my question ? The Witness— What is the question? Mr. Fullerton— Will the stenographer please read it ? The Tribune stenographer read the question as fol- lows: "Q. Now, let me o^U your attention to this, Mr. Beecher. On the Ist of June, 1873, you wrote a letter to Mr. Moulton, which has been put In evidence, and which is marked Exhibit No. 26, and I read to see if thlt refreshes your recollection : There are intimations in the beginning and at the end of this letter that I felt the approach of death. In regard to that I merely refer to my previous statement concern- ing my bodily symptoms, and add that on this day I felt the symptoms upon me. Now, what symptoms had you reference to except those which were engendered in the Fremont campaign, when you apprehended paralysis and apoplexy ? " A. I included in that term the general designation ol all those states of mind which were premonitory, or which were— which impressed me with the sense of being about to die. Q. You say : " It merely refers to my previous stat6> ment concerning my bodily symptoms % " A. Yes, Sir. " Q. What previous statement did you refer to 1 A. I do not recall what it was ; I am not in a situation to say. Q. Was it not the statement already read in evidence in respect of those symptoms which grew out of the labors in the Fremont campaign 1 A. I presume it wa«, that general class of symptoms, that general state of mind. Q. Where you enumerated apoplexy or paralysis as the natural consequence of that labor f A. As I then, in the early stage, felt. Q. ISIr. Beecher, did you, after this apprehension ol death from those causes, get your life insured 1 A. I do not recall. Sir, whether I did or not. LIFE INSUEANCE POLICIES ON HIS LIFE. Q. Perhaps tlie paper that I now show you will enable you to recall it. [Handing witness a paper.) A. What date Is this. Sir. Q. It speaks for itself, I believe. A. I dare say, but I cannot find the date. Mr. Fullerton— It is some place there. Mr. Morris— It is March, 1874. The Witness— I have made no insurance. My life hae been insured in the interest of others, and I presume this is one of them ; I don't recoUect that I have insured my life since 1870, at aU. Q. Is that your signature to that paper 1 A. Yes, Sliv that is my signature. Q. Was it an application for life Insurance f A. I pre- sume it was. Q. And when was the application madet A. I don't know where to look for the date. Q. Look at the bottom, near the signature. A. March* 1874. Q. You made application then for a life insuranoo t A. No, Sir, I did not. Q. You did not I Mr. Evarts- Well, it Is not his application. TESTIMONY OF HE:S lb. Morris— Yes, It is ; be signs it. The Witness— The applioation was made by J. B. Ford ; A Co. Mr. Evarts— In their intereflt—anotlier interest. Mr. Fullerton— "Were you not Interrogated then by an agent and a physician ! A- I presume T -was. Q. And gave answers t A. I presume I did. Mr. Evarts— There is a difference between the paper being his statement and being his application. Mr. Fullerton— I know there is, and it is that difference tliat I mean to develop. [To the Witness]— Does not that paper contain the C[uestlons and answers put to rou personally relative to your health at that period, with a view to effect that insurance 1 A. I don't recollect an- swering them, but I suppose it is so ; I don't recollect going through the examination. Q. That \s your signatui-e i A. That is my signature ; and I presume on account of it, that I did go through the examination, unless the oflScers took it without, which I hardly think they would. Q. How many times has your life been insured? A. I don't know but three times that I have ever, of my own wish Q. Now, please stat« the dates of those respective in- surances ? A. I cannot. Q. As near as you can recoUect ? A. WeU, I could find out, I suppose, from my son, who is here, exactly the dates. Q WeU, an approximate statement ? A. I don't know In the least; I may be liable to come three or four years out of the way. One of them was very early, when I in- sured in the I think about the year 1851 or '2, or somewhere along there ; then there was a second, I think about 1856, or somewhere along there I should say ; and a third that must have come somewhere in the last of the 608, or in '60, or somewhere along, but I cannot come within years of it, accurately. Q. In any of those applicatioiLS did you state these pre- monitions of apoplexy f A. I did not, Sir. Mr. Evarts — That is his statement, but it is not an appli- cation for life insurance in his interest. Mt Fullerton— I did not say it was in his interest. Mr. Evarts— Well, I don't mean that you miscalled it, but you spoke of it as his application. Mr. Beach— That Is not the point of the inquiry at all. Mr. FuUertpn— It is his application for life insurance. Mr. Evarts— It is an application, as he stated, iu another's interest, for life insurance, in which he, as the party whose life is to be insured, answers certain ques- tions. Mr. Pullerton—Very weU ; that Is all I pretended it was, Mr. Evarts— Well, yoamisc^ed it; 70a spoke of it as *** apptieation, Mr. Fullerton— I did not; it is an application for an tnaitrance on his life. ^BY WAEB BEEGHEE, 129 j Mr. Evarts— Yes, somebody else's applioation, and bis t uement concerning his owu health. I Mr. Fullerton— That is the point. Sir; I only read ft part of this in evidence. Mr. Evarts— You will put the whole paper in. Mr. Fullerton— Put the whole paper in ; certainly. Judge Netlsou— You had better agree that a copy maj be made and substituted for the original. The insurance company require that returned, don't they 1 Mr. Fullerton— Yes, Sir; Mr. Shearman will make • copy, I suppose. Judge If eilson— I hardly think he will. The Witness— Then it will be well done, Sir. Mr. FiQlertan— Of course it will; he writes the only hand that ' an be read among us aU., I guess. Mr. Evarts— There is a question of evidence here which ought to be considered, I think, by your Honor. The in- quiry put to Ml*. Beecher concerning his own life, his own feeliugs or views or opinions or symptoms of his own health, is collateral, and they take his answers on that. Now they bring in other statements of his— extra-judicial statements of his— outside of this trial; and so they establish, first, on a collateral point, a present statement, under oath— which ends the matter usually— and then they seek to disturb that by extra-judicial statements, not imder oath. Now that is, perhaps, a somewhat new form of the question of what is called collateral impeach- ment. The general proposition is, that collateral Impeachment end^ with the judicial inquiry, and does not allow the importation of extraneous evidence, or extra-judicial statements. If that be the rule of evidence applicable here, this paper would be excluded- Now the question may rise on our side, whether that state of things can be produced by counsel, of a judicial state- ment, a statement in court on a collateral subject, and then an inti'oduction by the same party that introduces that statement ra. court on a collateral subject, of extra- jiidicial statements supposed to be at variance with it. This is a matter that I attach no importance to whatever ; but it is a proposition which your Honor will dispose of as a question of principle, and which will apply to our case as well as to the other. Judge Neilson— I think the counsel, in examining the witness, can me this paper ; and although there might be some reason for objection, as stated, to reading it io evi- dence, I think he has a right to examine the witness upon that pax>er, and upon each statement contained in it, by way of assisting the witness, or qualifying what he has said. Mr. Evarts— Well, I should agree to that. He has a right to ask him any questions whatever about the symptoms, or of his statements concerning them. Judge Neilson— Or his statements contained there. Mr. Evarts— WeU, if it Is understood that it is admitted because it is lawfully admitted, and after we have raised the question, we are satisfied. 130 IBM TILION-BBJECHEE TRIAL, Judge Neilson— Well. Go on, Mr. PuUerton. Mr. Fullerton— Some of the questions and answers in tliis paper are as follows : Has the party been afllicted since childhood with rup- ture, fits, dropsy, liver complaint, bilious colic, rheuma- tism, goat, habitual cough, bronchitis, asthma, spitting of blood, consumption, paralysis, apoplexy, insanity, fistula, or disease of the kidneys or bladder; if so, which? A. No. Has the party been afflicted with the disease of the heart or disease of any of the vital organs ; if so, which 1 A. No. Has the party been afllicted, during the last ten years, with any severe or constitutional disease ; if so, what 1 A. No. Is the party now afflicted with any disease or disorder ; if so, vhat? Mr. Fullerton— And then says, written across here : No sickness except " hay fever," and not that the last three years. And then, below : It is hereby de^ared that the age of the person whose life is to be insured is correctly stated ; that he is now and does ordinarily enioy good health ; and that in the above proposal there has been nothing withheld touching the past or present state of health or habits of said person with which the New-Jersey Mutual Life Insurance Company ought to be made acquainted in order to effect this insur- ance. And that the undersigned has an insurable interest in the life of the person proposed to be insured to the full amount of the sum specified above. Also, that the above are fair and true answers to the foregoing questions, and it is acknowledged and agreed by the undersigned, that the above statements shall form the basis of the contract for assurance, and also, that any untrue and fraudulent answers, any suppression of facts in regard to the person's health, or neglect to pay the pre- mium on or before the day it shall become due, will ren- der the policy null and void, and forfeit aU payments made thereon, except as provided in the policy ; and it is also understood and agreed, that under no circumstances shall the policy be in force until the actual payment to and acceptance of the premium by the company or its authorized agent. It is signed H. W. Beecher, and J. B. Ford & Co., and witnessed by some person who, if he has a name, has not written it plain enough for me to read it. The Witness [Having the paper in his hand]— Do you offer it for marking, Mr. Fullerton ? Mr. Fullerton— Yes. Judge Neilson— The copy that is to be made will be marked as a substitute for that. Mr. Fullerton will make that copy. Mr. Fullerton— I will, but I will require the certificate of the Court that it is a copy, if I write it. Mr. Beecher- I will write it for you and sign it. Mr. Fullerton— You cannot certify to it. [To Judge Neilson.] If your Honor please, that closes the cross- examination. The paper was marked Exhibit No. 131. THE RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION. Mr. Evarts — If your Honor please, I do not expect that the re-direct will take very long; it may not exhaust the half hour between now and the time of ad- journment. But when I am through I shall ask for an adjournment because the next witness is Mr. Cleveland, and we don't wish to bring him here— as he is not in good health— a few moments before recess, when there will be no prolonged examination. I do not wish to be obliged to protract this examination in order to cover the time. Judge Neilson— No. When you close we will take our recess, whofher it is time or not. Mr. Evarts— This statement, if your Honor please, has, among its requirements, the name and residence of the party, the usual medical attendants or the medical at tendant of his family, to be referred to for information as to his health. " Dr. Jewett, Brooklyn," is Mr. Beech- er's answer ; the name, residence and occupation of the party in whose favor the insurcftice is proposed, and rela- tionship, if any, to the party whose life is proposed to be insured. The answer to which is : " J. B. Ford & Co., publishers, 27 Park-place, New- York." In the body of the paper is the physician's report of an exumination of Mr. Beecher : Does oscultation and percussion of the chest indicate any disease of the heart or respiratory organs 1 No. Is the respiratory murmur clear and distinct over both lungs 1 Yes. Is the character of the respiration full, easy and regu- lar 1 Yes. Are there any indications of disease in the organs of respiration 1 No. Is the character of the heart's action uniform, free and steady 1 Yes. Are its soimds and rhythms regular and normal t Yes. Are there any indications of disease in this organ, or of the blood vessels 1 No. State the rate and other qualities of the party's pulse. Eighty ; soft and regular. Does it intermit, become irregular or unsteady! No. Are the functions of the brain and nervous system in ft healthy state ? Yes. Has the party any predisposition, either hereditary or acquired, to any constitutional disease! No. Has the party ever had any severe iivjury or illness I No. Has the medical examiner carefully read the applies tion, and questioned the party thereon! Yes. Do you consider the applicant's life to be safely insmv able, and do you recommend that a policy be granted f Yes ; I do. Signed by the examiner and physician of the New-Jer^ sey Mutual life Insm^ance Company. Judge Neilson— What is the date! Mr. Evarts— The date of it! The date of this examlna^ tion of the examined is : Examined at Brooklyn, New-York, this 14th day of March, 1874. And it precedes the firtghature of Mr. Beecho-. That In dated at New- York, the 17th day of March, 1874. TESTIMONI Oil HENEF WABD BEECUEE. 131 iTb-vv, Mr. Beeclier, liad you any interest in this sul)- /ect of tlie insurance desired and entered into upon your life? A. Not the sUglitest. Q. WMat 'was tlie relation of J. B. Ford & Co. to you, or any work of yours, tliat gave tliem an insurable interest in youi- lite? A. My "Life of Christ," I presume, was the thing then in their mind as an unfinished work. That v/as in 1874, and my general relations— they are my publishers, and they have my works in hand. Q. That is the only relation ? A. That is the only re- lation. Q. They are not creditors otherwise than in the sense ot having an interest tn your future life and labors ? A. That is all, Sir. Q,. Now, Sir, in regard to the facts or symptoms con- cerning your health in the past, or opinions and appre- hensions concerning your health in the past— imder which head do your feelings, as heretofore held or ex- pressed on that subject, fall ? Are they opinions and fears, or have you knowledge of any facts concerning youi" heart, your circulation, or your bi-ain, on which you formed expectations of shortly terminating life ? A. Not for years. There was a period in which I thought that the constitutional tendencies to despond- ency which I have on reactionary days, that there were developed upon that certain symp- toms, by reason of excessive work, which I In my ignorance supposed, perhaps, to be paraly- sis or apoplexy. Besides that, I am short-necked ; and I am admonished by my friends that when I preach I do get very red in the face, and I am liable to go ; and it was very general, and at those times I was under the im- pression that those very likely were ; but that passed away, and I became subsequently quite satisfied that there was no such tendency as that ; and only in liours of despondency did it ever come back again, as probably it was m, Q. Well, now, when these apprehensions of death formed a part of periods of despondency, you actually at the time had impressions that your life was precarious, and would come to an end, had you not ? A. Very strong. Q. Now, did you ascertain that those impressions were the symptoms and came from nervous exhaustion, and were not supported by any facts concerning your health A. T did, Sir, thoroughly. Q. But. T suppose, nevertheless, in periods of depres sio7i you jstlll had fears? A. I had. Mr. Beach— Well, that is a matter of argument. You had better argue the matter than be putting questions. Mr. Evarts— It is bringing the matter to a point Mr. Beach— Yes. Tbe Witness— As a matter of fact. •Mr. EVarts— I suppose there is nothing unfamiliar in that to the experience of counsel. Q. Now, Mr. Beecher, what can you now say as to whether any sister of yours was housekeeper, or other- wise resident in your family, during the Winter of 1871— that is, 1870-'71 ? A. There was none. Q. When did Mrs. Beecher leave for the South that year? A. In March, I think ; I am informed by credible authority. Q. You have made such examination as you had the means of making? A. Yes, Sir ; I have an authority that I do not dispute. Q. Who had charge of your family after she left ? A. Well, the household arrangements which she made her- self and supervised by correspondence from Florida; there was no head person but Mary, who was the cook, and a girl that had long lived with us and took care ol everything— she had the management of aff"airs. Q. And you had no additional superintendence? A. No, Sir. Mr. Evarts— If your Honor please, on the cross-exam- ination of our learned friends, we have a right now to put in the rest of this memorandum of Mr. Beecher's advice and opinion concerning Mrs. TUton's separation from her husband. Judge Neilson— They put tn a clause of that^the first clause. Mr. Evarts— We were allowed to put in a clause of it, and the only clause ; and now we say on cross-examinar tion we think we are entitled to put in the rest. Judge NeUson— Yes. Mr. Fullerton— It was objected to and ruled out. Sir. Mr. Evarts— 1 mean there is no impropriety in that. We didn't except. I don't know how that is. Mr. Fullerton— The question was up and discussed, and youi" Honor passed upon it. Mr. Evarts— I say, on your cross-examination, we say we think we have a right to put in the rest. Mr. PuUerton— I am only telling the history of the case.. Mr. Evarts— If you don't object we will go on. Mr. Beach— It is objected to, of coirrse. Mr. Evarts— Now, this is the point : he is asked thl» Question by Mr Fullerton " Well, what was the upshot of the mterview ?" that is, the interview that his wife and he had with Mrs. Tilton and Mrs. Morse. Mr. Beach— I think he gave the substance of it. Mr. Evarts— [Reading.] : "That we would go home and talk over the matter, and let them know what decision or what advice we should give them." Then Mr. Fullerton proceeds: "Yes, you did let them know afterward ? A. Yes, Sir; my wife went over there again. Q. What did you say to her before she left to go there ! A. We talked the matter over more or less, I holding it was not best to break up the family relations, and she'in- clining, from what had been told her, and which I did not hear, to believe Mrs. Tilton ought not to continue living with her husband. It was a matter of some con- siderable interchange of views between us, but in the last moment, as she had got on her things to go, the room having company in it, and she asking me what my last word was— what I concluded about it— I wrote on a Uttle 133 THE TILTON-Bl •crap of paper and handed It to her. Mr. Fullerton says : "This is what you wrote, I believe," and begins to read, or it is read : " I incline to think your view is right, and that a separation and settlement of support will be wiaest.*' Then the witness proceeds to speak Mr. Beach— I withdraw the objection. llr. Evarts— I now read the whole memorandum. Ilncline to think that your view is right, that a separa- tion and settlement of support wUl be wisest Thus far we read before : And that in his present desperate state her presence near him is far more likely to produce hatred than her ab- aence. Memorandum marked "Exhibit 133." MES. TILTON AND THE CHAEGE OF UNDUE AJ^CTION. Q. Mr. Beecher, I want to call your attention to a point in the cross-examination and ask you a single question. Now, the general subject seems to be the charges that had been made against you. The learned counsel asked you this. To avoid reading too much, I wiU come down to this : Theodore Til ton was the only person who had ever de- clared that such a thing was a fact— the only person I recall ; that is, undue affection. Q. And Mrs. TUton had denied it orally and in writing to you? A. She had. Q. Did you believe it after that % A. I have stated to you already that I was more in a state of perplexity than of belief. ^ . Now, had Mrs. Tilton denied the undue affection orally and in writing to you ? A. No, I think not. Sir. No, she had not denied the undue affection. Q. The writing that you had from her was that retrac- tion, was it not ? A. That was all. Q. Yow had no other writing of retraction or denial fi'om her 1 A. No other. Q. From her at all ? A. No other. Mr. Evarts— That, of course, wlU speak for itself. Q. Now, you had an interview in which, as a part of the conversation between you and her, you mentioned to her her husband's Imputations or statement to you that you had itiidiawn her affections, or unduly engaged her affections 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. Now, did she deny that ! A. As I recollect it, Sir, she simply cried Mr. Fullerton— One moment. The Witness [continuing]— Without any denial. Mr. Fullerton— One moment. That is not a proper mode of examination, either upon the direct or the re-direct. The conversation between these two persons has been given in evidence in detail, and whether it amounts to a denial, or not, will appear from an inspection of the language used there. It is not for the witness to determine that question. Mr. Evarts— WeU, the difficulty is this, if your Honor please. The witness has been brought, in the course of the examination, to a question : Mrs. Tilton had denied it lECHEB TBIAL. oraUy and in writing to youl A. She had." Then, by running the matter back, you may see that that may mean she denied the undue affection. Judge Neilson— Then you might naturally ask him how she had denied it. Mr. Evarts— Yes, I want to know whether—— Judge NeUson— That wiU stand. Mr. Evarts— I want to know whether this present an- swer I am calling his attention to correctly states what la the fact, as he understands it, that he ever had received either an oral or a written denial of the engagement of affections. They have disposed of the written part of it by saying the only one is this written paper. That, of course, will speak for itself; but an oral one might be in this or that form or shape. I know nothing about that. I have proved what passed between the witness and Mrs. Tilton on the night of the 30th ; that is quite true, and I don't propose to vary or add to that. That stands. I am only asking him whether this statement that he makes, " Had denied it orally and in writiug to you," covers the fact, or alleged fact, of the engagement of affection. Mr. Fullerton— If anything that was said upon that oo- casion has been withheld, then it can be given, and when the gentleman gets through he can ask the question whether that was aU that was said; and then the jury wUldetermiue whether there was or was not a denial of the charge ; but to give all that was said, and then ask the witness's interpretation of it, whether there was a denial of the charge, is certainly violating a very familiar and frequently-applied rule of evidence. Mr. Evarts— I have no occasion or desire to vary or add to this witness's narative of the actual scone of the 30th; that is not what I am interfering with, but my view is this, that in the witness's examination he has been speaking, or supposed he was speaking, concern- ing both the written and oral denial of improper advances; and yet, in a reading of the testimony, it may seem, or may be so properly understood, perhaps, if you take the mere letter of the examination, that the witness has said he had received an oral . ud a written denial from her of the engagement of affection. He certainly had no writ- ten denial of it unless this letter is a written denial, and, if it is, why, of course it is. The point of inquiry, there- fore, is whether he had received any oral denial of the engagement of affection. Judge NeUson— Other than that recited in this evi- dence ! Mr. Evarts— Other than that recited in hie direct ex- amination. If it be here. Judge Neilson— Well. Mr. Evarts— That is aU. The WitnoKS— No, I had received no oral deniaL Q. Of the engagement of affection? A. Of the undue affection of her for me. Mr. Evarts— Now, a referenc/e to the narrative of thai night will show us what was said and done. TESTIMOJST OF BEN BY WARD BEEGBEB. 133 Judge Neilson— Yes. Mr. Beach— Now, you have just got the Improper evi- dence whicli we have objected to, but I don't think it of much importance. Mr. Evarts— I agree that your objection has been talcen, and the Court decided against you. Mr. Fullerton— The Court decided the objection -was ■well taken, and you went on and took a wrong answer. Mr. Beach— Never mind, let it go. Mr. Fullerton— You have got It now, and make the best of it you can. Judge Neilson [to Mr. PullertonJ— "Was there any oral denial of the engaged affections except what he has re- cited In his testimony! Mr. Beach— He has given an absolute and full answer, but we don't care anything about it. Let it stand. Mr. Evarts— That would carrythe impression that there was some denial in that, and we don't think there is. We don't wish to repeat that. Q. Duping these years, Mr. Beecher, that are under in- quiry here, 1871, 1872, and 1873, how many letters on an average, or as a usual occurrence, did you receive 1 Did you receive many letters every dayl A. Do you mean from these parties 1 Mr. Evarts— Oh I no. The Witness— Or my general letters! Mr. Evarts— In general. The Witness— Oh 1 1 cannot state that correctly, because they varied some days; but I should think I got from 15 to 25 letters a day. Judge Neilson— I have received that many anonymous letters some days in regard to this case. The Witness [to Judge Neilson]— You are a much more conspicuous figure In the case than I am. Mr. Evarts— There is one advantage. If your Honor please, in anonymous letters, that any number of them may be written by the same person. MR. BEECHER'S HABITS. Q. Now, when yourself and your wife were absent, what was done with these letters that arrived ! A. The servants always laid them on my writing table in the back parlor, or library parlor, as we call it. Q. Now, in opening these letters, what was your habit as to reading or disposing of them 1 A. Well, my habit was — of course they were opened in my absence by my wife very largely, but, as to my own self, I most generally opened letters, and. If they were anonymous, I threw them into the fire, and if they were letters on lectures, I merely saw it wps a lecture letter and threw it right over to her. If they were letters on business of any kind, on glancing over them I generally threw them over to her care. Now and then there would be letters from "women, the character of which I thought she had I etter means of knowini^tban I, and I put them in her liands, and the other letters I laid nside to answer and forgwt. Q. As a general rule f A. As a general rule, yes, Sir. Q. Now, Sir, in relation to your church, or its commiV tees, or its business, or its business meetings, what wai your habit hi regard to participation in them 1 A. A few of the important meetings occasionally I attended, but my custom was not to attend them. My custom was to put onto my church everything that concerned itself , and obliged them to take care of it without any suggestion from me, never refusing to give advice whenever asked, but never going there to influence them ; but as to their records, I don't think I ever read a line of any record, of any committee, or of any meeting, or in the church books — I don't think I ever did, a single line. Q. And as to any papers or documents relating to the business or duties of any committees of the church, or of the church, had you any participation or habit in them! A. No, Sir ; no. Sir. The only Instance in which I took any active participation was in the correspondence be- tween the church and the sister churches that impleaded it. I did in connection with those letters— those docu- ments—but I think that is probably the solitary instance. Q. In regard to any proceedings of the Examining Committee on the West charges, what course did you take in regard to participation in, or getting up, any knowledge of those proceedings % A.I had nothing ; I never attended a meeting of the Examining Committee of Deacons, from the time they were first suggested to this day, I think, except with the one solitary function which belonars to the Examining Committee— namely, examining persons as candidates for membership in the church; but in their executive and judicial capacity I think I never attended a single sitting ; I told them I would not Q. Now, Sir, you have stated on the cross-examinatioii that you did not read the Investigating Committee's report. By that we mean the Investigating Committee of last Summer, and the report that they made upon their inquiries. Now, Sir, was there any reason why you did not read that report* A. Well, it was because I didn't read any of the documents that concerned this scandal, that I recollect, to any extent, as it is not my habit to read such things. Judge Neilson [to the Witnessl— The counsel means any special reason of restraint. a The Witness— No, Sir; I was absent in the White Moun- tains and it came to me only as news, and I was satisfied with knowing that they had reported favorably, and that the church was happy. I didn't care what the report was ; I never read it, nor did I anterior to that read the documents that appeared from time to time. Q. What is your habit as to seeking out or paying atteik> tion to publications concerning yourself? A. When I first came to Brooklyn I thought it meet, being younger and having also . my standing to make here, to pay some attention to things that were said; but after a few years I declined to read either the complimentary criticisms or to read the other thing, but I don't think I ever haTe 134 THE TILTOJS'B chased a story for twenty years that was told to me, because I very soon saw that I should have nothing else to do. Q. T oaU your attention now to a point in the cross- examination : Q. Well, did Mr. Moulton propose any counter-operation when the Bacon letter was published 1 A. No satisfying — nothing. Q. Did he propose no counter-operation 1 A. I don't jhnow that he did, Sir. Q. Did he propose no document 1 A. By document there, I did not Mr. Beach— No. Mr. FuUerton— No ; did he propose no document f A. Yes, he proposed a paper. Mr. Fullerton— Well, that is an answer. The Witness— A document. Q. Did he propose no help ! A. Yes, he proposed what he considered help. Q. Now, Sir, what did occur as matter of fact oeming any counter-operation or any proposition of puhUcation, or otherwise, in respect to the Bacon letter, after the publication of the Bacon letter on Mr. Moulton's parti A. He made many suggestions of a settlement that he thought could be effected— several— but I think I don't recall that he furnished any. He made suggestions and sketches of papers. Mr. Shearman— Wait a moment. Mr. Evarts— Well, how was this in respect to the im- mediate period after the Bacon letter came out as dis tinguished from a later period 1 A. Well, he made some drafts of papers and submitted me to them Q. Submitted them to you? A. Suggested them to me, and presented them to me for my consideration, and also made suggestions oraUy to me for— that might be called help; but later— if that is included also in your question- when I wished to draw up my statement, and appealed to him for a sight— a copy or sight of the originals Mr. Fullerton— That is not ta answer to the question. The Witness— I understood it to be to Mr. Evarts's ques- tion. Mr. Beach— No. Mr. Fullerton— No, it is not. Mr. Evarts [to Mr, Beach]— Number 34. Have you got itt Mr. Beach— It is in that book underneath. Q. Look at Exhibit 34. Did he propose or present any other paper or document than that — I mean at that time, after the publication of the Bacon letter [handing Exhibit 34 to the witness]. Mr. Beach— He said yes ; he proposed several sketches. Mr. Evarts— I now caU his attention to that one. The Witness— I cannot say, Sir, that there was any other but this, or whether there was. Mr. Evarts— You cannot say that there was, or whether there was? A. No, Sir, not definitely. Mr I ; , ! rta— Very well ; that is an end of it. Tli: Witness— I have no very distinct recollection ; there 'KCJHEE TRIAL, were conversations, but T cannot distinguish in my m^ ory between conversations and documents of that kind^ Mr. Evarts — Now, later than that, but in reference t<> the situation produced by the publication of the Bacow letter, when you had informed Mr. Moulton of your pur- pose of an investigation, what did Mr. Moulton then have to say or do about any plans or expedients 1 A. That waa the time, I think, he wanted me to write a card admitting an offense, and saying that it had been apologized for and accepted, and that if I would do that, Mr. Tilton had promised, in the presence of witnesses, to be satisfied in the matter, and thaA he would biirn every document that there was ?n the matter. Q. The interview which you have given in detail here, f A. Yes, Sir. Q. But between the time of the publication of the Bacon letter and the time of your formed and announced deter- mination to have an investigation, were there any plans or expedients of Mr. Moulton except this one 1 A. No, Sir, there was not a word passed between him and me un- til I had determined the Committee in its crude form in conference with Mr. Cleveland at my house. Q. Now, Mr. Beecher, was Mr. Cleveland in the year 1874 in the employment of Ford & Co., or in any way connected with you? A. No, Sir; I have ascertained since I spoke to you yesterday that he left in December of 1873. Q. December, 1873, terminated it 1 A. If I recollect rightly. Q. That is as easily ascertained, I suppose 1 A. Yea, Sir. Q. And that is your view now! A. Yes, Sir, as I avu credibly informed and believe. Q. What, in 1874, was his business, and in what oonnec* tion I A. He was a partner in the paper-house of Hurl- burt & Co. Q. Not connected with you and your interest Ik any way 1 A. Yes, Sir, he owned one share in the stock. Q. In the business of Hurlburt & Co.? A. No, business other than that he and I were members of a p«iblishing house. Q. But he did own one share in your newspaper ? A. One share— not in the newspaper. Q. But in the house 1 A. In The Christian Union Pub- lishing Association, which is very distinct from the firm of J. B. Ford & Co.— entirely distinct. CONVERSATIONS WITH MEMBERS OF THE INVESTIGATING COMMITTEE. Q. Now, Mr. Beecher, ycu were a&ked some- thing about your having talked with Ml. Cleveland be- foi-e his appointment as one of your Investigating Com- mittee. Did you, in fact, talk with him concerning the money, the $2,000 or the $5,000, or either of them, before that appointment? A. Before the Coujinittee waa ap>- pointed. TUSimONY OF EENE7 WARD BEECEER. 135 Q. Before the Committee was appointed t A. I was Tery mucft at a loss to know whom I talked with, or who it was that got me into the condition of believing the mat- ter yesterday, hut I should not be willing to say with cer- tainty that I did talk with ]Mr. Cleveland at that time. I noticed that I made several statements of persons that turned out not to be so, in regard to who it was that sug- gested this or that to me, but I made the general declara- tion : and I thmk I am correct yesterday in answer to Mr. Fullerton of who led me to believe in the blackmail- ing, that I could not say who it was, but my impression was that I talked with Mr. Cleveland and with Mr. Shearman. I am this morning, I think, better qualified to say that the person who talked with me first and influentially was Mr. Bartlett and that my impressions— I should say now that I did not talk with Mr. Cleveland, probably. Q. I want your best statement, of com-se, Mr. Beecher, from your recollection this morning as to whether you talked with Mr. Cleveland before his appointment on this Committee in reference to any of those money matters between you and . A. I don't think this morning— I don't think that I did; on looking back more critically. MEETINGS WITH MR. TILTON. Q. You were asked, Mr. Beecher, quite a number of questions, I think, concerning the interviews, or conversations and meetings, between Mrs. TUton and yourself after January, 1871, on the point of whether you did or did not talk with her concerning this matter In any of its forms— the trouble, or the condition of the family, &c. That is probably a sufficient reference to the matter and its announcement indirectly. Now, what was the course and the motives and your feelings in regard to intercourse or interviews with Mrs. Tilton after that tune by which that intercourse was regulated % Mr. Fullerton— That I object to. It is scarcely neces- sary to state the groimd of objection. Judge Nellson— It is broader than yoiir cross was— much broader. Mr. Evarts— I think if you look more carefully at the evidence in order to reach the point Mr. FuUertou— I propose to look at the clock before I look at that. Judge Neilson— No, we wiU close this before we ad- journ. We will take our hour's adjournment then. [To Mr. Evarts.] I think youi- question is a little broader than the cross. Mr. Evarts— Now, Mr. Beecher, you remember in gen- eral the examination that was proposed to you yesterday, and V, hlch you answered. A. Yes, Sir. Q. Now, what was the intercourse between you and Mrs. Tilton after this period of 1871, at all f Mr. Fullerton— That Is objected to, Sir. Mr. Evarts— Very welL Mr. Fullerton— There is nothing in the cross-examtnar- tion which makes that proper. Mr. Evarts— We will see. Judge Neilson— He means in respect to a reference tc the proposed securing of her affections. Mr. Evarts— I will read a question and answer, if your Honor please, which will perhaps satisfy you it is right : Q. In these walks with Mrs. Tilton of which you have spoken, or in these conversations with Mrs. Tilton of which you have spoken, did you admonish her against permitting her affections to be enlisted to any further ex- tent than they had been already i A. I did not, Sir. Q. Was there anything upon that subject said % A. Not a word. Q. And you at the same time, as I understand you, was laboring under the strong conviction that she had given her affections to you 1 A. I was, Sir. Q. Well, were you not in fear that they would be still to a greater extent enlisted in you than they had been I A. Xo, Sir ; not to a greater extent. Q. You thought that no evil or difficulty would result from this communication with her ? A. I thought that some good might. Q. Although you did not warn her against going any further in that direction? A. Not by warning her, but by bringing to bear upon her mind moral influences that would lift her above it. Judge Neilson— Don't that cover the whole subject 1 Mr. Evarts— I think I have a right to ask him what waa the intercourse between Mrs. Tilton and himself at the period to which this inquiry relates. Judge Neilson— In respect to that matter. Mr. Fullerton— If your Honor please, in respect to what matter ! Mr. Evarts— The matter covered by that inquiry. Mr. Fullerton— There was nothing occurred in rMX>ect to that matter. I proved indisputably that nothing on that subject transpired at all. Judge Neilson— And the witness asssigned a reason why not. Mr. Fullerton— That was not read by the coiinsel on tha other side. Mr. Evarts— Yea. Mr. Fullerton— Can it be possible, when I prove in a conversation between two people that a certain thing was not said or referred to, that counsel can go on, there- fore, and prove what was said, and what was referred to 1 I don't think he can. I never heai-d of such a rule. Judge Neilson— He didn't ask what was said. Mr. Fullerton— No, Sir ; he is not entitled to prove what was said ; yoiu* Honor will perceive I have not proved any part of a conversation between Mr. Beecher and Mrs. Tilton. I have only proved a certain subject was not referred to ; that certain things were not said ; and that was the object I had in view. Judge NeUson— He don't propose to give the oonversa tion. Mr. Beach— He asks what was the intercourse and mo> tive and reason. 186 THE TlLTOI^-BEECHEJl TBIAL. Mr. Evarts— Ta the same general form you inquired. Judge Neilson [to Mr. Evarts]— You mean tHe charac- ter of tLe intercourse I Mr. Evarts— Yes. Judge Neilson— I think he may answer so far as the character of the intercourse is concerned. Mr. FuMerton— I don't understand hy what right they can prove what occurred between Mr. Beecher and Mrs. Tilton when we have not proved any part of it. Judge Neilson— They cannot give the conversation. Mr. Fullerton— Well. Judge Neilson— The inquiry la as to the character of the intercourse- in that respect. The Witness— Well, Sir, my intercourse with her was, In the first place, as little personal as possible, because I was afraid Mr. Fullerton— No. Mr. Beach— Now stop. The Witness— Well, in that intercourse I never made any allusion with her to past difficulties, and I wholly oonflned myself— that is, wholly, I mainly, and almost exclusively, confined myself to bringing to bear upon her mind influences that would cheer her, and encourage her, and excite in her her religious feelings, as the best mode of curing her of any lapse of affection or any dls- eouragement in her househoLL THE PAYMENT OF $5,000. Q. Now, Sir, you were asked some questions on the cross-examination concerning this payment of $5,000, and this statement— this passage in your state- ment—to wit, your answer : Q. Under what circumstances did you come to pay the $5,000 in one sumi A. Because it was represented to me that the whole diflSculty could now be settled by that amount of money, which would put The Golden Age on a secure footing ; that they would be able to go right on, and that, with the going on of them, the safety of Tilton would be assured, and that would be the settlement of the whole thing; it was to save Tilton pecuniarily. What whole thing— what difficulty, and in what way was the $5,000 settled? Mr. Fullerton— That is objected to. Mr. Evarts — I have asked that ctuestion. Mr. Fullerton— I have a right to object to it. Judge Neilson— I think he may answer it. Mr. Fullerton— Does your Honor permit thati Judge Neilson— Yes. The Witness— I understood the normal avocation and means of connection between him and his profession and the public was imperatively needful to The Oolden Age and The Oolden Age was that— and whatever would keep The Golden Age afloat and give it a fair voyage would be a direct help to him, and would finish his difficulties- his pe<^uniaTy and other difficulties of that kind— and it was with reference to that that I made, as I supposed, one among others, the contribution of the $5,000. Mr. Evarts— That is all, Sir. Judge Neilson— Will the audience keep their seats H [To the jurors.] Our adjournment will be, gentlemen, to an hour from this time. Mr. Evarts— If your Honor please, one of the Jurymett desires a question to be asked. Judge Neilson— Yes. Mr. Evarts— One of the Jurymen, Mr. Halsted, suggests this question: Whether in raising the $5,000 on mort- gage on your property, Mrs. Beecher joined in the mort- gage % A. She did— that is, I think I recoUect it ; I think I recollect some questions she ought never to have asked me. Mr. Evarts— Whatever you do recollect on the sabject^ the record of course will show. The Witness— Yes, Sir. Q. You think she did 1 A. Yes, I told her it was a busi- ness operation. Mr. Beach— One moment. T understood you to say, la the latter part of your answer, you told your wife it was a business operation ? A. I said I chatted about it. Q. Didn't you say thati A. Not in any strict Q. Didn't you just say that— that you told her it was a business operation i Mr. Evarts— We will read the record. Mr. Beach— I ask him whether he didn't say that. The Witness— Yes, Sir, I said it substantially. Judge Neilson [to the stenogropher]— Read those ques- tions and answers. The Tribime stenographer read the following questions and answers : Q. One of the jurymen (Mr. Halsted) suggests this ques- tion: Whether in raising the $5,000 on mortgage on your property Mrs. Beecher joined in the mortgage! A. She did ; that is, I think I recollect it ; I think I recolleot some questions she ought never to have asked me. Q. Whatever you do recollect on the subject, the record of course will show 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. You think she did ? A. Yes, I told her it was a business operation. The Witness— I should like to state still further that this was a jocose conversation between my wife and me. She said she didn't understand what it was for, and I said, "WeU, women don't vinderstand about business operations; this is a business operation;" or something like that ; but it was simply Mr. Beach— What it was. That is all. The Witness— It was a little social jocose remark be- tween my wife and me. Mr. Evarts— That is aU. Mr. Mallison— The Court will now take a recess ontA 2ifl o'clock. TESTIMONY OF SAMUEL D. PARTRIDGE, 137 THE AFTERNOON SESSION. The Court met at 2:30 p. m., pursuant' to ad- journment. EXAMINATION OF SAMUEL D. PARTRIDGE. Samuel Dwight Partridge, a witness, called and sworn on behalf of tlie defendant, testified as fol- lows: Mr. Evarts~Mr. Partridge, wliere do you reside » A. I reside in Orange, N. J. Q. How long have you lived there 1 A. I have been there atoout twelve years. Q. Up to January last in what mercantile firm's em- ployment were you i A. With Woodruff & Kohinson. Q. When did your connection with that firm's employ- ment cease ? A. On the 31st day of last December. Q. How long had you been in that employment before that time ? A. I went there in September, 1849, and I was there from that time until I left, "with the exception of a little more than one year. Q. At what period was that absence of a year? A. It was from April 1, 1869, to April 11, 1870. Q. And in the year 1872, tn what capacity were you in that firm's employment ? A. I was their cashier. Q. How long had you been their cashier? A. I had been their cashier the whole time, with the exception of the year that I was out, and about a year and a haK that I attended to the city collections. Q. From the time you went there 1 A. From the time I went there ; yes, Sir. Q. And did checks and moneys for deposit pass through your hands ? A. They did, Sir. Q. Do you remember in the year 1872 receiving a check for deposit of Mr. Bowen's for $7,000 ? A. I do. Sir. Q. Did you with that check receive any slip of paper at the same time ? A. There was a slip of pap^r came with It at the same time. Q. Where has that slip of paper been since you received It until now t A. It has been in my possession, until very recently. Q. Have you ever seen the check since until it was •hown you five minutes ago ? A. I never have. Sir. Q. Is that the check, Sir 1 [Handing witness a cheek.] Your eyesight is, I believe, very imperfect? A. My eye- sight is very poor. [Examining the check.] That is the che<5k. Q. Look at that, Sir, and say if it is the slip of paper that was with it. [Handing witness a paper.] A. That Is, Sir. Q. When did that pass out of your hands? A. Last Friday, I think. Q. To whom did you deliver it ? A. To Mr. SheaJ man, tf T recollect right. Mr. Evarts here turned to Mr. Shearman. Mr. Shearman— That's me. Mr. Erarts— Now, Sir, the check was deposited ! A. The check was deposited, Sir. Q. And where, when you received the two papers to- gether, did you put them ? A. I put them both, I think, in the drawer, but I think that I put that strip of paper In. the back side. I think it lay there a while before I put It in my pocket. Mr. Evarts— I now offer to read this paper. [Mr. Evarts hands the paper to plaintiff's counsel for tB- spection.J Mr. Beach— We object to that. Sir. Judge Neilson— What is the object, Mr. Evarts 1 Mr. Evarts— The object is to show the character of fbe transaction of this check to which this memorandum refers, and which we shall prove, if it is not now admit* ted, to be in Mr, Tilton's handwriting. Mr. Beach— You better prove that first. Mr, Evarts— I don't know that. We have proved Htm fact of the delivery of the check as coming through Ml, Tilton to this firm for deposit, and we have proved that the cashier receives it in his capacity for deposit, with this slip handed at the same time. Judge Neilson— And, for aught we know, they may have come to the outer olflce, the check alone, and some person tn the outer oflBoe appended this memorandum to it, and sent it in to the private office to this gentleman, in which case it would not be receivable, Mr. Evarts— Well, Sir, we don't know everything In advance, but I have proved that they came together. Judge Neilson— Yes, came together to his hands. Mr. Evarts— To this man, and I prove that the check came from Mr. Tilton to the firm. Judge Neilson— That appears before. Mr. Evarts— That appears before. Judge Neilson— If it appears that this check came to the firm with the memorandum, the memorandum would be admissible, because the two papers go together and come together; but some subordinate clerk might have appended this to the check before sending it in. Mr. Evarts— We cannot Imagine that, if your Honor please. The fact is that the two came together to the cashier of the firm, and the check is deposited. Judge Neilson— WeU, my trouble is, I cannot see how it is material. Mr. Evarts— Well, that depends upon what there it in it. Mr. Beach— There is another consideration, if your Honor please, connected with this paper, and that is that it relates entirely to a transaction as between Mr. Tilton and Mr. Bowen. It is Mr. Bowen's check for the ai> l earages d\ie to Mr. Tilton under the contracts between Mr. Bowen and Mr. Tilton; and the inquiries into that matter, I submit to yom- Honor, have been hitherto col- lateral, and that it is totally immaterial what may have been that transaction, so far as the receipt and the de- posit of this check is concerned. It relates to Mr. Beeches 188 THE TILTON-B in no degree. Mr. Beeoher liad no connection with it, and by what right we could pursae into these collateral and immaterial details, the affair as beicween Mr. Tilton and Mr. Bowen does not appear to me to be important. Bnt it is a suflScient objection to this paper now, that which is suggested by your Honor, thatneither Tilton, nor Moulton, nor Beecher, nor anyone else connected with this suit, had any relation or connection with this paper. Mr. Evarts— Why, if your Honor please, the whole transaction has been proved in all its detaUs, so far as those details have been brought to light. I now add this single detail, to wit : That this deposit came from Mr. Tilton, and we have traced it in its origin, in the circum- stances that led to its coming into his hands, and have given evidence about what is called the operation, the influence that was brought about to get it from Mr. Bow- en, and that it was deposited ; and now I propose to show that the cashier of that firm, of which Mr. Moulton was a partner, is the recipient of this check, with this paper, and then I shall show, as will be very apparent, when the papers are compared, that they were appended together. Judge Neilson— I cannot see that it is material. Sir. Mr. Evarts— That, if your Honor please, I think must depend upon what is on this paper. Judge Neilson— I must see that a thing is material be- fore I admit it, objection being made. Mr. Evarts— Your Honor can look at the paper, of course. Judge NeUson— If I looked I couldn't tell who wrote it. Mr. Evarts— Couldn't tell what 1 Judge Neilson— I couldn't tell who wrote it. Mr. Evarts— I propose to prove that it was written by Mr. Tilton. Judge Neilson— That don't appear yet. Mr. Evarts— Well, it is a mere question of handwriting. -Mr. Beach— It is a very important preliminary. Sir. Mr. Evarts— This witness is not acquaiated with Mr. TUton's handwriting ; but no matter whose handwriting it is, if it comes to this firm with the deposit, which comes from Mr. Tilton, it is a communication from him, pre- sumptively. Judge Neilson— It don't appear that it came to the firm with that memorandum ; it came to this gentleman. Mr. Evarts— It came to the cashier of the firm, who is agent of the firm, for the deposit ; now, Mr. Partridge, how did this check and this paper come to your hands? A. They came together, Sir, handed me by the same indi- vidual. Q. Yes, handed you by the same person together? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Now, Sir, by which member of the firm was it handed to you 1 A. WeU, I couldn't— I don't remember distinctly, Bir, who gave it to me. Q. What is the best of your recollection upon that point 1 A. Well, I have an indistinct recoUeotion that Mr. Wood- ruff gave it to me. EEGREB TBIAL. Q. Mr. Franklin Woodruff 1 A. Yes; but T don't reool lect distinctly. Sir. Q. A member of the firm 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. Did you receive it from the firm in some form and for deposit % A. Well, Sir, if I— I don't recollect distinctly whom I did receive it from; I think that I received it from Mr. Woodruff. Q. Yes ; did you receive it from any person outside the firm 1 A. Not that I know of. Sir. Q. No recollection, no idea of that kind? A. No, Sir. Mr. Evarts— Now, I submit. Sir, that I have proved that it was handed to him by some member of that firm. Judge Neilson— Can't receive it. Sir. Mr. Evarts— What does your Honor say, Sir % Judge Neilson— That does not alter th« relation of it. Mr. Evarts [To the Witness.]— Is this in the handwrit- ing of any member of the firm 1 A. No, Sir. Q. Or of anybody in their employment 1 A. No, Sir ; not that I know of. Mr. Evarts— Now, Sir, I offer to read it. Judge Neilson— I think it is immaterial. Mr. Evarts— As coming to this firm with the check. Judge NeUson— It is immaterial. Mr. Evarts— Well, I submit to your Honor that the question of its materiality is in dispute. The payment to the firm of this check, its receipt and its aeposit, has been proved and is in proof, and is material, therefore. Now, I offer to prove that this paper accompanied it. Judge Neilson— It has been proved that Mr. Tilton set up a claim against Mr. Bowen, partly founded on con- tract; that that was the subject of negotiation and finally of arbitration, and that in pursuance of the deter- mination of the arbitration, Mr. [Here the Judge was uiterrupted by a slamming of windows, long continued and annoying. When it was over, he resumed as fol- lows:] I was about to say that it already appears, in painful detail, that after an arbitration this check w;is given, and given as claimed by Mr. Tilton, as if it were due— awarded by the arbitrators as if it were due to him ; paid by Mr. Bowen on the same theory ; and that Mr. Tilton deposited it with Woodruff & Robinson, and that in due time the funds were drawn and used. Mr. Evarts— And this paper came with it. Judge Neilson— It don't appear. Mr. Evarts— This gentleman has said so. Judge Neilson— No, Sir. Mr. Tilton, we are to assume, sends that check to Woodruff «fe Robinson. Now, it is not material what instructions he sent, but, at any rate, It don't appear that he sent this. Mr. Evarts— It does appear that this was received by the firm of Woodruff & Robinson, with this paper added. A LEGAL POINT AS TO ADMLSSIBILITY. Judge Neilson— Well, that presents this question, whether the particular suggestions or instruc- tions which the firm of Woodruff & Robinson may make TESTIMONY OF SAI to one of their employes In sending in a check to he en- tered are to be received against anybody except them- selves ; that is all there is about it. Mr. Evarts— If your Honor please, I have shown ex- pressly that it is not their handwi'iting, nor does it pro- ceed from them. Judge Neilaon— It does not appear that it don't pro- ceed from them. They received the check from the hands of somebody, and passed it to the hands of this clerk, or cashier. Mr. Evarts— They received it from Mr. Tilton ; that has been proved ; they received the check from Mr. Tilton. Judge Neilson— Yes, but it nowhere appears that they received it with this memorandum. Mr. Evarts— And they put it in the course of deposit. Judge Neilson— Yes. Mr . Evarts— And the channel of deposit received it from one of the firm with this paper with it. It attends the check ; it describes the check in the character that it gives 10 the money transaction ; that is what it does. Judge Neilson— And for aught we know it originated after the check had been in the hands of Woodruff & Robinson. Mr. Evarts— We think not. Judge Neilson— For aught we know it appears so. Mr. Evarts— If your Honor means absolute verity, in- capable of contradiction Judge Neilson— No, I don't ; I mean for all that now ap- pears. Mr. Evarts— By all that now appears ; if your Honor please, I respectftilly submit that it appears that it came to the firm of Woofliuflf & Robinson Judge Neilson— No. Mr. Pryor— Your Honor will please bear in mind that our objection does not hinge exclusively upon the fact that Mr. Tilton is not connected with this memorandiun. Our objection— the strenuousness of our objection, the one upon which we rely— is that this thing, even if properly proved and connected with Mr. TUton, is wholly immu 1 erial to this issue. Judge Neilson— So I understood Mr. Beach, and so I un- derstand you. Mr. Pryor— Yes, Sir. Mr. Evarts— Well, they may think the check is immate- rial for aught I know, but that question we have passed. Now, Sir, Mr. Tilton's handwriting is not a J udge Neilson— Now, when Mr. Tilton received a check for $7,000 from Mr. Bowen, ho had a right to do with it pi-eeisely what he pleased, and he chose to deposit it with this firm. If he gave any instructions whatever, that is immaterial ; it has no effect upon this defendant. Mr. Evarts— I don't know that; it is not a question of effect on the defendant ; it is a question of effect on the plaintiff. I am proving it afrainst the plaintiff. Judge Neilson— I do not see how that is proof. Mr. Evacts— That would depend, I think, very much UEL D, PABTRIDGE. 139. on what is here. If yom- Honor places it on the ground which my learned fi-iends apparently do not wish to stand upon, that it is nut Mr. Tilton's handwriting Judge NeUson— No, I don't. I say merely I don't know, and that for aught that appears Mr. Evarts— I say if your Honor puts it upon that ground, upon which apparently my learned friends do not wish to stand, that it is not Mr. Tilton's handwriting, as yet, that is one thing. Judge Neilson— I have not assumed anything about it. I simply spoke witli reference to the materiality of the proof before me. Mr. Evarts— Your Honor properly assumes that point, that it is not proved. I agree that it is not proved. Mr. Beach— My learned friend suggests that we do not care apparently to stand upon the principal objection which we have hitherto made to your Honor against this paper. I am very free to admit to the counsel, for the pm-pose of discussion, that the paper is in the handwrit- ing of Mr. Tilton. Judge Neilson— Well, then, the question is whether we shall not receive it until we hear whether it is material ; that is the point. Mr. Beach— I do not admit, Sir, that that paper waa transferred by Mr. Tilton to this firm in company with this check, or that this memorandum relates to this check, or the transaction indicated by this check, by any means, and that is a defect in the proof upon the other side which at present is insuperable. But yet we mean to insist to your Honor that, even If it should appear that this paper was delivered by Mr. Tilton in company with this check, it neverthelesj) Is immaterial and incompetent evidence; that whatever Mr. Tilton chose to do with this check, or however he might choose to characterize that instrument, or to vin- dicate the nature, quality, source, or object of the money which was represented by that check, is totally immate- rial to this controversy ; and when that question shall arise, why, we may perhaps desire to be heard further upon it. But sufiicient for the day. Sir, is the evil thereof. Until they connect this paper memorandum with this check in its transfer by Mr. Tilton to this firm, it is totally incompetent evidence. Mr. Evarts— I cannot imagine an objection to my right to prove this, when it is admitted to be in Mr. Tilton's hand- writing. It then comes from him ; the check comes from hun, as he has testified, and the check and the paper are in the hands of the firm and handed to the cashier at the same time. Now, how material and what the moral connection between this paper and that check is, must appear and be judged of by the jury when the paper itself is read, and when the internal evidence of the two papers shows that they were attached together. ]Mr. Beach— It by no means follows, your Honor, bo- cause Mr. Tilton may have said or written anything upon any subject, that it is admissible as evidence in this case. 140 IHE TILTON-BEF.OEEE IBIAL. The counsel says lie oannot imagine an objection to tliia paper when it is admitted that it was written by Mr. Tilton. Mr. Evarts— I cannot imagine, after you have seen it. Mr. Beach— I am quite willing the Court should see it. Mr. Evarts— It does not relate to a horse race ; counsel know that. Mr. Beach— No, Sir, I Imow it does not relate to a horse race. Mr. Evarts— You know it relates to this matter. Mr. Beach— Well, that would be rather a violent asser- tion. I think it is in connection with my learned friend— the suggestion coming from him that we are not dealing with horse races. This paper, Sir, relates, I sup- pose, from what T see of it, to an indefinite thing designated by a single word. Whether It relates to money or to a material thing, whether it relates to a check or a bank bill, or any other article, is not apparent from the paper. True, I grant that if there was anything in the paper itself, as con- nected with the general evidence in this case, from which a jury might be allowed to infer a certain association be- tween it and any material transaction in the case, why then I would consider that it would be very proper to be admitted by your Honor to pass to the jury. But your Honor is the primary judge of the competency and ad- missibility of evidence, and when an objection is raised to a species of evidence it is the prerogative and the duty of your Honor to see that it has material connection with the essential issues in the case. Now, here is a scrap of paper having no definite connection, so far as the evi- dence goes, with any particular transaction— having no possible relation, so far as its terms indicate, with any transaction between Mr. Tilton and Mr. Bowen, a decla- ration in writing which may relate to a thousand imma- terial things not at all connected with this issue or with the parties to it, which they offer in evidence, to go to the juiy, to be construed and applied as the jury may incline. Now, I submit, Sir, that it becomes the duty of your Honor, before this instrument shall be permitted to pass to the jury, to be satisfied yourself, from the complexion of the paper, its contents, its subject, and the evidence In the case, whether it is material and competent. Judge Neilson— That is doubtless so. There is no ques- tion about that. I suppose this examination covers all you wish with this witness. Mr. Evarts— I don't know that, Sir. Judge Neilson— If something else la proved by some one else, then you wUI, perhaps, be in a position to offer the paper. Mr. Evarts— They do not object on. the score of hand> writing. Judge Neilson— No, I am not speaking about that; I am speaking of the last objection. Mr. Evarts— Now, then, it stands that this is Mr. Til- ton's handwriting, and it came with a check that bears Mr. Tilton's indorsement, the whole history of which ha* been given. But if your Honor will remember how Mr» Wilkeson introduced the subject of the threat of Mr. Tilton, what he would publish if justice were not done him Judge Neilson— Mr. Pryor, I will look at it. [Paper handed to the Court.] Mr. Evarts [continuing]— And aU the other evidence that bears upon the question of whether this was an ex- traction from Mr. Bowen by the pressure of this influence. And now, Mr. Tilton, having got his money and sending it to his coadjutor, Mr. Moulton, sends that oharaoteriza- tionof the source and the quality of the fund. Judge Neilson— WeU, Sir, you may read it in evidence. Mr. Evarts— [Reading:) " Spoils from ' new friends ' for the enrichment of old." [Marked Exhibit D, 134.1 Judge Neilson— Procped, Sir. Mr. Evarts— Now, gentlemen of the jury, you will see that the pin-holes of those two papers completely corre- spond. Judge Neilson— That is generally the case when two papers are pinned together. Mr. Evarts— Nothing has been said about their being pinned together, if your Honor please, as yet. Mr. Beach— I think there was. When you say the pliif holes correspond, it is a strong intimation that they were pinned together. Judge Neilson— Yes ; weU, no matter whether they were or not. I think in the end I can instruct the jury what this means. We will proceed now. It is one of those remote things— collateral things. We have gone over the Woodruff & Robinson account Mr. Evarts— Your Honor's instructions are not to be given now. Judge Neilson [continuing]— And over the arbitration and over the award, until my very soul is wearied with them. Mr. Evarts— I do not wish to argae this evidence wltll your Honor or to the jury. Judge NeUson— No, Sir. Mr. Evarts— Nor can I now except to your Honor's In* structions to the jury, because they are not given. Judge Neilson— Very well ; I do not give them. Any> thing more with this witness, Sir! Mr. Evarts— Yes, Sir. Judge Neilson— Well, proceed. Mr. Evarts— Before you received this check and memo* randum, Mr. Partridge, had you known or heard any- thing of what Mr. Tilton was going to do if Mr. Bowen did not pay himi Mr. Beach— From whom! Walt a minute. Mr. Evarts— I ask him whether he had heard it In aoj way. Mr. Beach— I object, then. Judge Neilson— Say yes or no, Mr. Partridge. TESTIMONY OF SAMUEL D, FABTBlDi^E, 141 The Witness— Yes, Sir. Mr. Evarts— You had. Now, Mr. Parti'idge, you did not connect these papers together in any way yoiu-self , did you ? A. Pin them together, do you mean 1 Q. Pin them together or otherwise connect them together 1 A. No, Sir, Q. And do you remember whether when they came to you they were connected by a pin, or in a common en- velope, or in a common fold 1 » A. I do not remember how they came. Q. Mr. Partridge, do you remember the fact of the pub- lication of Mrs. WoodhuU's life by Mr. Tilton 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. And do you remember conversing with Mr. Moulton oilfe» does it take to go from Mr. Beecher's house to the ofSoe ot The Christian Union, where it was at that time! A. That depends entirely upon the boats— from 20 to 40 minutes. Q. Now, you were questioned by counsel with reference to that, were you not ! A. I was. Q. And how did you state the time then ! A. I said 20 minutes, more or less— less or more— depending upon tbe boats, I think. Q. How do you state it now ? A. I say from 20 to 40 minutes, depending upon the boats. Q. Well, did not you say from 15 to 20 minutes ! A. I think I did not. Q. Are you sure of that ? A. If I did I desire to make the correction. Q. Well, you had been frequently from Mr. Beecher'i to The Christian Union office? A. I had. Q. And was quite famUiar with the time that It took! A. I never measured the time. Q. In answer to the question put by the counsel as to how long would it take, did you not make this answer: A. Well, I think, as an average time, you could go from his house to the office in 20 minutes— sometimes shorter! A. If I said that, 1 desire to make the correction. Mr. Beach— Read the question and answer. Mr. Morris [reading] : Q. Just describe the trip which you make to get from his house to his office. A. Well, I think, as an average time, you could go from his house to the office in 20 min* utes— sometimes shorter and sometimes longer, depend* ing on the boats. A. If " shorter," I think It was a misreport. Q. Do you mean to say that you did not give that an- swer, in those precise words that I have read ? A. I mean to say that If I said 15 minutes, I desire to correct tbe answer. Q. No. " Sometimes 20 minutes— sometimes shorter.** Mr. Shearman— He said so. Q. Did you use that language! A. I don't reooUeot that I did. Mr. Beach— Mr. Shearman says he did; 11 he wants t» correct it now Mr. Shearman [to the witness]- Yon are not asked whether what you said then was jorreot, but what yon said then. 154 TEE TILTON-BEEOREE TBIAL. The Witness— I desire merely to say tliat I meant to «ay then 20 minutes or longer, depending on the boats. Q. You were asked also on that examination, with reference to the time you saw Mr. Beecher there, this question, were you not : Q. I will ask you it you are absolutely certain that this Interview which you mentioned occurred upon the 2d of June, between 11 and 12 o'clock 1 Do you recollect that question being put to you. A. I do. Q. And what was your answer ? A. I do not recall it. Q. " I think I am was that the answer made by yout A. I do not deny it. Q. And that was all that was said by you in that exam- ination upon the subject, wasn't it ? A. I do not recall. Q. Where were you residing at that time 1 A. At the Mansion House. ME. BEECHEE SEKDS FOE ME. CAEPENTEE. Q. Do you know Mr. Carpenter? A. I do. Q; When did you make his acquaintance 1 A. On Sun- day, the 25th of May, 1873. Q. And where A. In the City of New- York. Q. did you make his acquaintance! A. In the City of New-York. Q. That was on a Sunday, I believe 1 A. That was on Sunday afternoon. Q. And how came you to goto New-York to see him? A. I went at the request of Mr. Beecher. Q. And how did you go 1 With what conveyance t A. With a horse and carriage. Q. Whose 1 A. Mr. Beecher's. Q. What time in the afternoon was that f A. Three or four o'clock that I left Brooklyn. Q. Were you requested to bring Mr. Carpenter to BrookljTi, if you could find him 1 A. I was. Q. And where were you to bring him 1 A. Mr. Moul- ton's. Q. And did you take him to Mr. Moulton's 1 A. I did. Q. And did you leave him there 1 A. I did not. Q. Where did you leave him 1 A. I do not recollect ; he left the carriage after we drove away from Mr. Moul- ton's— where, I cannot say. Q. Do you know the object of Mr. Carpenter's being brought to Brooklyn on the 25th of May 1 A. I do. Mr. Shearman— Wait a moment. Mr. Morris— What was the purpose of bringing him herel Mr. Shearman— Wait a moment ; I object to that, your Honor, unless Mr. Beecher is connected with it ; it ap- pears not. Mr. Morris— Oh, yes ; Mr. Beecher sent for him. Mr. Shearman— Well, that is what was the object, but whose object— Mr. Carpenter's object, or Mr. Cleveland's object, or Mr. Beecher's object! Judge Neilson— That should appear. Did Mr. Beecher express to you any reason, state or give to you any reason, why he wanted Mr. Carpenter herel A. He did. Q. And what was it 1 A. To have him come and see Mr. Bowen with some other gentlemen. Q. And for what purpose did he want him to come and see Mr. Bowen ? Mr. Shearman— We object to that, of course. He should ask what Mr. Beecher expressed ; that is the proper quee^ tion. Judge Neilson— I think that is implied in the question. ** For what purpose did he want 1" it implies that he said it. Q, Now, answer the question, if you please 1 The Witness— Will the stenographer please read the question 1 The Tribune stenographer read the question as follows: " And for what purpose did he want him to go and see Mr. Bowen 1" Mr. Shearman— I object to that. That does not identify Mr. Beecher with the purpose. The question is very easily modified, I suppose ; but still, we should confine ourselves within the rule, for the witness would feel bound to answer Mr. Morrisr- Did Mr. Beecher state to you why ha * wanted Mr. Carpenter to see Mr. Bowen ? A. He did. Q. Why did he want him to see Mr. Bowen— for what purpof=e? A. In relation to stories that he had heard that Mr. Bowen was reporting, reviving. Q. Give Mr. Beecher's language as near as you can. A. That is the substance, as near as I can give it. Mr. Beach— When was this t Mr. Morris- The 25th of Mar, x873. [To the witness.! Now give Mr. Beecher's language— what he said upon that subject, as near as you can ? A. That is as near as I can give it. Q. Just repeat that again, if you please 1 Just repeat what Mr. Beecher said 1 A. That he desired Mr. Carpeur ter to go to Mr. Bowen's with some other gentlemen, to confer with him in regard to reports that he had heard from Mr. Bowen. That is the substance of it. Q. With reference to Mr. Beecher I A. With referenoo to Mr. Beecher. Q. Did he say what those reports were 1 A. He did not. THE PUBLICATION OF THE "TEIPAETITB COVENANT." Q. Was anything said about the covenant^ the " Tripartite Covenant ?" A. Nothing. Q. Between you and Mr. Carpenter i A. Yes, Sir. Q. What was said between you and Mr. Carpenter 1 Mr. Shearman— I don't think that is competent, unlOM it is still further connected with Mr. Beecher. Mr. Morris [to the witness]— On that subject 1 Mr. Shearman— Mr. Beecher does not appear to have in- structed Mr. Cleveland to have any conversation at all with Mr. Carpenter, or to do anything; oertainly not TUSTIMONF OF HE2\ about tlie " Tripartite Covenant.*' So far as appears, lie simply requested him to bring Mr. Carpenter over to see Mr. Bowen, Mr. Morris— I propose to sbow that tbe purpose, wblcb will appear, I think, in the examination of this witness- that he was sent over by Mr. Beecher to bring Mr. Car- penter here to go and see Mr. Bowen, in company with Mr. Claflin and Mr. Moulton, and that If Mr. Bowen still continued to repeat the stories, or adhered to them, then the Covenant was to be published ; and that that was the object Mr. Beeeher had in view in sending Mr. Cleveland over after Mr. Carpenter on that Sunday. Mr. Shearman— Very well Mr. Morris— I submit that we have a right to show the object of Mr. Carpenter's being sent for, and the purpose of his interview with Mr. Bowen. Judge Nellson— You have not laid a foundation for that —so far as that goes. Mr. Morris— Does your Honor think that that is not a proper question % Judge Neilson— I don't think you have laid the founda- tion for a conversation m regard to the " Tripartite Cove- nant." Mr. Morris— I propose to show the fact that I have «tated by this witness, and I can only show it by succes- sive steps ; I cannot show it by a single question. Judge Neilson— Do you propose to connect it with Mr. Beecher 1 Mr. Morrisr-Yes, Sir. Judge Neilson— Very well ; go on. Mr. Morris— Now, Mr, Cleveland, what was eald upon the subject of a publication of that Covenant between you and Mr. Carpenter at that time? A. I don't recall the words. My best recollection is that I said to Mr. Carpen- ter that if it should be true that Mr, Bowen was reviving the stories, the old stories that had been reported against Mr. Beecher, that then the Covenant would be pub- lished. Q. Now, what stories were you referring to I A. Stories that had been settled by the Covenant. What were they 1 A. I do not recollect them. Sir. Q. You had never heard what they were? A. I had heard in general terms— the scandal. Q. What were they in general terms ! A. The scandal. ^ Which scandal? A. The whole scandal. Q. WTiat do you mean by the whole scandal ? Was there more than one scandal ? A. Well, that is simply the re- ports that had been circulated. Q. Reports of what ? A. Affecting the character of Mr. Beecher. Q. In what respect? A. Any. Q. And is that as deHnite as you can be on the subject? A. That is as definite as I can be. Q. You have no idea as to any particular scandal that was included in that matter? A. I did not know at that time what the pai-ticulars of the scandal were. ?r M. CLE V BLAND. ^ 155 Q. You had never heard ? A. I had not. Q. And you had no idea 1 A. I had no idea of the de* tails. Q. And you entered into conversation with Mr. Carpen- ter upon the scandals against Mr. Beecher without having any knowledge whatever of what the scandals consisted of ? A. I knew that there had been a settlement by the Co^^ant, and that it had been violated by Mr. Bowen. Q. What had been settled ? A. All the matters betwe^ Mr. Q. What were all the matters? Mr. Beach— Oh, let him finish. Between whom ? The Witness— Any matters of diflference between Mr, Bowen and Mr. TUton and Mr. Beeoher. as I uaderstood it. Mr. Morria— What matters! A. That is all I can say. Q. Do you meaji to say now that you have no idea as to what the slanders were ? A. I mean to say Mr. Evarts— That he has no idea now, or that he had at that conversation. Mr. Morris— Well, had you at that conversation ! I am talking about that period when you were conversing with Mr. Carpenter in reference to the scandals that had been settled by the Covenant ; had you no idea then as to what the slanders were ? A. I had not ia detaiL Q. In general? A. I had not in general, except tluit they affected the character of Mr. Beecher. Q. In what respect ? A. His moral character. Q. How? A, By being in Q. How was he tuvolved- his moral character; how was it involved ? A. As any man's would be who had slanders in circulation against him. Q. I want to find out what those slanders were 1 A. T can't tell you. Q, You had no idea at thsbt time, when you were con- versing about that ? A. I had the idea that slanders wm in circulation about Mr. Beecher. Q. You had been acquainted with Mr. Beecher how many years ? A. Fifteen. Q. And had been on intimate terms with him, hadnt you ? A. I had, for five. Q. Very intimate terms ? Had you not considered your* self so ? A. I was on intimate terms with him. Q. And a visitor at his house ? A. I was. Q. And you were then connected with the — yon were the publisher of The Christian Union / A. I was. Q. Of which paper Mr. Beecher was editor ? A. He wa« one of them. Q. And you used to come in contact with him very frequently? A. I did. Q. And used to converse with him about matters f A. About matters, yes, Sir. Q. Did you ever hav« any conversation with him im regard to any of these slanders? A. Not a word, in do- tail. 156 TRE TILTON-BEEGHEB lElAL. Q. In general 1 A. Not in general, except on one oc- OKfiion. Q. When was that ! A. The 1st day of November, 1872. Q. Tie 1st day of November \ A. 1872, Q. 1872. What scandals did you talk ahout then ! A. The Woodhull publication. Judge Neilson [to the witness]— Beyond that, you barely knew that Mr. Bowen was understood to have cir- culated some kind of scandal unfavorable to Mr. Beecher ! A. I simply knew, Sir, that there were reports in the air affecting the moral character of Mr. Beecher Judge Neilson— And ascribed to Mr. Bowen 1 The Witness— Ascribed to Mr. Bowen; and that in April, 1872, their matters were settled by that Covenant. Judge Neilson— WeU. Mr. Morris— Then you were referring to the scandals that you understood that Mr. Bowen had circulated against Mr. Beecher? A. I do not understand your ques- tion. Q. Then yofl were referring, in your conversation with Mr. Carpenter, to the scandals that you understood that Mr. Bowen had circulated against Mi-. Beecher? A. That is what I referred to. Q. And were the names of any ladies connected with that scandal— I do not ask for any names, but did you un- derstand tiem as referring to Mr. Beecher's relations- immoral relations, with women? A. I did not. Q. Then if they affected his moral character, in what respect did they affect it ? A. I understood you to ask if they related to particulac persons. Q. No ; my question was whether you understood that those scandals which Mr. Bowen had cii'culated related to Mr. Beecher's intercourse with women ? A. They did. Q. Immoral intercour se ? A. They did. • Q. You were not present at that interview ? A. I was not. Q. The Covenant was published shortly after that, was It not? A. It was. Q. On the 30th % A. On the 30th of May. Q. Do you know what it was published from ? A. It ■was published from manuscript in the hands of Sam Wilkeson. Q. The scandals that Mr. Bowen had circulated against Mr. Beecher, I understand you to say, had never been the subject of conversation between you and Mr. Beecher prior to that time ? A. They had not, at that time. Q. They never had been referred to ! A. Not except in general terms. Q. WeU, state how they were referred to In general terms? A. I understood from Mr. Beecher that Mr. Bowen had circulated false reports relating to his moral character. Q. Was that all that was ever said upon the subject f A. That is all, in substance. Q. Prior to the publication of that Covenant did you have an interview with Mr. Carpenter at the office of The Christian Union f A. Quite likely. Sir ; I don't reojdl Q. Do you recollect showing him a copy of the Covenant in manuscript, at the office of The Christian Union, on the 29th of May? Mr. Shearman— I object to this, your Honor. I do not. see that it has anything to do with Mr. Beecher. Mr. Morris— We ,vill see. Judge Neilson— We might take that simple fact. I doat know that it has any Mr. Shearman— Very well. The Witness— I do not recall that occurrence. Q. Did you take the Covenant to a morning newspaper office for the purpose of having it published, on the even- ing of the 29th? Mr. Shearman— I object to it. JudgeNeilson— We will take it. It shows the attitude of the witness. Mr. Shearman— Oh, if it is for that purpose The Witness— I do not think I did, upon my latest and best recollection, in the evening. Q. You were at a newspaper office? A. Not I think in the evening. Q. Didn't you testify at your house that you went to a newspaper office in the evening in company with either Mr. Howard or Mr. Ford? A. I testified that pos- sibly I did; I had a faint recollection of that. Q. Didn't you testify positively that you did? I dont recollect that I testified positively that I did ; my latest recollection Is that I went to the office in the middle of the day on the 29th of May. Q. Very well, you think it was about the middle Of the day ? A. Some time in the middle of the day. Q. Before or after 12, do you think? A. I cannot recalL Q. You cannot recall that fact ? A. I cannot. Q. Whom did you go with to the office at that time f I went alone. Q. You went alone ? A. I did. Q. Was it in connection with the publication of fbe Covenant that you went ? A. The publication of the Covenant was my occasion for going. Q. Was it in connection with the publication of the Covenant that yon went to that office 1 A. That was the occasion of my going. Q. During the middle of the day! Mr. Shearman— He says that was the occasion of hlf going. Mr. Morris— Yes. [To the witness.] Did you take the Covenant with you then ? A. I did. Q. And did you deliver it to the editor for the purpose of publication ! A. I did not, in that sense. Q. Did you deliver it to him in any sense! A. I showed it to him— left it with him. Q. You showed it to him and left it with himi A. I did. Q. Why did you leave it with him! A. Because I wanted to make an explanation to him of his — In regard TESllMONY OF HEl to his misunderstanding of an allusion in one of Mr. Beeclier'8 sermons to the disclosures about the Tweed Ring. I knew he was laboring under that misunder- standing, and I took that occasion to have an interview with the publisher. Q. Was that subject explained in the Covenant 1 A. That subject was explained in the interview. Q. "Was the Interview with the publisher % A. It was. Q. And you left the Covenant with him for the purpose of explaining an illusion in one of Mr. Beeoher's sermons concerning the Tweed Ring ! A. I said to him that Q. No, no ; answer the question. Was that the object of leaving it 1 A. The object of that— the interview— the object Mr. Morris— One moment. The Witness— State your question. Mr. Tracy— He has answered the question. Mr. Morris— He has not. [To the witness.] Was or was not the object of leaving the Covenant with liim that it might explain an allusion in one of Mr. Beecher's sermons concerning the Tweed Ring 1 Yes, or no. Mr. Tracy— I submit that he is not obliged to answer yes or no. Mr. Morris— H 'J can explain afterward. Judge NeUson [to the witness] — Give the best answer you can. The Witness— I cannot answer by yes or no. Mr. Morris— T submit that it is a very simple question. Judge Neilson [to the witness]— Give the best answer you can, Sii- ? Mr. MoiTis— One moment, your Honor. I submit that I am entitled to a correct answer. Judge Neilson — You are entitled to an affirmative or a negative answer. The exact terms of the answer are for the witness. Mr. Morris— That is all I ask. [To the witness.] Now, did you or did you not leave that Covenant with him In order that it might explain this allusion in Mr. Beecher's sermon to the Tweed Ring? A. Not in that sense at all. Q. Very well, that answers it. Then why did you leave it with him ? A. I made— I knew that the Covenant was going from Sam Wilkeson that night to all the New- York papers the next morning, and I knew a New-York paper was laboring under a misapprehension in regard to one of Mr. Beecher's sermons, in which he alluded to the Tweed Ring, and I went with that in my hand, to say to the publisher that Q. I don't care about that I A.I ask the chance to make an explanation. Mr. Evarts— You asked him. Mr. Mon-is— No, no, I am asking why he left the Cove- nant. I am not asking why he went to explain that to the publisher. EI M. OLEVBLAND. ith Mr. Bvarts— The witness is giving an explanation. He is asked for his motive. Now, he has a right to give all his motives. Judge NeUson [to the witness!— Without giving the conversation with the editor, you can say whether it waa for that purpose of explaining. The Witness— I made that the means of an interview with the publisher to make an explanation in regard to that sermon. Judge Neilson— That is an answer. Mr. Morris— Why did you leave the Covenant with that publisher 1 A. Because I wanted to say to him that now there would be a newspaper war, and we desired that Mr. Beecher should have unprejudiced treatment at the hands of the press. Q. Ah, very well, but that does not yet answer my ques- tion ; for what purpose did you leave the Covenant with that publisher 1 A. I did not leave the Covenant with him for any purpose. I took it with me as a means ol communication with him. Q. You took the Covenant as an excuse to have an In- terview with him ; is that it 1 A. That's it exactly, Sir. Q. Had you seen him before ? A. I had seen him. Q. Were you acquainted with him ? A. I was not. Q. Had you ever had any conversation with him f A. Never a word. Q. And you thought you could not have this Interview with him without taking the Covenant with you. How did you introduce that conversation! A. Oh, I dont recollect that. Q. Now, was your sole object in taking that Covenant there the excuse that you wanted to have an interview with that publisher 1 A. The sole object. Q. The sole object ? A. The sole object. Q. And when you got through with your interview you left the Covenant with hmil A. I presume I did; I don't recollect taking it away ; I think I did. Q. Have you any doubt upon that subject t A. I dont recollect anj^hing about it. Q. Didn't you say a while ago that you left It with biTn f . A. I think I did ; but that was a matter of no kind of consequence at the close of the interview. All the papers had it the next morning, and would have had it without any regard to that publisher and myself. Q. That is not the question. You had no idea when you left it there that it was going to be published f A. I knew it would be, whether I left it or took it. Q. You knew it would be 1 A. I did. Q. Now, IMr. Cleveland, didn't you testify at your house positively that you did not take that covenant to that publisher 1 A. I don't recollect that I did. If I did, I desire to correct it. I had no head then, and haven't more than half a one to-day. Q. If you did so testify it was not correct 1 If I testi- fied differently from my testimony to-day I desire to ooiv rect it. 168 THE TILION-B. Q. Did you see that publisher again that day 1 A. I don't think I did, Sir. Q. Now, didn't you say to him, when you took Mm that covenant, that Mr. Beecher wanted it pub- lished! A. I did not. Q. Your recollection— your head is perfectly good upon that point, is it t A. I think it is. Q. Didn't you testify, Mr. Cleveland, that you went to the office of that publisher in the evening with Mr. Ford or Mr. Howard 1 A. I did not, positively. Q. Didn't you state that the object of going to the office was to read the proofs ? A. I testified that if I went that evening I unquestionably went with either Mr. Ford or Mr. Howard; but I did not testify that I did go, if my memory serves me now. Q. Keflect upon that a moment, Mr. Cleveland. Did you not state that you went there in the evening with either one of those gentlemen, and that the purpose of going was to read the proof so that it might appear cor- rectly in the paper the next morning ? A. I testified that I had a partial recollection of going in the evening with one of the gentlemen named, who went to read the proof. I could not recollect distinctly that I did, and I wouldn't Bwear that I did not, nor I won't now. Q. You have no present recollection upon that subject now, have you? A. I don't recall it. Q. Didn't you say to Mr. Carpenter, on the 29th, that IE he would look in the papers in the morning he would sec the biggest sensation since the war ? A. Possibly ; I don't recaU it. Q. In the former examination at your house, did you say anything about going to the publisher for the reason that you wanted to explain to him the expression in Mr. Beecher's card concerning the New-York Kiag ? A. I don't think I did. Q. Well, that was the circumstance or the visit to him that you recollect distinctly, is it ? A. I did not testify at my house positively that I went to him that day. Q. Well, you were asked, Mr. Cleveland, were you not, whether you went to his office with the Covenant, and did you not say that you did not 9 A. I don't think I did. Mr. Morris— Very well. The Witness— I may be mistaken. Mr. Morris— Now, when you were asked about going to the office with the Covenant, which interview was most distinct in your mind— the one during the middle of the day when you went to explain that circumstance to him, or the one on the evening of which you have now but a shadowy recollecfeion 1 A. Neither was dis- tinct. Q. Neither was distinct! A. Neither. Q. Is either distinct now ! A. Yes, Sir ; perfectly. 0,. You have recalled it since t A. I have verified what I state. ECHER TBIAL. CONVERSATIONS CONCERNING THE PUBLI- CATION. Q. Do you recollect the interview that I have called your attention to at your house, with Mr. Carpen- ter—at your office, I should say! A. Of the 29th of Mayt Q. The 29th. A. I can make no better recollection of that than when you were at my house. Q. You recollect of Mr. Ctrpenter having an interview with you at your office 1 A. I don't recollect that. Q. At no time? A. A great many times— scores of them. Q. During the Spring of 1873? A. Not in the Spring, for I didn't see him until the 25th of May in my life. Q. That is Spring, is it not ! A. Very good ; that is the first time I saw him. Q. Now, following that, you met him at your office, did you not? A. I did. Q. When did you next meet him at your office! A. I have no kind of idea. Q. Do you recollect the subject of the interview ! A. I do not. Q. Or of any of the interviews ! A. The subject of most of the interviews. Q. What time of day did you see him at yom- office, after the 25th, when he came there ! A. I have no recol- lection, Q. You have seen him there a number of times ? A. A great many. Q. Can you state what hour of the day on either occa- sion 1 A. I cannot* Q. Whether it was in the forenoon or in the afternoon! A. I have no recollection. Q. See if you recollect giving this testimony at your house in answer to a question put by his Honor Judge Neil son : On the occasion, just prior to the publication, that you went, what was the object of the visit— that is the visit to the office- and did you not make this answer, "My recollection of that is, that the gentlemen that I went with wanted to read proof and see that the publication of the Covenant the ne::^ morning was correct, that it ac- corded with the original document! " A. I think I did. Q. Is that true! A. It is true as my recollection was then and is to-day. If I went in the evening Q. Not if you went. A. I don't recollect that I went. Q. Do you recollect it without the "ifs ?" A. I dont recollect of going in the evening. Q. You have forgotten since you testified at youT house % A. If I swore positively that I went in the even- ing it was a mistake. Mr. Shearman— You did not. The Witness— I did not, I think. Mr. Morris— It was a mistake. Q. You were examined by Mr. Shearman and by Mr. Hill at considerable length, were you not, at your house I A. I was examined by them. TESTIMOJ^Y OF RENEY M. CLEVELAND. 159 Q. At considerable length ? A. I don't know Q. How long were you in giving your testimony in answer to questions by Mr. Hill and Mr. Shearman 1 A. An hour, possibly, or more ; I don't recollect. Q. An hour ? A. I don't remember it at all. I attended the examination ; that is all I recollect, and hardlj^ that. Q. You have not seen the examination since, have you i A. I have not, to read it. Q. Forty-seven pages. Have you conversed with the counsel, or either ot them, eince you were examined at your house ? A. I have. Q. With reference to your testimony? A. Not in detail. Q. With reference to your testimony? A. Not in detail. Q. With reference to your testimony ? A. Yes. Q. Yes ; and when did you have that conversation with them ? A. I have had two or three. Q. Two or three ? A. The last was yesterday morning, I think. Q. When was the first after your examination ? A. I have been in the country until the last of last week. Mr. Morris— That is not an answer to my question. The Witness— I had no conversation with them iintil since I returned. Q. When did you return ? A. I returned on Thur sday night of last week. Q. Since that time how many times have you conversed with either of the counsel ? A. I think four or five. Q. Four or five timee ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. And with reference to your testimony ? A. With reference to my coming here. Q. With reference to your testimony ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. With reference to the testimony you had given at your house 1 A. No, Sir. Q. But as to the testimony you should give here ? A. Yes, SiA Q. Did they state any reasons to you for omitting topics that they examined you upon at your house ? A. They did. INACCURACIES IN MR. CLEVELAND'S FOR- MER EXAMINATION. Mr. Shearman— What is the reason of this 1 Mr. Morris— The reasons will appear before I get through, very distinctly. There won't be' any mistake about it. Q. Well, was the hour of the day at which you saw Mr. Beecher the subject of conversation between you and your counsel ? A. No, Sir. Q. Now, let me read a little more, Mr.* Cleveland, and see ii this question was put to you : Now, just reflect a moment. Did you not yourself take the Covenant in manuscript to that publisher on that night, and say to him that it was Mr. Beecher's wish that It be published 1 Mr. Shearman— The answer. l^Tovvis— The answer: "I did not." Did vou make that answer to that question? A. Will you read the question again? Q. Now, j ust reflect a moment. Did you not yoirrself take the Covenant in manuscript to that publisher on that night, and say to him that it was Mr. Beecher's wish that it be published ? A. I did not. A. I aflSrm it now. Q. And it was technically correct because you had taken the Covenant in the afternoon or the middle of the day! A. I had. Q. You didn't take it at night ? A. I then believed I didn't. Q. And when you made that answer did you recollect the fact that you had taken it in the middle of the day ? Mr. Shearman — I object to the question as put. I ought to have time to object to the question. As to whether that was technically correct, omitting a particular pas- sage, I object to that form of question. Mr. Mdrris — He answered it. Mr. Porter— You interrupted him. Mr. Shearman- He was going on with something more when you interrupted him. Mr. Morris — He answered the question. Judge Neilson [to the Witness.]— Do you wish to add anything more ? A. Yes, Sir. Judge NeUson— Then add what you wish. The Witness [to Mr. Morris]— Will you put the ques- tion again? Mr. Morrie— I will put another question ; I don't wish to put a question again that has been answered. Mr. Shearman — The question is this : Wasn't it tech- nically correct to say that you took that manuscript to the publisher and said to him that it was Mr. Beecher's wish that it be published. That is the substance of Mr. Morris's question. Mr. IVIorris — No, it was whether it was technically cor- rect, because he had taken it during the middle of the day and he answered that once. The Witness fto Judge Neilsonl—Your Honor, I desire to say that I never took the Covenant to the publisher with a request from Mr. Beecher to publish it. T]»at is what I wish to say. Q. You had positively testified prior to tl^tthatyo i didn't take the Covenant at all, had you not ? A. I didn >t testify positively that I had not; if I did, I was mistaken, for I have since ascertained that I did take it to him. Q. Well, did you recollect when I was asking you those questions that you had taken it during the day ? A. I did not. Q. The circumstance that you had taken it as an excuse to have an interview with the publisher concerning Mr. Beecher's sermon referring to the Ring had entirely es- caped your recollection, had it ? A. It had. Q. Have you seen that publisher since 1 A. I have not. Q. Do you know whether he has been seen upon the sub- ject ? A. I do not. 160 THE TILTON-Bi Q. Now, didn't the publisher object to publishing that Covenant? A. I don't recollect that he did. Q. And didn't you say to him that it was Mr. Beecher's "Wish that it be published ? A. I did not. Q. Anything to that effect 1 A. I did not. Q. Did you give this testimony in answer to the ques- tion that I will now read : Q. Did you take with you and deliver to the publisher, on the night of the 29th of May, a copy of the Covenant for publication. A. I don't recollect that I did. My impres- sion is that I went with Mr. Howard— John R. Howard— or E. L. Ford. He took it. Q. Did you give that testimony? A. I presume so, if it is there ; I will give it now. Q. Do you state now positively that you had no conver- sation with the publisher in regard to the publication of that document ? A. I state that I did have conversation with him in regard to the publication of that document. Q. In the middle of the day ? A. In the middle of the day, if that was the time I saw him ; it was during that interview. Q. In regard to publishing it t A. "With regard to its publication. Q. You didn't leave it for publication, did youi A. I did not leave it for publication. Q. At that interview did the publisher make any objec- tion to publishing it 1 A. I don't recollect that he did. Q. Just reflect for a moment ; did he not object to pub- lishing it? A. I don't recollect that he did. Q. And was not the object of the visit to the office in the evening for the purpose of inducing him to publish it? A. No, Sir. Q. It was not? A. No, Sir. Q. Well, if you^:went there with these gentlemen to read tiie proofs, did you see them that night ? A. I don't know that I went there. Q. Did you see any proofs there that night ? A. I don't recollect that I did. Q. WUl you say that you did not ? A. I will not. Q. Will you say that you didn't say to that publisher that Mr. Beecher wanted the Covenant published ? A. I will. * Mr. «hearman— We have had that about 14 times, your Honor, and I submit that we ought not to have it any more. Mr. ftlorris— We will mark it 15 then, and stop. Q. Have you any recollection of the conversation that occurred at the office in the evening ? A. I have not. Q. Do you recollect how long you were at the office 1 A. When? Q. In the evening 1 A. I don't recollect being in the office. Q. What is your present raeoUection upon that point ? A. I have ifo distinct recollection about that evening. I have a partial recollection that I went over with one of tlic gentlemen named, but it is not distinct in my mind. EC HER TBIAL. Q. Your recollection, then, upon that subject was mora clear when you testified at the house than it now is ? Mr. Shearman— If your Honor please, this is about the twentieth time we have had this question brought up. I have tried to be patient thus far. Mr. Morris— Don't lose your patience ; don't weary in well doing. Ms. Shearman— If the twentieth time would be the last time, I would not object. It seems likely to be asked 500 times. Mr. MoiTis— No, I will limit it to the number you sug- gest. Mr. Shearman— Limit it to 20 times and then I won't object. Q. Was your recollection, when you testified at the house on that subject, clearer than it now is 1 A. I don't think it was, Sir. Q. Well, then, what do you mean by this : My recollection of that is, that the gentleman I went with went to read proof and see that the publication of the Covenant the next morning was correct— that it ac- corded with the original. You have no such present recollection now ? A. I tes- tified, I think, that I had a partial recollection of going to the offices of the newspapers in the evening with one of the gentlemen named, who went to read proof. Q. Have you that recollection now ? A. I have an in- distinct recollection now of going, but it is not clear in my mind. Q. And that that was the purpose— to read proof 1 A. That was the purpose, if I went. Q. You saw Mr. Beecher on the 25th of June ? A. I did. Q. In 1873 ? A. 1873. Q, You saw him on the 26th of Jime, I believe. 1874, did you not? A. I did. Q. Where did you see him on that day, first? A. I saw him at his house. First, I saw him on the horse-cars, going down Beekman-st. Q. What time in the day was that? A. About 4 o'clock, I think. Q. In the afternoon ? A. In the afternoon. Q. And what time did you see him after that at his house ? A. Between 5 and 6. Q. Did you. go right over ? A. t went over about 5 o'clock. Q. Did you go to his house? A. I did. Q. In consequence of any invitation? A. In conse- quence of an invitation. Q. What is that 1 A. Yes, Sir ; what I understood to be an invitation. Q. In the afternoon of the 26th of June, Mr. Beecher suggested the names of certain gentlemen, did he not upon whom he meant to call to investigate the charges contained in the Bacon letter? A. He did. Q. Did he name you as one of those persons? A. He did. TESTTJIOXI OF HFXFY M. CLETFLAXD. 161 Q. You yreve asked tliat question -wlieii you \irere ex- amined at your liouse, were you not J A. I don't re- member. Q. You don't remember ttiat 1 Mr. Shearman— XoTv. your Honor, I have submitted to a great many ciuestions being asked inthisindetinite^vay, but I noTv insist tliat tlie paper siiall be siio^vn to tlie -^t- ness. Mr. Morris— I will do that. Jud^e Xeilson— Turn to the question and answer. Mr. Morris— I will do that. Q. "^ile I am doing this. Mr. Cleveland, will you state the names oi the gentlemen that he did suggest there in the afternoon ? A. He named seven or eight,. Sir. Mr. Morris- That does not hardly answer my question. The Witness— He named Hemw TV. Sage ; he named Horace B. Claflin ; he named, in fact, all the members of the Coumiittee but one. I think. Q. State all the names that he named? A. The members of the Committee, all but one, I think. Q. Give us the names of the persons that he named there in the afternoon ? A. He named all the members of the Committee— Mr. Belcher, ]!-Ir. Hawkins, Mr. Shear- man. Q. Which Mr. Shearman ? A. Thomas G. Shearman. Q. One of the counsel here. Well, have you named all now 1 A. That is as I recollect it. Q. You say 3Ir. Beecher suggested your natne ? A. I Think he did : that is my recollection. Q. Any doubt al>out it ? A. I haore gi-eat doubts about anything I said when I was on my back. Q. If you say it ncrw. you are not on youxback ? A. No, Sir. Q. What do yoni say about it now ? A, I simply state that he named ?even or eight gentlemen. Mr. Morris— Xo. no, no ; that is not my question. Q. Did he name you as one of those gentlemen 1 Mr. Shearman— He has answered that ali-eady. Mr. Morris— How has he answered it? Mr. Shearman— Hl^ said he did. Mr. Morris— Well, now, I will ask you this question : Can you recollect any name he suggested ? Mr. Shearman— Well, he has m.entioned the names. Mr. Morris— I am not through yet ; I will go back p. lit- tle further. Q. Were you not asked this question, and did you not make the following answer : Q. What names did he suggest ? A. I cannot recollect. Q. Can you recollect any name that he suggested ? A. I cannot state. Sir. Q. Didn't he suggest you ? A. He did not. A. Then I desire to make the correction. Q. That is not correct? Xow, prior to his naming you at one of the members of the Committee on the afternoon ot June 26, had Mr. Beecher advised with you at all with reference to the subject matter of the investigation? A. Prior to that afternoon he had not. Q. Did he that afternoon 1 A. He did. Q. Xow. are you positive that prior to your meeting him at his house, between 5 and 6 o'clock, he had not advised with you with reference to thi subject matter oi the investigation? A. I am positive. Q. You are positive ? Mr. Shearman— He says he did. If I understand your question, you asked him if he did not, and he says he did. :Mr. Beach— He says now he didn't. The Witness— Will you repeat the question 1 Mr. Shearman— You don't understand the ciuestion. Mr. Morris— It is very simple. M];. Beach— The question is plain and simple. Mr. Evarts — Allow me to ask you, Mr. Morris, will you be likely to be through with the witness soon, for it is our usual hotir of adjournment ? Mr. Morris— Oh, no. Sir ; we will take the whole after- noon. The Witness— Will you please finish this question 1 Judge Xeilson [to the stenogrf^^her]— Bead the last few questions and answers, and let us have an answer before we go. Mr. Morris— Leave it as it is ; it is right. :Mr, Beach— Mr. Cleveland evidently misunderstood it. Judge Xeilson— Let the stenographer read the last two questions and answers, and let us have this matter fixed before the adjournment. Mr. Mor!^— Bead the guestion. The Tribime stenographer read the question as follows : " Q. Now, prior to his naming you as one of the mem- bers of the Committee, on the afternoon of June 26, had Mr. Beecher advised with you at all tu reference to the subject matter of the investigation? A. Prior to that afternoon he had not. " Q. Did he that afternoon? A. He did. " Q. Now, are you positive that prior to your meeting him afc his house between five and sis o'clock he had not advised with you with reference to the subject matter of the investigation at all ? A. I am positive." Ju(](ge Neilson — Are these answers satisfactory? Mr. Beach— He says he met him in the course of that afternoon prior to his going to his house. Mr. Evarts— We had better adjourn now. Mr. Morris— All right. It is time for recess, and we will take our recess accordingly. The Court here took a recess till 2 o'clock. THE AFTEEXOOX SESSION. The Court met at 2 p. m. pursuant to ad- journment. Henry M. Cleveland was recalled and the cross-ex- amination resumed. 3Ir. Morris— Mr. Cleveland, I understand jou to say that you saw :Mi'. Beecher in the afternoon of the 26th of 162 THE TimON-BEblOHEB TBIAL. June, about 4 o'clock, and went to liis house between 5 and 6. You said that you went by invitation. Will you state how that invitation was given 1 A. By a beckoning from a car in Beekman-st. Q. In which he was riding % A. He was riding. Q. And that you think was about 4 o'clock in the after- noon ? A. As I recollect it. Q. And you went to his house in consequence of his having beckoned to you ? A. I did. Q. Let me call your attention to your former testi- mony. Speaking of this interview at Mr. Beecher's house, were you not asked this question : " Did you go there by " Mr. Shearman— "What page is it 1 Mr. Morris— Page 90. *' Did you go there by invitation ? A. I did not." Q. Did you so state on your former examiuation? A.I don't recollect ; I so state no-v5*-invitation in language. Q. Well, when you made that answer, did you mean thart you had not been invited by word ? A.I did. Q. And you at that time did not regard the beckoning as an invitation, as you now regard it ? A. I regarded it as an act of invitation. Q. Didryou then regard ft as an invitation to you to go and see him ? A. An invitation, by the act. Q. Yes, and you said that you did not go by invitation. Now let me read a little further: Had you seen Mr. Beecher that dayl A. I saw him that day. Q. Where? A. At his house. Q. Before you went to his house ? A. No, Sir. Did you so testify previously ? A. I think not. Mr. Beach— Show him the minutes. Mr. Morris— Look there at the minutes and say whether you did or not. [Handing witness the testimony. | It is marked. A. I meant by that answer. Sir, that I had no personal meeting or conversation with Mr. Beecher that day until I met him at his house. Q. Ah ! This question is, had you seen him before you went to his house that day, and you answer no ; is that true ? A. I could not have answered in that way. Q. Well, look again, and say whether you did answer just as it is put there. A. I simply say in regard to that Q. Didyoumaketheanswerjustasit is put there, in the language that I have read ? A. I say distinctly Q. No, no, Mr. Cleveland ; did you answer in the pre- cise language as recorded there by the stenographer ? A. If I Q. No, no. Did you or did you not 1 Judge Neilson— State your recollection. Mr. Morris— Did you or did you not ? A. I may have said no, Sir. Q. Do you mean to say now that you don't recollect whether you did or not ? Mr. Shearman— Mr. Morris, I don't believe this can be correctly reported. Mr. Morris— It is correctly reported. There are a great many things that you imagine are not correctly reported. Mr. Shearman— I don't believe, if your Honor please, that this can be a correct report. Mr. Beach— WeU, this is irregular. Mr. Morris— It is a correct report. Mr. Beach— This is irregular. Mr. Shearman— Why is it iiregular ? Mr. Beach— Why, for you to dispute the stenographer's minutes on our cross-examination. Mr. Morris— It is the official report of the testimony taken by the official stenographer of this Court, and is correct. Judge Neilson— Well, go on. Mr. Shearman [at the same time]— I say it is not. Mr. Morris— Well, I say it is correct. Now, Mr. Cleve- land, is it true that you had not seen Mr, Beecher on the 26th of June, before you went to his house between 5 and 6 o'clock ? A. It ifl not true. Q. It is not true ? A. That is not a true answer. THE INVESTIGATING COMMITTEE AP- POINTED. Q. Very well; we will take that. You have stated, Mr. Cleveland, that on the afternoon at your in- terview with Mr. Beecher, he named the persons who subsequently acted as members of the Investigating Com- mittee, including yourself. Now, were any additional names— persons named in the evening by Mr. Beecher when you went there after prayer-meeting? A. There were seven or eight names discussed at the interview in the afternoon, and again in the evening. Q. I am asking you whether Judge Neilson— He says, " again in the evening.'* Mr. Morris [continuing]— Whether Mr. Beecher named any persons in the evening who subsequently acted as members of that Committee? Mr. Evarts— He has answered it. Mr. Morris— How did he answer? l\lv. Evarts—" Seven or eight in the afternoon ;" and they were discussed again in the evening. Mr. Morris—" Seven or eight in the afternoon that is not an answer, Mr. Evarts—" And they were discussed again in the evening." Mr. Beach— That is not an answer. Mr. Morris— That is not an answer, but it suggests another question to me, and we will get at that. Do you say that there were seven or eight named in the after- noon ? A. I do. Q. Give me the names of those. Mr. Tracy— I submit that the witness has been asked that question. Mr. Morris— No, he has not given that, Mr. Tracy— I appeal to the record. Mr. Morris— Let the record be read. Ti:sTnioyF of he^ Judge Neilson— He said, " Seven or eight, " Mr. Tracy— Seren or eiglit ^vas the niun'ber stated by the witness. Mr. Evarts— He stated all the number that were ap- pointed . Mr. Morris— I asked hii-n to name the persons whom Mr. Beecher suggested in the afternoon, and he gave me some names, but he has not given me seven or eight. Now, it there were seven or eight named in the after- noon, I want to Imow who they were. Mr. Evarts— Xow, your Honor, this is a pure question of fact. Mr. Morris— That is precisely what it is. Mr. Evarts— The witness testified that Mr. Beecher named all the persons who were finally on the Commit- tee, except one, and then gave two or three names be- sides. Mr. Morris— Well, what of that ? Mr. Evarts— That makes eight people. Mr. Beach— What if it does 1 IMi-. Evarts— Mr. Morris said it did not. Mr. Beach— What of that? Mr. Evarts— Nothing. Mr. Morris— You say that he named seven or eight in the afternoon; I dispute it ; now, I want the names. Mr. Evarts— We object. Judge Neilson— I do not recollect how many he named. Mr. Tracy- T appeal to the record. Ml-. Morris— We both appeal to it. Judge Neilson— It will take a long time to find it. Mr. Beach— We have another fact stated in regard to a transaction in the evening, and we want to bring them together. Judge Neilson— Can you readily enuraerate the persons named ia the afternoon ? The Witness— If your Honor please, I wi]1 make a very short statement of the interview in the afternoon ? Judge Neilson— He wants the names. Mr. Morris— I am not asking for that, Mr. Cleveland. Judge Neilson— Can you state the names of those named in the afternoon readily— the names under discus- sion? ]Mr. Beach— Mr. Cleveland, wiU you aUow me to caution you to name only those whom you remember to have been suggested in the afternoon. Judge Neilson— Well, in the afternoon. They were who? Mr. Beach— That is, if you can remember them as dis- tinct from those named in the evening. The Witness— My clearer recollection of the Interview in the afternoon— clearer thari when T was examined upon my sick bed— i--^ tjiut Mr Morris— Mr. Clevelam, v.-ere you examined upon your feicl' bed; Mr. Tr-ic • i cutmuT tnat Tlie witness should be permit- ted to u,ii-> wer BY M. CLEYELAXB. 163 Judge Neilson— Yes, certainly. Go on. Mr. Morris— Well, go on ; I will get it afterward Judge Neilson— Go on, IVIr. Cleveland. The Witness— The names that were suggested by Mr. Beecher that afternoon were Henry W. Sage, Horace B. Claflin, Augustus Storrs, Judge Benedict, Deacon Haw- kins, Mr. Garbut ; I am not clear about my own ; my name was mentioned either in the afternoon or in the evening ; my best recollection is that mine came in tlie evening. Q. Haven't you already testified that you were named in the afternoon ? Mr. Evarts — Let him finish his answer. Mr. Morris— He has got through. Haven't you already testified that you were named by Mr. Beecher in the afternoon ? Mr. Evarts — Let the witness answer before you ask an- other question. Mr. Beach— If any other names were stated, he can name them. Mr. Morris — I understood him to be through. The Witness — Those were the principal names. Q. Any others named? A. I cannot swear positively. There were some seven or eight or nine names in Mr. Beecher's mind that afternoon. Q. Now, have you given the list of names of persons that you gave on your examination before at your house % A, I am not sure that I have. Q. Now, who were named in the evening by Mr. Beecher? A. About the same list of names was dis- cussed in the evening ; there may have been one or two changes. Q. Did he name any additional names in the evening that had not been named ia the afternoon by him 1 A. My mind is not clear on that. Q. Didn't he name Mr. Winslowi A. Mr. Wiaslow's name was before the conJerence in the evening. Q. Mr. TSTiite. Was there a conference in the evening with reference to the names who should be upon the Committee? .A. That question was discussed in the evening. Q. Was there a conference upon that subject ! A. Yes, Sir. Q. I understood you that Mr. Beecher had named aU the persons who acted upon the Committee % A. You un- derstood me Mr. Shearman— With one exception. ^Ir. Morris— What exception was tliat t The Witness— What was the questioa ? Q. What person nid not Mr. Beecher name who formed a part of that Committee ? A. My recollection Is that the name of :Mr. Winslow was suggested by somebody Q. Who suggested it ? A. I think I did. Q. Now haven't you sworn, 3Ii'. Cleveland, that yon suggested no name of that Committee f Mr. Shearman- Wair; a moment ; I object to that. 164 IBM TILTON-BEBGEEB TBIAL. ISx. Morris— I ask you the question. Mr. Shearman— I object to it. Mr Morris— What is the objection 1 Mr. Shearman— I object on the ground that it must be shown to the witness ; what he has said on that subject- ISO pages of cross-examination. Mr. Morris— We will find it. [To the witness.] Is that the only name that was suggested to Mr. Beecher 1 A. I cannot give all the details of the discussion of names that afternoon and evening. Q. I am not aslring you about that. Is that the only name that was suggested to Mr. Beecher ? Mr. Shearman— Does that question mean at any time 1 Mr. Morris— At the conference in the evening. Judge Neilson— In other words, do you recollect any other name. Mr. Cleveland, that was suggested, besides Mr. Winslow's ? A. It is true, in fact, that all the names were suggested to Mr. Beecher ; that is to say, the names were in the minds of other gentlemen interested in that matter, leading names in Plymouth Church and society, which occurred also to Mr. Beecher when he made up his mind to demand an investigation. Q. Now, I ask you again who first suggested the names who acted upon that Investigating Committee, with the exception of Mr. Winslow's name? Mr. Shearman— I ask that the counsel let the witness understand whether he is referring to a particular inter- view, or any interview. Of course, that makes a material diflference. Mr. Morris— I am referring to what the question im- plies. I ask him who first suggested the names of the persons who composed that Committee, with the ex- ception of Mr. Winslow. That is a very simple question. Mr. Shearman— I take it that means at any interview. Mr. Morris- It means just what it says. Judge Neilson— It must be either the afternoon or even- ing. You are really inquiring about the evening. WeU, Mr. Cleveland. Mr. Shearman— It means at any interview. ^tr. :m orris— Oh, never mind, Mr. Shearman. We will get along. Mr. Slioarman— Wei!, we are tiying to get along. Mr. Morris— I dnn't want any assistance. [Examining the testiiJiony taken at Mr. Cleveland's house.J Ml . Evarts— That is not neces.sai-y. Mr. Beach— It is made necessary by the last answer of the wrtiTiess. Mr. Shearman— If your Honor please, this remark of counsel obliges me to say tiiat it is really made necessary by the fact that coimsel undertakes first to ask separately ab"ou % A. You asked my personal recollection ? Judge Neilson— Yes. The AVitness— I said personally, for myself, that my recollection of that matter was that Mr. Richards had no testimony to give to that Committee bearing upon that case. Mr, Beach— How did you learn that 1 A. I don't recol- lect that precisely, except Q. What ? A. That is my recollection. Q. Well, you are asked how you learned it. Mr. Sheannan— Who told you thati A. It probably came from him. Mr. Beach— Probably 1 Mr. Shearman— Well, that is an answer. Mr. Beach— No, it is not an answer, Mr. Shearman— The question is how he learned that Mr. Richards had nothing to say. The Witness— If your Honor please, I cannot recollect definitely all the details of that long examination. Judge NeHson— No, of course. The Witness— I cannot undertake, at this distance from that investigation, to state the reasons for the— in regard to the examination of the Committee. ]yir. Morris— We are not talking about that. "We are simply asking about one particular fact— namely, how you knew Mr. Richards had nothing to say I A. I have simply this recollection— that Mr. Richards made no statement to the Committee, because he had none to make. IMr. Morris— How did you learn that 1 The Witness— I don't recollect how I knew it. Judge Neilson— The other inquiry is how yon knew that ? State, if you recollect how it came to your knowl* edge. The Witness— I don't recollect. Judge Neilson— That is an answer. Mr. Morris— Was either of the counsel there at the time that Mr. Richards was before the Committee ! A. I have no clear recollection about that. Q. Do you recollect Mr. Tracy being there ? A. I dont recoUect. Q. Do you recollect his having an interview with Mr. Richards before he came before the Committee ? A. I don't recollect what Q. Mr. Cleveland, were you at the White Mountains 1 A. I was. Q. In October last ? A. No, Sir. Q. What time ? A. I left there the 4th day of Septem- ber. Q. You were there during September I A. No, Sir ; I was there a week. Q. Was ]VIr. Beecher there at that time ? A. He was. Q. Did you go from there to Boston t A. I came to Boston on my way home. 174 THE TILTON-JBE Q. Was there a reason vrhy you took that homeward route 1 A. There was. Q. You went there for the purpose of seeing Mr. Moul- ton ? A. I went there to see Mr. Eedpath. Q. With reference to what 1 A. In response mainly to a telegram— two or three telegrams, from him, and a joint telegram from Gov. Claflin and Mr. Kennard of Boston. Q. Did Mr. Beeeher Imow of the ohject of your Visit to Boston ? A. He knew that I was going to Boston. Q. Did he know the object of your going there ! A. Not Q. Do you mean to say that he did not 1 A. He did not know what was the object— how the object was to be ac- complished. Q. Did he know the object? A. I insist, your Honor, upon making the statements, as they are true. Q. Did or did not Mr. Beeeher know of the ob]eot of your vivsiting Boston t A. He knew that I was to go to Boston and see Mr. Eedpath. Q. That does not answer my question ? Judge Neilson— Let him go on and answer further. Mr. Morris— No. It is a simple question; did Mr. Beeeher know (I ask for your knowledge now) the object of your visit to Boston? A. He knew that Mr. Beach— We do not ask what the object was ; we ask you if he knew of your object. Mr. Morris — Yes or no. Mr. Shearman— I submit that that does not admit of an answer yes or no. I suppose the difficulty in the wit- ness's mind is that Mr. Beaoher knew a part of the object, but did not know all of it, did not know the details. Now the witnesses are being instructed by the counsel on the other side that they must answer with great precision. Mr. Morris— You had a conversation with Mr. Beeeher before going to B.oston 1 A. I had, Sir. Q. About the purpose of your going to Boston? A. Yes, Sii'. Q. Now, was Mr. Beeeher aware of your purpose of go- ing to Boston ? A. He was. Mr. Morris — There, it takes a good while to get at a simple answer. [To the witness.] Look at that paper I handing paper to witness]. A. I see it. Q. Do you recollect such a telegram being sent ? A. I do not. Q. Look at those [handing witness other papers] and say if you know anything about them. Do you know anything about this one? A. I cannot translate it. Sir. Q. Do you recollect such a dispatch being received at the White Mountains ? A. I recollect there was a dispatch received at the White Mountains in Latin— if that is Latin. [Mr. Shearman here made a whispered remark to Mr. Morris.J Mr. Beach— What was that remark ? Mr. Morris- He aaks if they are originals. ECHEB TRIAL. Mr. Beach [to Mr. Morris]— Prove them by your wit- ness. Mr. Morris— Yes, I guess they are the originals. Mr. Morris — Just look at this, Mr. Cleveland, and SDute who sent this telegram % Mr. Beach— State whether this telegram passed. The Witness— I cannot state that. Mr. Morris— Can you state whether this telegrain passed between the parties indicated— whether Mr. Beocher sent such a telegram ? A. I cannot. Q. This one you say you know about ? A. I do not ; I didn't intend to say so, and did not. Q. You did not ? A. I did not ; I didn't write one of them, and know nothing about them. Q. Don't you know that such telegrams were sent to Mr. Redpath by Mr. Beeeher ? Mr. Evarls— If your Honor please, this is not a proper mode of proving communications ; communications are to be proved by the originals. Judge Neilson— If they can be found. Mr. Evarbs— In the absence of the origmals they can be shown by copies. These are not this witness's telegrams ; they are not to him or by him. Mr. Morris— That don't prove that he may not know of the fact that they were telegrams from Mr. Beeeher. Mr. Evarts— It proves that he is not to speak concern- ing those telegrams until you lay the basis for it by show- ing the reason for not producing the originals. Mr. Morris— We cannot show they are not originals, because they are not in our possession. Mr. Shearman— I suppose most papers produced in a case are not in the possession of a party. Get them by subpenas, the way we get our telegrams. NEW DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. Mr. Morris — Just looli at tliat again, Mr. Cleveland, and state whether you went to Boston with any document in your possession furnished by Mr. Beeeher— sent by Mr. Beeeher ? A. I went to Boston and stopped at Boston at Mr. Beecher's request. Q. Did you go with documentary power to act con- clusively in his behalf, or f uUy in his behalf ? A. I went with his instructions. Q. No, no. Did you go, in the language of this docu- ment, with full documentary power to act conclusively in his behalf 1 Mr. Shearman— That is not a proper question to ask. If they ask whether he went with documentary power to act, I don't object; but if he asks whether he went with full documentary power, I object. Mr. Morris [to the witness]— I ask whether you did not go, in the language of this telegram, with full document- ary power to acti Judge Neilson— Counsel objects that this is inquiring into the content* of the paper. Suppose you limit you» question. TES'LIMONY OF J Mr. Morris— Have you got the power— have you got the paper 1 A. I don't know. Q. Where is it f A. I don't know where it is. Q. Can you produce it ? A. I don't know whether I can or not. Q. How ? A. I don't know ; possibly. Mr. Morris— Then we will have the originals produced. Now, I ask you if you did go Mr. Shearman— We have got the paper. [Mr. Shearman here handed a paper to Mr. Morris.] Mr. Morris— Is that the document [handing paper to witness] ? A. That is the paper I took, Sir. Mr. Morris— We offer it in evidence^ Judge Neilson— Whose writing is it Mr. Morris— Mr. Beecher's. Judge Neilson— Now, go on. Mr. Morris— [Reading:] Sept. 4, 1874. To Whom it May Concern : I have requested Mi'. Henry M. Cleveland to proceed to Boston as my alternative and representative. I hereby authorize him to hear and de- termine, in my behalf, all matters whatsoever in relation to the scandals which have arisen, and I give him au- thority to sign my name to any arrangements and docu- ments which may, in his judgment, be needful, and I will accept his agreements as if made by myself. Henky Ward Beecher. [Paper marked Exhibit 122.] Mr. Morris— Now, Mr. Cleveland, what scandal was re- ferred to in this document ? A. That document referred to Mr. Moulton's connection with this scandal. Q. What scandal does this document refer to % A. Gen- eral scandal. Q. The one now under investigation ? A. It referred — the paper referred to Q. To the scandal now under investigation ? A. To Mr. Moulton's participation in the scandal. Q. Do you mean to say it referred alone to Mr. Moul- ton's connection with the scandal 1 A. I mean to say I don't know what it referred to. That was given to me by Mr. Beecher as a ci'edential that the Boston parties who had anything to say might say it to me. Q. You mean to say that you don't know what scandal this referred to ? A. I have no idea ; I didn't write it. Q. Well, Mr. Cleveland, have you any idea now what scandal this referred to? A. It referred to telegraphic correspondence with Mr. Eedpath. Q. And was that the scandal % A. All I know of -fliat "was that it was my credential to Mr. Redpath. Q. Credential to whom ? A. To Mr. Redpath. Q. For what purpose? A. To hear anything he had to say. Q. You were sent simply to listen— that is all, is it ? that is the way you understood it ? A. That was my au- thority—to hear Mr. Redpath. Q. To hear what he had to say ? A. My authority. Q. Your understanding of your mission to Boston was to hear what Mr. Redpath had to say ? A. I mean to say iMES h. LITTLE. 175 I had my iastructions from Mr. Beecher. That was siro ply my authority — to hear what was to be said. Q. To be said about what ? A. Anything that Mr. Red path had to say. Q. About what? A. Anything. Q. About anything ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. And you were not sent on for any specific purpose t A. I was requested to see Mr. Redpath. Q. For what purpose? Mr. Tracy— He is telling, I submit. J udge Neilson— Go on, Mr. Cleveland. The Witness — I was requested to stop in Boston, in re- sponse to this telegram from Gov. Claflin and others, to hear what Mr. Redpath had to say to Mr. Beecher, growing out of the telegraphic correspondence. That letter was my authority to hear for Mr. Beecher. My instructions were given to me by Mr. Beecher. Q. Well, that was all that you was authorized to do, to hear what Mr. Redpath had to say ? A. The letter shows its authority. [By consent of counsel this witness was req' ested to stand aside, to permit the examination of another witness.] EXAMINATION OF DR. JAMES L. LITTLE. James L. Little, a witness called and sworn on behalf of the defendant, testihes as follows : Mr. Hill— Where do you reside? A. 266 West Forty- second-st.. New- York. Q. How long have you resided there ? A. Since 1862. Q. Your profession ? A. Physician. Q. How long have you been engaged in its practice! A. Fourteen years. Q. Did you ever reside in Brooklyn ! A. I did. Q. During what period ? A. Up until 1872. Q. Practicing here ? A. No, Sir. Q. Do you know the i>arties to this suit, Mr. Tilton and Mr. Beecher? A. I have seen them frequently. Sir. Q. How long have you known Mr. Tilton ? A. I don't know, Sir ; for many years I was not personally ac- quainted with him. Q. Were you a member of Plymouth Church at any time ? A. I was. Q. Did you see him there much 1 A. Frequently. Q. Knew him perfectly well ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Now, Dr. Little, did you see the Communist pro- cession which has been referred to dm'ing the progress of this trial ? A. I did. Q. Do you recollect whether you saw IMr. Tilton in it or not ? A. I did. Q. Please state under what circumstances you sa-*^ him — who was he with ? A. He was in a carriage witk a woman, who was pointed out to me at that time as Miss Claflin. Q. Did you see Mrs. Woodhull in that procession? A. 176 TEE TILTOJ^'BEF^CHEB TRIAL. Til. ere a -woman -walMng in front of the carriage that was pointed out to me as Mrs. WoodhulL Q. Immediately In front of the carriage 1 A. Yes, Sir ; I think so. Q. Where was the procession at the time that you saw it? A. Passing through Thirty-fourth-st., near Sixth- ave. Q. Let me ask you this : Did the whole prooession pass you? A. Yes, Sir. Q. So that you saw all of it 1 A. Yes, Sir. Mr. Hill— That is aU. Mr. Morris— That is all. Mr. Beach— No, wait a moment. "We want to get some facts. CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DR. LITTLE. Mr. Beacli— Was this a covered or an open car- riage? A. It was an open carriage. Q. How many persons were in it? A. I don't know whether any one occupied the front seat. Q. How many persons will you swear yoasawiniti A. I only remember two persons in the carriage. Q. A gentleman and lady ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Sitting on the hack seat? A. Sitting on the back seat ; yes, Sir. Q. And whereabouts was the carriage when you noticed those two persons ? A. In what part of the procession, do you mean? Q. Whereabouts in the street 1 A. In Thirty-fourth-st., near Sixth-ave. Q. In Thirty-fourth-st., near Sixth-ave.? A. Yes, Sir; very near Dr. Taylor's Church. Q. Which way was it passing? A. It was passing to- ward Sixth-ave. Q. And which way were you going? A. I was standing on the sidewalk, looking at the procession. Q. Which way did you go ? A. I don't remember ; I thlok I went directly home after that. Q. Which way was that ? A. Toward Sixth-ave. Q. Toward Sixth-ave.? A. Yes, Sir. Q. The same du-eotion with the procession ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Did you accompany it ? A. No, Sir. Q, On the sidewalk, along ? A. No, Sir. Q. Did it accompany you ? A. I stood on the sidewalk until the procession passed. Q. And did you observe the head of the procession as it came to you ? A. I saw the head of the procession ; yes. Sir. Q. Whereabouts was this carriage in reference to the procession itself ? A. I don't remember, Sir. Q. Was it at the head of the procession ? A. I don't know ; I think not at the head. Q. Was it at the foot of the procession ? A. Not at the foot of the procession ; it was near the head. Q. It was near the head ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. What was in front o the procession— what was the leadership ? A. I don't remember whether it was a band of music or not. Q. Are you quite certain that there were not two ladies in this carriage ? A. I could not be certain there was not some one on the front seat ; I am not certain of that. Q. You say this lady you do remember was pointed out to you as Miss Claflin ? A. She was sitting in the back seat with a gentleman whom I knew to be Mr. Tiiton. Q. Yes, I understand that. If there had been a lady on the front seat, would you not also have inqLulred who she was ? Was there any object in inquiring for this particu- lar lady on the back seat ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. What was it ? A. To see Miss Claflin. Q. You inquired whether it was Miss Claflin ? A. She was pointed out to me as Miss Claflin by a gentleman who was standing alongside there. Q. Who was he ? A. I don't remember. Q. Did you know him at the time 1 A. That I don't re- member. I met several gentlemen at the time I was in that vicinity, but I cannot remember who it was who spoke to me or talked to me at that time. Q. And you say you saw a lady in front of the carriage, on foot? A. Yes, Sir. Q. And she was pointed out to you as Mrs. Woodhull 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. Then, if the designations were properly given to you, it was not Mrs. Woodhull who was in the carriage if any other lady was there but Miss Claflin 1 A. No. Sir. Q. Could not have been ? A. No, Sir— if the gentleman who pointed out to me these ladies gave me the right names. Q. Who was walking with Mrs. Woodhxill ? A. I do not remember. There might be some gentleman walking along side of her, but I don't remember about that. Q. Was she carrying anything ? A. She was carrying a flag, I think. Q. What sort of a flag ? A. I think it was a red flag. Q. Was there any symbol upon it— any inscription? A. That I don't remember. Sir. Q. What ? A. I do not remember. Q. Did you ever speak to Mr. Tiiton ? A. I have been introduced to him several times. Q. You have been Introduced to him several times! When was the last time ? A. When T was an attendant upon Mr. Beecher's church. Q. When was that ? A. That was before 1862. Q. You have not spoken to blm since ? A. No, Sir. Q. Can you give any description of his apparel upon this occasion? A. No, Sir. Q. You identified him frcm the appearance of hla clothes ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. You were standing still while the procession moved in front of you ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. And past you ? A . Yes, TJESTIJIONY OF EE, Q. Was tliere any otlier carriage in the procession ? A. I do not remember, Sir. Q. you don't remember any other, do you? A. No, Sir. Q. You remember but one carriage ? Do you know Mr. Swinton— John Swinton'J A. No, Sir. Q. Do you know Mr. Yotmg of the staff of The Serald ? A. No. Sir. Mr. Beach— That is all. RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION OF DR. JAMES L. LITTLE. Mr. Hill— Doctor, you did not Inow these two women personally ? A. No, Sir. Q. I will ask you, did you remark to any person, in the presence of Mr. Tilton, under the circumstances that you have named at that time or about that time Mr. Beach— Objected to. Judge Neilson— I don't think we can take that, Mr. Hill. Mr. Hill— Well. Judge Neilson [to Witness]— That is all. [To the jury.] Gentlemen, get ready to retire. The jurors will please attend to-morrow morning at 11 o'clock. The Court thereupon adjourned till Friday at 11 o'clock. SEVENTY-FIRST DAY'S PROCEEDINGS. A DRAMATIC SCENE AT THE CLOSE OF COURT. PEOTRACTED CROSS-EXAMINATION OF HENRY M. CLEVELAND— HIS MISSION TO BOSTON AND THE CONDITIONS WHICH MR. BEECHER IMPOSED— MR. MOULTON RECALLED FOR CROSS-EXAMINA- TION—THE FORMER CASHIER OF WOODRUFF & ROBINSON CONTRADICTS MR. MOULTON'S TESTI- MONY—THE WITNESSES FACE TO FACE. Friday, April 23. 1875. The cross-examination of Mr. Cleveland was con- cluded to-day. All the circumstances of his visit to Boston last FaU were described. Mr. Cleveland said that he went to Boston at Mr. Beecher's request, on the strength of a telegram from Mr. Redpath. The object of the visit was not to prevent the publi- cation of Mr. Moulton's second statement. Mr. Beecher told him to go to Boston and hear what Mr. Redpath had to say, but to remember that he (Mr. Beecher) would have nothing to do with any condition or arrangement affect- ing the scandals unless Mr. Tilton and Mr. Moulton withdrew all their charges affecting his moral character. The paper of authorization given him by Mr. Beecher was merely intended to attest ^is authority if it were doubted. He would never \RY M. CLEVELAND, 177 have exercised the full powers given him. The prin- cipal subject of the cross-examination was the action of the Investigating Committee. Mr. Cleve- land said that the statement in the Com- mittee's report that Samuel E. Belcher had testified that Mr. Tilton had shown him the " True Story" was incorrect. He did not testify that its title was the "True Story." When the cross-exam- ination was finally completed, about the middle of the afternoon session, there was a short re-direct ex- amination by Mr. Shearman. This was followed by a " re-cross," and then by a " re-re-direct" and a " re-re-cross," and fijially by a few hap-hazard questions put by several of the counsel on both sides. On the re-direct examination Mr. Cleveland stated that he had been sick for six weeks, that when he was examined at his house he was unable to sit up and in constant pain, and that his physi- cians has advised him that he was not physically able to attend in court. His nervous system was almost broken down. The witness was allowed to explain some of his former statements. He said that Mr. Beecher had at first suggested the names of Wm. M. Evarts, George William Curtis, and William Cullen Bryant as a committee to investigate the charges against him last year, and that Gen. Tracy and Mr. Shearman had advised him that a commit- tee composed of those gentlemen would not have immunity from libel suits, and that the only safe way would be to select a committee under the auspices of the Examining Committee of Plymouth Church. Mr. Cleveland said he had entered into no design with anybody to cause IVIrs. Tilton to leave her husband. There was a pause of several minutes and a buzz of expectation among the audience. Presently Mr. FuUerton came in, and soon afterward Mr. Moulton entered the court-room, and took the witness-chair. Instantly all the sleepers awoke, the jury became attentive, and a hush fell upon the audience. Mr. Moulton had been recalled by the defense, and some startling developments were looked for. Mr. Evarts's first question revealed the object for which Mr. Moulton had been recalled. He was to be confronted with Mr. Partridge, the former cashier of Messrs. Woodruff & Robinson, who on April 21 testified in regard to the memorandum which accompanied the check for $7,000 which Mr. Tilton received from Mr. Bowen. Mr. Evarts at that time sought to prove by Mr. Partridge that Mr, Moulton had told him that Mr. Tilton had written the "Life of Victoria Woodhull" 178 THE TIL TON -BE with the design of placing himself at the head of the Spiritualists of this country, who far outnumbered the Congregationalists. This was ruled out on the ground that it was not in contra- diction of anything that the prosecution had brought forward. Mr. Evarts was immediately checked in his examination of Mr. Moulton, by an ob- jection from the plaintiffs counsel, and long argu- ments followed between Mr. Beach and himself. Mr. Evarts explained that he was now seek- ing to lay the foundation for collateral impeachment, the want of which had prevented his introducing the testimony of Mr. Partridge on April 21. He was finally permitted to proceed. Mr. Moulton said that he did not remember the alleged conversation with Mr. Partridge. In regard to his telling him that Mr. niton's motive in writing the life of Mrs. WoodhuU was to place himself at the head of the Spiritualists, who outnumbered the Con- gregationalists, he knew of no such thing and said Qo such thing ; but he had an indistinct recollection that he had said that he had understood that the Spiritualists did outnumber the Congregationalists. He did not remember conversing with Mr. Partridge about Mr. Tilton's " Life of Victoria Woodhull." As soon as Mr. Moulton left the stand Samuel Dwight Partridge was called. Mr. Beach again objected to the testimony of Mr. Partridge. There was another passage of arms between himself and Mr. Evarts, but Judge Neilson allowed a question to be put to the witness corresponding to the one just asked of Mr. Moulton. Mr. Partridge then swore that Mr. Moulton had told him in substance, soon after the publication of the "Life" of Mrs. Wood- hull, that the author's object was to put himseK at the head of the Spiritualists, &c. The witness was cross-examined at considerable length by Mr. Beach in regard to the time and cir- cumstances of the alleged interview which he said took place at Messrs. Woodruff & Eobinson's store. THE PROCEEDINGS— VERBATIM. The Court met at 11 o'clock, a. m., pursuant to adjournment. Judge Neilson— Mr. Shearman, shall we proceed? Mr. Shearman— Yes, Sir. MR. CLEVELAND'S COMMISSION TO BOSTON. Henry M. Cleveland recalled, and the cross- examination resumed. Mr. Morris— Mr. Cleveland, 1 just hand that to you 'EC HER TRIAL. again. [Handing witness a paper.] Will you state as near as you can when you gave that to the lawyers— the counsel upon the other side 1 A. Within a week, I think. Q. Where was it that you gave it to them 1 A. In my room. Q. At No. 114 A. No. 114 Remsen-st. Q. And to which of the counsel did you hand iti A. To Mr. Shearman. Mr. Morris [to the jury]— It is the paper that was in- troduced yesterday. Mr. Beach— The " power" from Mr. Beecher. Mr. Morris— Can you tell the day that it was? A. I don't recollect the day. Q. When did y*u return from Connecticut 1 A. On Thursday. Q, Thursday of A. Of last week. Q. And was it during any day last week that you gave it to Mr. Shearman 1 A. Since Thursday of last week. Q. Then it ^\^s this week ? A. I don't recollect. Q. Or was it during last week ? A. I don't recollect the day ; it was since Thursday of last week. Q. Who spoke about it first ? A. I did. Q. What did you say to Mr. Shearman about itt A. I said that I had such a paper in my possession. Q. And you gave it to him ? A. I did. Q. Let me call your attention to your testimony yester- day with reference to this paper : Q. Have you got the *' power "—have you got the pa- per [referring to this paper] ? A. I don't know. Q. Where is it ? A. I don't know where it is. Was that true 1 A. That was true. Q. You did not know where it was ; what do you mean by that t please explain. A. I meant that I did not know now where it was when I testified ; I gave it to Mr. Shearman a week ago. Q. But you recollected the fact that you had given it to Mr. Shearman 1 A. 1 did. Q. Why didn't you state that fact 1 A. I don't know any reason why I did not. Q. How ] A. I don't know any reason why I did not. Q. And you supposed when you said you didn't know where it was, that Mr. Shearman had it, did you ? A. I didn't know. Q. You had given it to him a few days ago ? A. I had. Q. When you were asked the question where the paper was, you knew the object of the question, did you not ? A. I did not. Q. Didn't you understand the object, that I desired to ascertain where it was 1 A. I didn't know what subse- quent questions were coming. Q. No, but the questions that I did ask you ; T asked you where the paper was, and you said, " I don't know." [Reading] : Q. Have you got the power— have you got the paper t A. I don't know. Q. Wl)erei8it? A. T don't kuDW 'vli • TFSTnrOXT OF BEX. Didnt you suppose I asked rliat question for the purpose of ascertaining "where the paper -was ? 3Ir. Shearman— I suhmit, yo"ur Honor, that it is not nec- essary to go into all this. I was standing up at the very time trying to interrupt Judge Morris and trying to catch his attention, -with the paper in my hands. The witness did not know -whether I had got the paper or not. Mr. Morris— That is not the point. Didn't you suppose by that question that I "wanted to kno"w -where the paper ■was to ascertain that fact? A, I will ans"wer that in this way, that I gave the paper to Mr. Shearman after I returned from- — Q. No, no. A. I supposed that "when it "was proper to inti-oduce that paper it "would be introduced; that -was t«y supposition. Q. And that was the reason that you answered that you did not know where it was ? A. That was my reason. Q. Very well, we will let that pass. Xow, Mr. Cleve- land, do you recollect the date that you went to Boston from the White Mountains ? A. I do. Q. A\Tiat day w-as it ? A. Fourth of Xovemhe*. Mr. Shearman — September, you mean. The vritness — ^September, Imean, 1874. Mr. Morris— And prior to that the Committee had made its report, had they not ? A. It had. j Q. Do you recollect the date of that report ? A. The | 28th of August, I think. Q. Mr. Moulton had made his fli'st long statement, had he not 1 A. I think so ; I could not swear to that. Q. Don't you know that it had been published before the Committee made its report ? A. I think so. Q. Have you any doubt upon that question ] A. I don't recall the date ; I haye really no doubt. Q. "^ell, as to whether you saw that publication before the Committee made it^ report ? A. I unquestionably did. Q. How ? A. I did. I don't recollect the date of that pitbllcation. I think it was before the Committee re- ported. Q. Before going to Boston, you had heard that a second statement from Mr. MoiQton had been prepared, or was in com-se of preparation, had you not ! A. I had. Q. And that had been a matter of conference— convoi" eation between you and Mr. Beecher before you left the T^Tiite Mountains 1 A. I think so. Q. And you had heard something of the contents of that report, had you not— something of its nature and char- acter ? Mr. Shearman— The report 1 Ml-. Morris— Of the statement that Mr. Mo.^ton had prepared— the second statement. The Witness- 1 heard that it was to be ai; assault upon Mi\ Beecher. Q. Y hid 1". rued ganerally its purport.' A. I knew notbiUiT of ir- dL-tails. Q }h, no. You had learned that Mr. Moulton purposed J/. CLEYELAXD. 179 "Tindieatlng himself in that report against the charge of blackmail, ha-d you not ? A.' I had heard that he was going to make another long statement. Q. Did you not understand that that long statement was to be a "rlndication of Mr. Moulton, and especially as against the charge of blackmail ? A. I suppose that statement would cover all the points of Mr. Moulton's defense. Q. Now, you stated yesterday that you went to Boston solely "With reference to Mr. Moulton's connection "with this matter. Mr. Beach— Xot solely, he didn't say. Mr. Morris— Well, -with reference to Mr. Moulton's con- nection with the matter. Now was that the statement that he had prepared — was that the purpose 1 A. I meant to say— I mean to say that as I understand the telegraphic correspondence stated to me by :Mr. Beecher, that Mr. Eedpath desired Mr. Beecher to come to Boston to confer with him and other parties in regard to Mr. Moulton's statement. :Mr. Beach— Proposed statement. Mr. Mnrris— Proposed statement. The Witness — Proposed statement. Q. And the ultimate object had in "rlew -was to prevent the publloa*"ion of that statement, was it not ? A. It was not. Q. Tour visit to Boston, do you mean to say, had no reference to making an arrangement which wo"uld super- sede the necessity of publishing that statement 1 A. I mean to say Mr. Beach— No ; make him ariswer. Mr. Morris Now, answer that ciuestlon. Mr. Shearman— That question cannot be answered "by yes or no, if your Honor please. Mr, Morris— Win the stenographer read the question, please. The Tribime stenographer read the question as foUows : " Your visit to Boston, do yon mean to say, ha ination. Tlie Witness— Or submit to an examination. Mi\ Morns— Were you never informed that the hair- man of the Committee, Mr. Sage, received such a dis- patch from Mr. Moulton ? A. I am aware that Mr. Moul- ton was Invited — Mr. Beach— No. Mr. Morris — No, no. The Witness— I am not aware. Q. Now, after Mr. Moulton in his short statement be- fore the Committee had declined to present documents and letters, and make a detail statement there before you ma le your report, he offered to (jome before the Coniniit- tee ji ud make such statement and submit to a cross-exam- Ti:STJJiO^ Y OF IJEy iTinfion? A. My recollectiou of that is, that two or three di.ys before the report was read in Plymouth Church , Mr. Moulton's partners received a dispatch from him saying that he wanted to go before the Committee. The report htid already been written ready for delivery. Q. Had it been signed ? A. It had been signed. Q. Well, it had not been delivered ? A. It had not been ^. ead to the church. Q. And had not passed from the possession of the Com- mittee ? A. It had been concluded by the Committee. Q. Had it passed from the possession of the Committee ? A, It did not pass from the possession of the Committee until the evening of the 28th of August, or the afternoon of the 28th. Q. Had it at that time passed from the possession of the Committee— at the time of this communication ? A. I don't recollect when it went into the hands of the Exam- iuing Committee. Q. Was not this communication that you have spoken of before the 28th of August ? A. I think two or three days before. Q. You were in church w'-en the West charges were disposed of, were yon not ? A. I was not. I beg your pardon ; will you repeat yoi • question ? Q. Were you not present in tJie chuix*h when the West charges were disposed oil A. I think I was, when they were disposed of — I don't recollect. Q. The night that Mr. Tiltou was there ? A. I recollect, Sii': that I was there. Q. Do you know whether Mr, Sage was there that night, or not t A. I do not. Q. Or Ml'. Augustus Stons ? A. I do not. Q. Or Mr, Horace Claflin ? A. I do not. Q. Or any member of the Committee except yoBxself 1 A. I have no knowledge. Q. You heard the report read there that night? A. I did. Q. And you took part in the proceedings t A. I took no prominent part in the proceedii'^s. Q. But ynu participated in some degree? A. I was at the- meeting. Q. And voted ? A. I voted, Q. n what? A. I voted, I saiA. Q. WeU, now, Mr, Cleveland, the r-^port that was made there that night made specific reference to the West charges, and the fact that hey had been served upon Mr. Tilton, did they not ? A. I cannot reca'l to you the incidents of that evening. Ay INTERMEW WITH MR. HILTON. Q. Do you recollect of having an interview with Mr. Tilton at The Golden Age office shortly after the publication of the Bacon letter ? A. No, Sir, Q. In which you tried to dissuade him from replying to Dr. Bacon's letter? RY M. CLEVELAND. 191 ilr. Shearman— How could that be after the Baccii letter 1 3Ir. Evarts— After the publication'. Mr. Morris— I mean after the publication of the Bacon letter, and before the ptiblication of Mr. Tilton' s letter to Dr. Bacon, in which you dissuaded him from answering Dr. Bacon, and induced him to write a letter to the church; and that you would see that the matter was there investigated? A. You have got two interviews mixed. Sir. Q, I will ask you this question, then, if at any inter- view prior to his publication of the Bacon letter, and after the council, you did not say to Jim, in substance, that he ought not to reply to Dr, Bacon, but to send a letter to the church direct, and that you would see the charge A. Not in that form; I said to Mr. Tilton several times over Q. No, no; in substance? A. You have two things mixed. Mr. Morris— Well, I will try and get them straight. The Witness— Very well, then I will try aad answer youi' question. Mr. Morris— Did you say to Mr. Tilton that his better plan was, in substance, not to write a letter to Dr. Bacon, but to write a letter to the church? A, I said to Mr. Til- ton, in my store, that if he desired to join issue with Mr. Beecher, it was a manly way for him to prefer his charge against him direct, and not go around through Leonard Bacon, of New-Haven, and that I would guarantee Plymouth Chiu'ch would take his charges and investigate them. ^ IVIR. TILTON'S LETTEii TO THE CHURCH. Q. WeU, m. Tilton after that did wiite a letter to the church, iid he not ? A. He did not. Q. Look at that [handing letter to witness]. A. Not a^er he wrote the Bacon letter. Q. No, this is before the Bacon letter I am talking about. A. He wrote three— one to the pastor, and to the assistant pastor, and to the clerk of Plymouth Church, Q. i 3 that the letter [handing letter to witness] ? A. Yes, Sir, that is the l^'tter. J'^T. M jr^ 's— It is May 4, 1874, Mr. uearman— What is the number of the Exhibit f Jlr. Beach— It is in the case. Ui\ Morris— It is Exhibit 33. ]\Ir Shearman— No ; that is the " Bacon letter.' Mr. Morris— It is contained ia the " J^acon letter.** Mr. Beach— It is the letter of May 4, 1874, contained In the " Baeon letter" — quoted in the "iJacon letter." M--. Shearman— Exhibit 79 i? the c ne you now refer to. t.It. Morris [to the witness]— Well, do you know what action was taken with reference to the letter ? A. Yes, Sii\ Q. What ? A. It was discussed by a number of people Q. What action was taken by the church with reference 193 TEE IILTO^-B to tlie letter 1 A. No action was taken by tlie churcli, if I ren October 31, 3 873, when the West charges were, in a sense, finally disiiosed of, were you not 1 A. I was. Q. Do you or do you not remember that on that oooap sion no statement wns innfTc iiy rlie Evamininsr no-inni^" TESTIMOyT OF HEJSBY M. CLEVELAND. 195 ee, or by any otter person, of tlie nature of the cliarges, on tliat evening ? A. My recollection Is tliat tliere was no statement made in regard to them. Q. None by the Committee in its report ? A. None by the Committee, I mean, of course. Q. Do you recollect whether any statement was made by any i)erson except by Mr. Tilton himself, tending to throw the least light upon the nature of those charges— the charges against IVIr. Tilton ? A. I don't recollect that there was any other statement made of that character. Q. Now, Sir, in Mr. Tilton's speech did he in any way undertake to describe, so far as you remember, what charges had been made against him by Mr. West specifi- cally— bj- Mr. West? A. My recollection is that he did not. Q. Did he mention Mr. West's name in all his speech, thai you remember ? A. My recollection is, he did not Q. After you became a member of the Examining Com- mittee, were the records of the Examining Committee for the year 1873 ever placed in your hands ? A. No, Sir, Dot to my knowldge. Q. Were the minutes of any meeting in which Mr. West's charges were considered ever read in your hear- ing? A. Never. Q. You never were the clerk of that Committee ? A. I never was. Q. During the year 1874 Mr. Talmadge was the clerk, was he not 1 A. He was. Q. And it was his duty to keep the records, and not yours? A. It was his duty, as I understood. Mr. Beach— Who is clerk now % Mr. Shearman— Mr. Halliday is now. Mr. Evarts- Of the Examining Committee. IMr. Shearman— You were asked some questions in re- gard to what you testified to ta yonr sick-room. I ask you this one general question, whether your state of health was such that you felt able clearly to understand all the questions that were put to you at that time ? A. It was not. Q. I find on the record the question asked you by Mr. Morris in reference to June 26, 1874: Q. Had you seen Mr. Beecher that day? A. I saw him that day. Q. Before you went to his house ? A. No, Sir. Q. Had you seen him on the cars? A. I had not. Now, if you did make those answers as reported, have you any explanation that you desire to make of them ? A. If I made them in that way, it was an error. My statement should have been, and is, that I saw Mr. Beecher on the rear end of a car coming down Beekman- 8t. about 4 o'clock on that afternoon. I hapin ned to be standing in my front door of the store ; he came by and beckoned to me, and pointed to Brooklyn, which I inter- preted as an invitation to come over and sei' liim ; I came over at 5 o'clock. Q. Then, if I understand you correctly, you did not niean to say that you did not see him on a car f A. I did not mean to say that I did not see him with my eyes, but that I had not met him to have conversation with himi,. to have a verbal invitation to go to his house. Q. Either on the cars or anywhere else ? A. Anywhere else. Q. You have mentioned that in the interview between you and Mr. Beecher, after 5 o'clock that afternoon, June 26, he mentioned the names of seven or eight gentlemen, a part of whom or most of whom were afterward placed,, in fact, upon the Investigating Committee, have you not! I understand so. A, I have. Q. And that in the evening, after 9:30, the names of the same gentlemen, with some others, were mentioned to Mr. Beecher, either by yourself or by Mr. Shearman. Now can you explain any reason — well, in the first place, did you tell Mr. Shearman or Gen. Tracy anything about the names which Mr. Beecher had suggested 1 A. I did not. Q. Now, can you explain why it was that the same names which Mr. Beecher mentioned himself were sug- gested to him in the evening without the knowledge that he had mentioned them ? A. It was because of an inter- view the evening before between Gen. Tracy and your- self and myself in regard to what steps would likely be taken in regard to the publication of Mr. Tilton. Q. Well, we have no right to ask any further than this. Were these same names mentioned in that interview? A. They were. Q. And at that time had there been any consultation with Mr. Beecher about the Committee ? A. None what- ever. Q. And when ]Mr. Beecher came to speak of members for a Committee, the same names among others occurred to him, did they not, aa suggested by you before ? A. They did. Q, One of those names— we will give you the benefit of the exception of yourself— with the exception of yourself those names were of some of the very leading and most prominent and best known members of the church and congregation ? A. With that exception, names that would have occurred to every member of Plymouth Church, I suppose, if they had been caUed upon to sug- gest strong names for an investigation. Q. Y^ou have been asked something about an interview which took place between yourself, Mr. Beecher, Gen. Tracy, and IVIr. Shearman, and the appointment of a Committee. Can you recollect whether the subject of appointing a Committee to be selected from outside of the church was brought up on that occasion ? A. It was. Q. Well, what was said on that subject ? IVIr. Beach— That is t)bjected ta Mr. Shearman— It is a part of the conversation which they have drawn out, your Honor. Judge Neilson— I don't think it is material. Mr. Beach — It has no relation whatever to the part ot the conversation that we introduced. 196 IHE TILTON-BEECEEB TBIAL. Mr. Stiearraan— Tt is a part of the very same conversa- tion — tlie very same consultation. Mr. Beac]i— No matter if it is. Judge Neilson— It is an independent subject. Mr. Sliearman— I beg your Honor's pardon, but they brought in the question of who were suggested— what names were suggested for this Committee. Mr. Morris— On the 26th 2 Mr. Shearman— On the 26th; and that is what I am asMng about— that very interview between Mr. Beecher, Mr. Cleveland, Gen. Tracy, and myself. I propose to complete that conversation, because it was all a part of one conversation. Mr. Beach— The only subject to which he directed his attention was to the names— and he mentioned what names — who were to compose the Committee. Ml". Evarts— Well, that .subject, if your Honor please, was the making up of the Committee. That was the reason it was introduced. Mr. Beach — ^No, it was for the names. Mr. Evarts— It bears upon that proposition, that the making up of the Committee was such as should enable my learned friends to urge that it was a selected— what we say somewhat disrespectfully about a jury or a com- mittee—a packed Committee. Now, the whole of that conversation, out of which they are seeking to extract materials for some suggestion of that kind, of greater or less force, we think can properly be brought in, and as a part of that consultation there was a consideration of the very important question whether or no a Committee might not properly be taken entirely outside of the church and congregation, of men promint;nt in the community, and the dis- position of that question on such grounds as it was then disposed of ; and it won't do for my learned friends to say that when the whole interview relates to the making up of a Committee, and they have extracted from the conversation such parts of it as relate to the actual making up, to draw their conclusions from, and make their arguments of ; we can't show the consultation out of which this final result flowed, and which included this separate and important view of the subject. FORMATION AND MEETINGS OF THE COM- MITTEE. Mr. Beach— The simple point, Sir, to which we directed the witness's attention was for the purpose of proving the fact that Mr. Beecher suggested the names, all or some of them, who Tiltimately composed this Committee. As to the discussion which arose upon that suggestion, or as to the considerations which were pressed in that conversation by the different parties to it, we made no inquiry whatever. It was upon the sim- ple question which I have stated to your Honor ; and that was not connected at all with the motives or the reasons then expressed or urged by the several parties for the selection of the particular names who afteiv ward did form that Committee. Now, we have be- fore, Sii-, in the course of this trial, had occasion to discuss the rule, settled in the Court of Ap- peals, that giving a part of a conversation does not neces- sarily lead to the introduction of the whole of that con- versation by the other side. It is not necessary to discuss that rule any further ; and I submit that the extent to which we went upon that single point does not enable them to introduce all the discussions and reasons and ar- guments which were advanced as between Mr. Beecher and his friends upon the subject of this selection. Mr. Shearman— Now, if your Honor please, by making an offer, I think I can remove all the objections, after making a slight reference to the evidence given on the cross. Juds'c Lfbrris iniiuires : Q. I ask you again if the question as to the selection of proper persons to compose the Committee was one of j:he reasons that Mr. Tracy's and Mx. Shearman's presence was desired at Mr. Beecher s that night? A. Mr. Beecher gave no special reasons tor their being there that evening, except that he wanted to consult some of his legal friends. Q. With reference to what 1 A. With reference to this matter. Q. What matter? A. The matter of investigation. Q. What matter— wasn't it mentioned ? Mr. Shearman— He just stated. The Witness— The investigation. Q. Well, what about that did he want to discuss ? A. It was a matter that I did not ask him specially. Q. Had he any doubt upon any questions that were suggested ? A. I don't know whether he had or not. Q. Were any suggested? A. He wanted to take legal advice. Mr. Shearman— Then he is further asked about names; and your Honor will recollect that he could not at that moment refresh his memory as to all the names that were mentioned. Now, simply what Ipropose to offer to prove is this, that Mr. Beecher invited these three gentlemen around, as we have heard the whole consultation, and that the first proposition that he made with reference to the names and the Committee of Investigation was this : he asked these three gentlemen whether they tho ught it would be a proper thing for him to invite William M. Evarts, George William Curtis and William CuUen Bryant to sit as a committee to investigate this matter ; and that was Mr. Beecher's proposition, and those were the three names that the counsel on the other side were trying to get out, and I should have been very glad to have helped them get out; but the witness could not then recollect it. And I" propose fui'ther to show that the reason that those gentle- men were not selected was because Mr. Beecher was advised by the legal gentlemen whom he had brought in for consultation on that occasion that there was no pro- tection to such a committee against innumerable libel suits, and that the only legal method of investigation was by tho methods of his own elu;rch under the auspices of the Examining Committee, the communications to which TES'llMONY OF HENBT M. OLEVELANB. 197 T^ould be held privileged by the law. Now, that is my offer. Judge Neilson— Well, Sir, I think you can show that. Don't give the conversation to any extent ; give simply that. Mr. Shearman— Well, then, suppose I ask just that ques- tion. [To the witness.] I ask you, then, Mr. Cleveland, to save time, whether Mr. Beecher did or did not at that time submit to the consideration of the gentlemen thus called in the names of William M. Evarts, George William Curtis, and William CuUen Bryant, as a committee to in- vestigate this matter 1 A. He did. Q. And was he, or was he not, advised by Mr. Shear- man and Mr. Tracy that such a committee could not be protected against libel suits in the course of such an investigation; and that he must, in order to protect the committee, select one under the auspices of the Examin- ing Committee of his own Church ? Mr. Beach— Well, one moment. Sir; I shall object to any such question as that. Mr. Shearman— On the ground that it is leading 1 Mr. Beach— Why ; yes. Sir. Mr. Shearman— Oh, of course we concede that; but, then, as I stated the offer in the presence of the witness, I thought it would save time. Then I withdraw that question ; and I ask you what advice did Mr. Beecher re- ceive from the two lawyers who were then present ? A. I have no recollection of Gen. Tracy's advice in regard to the matter; my recollection is that Mr. Shearman sug- gested that the Committee had better be formed from Plymouth Church and society; the reasons, the legal reasons, I suppose, were given ; I have no J udge Neilson— That is suflacient. Mr. Shearman— One question it is proper to ask. At that time, so far as you had any knowledge or informa- tion, and for a long time afterward, Mr. Evarts had no relation to Mr. Beecher as counsel or in any other way 1 A. None that I knew of. Q. It is conceded that Mr. Evarts had none until some time after the commencement of this suit. You were asked as to when the first formal meeting of the Com- mittee of Investigation took place. Have you any ex- planation now to give as to what you meant by a formal meetrug, and why you said that you thought it met the first time formally on the 10th July] A. Simply this: that there was a conference of the four members of the Committee on Sunday evening, the 28th. On the next evening several members of the Committee— four or five, I cannot tell which— met and appointed a chairman. Q. And what was the distinction between the meeting of July 10 and that of any preceding meeting ? A. The meeting of July— until the— Mr. White had not returned. Q. Mr. White was never present before that meeting, aeeordiag to your recollection 1 A. Mr. White was not l'r( sent until the meeting of July 10, the evening that Mr. Tilton came before the Committee; the announce- ment of the Committee had n©t heea made ; it was— we were advised that Mr. Beach— Oh, weU, I object to that. Mr. Shearman— Well, that is not necessary ; but had any action been taken by the Examining Committee of the church between the 26th of June and the 10th of Julyf A. None Q. Between the 26th of June and the 10th of July 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. When was that action taken? A. That was taken on Tuesday morning, the 7th, if I recoUect right. Q. Yes, the 7th of July 1 A. The 7th of July. Q. That was the first time at which the Examining Committee indorsed the appoinment of this Investigating Committee? A. That was the first time that the appoint- ment was ratified by the Examining Committee. Q. Well, did you receive any advice, as a member of the Committee, concernrug the necessity of such a ratifica- tion by the Examining Committee — any legal advice! A. I did. Q. And what was the substance of that advice ? A. That the Investigating Committee before ratification by the Examining Committee would be liable to libel suits and obliged to prove the truth of the statements made, if any were made, refiectlng upon character, Q. Yes, Sir ? A. And after the ratification, any publica- tion that the Investigating Committee might make would be privileged, and that no action could lie against the Committee. Q. When was that advice given— about what time ? A. That was given immediately after the appointment of the Investigating Committee. Mr. Beach— And before the 6th. Mr. Shearman— Do you know whether it was given be- fore the 6th or not 1 A. I do not recollect that. Q. The advice thus given related to the danger of publi- cation, not to the danger of taking testtuiony ? A. I said, I think, the danger of publication of any testimony re- flecting upon character taken by the Committee. Q. You were not advised that there was danger in merely taking the testimony ? A. No, Sir ; the publica- tion of testimony taken by the Committee without the ratification of the Examining Committee. Q. And was there, in fact, any testimony published be- fore the 7th of July ? A. Not a word. Q. You have been asked why Mr. West was not called before that Conmiittee. Did you have any knowledge or information that Mr. West was in possession of any evi- dence whatever against Mr. Beecher ? A. No knowledge whatever. Q. Had you any information that he had any such evi- dence ? A. None whatever. Q. Did Mr. West ever make the least suggestion of the kind ? A. Never. Q. Were not all Mr. West's charges directed against Mr. Tilton ? 198 THE TlLTON-BIi]K(mEB Mr. Beach— Well, that will be foand from the charges. Judge Keilson— That appears from the paper we liaye on file. The Wicness— I don't recall that. Mr. Shearman— Well, was that your understanding? A. I don't recall about that. Q. Did you ever hear of any charges made by Mr. West against Mr. Beecher ? A. Never. Q. ^Tiat was the reason in your mind for declining to caU Mr. Moulton again, when he telegraphed to Mi-. Sage, as you have said, on the 28th or 26tli of August, 1874, that he desired to come before the Committee ? A. Sim- ply that we had exhausted every effort to get detailed statements and documents from Mr. Moulton, and had failed, and that dispatch came after the labors of the Committee were closed and the report written and signed. Q. Do you recollect whether or not there had been any request made in church meeting the previous Friday evening for action on the part-for a report from the In- vestigatmg Committee ? A. There was. Q. And was the time fixed, when you received this mes- sage from Mr. Moulton, for the giving of the report of the' Investigating Committee ? A. That is my reeoUection. Q. And it was actually deUvered to the church on the 28th-Friday evening, the 28th ? A. It was. Q. Now, Sir, did you, or, to your knowledge or informa- tion, any member of the Committee, have any expectation that Mrs. Tilton would leave her house on the 11th o* July, 1874. Mr. Beach— That is objected to. Wait one moment ; we object to it. Mr. Shearman-WeU, if it pleases your Honor, we were informed, as the reason for bringing in the correspond- ence between Mrs. Ovington and Mr. Cleveland, that, while it was admitted that it could not bear upon Mr. Beecher in the most remote way, it was part of the chain of evidence which was to prove a conspiracy between the Committee and Mrs. Ovington to get Mrs. Tilton away from the house. Mr. Beach— By no means. Mr. Shearman— Then there was no pertinency in that evidence whatever. :\Ir. Beach- That may very well be ; that is no reason wny you should invent such an avowal on our part. There was no such avowal. Ml. Shearman— The avowal was that there was a con- spiracy to get Mrs. Tilton away from her house. Mr. Morris— Oh, yes; but not on the part of the Com- mittee. Mr. Shearman— Then the correspondence between Mr. Cleveland and Mrs. Ovington was offered to prove that. Upon whose part could that conspiracy be if not on Mr. Cleveland's, if that evijdence was to be in any way mate- rial ? Certainly it was not a conspiracy of Mr. Beecher's ; TRIAL. it was not one with which he was identified iu any way Mr. Beach— Are you arguing the case i Mr. Shearman— I am talking on the evidence. I say there is not the first particle of evidence of that kind. There is no evidence except counsel's speeches ; I have never heard even a speech which imputed that to Mr. Beecher. There is no evidence, but this correspondence between Mr. Cleveland and Mrs. Ovington is put as evi- dence against him. If it was not evidence against Mr. Cleveland, I don't know who it was evidence agamst. Now, I propose to ask Mr. Cleveland whether he had any participation in it, and I lay the foundation for that by asking whether he or any member of the Committee had any expectation that Mrs. Tilton would leave the house, and I expect to follow that up by asking whether they expected anybody would ask her to leave the house. I cannot see any objection to it. Mr. Beach— Well, Sir, it is obviouslj' totally immaterial. Conspiracy on the part of this Committee to entice Mrs. Tilton from her house ! Nobody has ever heard a sugges- tion of that, until the counsel has made it, and it is not worth while for him to create figments of that character for the purpose of meeting them by evidence. The gen- tleman says there is no evidence charging any conspiracy against anybody. Very well, Sir ; if so, then it is not necessary to ask this question in regard to the Committee, Certainly there is none imputing any such consph^acy to the Committee, and nobody upon our side has ever dreamed of any such imputation, and it is hardly worth while to go into the examination of an issue thus raised by the counsel which is not presented upon our side, and totally unimportant upon the issues— any issue in thia case. We object to it, Sir. Mr. Shearman— Will the gentleman excuse me for read- ing a little passage from what Judge Morris said yester- day in offering this evidence of correspondence? After our objection, and after your Honor had said that you clid not see yourself what it had to do with Mr. Tilton or Mr. Beecher, Mr. Morris says : I can state to your Honor very clearly and plainly what it has to do. It is simply in the direct line of proof that we have already given upon that subject that has been gone into. I propose to connect it with the fact oi Mrs. Tilton's abandoning her home the next morning, simultaneously with the announcement of this Commit- tee, because no public knowledge— there was no public knowledge of the existence of the Committee prior to that. I propose to show that it was a part of the con- spiracy, entered into deliberately, as we wUl show, to get Mrs. Tilton to abandon her home, and get possession of her before the Committee was announced. Mr. Morris— That don't impute that to the Committee. Mr. Shearman— It imputes it to Mr. Cleveland, or else what is the pertiaency of that information ? Mr. Morris— That Mrs. Ovington sent for that informa- tion, and wanted it for that purpose and in furtherance of that, and Mr. Cleveland said that Mis. Ovington requested TESTIMONY OF Hm it, and tliat tlir t was a link in the conspiracy to entice Mrs. Tilton from her home. Judge Neilson— Well, Mr. Cleveland when you had that correspondence with Mrs. Ovington, did you know that Mrs. Tilton was to leave her house, or might do so the next day 1 A. Nothing whatever. Sir. Judge Neilson— Very well, Sir ; that answers it. Any- thing more Mr. Shearman 1 Mr. Shearman— Did you have any design, Sir, or enter into any design with any one else, to induce Mrs. Tilton to leave her hushand ? A. Never with a human being. Judge Neilson— Well, is that aJl with this witness 1 Mr. She armaB.— That is aU. EE-CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. MORRIS. Q. The advice that you have spoken of, Mr. Cleveland, about publishiag the testimony, had no refer- ence to the simple announcement of the fact that there was a Committee in existence, did it 1 You received no such advice as that, that there would be any danger in announcing that faet 1 A. There were several reasons why the Committee was not announced. Q. No ; did you receive any advice that there would be any danger 1 Mr. Shearman— Legal advice? Mr. MorrLs— Any legal advice that there would be any danger in announcing the simple fact that a Committee had been appointed l A. The legal advice related to the piiblication. Q. Yes— publication of the evidence 1 A. Of the tes- timony. Q. But not in regard to the announcement of the sim- ple fact ? A. No, Sir. Q. That a Committee had been appointed— no < A. Nothing to do with that. Q. You and Gen. Tracy and Mr. Shearman, you say, suggested o3- discussed names the day previous ? A. I aid several names came up in the interview the even- ing before— on Thursday evening. Q. Where was that interview held 1 A. That was at Mr.^hearman's house. Q. It was held at Mr. Shearman's house— these same names 1 A. Most of them. Q.' Now, when you were examined before, were you not asked specifically to give in detail all the names that Mr. Beecher suggested, either in the afternoon or in the even- ing, and did you not profess to give all the nanies that he did suggest ? A. I professed to give all the names connected with Plymouth Church and society. Q. No, aU the names ; weren't you asked to state all the names that he suggested without reference to the Church or society 1 A. My answer to that question was upon the names of Plymouth Church— in Plymouth Church and society. Mr. Beach— Well, put in the question and answer, that 13 the best way— that was given there. RY M. CLEVELAND. 199 Mr. Morris— Now, have you until a moment a^o, ever mentioned the name of Mr. Curtis and Mr. William CuUen Bryant 1 A. Yes, Sii-. Q. In your testimony 1 A. Not in my testimony. Q. No ; now, there is just one question— I won't pursue that any further, Mr. Cleveland. Now, Mr. Shearman has asked you about being examined at the house ; you say that you were examined lying down. You were upon, a lounge in full dress, weren't you ? A. I was. Q. And you were able to go about the house ! A. I was able to go about my room. Sir. Q. And is your condition such now as to aflfect your head? A. It is. Q. And your memory? A. Most decidedly. Mr. Morris— -Very materially. That is all. Judge NeUson— That is all, Mr. Cleveland. Mr. Shearman— No ; just one question : Can you give a reason— since you have been asked about the omission to publish the appointment of this Committee before the 11th of July— will you state what were the reasons in your mind for not publishing it before that time? A. One reason was that IVIr. A\Tiite had not yet returned and accepted his appointment ; another reason was that we desired the ratification of the Investigating Committee by the Examining Committee. Q. When did Mr. White return— when did he attend the Committee % A. I ihink Mr. Wliite's flxst meeting was on the lOth of July. Q. On the evening of that day 1 A. On the evening of the 10th. Q. Altogether too late for any publication in the papers of the lOth, wasn't it— after the publication, even, of the afternoon papers 1 A. In the evening of the lOth. IMr. Beach— Did he return on the 10th ] A. I don't recollect that, Sir ; his first meettug with the Committee was on the evening of the lOth. Q. Yes, but do you know whether he had accepted the appointment before that 1 A. I don't recollect precisely when he accepted the appointment. Q. What? A. That recollection— he appeared in the evening. Mr. Beach— I understand Mr. Morris to say that he stated, before, that he had accepted before that the appointment. The Witness— I do not recall. Mr. Shearman— The members of the Committee did not make any formal a/'ceptance— did not write any acceptance ? A. No, Sii\ Q. They did not accept otherwise than by attending the meeting] A. That is all. Mr. Beach— Didn't tlieyby announcing their wiUingnesa to act 1 A. No, Sir ; not to my knowledge- Q. In conversation— well, you don't know, then I A. I know that there was no communications went from the Committee to the church or to the pastor. Mr. Morris— And did the Committee hold these various 200 • TEE TILION-B meetings and take testimony before tliey liad been rati- fied by the Examining Committee ? A. No, Sir. Q. Tlien they had been ratified by the Examining Com- mittee % A. Tbey bad been ratified on the morning of tbe 7tli, and began to take testimony, or ratber to bold regu- lar meetings, on tbe lOtb. Mr. Shearman— With one exception— they took testi- mony on the night of July the 6th? A. They heard a statement from Mrs. TUton. We did not consider that JMk". Shearman— That is all. FEANCIS D. MOULTON AGAIN ON THE STAND. Francis D. Moulton was then recalled and cross-examined further. Mr. Evarts— In further cross-examhiation, Mr. Moul- ton, I call your attention now to this question: You know Mr. Samuel D wight Partridge ? A. I am very well acquainted with him. Sir. Q. For the period of time since you have been in the firm yourself, I suppose? A. Since 1854, Sir, to the present time. Q. Do 5^ou remember a conversation with him, freshly after the appearance of " Tbe Life of Victoria Wood- hull" by Mr. Tilton, on the subject of the writing of that "Life" by Mr. Tilton, or the reasons of it? A. I do not recollect any such conversation. Sir. Q. Didn't you say to Mr. Partridge that Mr. TUton's reasons for writing that " Life," or reason, or motive, for writing that " Life," was to put htoaself at the head of the Spiritualists of the country, or of the United States, and that there were more Spiritualists la the country than there were Congregationalists, or anything to the effect of that statement, or to the effect of any part of that statement ? Mr. Fullerton— One moment. We object to that, Sir ; it is entirely Irrelevant. Mr. Evarts— How iri olsvant ? Mr. Fullerton— Well, it is not for us to show that upon the face of the thing, because it appears to be entirely irrelevant. It is for you to show how it is relevant. Mr. Evarts— We do not mean to repeat long discussions on that subject. Judge Neilson — No, I imderstand that. Mr. Evarts— The relevancy of the Victoria Woodhull " Life," and the writing of it, we called to your Honor's attention, more or less, only a few days ago, in reading from the testimony. It is a part of their affirmative proof that tbe writing of that " Life " was under the motive— under the justification by Mr. Beecher as a part of their plan— Mr. Moulton's, Mr. Beecher's and Mr. TU- ton's plan of humoring this woman for the purpose of producing silence in reference to this scandal. Now, I ask this witness whether he has not stated as I have asked him, and the only groxmd of objection to Mr. Partridge's examtuation the other day, which was then Buggftsted, was that the foundation had not been laid. F/HCHEE TEIAL. LEGAL DISCUSSION BY MR. BEACH AND MR, EVARTS. Mr. Beach — Oh, the gentleman is quite mis- taken. Sir. I thiuk I satisfied your Honor the other day that theie was no allegation in tbe evidence, or upon the record anywhere, that Mr. Moulton was concerned at aU with the preparation of the " Life of Mrs. Woodhull," )sy Mr. Tilton ; and that, when it came to his knowledge, he strenuously objected to it. And I discussed, the other day, the theory of the counsel, which was that, there being a cooperation between the three— Mr. Tilton, Mr. Beecher, and Mr. Moulton— that, therefore, they could give the declarations of Mr. Moulton upon that subject. Now, it is not pretended that Mr. Moulton, iu any part of his evidence, has ever said that Mr. Tilton's object or purpose in writing the "Life "of Woodhull had any connection whatever with the arrangement made be- tween those two gentlemen and Mr. Beecher for the pur- pose of suppressing action upon the part of that lady. I SHid tc your Honor the other day, and maintained it by reference to the proof, that this was an entirely inde- pendent action upon the part of Mr. Tilton. Now, they ask. Sir, this gentleman whether he did not say to Mr, Partridge what the motive of Mr. TUton was ia the lan- guage put in the question presented to him, getting the declaration of Mr. Moulton— an entire stranger to that proceeding, so far as any cooperation or connection with it is concerned, or approbation of it is concerned. They attempt to get before this jury, by a question of this char- acter, the assertion of Mr. Moulton {if he ever made if) in regard to the motives which actuated Mr. TUton, which would be contradictory to those which Mr. Tilton assigns upon his evidence. Now, Sir, upon what prin- ciple can the declarations of Mr. Moulton be received to that effect, or for that purpose ? It does not go to Indi- cate the state of feeling of friendliness or hostility to- ward either of these parties upon the part of this wit- ness. It is not a declaration made out of court incon- sistent with any portion of his testimony given in court ; and it is only upon those two prtuciples and with those two objects that declarations out of court can be given, so far as this question is concerned. And I submit to your Honor that it is wholly Immaterial, and would be doing injustice to the plaintiff in this case, to permit Mr. Moulton, If he made any such declarations of this kind, to impute motives to Mr. TUton or to affect the interests of Mr. Tilton in this litiga- tion, however friendly Mr. Moulton may be supposed to be toward the interests of that gentleman. And these were the reasons. Sir, which iufluenced your Honor, the other day, as I understand, la the rejection of that evi- dence, in connection with the proposition that Mr. Moul- ton's attention had not been drawn to it. Mr. Evarts— No doubt, I offered the other day to give this evidence without having laid the foundation for it. GENERAL DISCUSSION. 201 In the nature of collatei'al impeaclimpnt, and argued tliat It was admissible independently ot that ground, and my learned friend argued agamst that, and used arguments not only very valuable in themselves, but which proved sufficient to satisfy your Honor that I was wrong. The only point ruled by your Honor was in this statement : [Reading.] I hare already intimated that it is very clear to me that the examination of this witness must be confined to con- tradictions of any statements which it appears that Mr. Moulton made when imder examination. That is the extent to which you can go with this witness. If Mr. 3toulton has stated anything, you are at liberty to con- tradict it by this witness. You heard the offer. Sir, and overruled it, and overruled it as not admissible until the foundation of collateral im- peachment was laid. I am now seeking to lay the founda- tion of collateral impeachment. Now, this must be exclu- ded, then, upon the principles that belong to collateral im- peachment, if it all. Mr. Moulton, as I suppose, so iden- tified himself with Mr. Tilton from the proceedings, be- ginning in the last week of December, until the com- mencement of this suit, if you please, in such a way as that the statements of either of them, of Moulton as well as of Tilton, bearing upon any of the proceedings that brought them into connection and association with Mr. Beecher, accordtag to their own showing, anything of the action, of the writing, of the influences, of the declared and imputed justification of their conduct, as under the motives of interest and concert in suppressing this scandal, are matters of direct evidence on their part on the issue of whether Mr. Beecher has been guilty of the wrong imputed to him— to wit, by the evidence against him of that wrong of implied confession, in the action and in the council, and in the motives that these proceedings had been instigated and controlled by. Now, my learned friends seek to dissever the writing of the Woodhull " Life " from the process of influence upon Mrs. "Woodhull in respect to which Mr, Moulton is responsible, in the allegation that it was counseled by Mr. Beecher and in his interest, and in his motive, because it is said that he has disclosed a disapproval of the judgment and of the wisdom, and of the worth or value of this particular act; and I read to your Honor the other day the statement that he thought it was a mistake— told Mr. Beecher so— hut the comment I think was, " Well, if it was a mis- take, we must make the best of it." Now, certainly the fact that a particular step in a concerted movement that is to be charged to Mr. Beecher's responsibility was inju- dicious and was not approved by INIr. Moulton, has not any bearing upon the question of whether the act was done imder the motive of assisting this purpose and in- terest of Mr. Beecher, which is the only material con- sideration in which any of the acts are brought into evi- dence here— don't bear upon it at all. That it was a mis- statement, a mistake, a miscalculation, don't make any difference in the quality of the evidence as bearing against Mr. Beecher. Mr. Tilton, indeed, gives us a general confession, I think, in his testimony, that everything had gone wrong; he had acted very foolishly in the matter; all of it came to nothing. That don't bear upon the question of whether Mr. Beecher is to have influences brought to his prejudice in the judgment of this jury of being responsible for this course of action. Now, here is one of the principal things aoue— the -vsTiting of the "Life" of Woodhull which IMr. Tilton has assigned to this motive, and to this alone : [Reading.] When I wrote that biography, I believed a good pro- tion of it ; I made an extravagant statement of it, with a view to conduce to the purpose. Q. For rhetorical effect ? A. No, Sir ; not for rhetoric. Q. For what? A. I have already told you that Mr Moulton, Mr. Beecher, and I were set on the enterprise of handling and controlling that woman ; and I believed to a considerable degree, during my early months of ac- quaintance with her, that she was much traduced. Mr. Fullerton says, " He went on further, and said that himself and Mr. Beecher and Mr. Moulton had agreed upon a line of conduct with reference to this woman" And in making the explanation he was interrupted. Now, Mr. Moulton has not said that this was not one of the steps; but that he did not think it was a judicious step, and the most must be made of it, as it had been taken. This also tends to contradict the idea conveyed (of regarding it as an unimportant idea as bearing upon any issue in this case), as creditable to Mr. Moul- ton's judgment that he disapproved of the writing of this "Life;" because we have him, in an imputed conversa- tion, concerning which I asked him, saying that Mr. Til- ton wrote it under this personal idea, and he cer- tainly expressed no disapproval of that at the time. So that, if your Honor please, it seems to me perfectly clear that this is a direct contradiction by an extra-judi- cial statement which we propose to offer, and for which we arelaying the foundation— a direct contradiction of the testimony of Mr. Moulton, in regard to this course of deal- ing with the Woodhulls, in which this writing and publish- ing of " The Life " was certainly a principal act, most im- portant in all its influences, most disastrous and most injurious to Mr. Tilton, as it seems to have turned out, and made here a sacrifice on his part to the end of the concealment of the scandal and the protection of his wife and of Mr. Beecher. Now, Mr. Moulton gives us Mr. Tilton's motive for writing that "Life "the object of personal advantage and personal ambition; that it would put him at the head of the Spiritualists, who were more numerous than the Congregationalists. Mr. Beach— The argument of the counsel discloses the radical mischief of this proposition, and at the same time acknowledges the principles upon which the objection to its admission rests. He insists upon eonsidtring Mr. Moulton, Mr. Beecher and Mr. Tilton as united in this particular portion of the effort of Mr. Tilton to influence, conciliate, and control Mrs. WoodhulL He therefore, Sir^ '202 THJE TILTON-BEEGHER IBIAL, recognizes the truth of my proposition, that the declara- tions of Mr. Movilton cannot he admissible, either as against Mr. Beecher or Mr. Tilton, until this league not only for the general purpose of influencing this woman, but of influencing her by this particular mode or step in the process— to wit, the publication of her " Life"— shall have been est#iblished. This is a declaration of Mr. Moul- ton offered in regard to the general purpose or object of this undertaking on the part of these three persons. This declaration is not offered for the purpose of contra- dicting the testimony of Mr. Moulton, to the fact that there was such a design, concurred in by Mr. Beecher, entered upon by Mr. Moulton and Mr. Tilton. I beg your Honor to remark that fact. This declaration is not for the purpose of contradicting Mr. Moulton in his testimony concerning the general combination and cooperation between these three per- sons in relation to the general influence which should be exerted over the mind and the action of Mrs. Woodhull. Now, Mr. Tilton commits a certain act, the publication of this " Life." He says he. did it for the purpose of concil- iating this lady. Has Mr. Moulton said that, Sir 1 Has Mr. Moulton or Mr. Tilton asserted that that act was done by Mr. Tilton with the knowledge of Mr. Beecher, or in pursuance of any arrangement with Mr. Beecher— that it was not communicated to or approved of by him in any respect ? There is no evidence of that kind in the case, may it please your Honor. On the contrary, the testimony of Mr. Moulton, who is sought to be contradicted by imputing to him a declaration in regard to the motives of Mr. Tilton— on the contrary, Mr. Moulton's evidence was that he knew nothing about it until Mr. Tilton told him it was done, and that then he disapproved and disapprobated it ; and in that situation of things, Sir, when, with reference to this particular act, neither Mr. Moulton nor Mr. Beecher is in any degree involved ; when it was not a concurrent act as between these three, or any two of these three ; when it was discountenanced and condemned by Mr. JVloulton, they propose to prove his declaration in reecard to the motives of Mr. Tilton in doing it, for the purpose of contradicting him. Wherein does it contradict him 1 and wherein is the evidence anything else but the giving of the declarations of Mr. Moulton in regard to a matter in which he did not act in cooperation with Mr. Tilton, and in his absence, for the purpose of concluding or affecting the rights of Mr. Tilton 1 Now, Sir, in this atti- tude this question must be viewed. Either your Honor must hold that Mr. Moulton and Mr. Tilton are identical in the transactions resulting in the publication of that " Life," or else you must hold that these declarations, in some degree, go to designate sentiments and feelings of friendliness or hostility of Mr. Moulton to one party or the other. It is not contended, Sir, that it can be received in the last point of view ; and it is only upon the ground of identity and cooperation of action in regard to that particular act — in other words, a league between thesa parties in ri lation to that particular act— that this evi dence can by possibility be admitted. I have shown your Honor before, and I will refer again to that testimony, if necessary to show, that there was" no such relation, no such imity of action or pui-pose, between these two par ties in regard to that act, which makes the declaration'^ of the one admissible as against the other. Judge Neilson— I think I will take the answer. Mr. Beach — Will the stenographer read the question ? The Tribune stenographer read the question as follows : Did you say to Mr. Partridge that Mr.' Tilton's reasons for writing that " Life," or reason or motive for writing that "Life," was to put himself at the head of the Spirit- ualists o*f the country, or of the United States, and that there were more Spiritualists in the country than there were Congregationalists, or anything to the effect of that statement, or to the effect of any part of that statement % A. The question. Sir, is involved. With regard to the first part of it, I answer I knew no such thing, and said no such thing. In regard to that part of it which ask? me with regard to whether I said or not that the Spii-ft- ualists outnumbered the Congregationalists, I have an indistinct recollection— sufficient, however, for this im- pression—that I told Mr. Partridge that I had understood from somebody, I don't remember whom, that the Spirit- nalists of the country did outnumber the Congrega- tionalists. Mr. Evarts— What were you talking about with Mr. Partridge when you told him this last ? A. I don't recol- lect, Sir, the specific opening of the conversation— the specific opening of the conversation by Mr. Partridge. Q. Or by yourself ? A. Or by myself. Q. Something suggested it, didn't it ? A. Well, Sir, I don't know whether— I don't know what did suggest it; I suppose something did suggest it. Q. It was not an independent conversation, beginning and ending with that remark ? A. I remember nothing fur- ther about it, Sir, than as I have stated with regard to the Spiritualists and the Congregationalists ; Mr. Partjidge and myself frequently conversed together about Mr. Tilton, and about Mr. Beecher, and about Mrs. Woodhull. Q. Yes. V/ell, are you not able to say, then, that this remark, of which you have a sufficient impression to be able to make a statement, was not a part of the conversa- tion in which the writing of " The Life of Mrs. Wood- hull " by Tilton was spoken of between Mr. Partridge and yourself 'I A. I recollect. Sir, nothing about any con- versation in regard to the " Life" of Victoria Woodhull by Mr. Tilton, with Mr. Partridge. Q. Have you no impression concerning any such con- versation that is sufficient for you to make a statement upon as you do of the last part of the matter ? A. I have not, Sir. [A pause.] Mr. Evarts, I will swear distinctly to one thing in connection with this question— another thing, rather— that if I did have a conversation with Mr. Partridge with reference to the "Life of A'^ictori;. AVn,„i TESTIMOXY OF SAMUEL D. FARTElDatJ. 203 hull," I did not tell him in that connection that Mr. Tilton told me, or that I knew from Mr. Tilton, either di- rectly or indirectly, that he had -^rritten it for the pur- pose of placing himself at the head of the Spiritualists of the country. Q. I did not ask you The Witness— I heg pardon Q. I did not ask you Tvhether you told Mr. Partridge that Mr. Tilton told you! A. "Well, I am trying to make it broad enon irl', Q. I asked you vrhether you told Mr. Partridge that Mr. Tilton's motive, or ohject, in writing that life was to put himself at the head of the Congregationalists? A. Very well, Sir, I answered that question. Q. Of the Spiritualists, I mean, or anything to that effect ? A. I answered that question distinctly, no. Q. Whether you invented the reason, or it came from Mr. Tilton, has nothing to do with my question ? A. Pre- cisely, Sir ; I understand it perfectly. Q. I want to knowwhetlier you told Mr. Partridge that ? A. I did 7iot tell Mr. Partridge that. Q. Very well. That is all. Mr. Beach— It is conceded that we are not to pursue our general re-examination of Mr. Moulton now. Ml". Evarts- Of course, I only introduce this single question now. The Witness— Is that all, Sir. Mr. Beach— That is all, Mr. Moulton FURTHER EXAMINATION OF SAMUEL D. PARTRIDGE. Samuel Dwight Partridge was recalled and further examined. Mr. Evarts— I will take up your examination now upon a certain point at the stage at which it was arrested by a legal ohjection when you were on the stand before. I called your attention to a conversation with Mr. Moul- ton on the subject of the fact of the publication of Mrs. Woodhull's " Life," by Mr. Moulton (which you remem- bered), and asked you if Mr. Moulton said anything to you on the subject of Mr. Tilton's object and motive in wilting that " Life," and you answered that he did ; now I ask you wh-ir did he say to you f Mr. Beach— Thf>t is objected to upon the ground that the d- Ian '.It. 5 of Mr. Moulton are not evidence against Mr. Tilton; an^ upon the further ground that the declara- tions wc-c as to a collateral matter, and they are there- fore (xoi subject to a (contradiction ; and on the further gi'oun i til at there is nothing in those declara- tions caiit?rl for, contradictory of the evidence of Mr ^f.>^I lion previously given, cxoept, of course, his denial of having made the declaratii ns Ana your Honor will perceive from the testimony irawn out now from Mr. Moulton on the stand that he declares that no such Tnotlves were ever assigned to liim by :Mr. Tilton, and it is taking his declarations as against Mr. Tilton — declara- tions which in themselves are not competent as agnliLst liim, and declaratif)ns which, I submit to your Honor, are entireh" upon a collateral topic, and in regard te which the answer of the witness is conclusive. Judge Jfcilson— And the witness's answer would merely show ]Mr. Moulton's ovm opinion, whatever it was. Mr. Beach— That is all. Sir. It might be very proper to take the answer of Mr. Moulton to the question whether or not he made these declarations, but that answer is con- clusive upon the counsel upon the other side, being to a collateral matter, and is not the subject of contradiction. Judge Neilson— I think I will allow the counsel to put the question to the witness in tjje very terms of th.e statements made by Mr. Moulton, not in the general form. Mr. Evarts— Your Honor will remember that Mr. Moul- ton stated that he had no conversatian with this witness on the sul^ject of the " Life of Victoria Woodhull." Mr. Beach— No, no. Judge Neilson— You put a speci-flc question to Mr. Moulton ; now frame your question with, regard to that same matter that you interrogated Mr. Moulton about ; otherwise the answer migM be as to some independent matter and not to the question. Mr. Evarts— I have confined it already. My question is, what he said to him as to Mr. Tilton's motives or ob- jects in writing the " Life of Victoria Woodhull." Judge Neilson— You must coniine that to the very terms of the question that you put to Mr. Moulton just now . Mr. Shearman— Have the question read. Mr. Evarts— Well, I remember it near enough for all the purposes of this examination. [To the witness.] In that conversation, and in stating to you the motives or objects of Mr. Tilton in writing tlie " Life of Victoria Woodhull," did Mr. Moulton say to you that Mr. Tilton's motive or object was to put himself at the head of the Spiritualists of the country, and tliat tlie Spiritualists were more numerous than the Congregationalists, or anything to that effect, or to tlie effect of any part of that statement 1 A. Shall I say yes or no to that, or shall I state what he— what it was ? Q. Well, you should state what he said, of that effect. Mr. FuUerton— You should state the truth, I suppose. The Witness— Mr. Tilton told me Mr. Beach— I understood, your Honor, that the ques- tion was to be put specifically and answered specifically. Judge Neilson— Yes. j\Ir. Evarts— It is to that effect, or to the effect of any part of it. Mr. Beach— Very well ; you must not allow the witness to give what he said. The question is. Did he say that t Yes or no. Judge Neilson— Yes, or no, I should say to that. The Witneso— Well, h< said— he didn't use precis- Ir tL^A 204 THE TILTON-PEECHJER TBIAL, phraseology tliat Mr. Evarts lias used ; lie said that, sub- stantially. Mr. Evarts -Very well. Now, what did he say A. He said that Mr. Tilton— Mr. Beach—That is not admissible. Mr. Evarts— My question to Mr. Moulton was whether he said that, or anything to that effect, or to the effect of any part of it. Judge Neilson— Yes. Mr. Beach— And the witness says he did say that, not in the precise language, but that substantially. Mr. Evarts— Do you mean the whole— that he said the whole of it substantially ? Mr. Beach— Yes. Mr. Evarts— Very well ; I am satisfied. Mr. Beach— You ought to be. Judge Neilson— That covers your ground, then? Mr. Evarts— Well, if the answer is to be taken in that way, it is but justice to the witness to read it, that he may see that it is correct. Judge Neilson— Read the answer, Mr. Stenographer. The Tribune stenographer read the answer, as follows : " Well he said that— he didn't use precisely that phrase- ology that Mr. Evarts has used— he said that, substan- tiaUy." The Witness— If it is proper, I would say that Mr. Beach— Wait a moment. Mr. Evarts— Wait a moment, Mr. Partridge. Now I suppose that I have a right, and that it is the fair thing to both the present witness and the preceding witness, that what he did say should be stated. Mr. Beach— The gentleman has no right, under your Honor's ruling, to call out that conversation. What may be fair to the preceding witness we will undertake to secure. Very likely I shall call out that conversation. Judge Neilson— I think you have the answer, Mr. Evarts. Mr. Evarts— Well, I will ask this question : What did Mr. Moulton say at that conversation? Mr. Beach— I object. Judge Neilson— That is ruled out. Mr. Evarts— We except. Q. What did Mr. Moulton say in that conversation that was substantially to the effect of what I have asked you 1 Mr. Beach— That I object to. Mr. Evarts— Well, I understand that. Mr. Beach— I understand it Is a repetition of your other question. Judge NeUson— I think he has answered your question that you put to Mr. Moulton, covering the same ground precisely. Mr £v*rti»— I except to your Honor's ruling. Mr. lloach [to defendant's counselj— Give mo that ohfok— that piece ot yellow paper. CROSS-EXAMINATION OF MR. PARTRIDGE. Mr. Beach— When was this conversation, Six ? A. It was very soon after the publication of the book, pamphlet,or whatever you call it. Q. Is that the nearest indication of the time that you can give ? A. I have no date— no date to go by. Q. I asked you if that was the nearest indication of the time that you can give ? A. I don't thiok of anything that I can give you now. Q. It was very soon after the publication of the pam- phlet ? A. Yes, Sir ; very soon. Q. Where did you see that " Life" published 1 A. Where did I see it ? Q. Yes, Sir ; first. A. I don't recollect. Q. How 1 A. I don't kuow that I can tell you. Q. In what form did you see it first ? A. I should think it was ia a pamphlet form that I saw it. Q. Don't you recollect where you saw that ? A. I can tell you where I think I saw it. .Q Sir? A. I cannot tell you so as to swear definitely. Q. What year was this conversation with Mr. Moulton 1 A. It was immediately after Q. I don't ask you that, Sir. Answer my question. A. I can answer it Q. Answer my question. Sir; what year that conversa- tion was in, naming the year? A. Well, I will state, Sir Q. No, you will answer my question, if you please. A. I must answer it in such a way as I can answer it. Q. If you can't answer it in that way, you can say so. What year, Sir, was that conversation in, stating the year? A. I believe that it was in 1872, but I wish to state Q. No, no; wait a moment. A. Oh, yes; now let me state. Q. Well, if you ask me A. Let me state it. Q. [Continuing.] A favor, of course, I will grant it. A. I don't ask for any favor. Q. Then stop. Are you quite certain that it was in the year 1872? A. Well, I was going to teU you what made me think Q. No, I didn't want to know that. A. WeU. Q. I asked you, now, if you was quite certain that It was in the year 1872 that this conversation occurred! A. I am not Q. Can't you state whether you are quite certain % A. I have understood Q. I ask you to stop. A. [Continuing.] During the progress of this trial Q. Won't you stop when I ask you to 1 A. Certainly. Q. I will treat you with entire fairness. Sir, but when I request you to cease, you will be good enough to do so. I put to you the simple question whether you are quite certain that the conversation yon have spoken of with Mr. Moulton was in the year 1872 ! A. If that wa» tho year that that was published, then I am certain. Ti:STIMON¥ OF SAM Mr. Beach— I object, Sir, to tliat c[uestion, and move to strike it out. Mr. Evarts — Why should it be struck out ? Mr. Beach— Because it is not an ansvrer; it is the reasoning. Mr. Evarts— Exactly; but It is the reasoning that the ■witness gives you in the form of an answer. That is his opinion. Judge Neilson— He did not ask him why he thought, it was in 1872, but whether he is certain it was 1872. Mr. Beach— Yes, Sir. Judge Neilson— Now, he is certain or he is not. Mr. Evarts— Hasn't he said that he was not certain 1 Mr. Beach— No, he has not said so. Mr. Evarts— He t/wught it was in 1872. Mr. Beach— I move to strike that out. Judge Neilson— Yes. [To the witness.] I think you could say whether you are certain or not, Mr. Partridge. The Witness— Yes, Sir ; but I have no date to go by, ex- cept what I read in the progress of this trial, that it was Mr. Beach— Will you please stop a moment ? The Witness [continuing]— In September, 1872. Mr. Beach— Well, if this rambling talk, of this witness, is all taken by the stenographer. Sir, I must move to strike it out. I insist that it shall not appear on the record. JudgeNeilson— Everything is struck out subsequent to the question you put him, because that question remains xmanswered. Now the simple question. Mr. Partridge, is whether you are certain or not that ttiis was in 1872 ? Mr. Porter— We except to your Honor's decision striking it out. Judge Neilson— Yes, Sir. [To the witness. \ You are either certain or are not certain, which is it 1 A. Well, I am certain that it was made after the publication of the book. Mr. Beach— I move to strike out that answer, Sir. Judge Neilson— Yes. Mr. Evarts— Well, if you Honor please— The Witness— Since the publication Mr. Beach— Stop a moment. Judge Neilson— The witness must pay some attention to the question, and the witness is not at liberty to branch off and carry the examiner with him, wheresoever he will. Mr. Evarts— No. Judge Neilson— Now he is certain or he is not certain. It is a very simple question. Mr. Evarts— I am now talking about striMng out. Judge Neilson— That was not competent, and was not caEed for. Mr. Evarts— I have no obiectlon to following the inquiry, but the witness's mode of answering comes to this : " My U£L D. FAETEIUGF, 305 knowledge is as to time only in connecting it with the recency of the publication." Mr. Beach— I don't know, Sir, the object of these inter- ruptions upon the part of the counsel. I insist that upon a cross-examination of this character, in answer to a question of this kind, plain and simple, I am entitled to a categorical answer. Judge Neilson— Certainly you are, Mr. Beach— And that the reasoning of the witness can- not be forced upon me. Mr. Evarts— My object— you say you don't understand it ? jVIr. Beach— N'o. :Mr. Evarts— My object is to have the rights of evidence preserved to the parties and to the witness. I was speak- ing only on the question of striking out ; I do not object to their pursuing it. Mr. Beach— That was a very laudable object, but I didn't see the object from the remarks, Sir. Mr. Morris— The evidence had been stricken out before. Judge Neilson— It is so easy and simple for the witness to say that he is certain or that he is not certain, that there is no occasion for hesitation. Mr. Beach— Well, Mr. Partridge, we wiU get that stum- bling-block out of the way, and let it go. WTiere was it I A. In the oflBce of Woodruff & Robinson. Q. What season of the year was it ? A. I should say it was in the Fall. Q. jyo you feel quite positive about iti A. I feel pretty sure. Q. And early or late in the Fall 1 A. I should think it was not very late in the Fall. Q. Some time in the course of the Fall. Was any one present at the conversation beside you and ;Mr. Moulton f A. I don't recollect any one but himself and myself. Q. Do you recollect in what part of the store it oo- curred 1 A. I presume Q. Now, I don't want any of your presumption. A. No, I can't say. Q. You don't recollect in what part of the store t A. I don't recollect what particular part. Q. Well, are you enabled to recollect in what portion of the day it was 1 A. No, Sir; I don't recollect what portion of the day it was. Q. Do you remember whether any of the other partners or attaches of that establishment were there ? A. I don't recollect that they were — any one but he and I. Q. Don't recollect whether they were or were not! A. I don't recollect. Q. Do you recollect anything that you was engaged in at that time! A. I do not; only listening to what he said, and something that I said myself ; I spoke myself. Q. I will get at that by and by. During that time hare 206 THE TimON-BEEOHEB TBIAL. you any recollection of what your occupation was 1 Is there any incident connected with the conversation which refreshes your recollection 1 A. No, Sir. Q. Nothing at all t A. I don't think of anything. Q. What was your ordinary daily duty at that time 1 A. My duty was receiving and paying out the cash. Q. And making entries upon the hooks, I suppose 1 A. Making entries upon the books and making checks. Q. But there was no noticeable variation in your or- dinary employment at that time, I suppose ? A. Not that I recollect, Sir. Q. Was you ia the habit daily of aeemg Mr. Moulton? A. I think I was. Sir. Q. Well, almost daily ? A. I presume so. Q. He was an active member of the firm, an active par- ticipant in the business of the lirm, wasn't he 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. Do you recoUect what portion of that day he spent in the office of the firm 1 A. I couldn't teU you. Q. Do you recollect any business that was transacted upon that day ? A. I cannot tell you ; I don't recollect anything done between him and me that day except what I have told you. Q. You don't recollect anything done that day except what you have told me, as to the declarations of Mr. Moulton? A. I cannot tell you anything. Q. Well, my object was to find out, Mr. Partridge, if I could fairly, from you whether there was any incident or circumstance connected with this conversation as aris- ing from your business or occupation, which impressed it upon your mind unusually ? A. I don't recollect any- thing. Sir. Q. And it was received by you and transpired as an ordinary conversation, making no especial impression upon your mind 1 A. It made such an impression that I remembered it. Q. No, no. Sir. Mr. Evarts— WeU, now Mr. Beach— Did it make any especial impression upon your mind I A, It is the only thing that I remember. Mr. Beach— I must insist, your Honor, that this gentle- man shall pay some little attention to your Honor's in- struction in answering my question. The Witness— I certainly will. Mr. Evarts— If your Honor please, I see no occasion for my learned friend's animadversion upon this witness, either in expression or in matter ; and when he is asked whether it made any especial impression upon him, he certainly has a right to answer what degree of especial impression it made. Judge Neilson— He has, when he is asked. Until h'e is asked he has a right to say yes or no, it did or did not make any especial impression. Mr. Evarts— Well, if your Honor please, if witnesses are confined to saying yes or no, we shall have a very strange production of evidence. Judge Neilson— I hardly think it would be strange tf the witness is directed to answer Mr. Evarts— Yes oi n j i Judge Neilson fcontinuingl— The specific question put. Mr. Evarts— Now, the question is, did it make any especial impression upon him ? Judge Neilson— It is easy to say yes or no. Mr. Evarts— That would depend upon how the fact was. Judge Neilson— Then I should say I could not tell. Mr. Evarts— It would depend upon how the faot was. He might say yes. Judge Neilson— The witness ought, on examination, to pay attention to the examining counsel without turning to the right or left. Mr. Evarts— Yes ; but when he is asked whether any- thing made a special impression upon him, he has a right to state what impression it made upon him, and other people are to judge whether it is special. Mr. Beach— Well, I dissent from that. Sir. Judge Neilson— Of course; the witness must answer the question. Mr, Beach— I cannot conclude this examination, Sir. I am perfectly wilUng to stay Mr. Evarts— Take this question and answer. Mr. Beach— Oh, no ; I guess not. Mr. Evarts— Surely. Mr. Beach— Well, I will withdraw the question. Mr. Evarts— There is no necessity— this single question can be disposed of. Mr. Beach— No, it cannot, when I withdraw it. Judge Neilson— You are willing to withdraw it to have an adjomnment I Mr. Beach— Yes, Sir. Mr. Evarts— It is withdrawn for good. Mr. Beach— No, Sir. Mr. Ilvarts— No i [Laughter.] It is all very well, but I think the question should be disposed of. Mr. Beach— No, no. Mr. Evarts's remarks have so im- pressed me that I must make one or two preliminary questions before I put that. Mr. Evarts [smiling]— " Especially impressed" you 1 Judge Neilson— Get ready to retire, gentlemen. Please attend Monday morning at 11 o'clock. The Court tlien adjourned until Monday morning, April 26, at 11 o'clock. TESTIMONY OF SA]\ SEVENIY-SECOND DAY'S PROCEEDINGS. FOUR WITNESSES IN THE CHAIE. TESTIMONY OF SAMUEL DWIGHT PARTRIDGE, EDWARD J. WRIGHT, MRS. ELIZABETH LA PIERRE PALMER, AND BENJAmN F. TRACY— THE MEMORANDUM AC- COMPANTTING THE CHECK EOR $7,000— MR. TLL- TON'S comments soon AFTER THE WOODHULL PUBLICATION— HIS RELATIONS TO MRS. WOODHULL AT HER OFFICE AND AT HER HOUSE— REMARKA- BLE TESTIMONY OF A CLAIRVOYANT— MR. TRACY'S EARLY CONNECTION WITH THE CASE. Monday, April 26. 1875. The cross-examinatiou of Samuel Dwight Partridge bj'Mr. Beach was opened with questions in reference to the yellow slip of paper containing the words : "Spoils from new friends for the enrichment of old," which accompanied the Bo wen check of deposit for $7,000 in 1872. The witness described the drawer in wMch he had placed the check and the slip of paper. He said he did not recollect whether the check and the slip of paper had come fastened together or not. After the paper had been in the drawer for some time he took it^ out, folded it, and put it in his pocket-book, without tellrug any memlier of the firm about it. An amusing scene occurred when Mr. Beach asked the witness to take out his pocket-book and replace the paper in it in the compartment which it had occupied after being taken from the drawer. Mr. Partridge did not recollect ever telling any member of the firm that such a paper had accompanied the Bowen check until two or three weeks ago, when he told Jtremiah P. Robinson about it. He had shown it to his wife and children, and one or two other persons, soon after the publication of the statements in rela- tion to the scandal last Summer. Mr. Partridge was also questioned about his alleged conversation with IVIr. Moulton. When he first took the stand in the morning, he said he desired to cor- rect the statement which he made last Friday in regard to the time when the conversation took place. It was iu 1871 instead of 1872. He had had another conversation with Mr. Moulton about the scandal about two years before he left the firm of Woodruif & Robinson, which was on Dec. 31, 1874. The witness could not swear that Franklin Woodruff was not present at the conversation in 1871, but that was the only conversation with Mr. Moulton in which the num- ber of Spiritualists had been mentioned. On the re-direct examination of Mr. Partridge Mr. Evarts UEL D. FARTEIBU^E. 207 drew from binn the fact that he had been etlucated for the law. Soon afterward he asked the witness a question to which the latter began to respond in his customary wandering manner. "Will you stop, Sir!" exclaimed Mr. Beach, and then added ironically, "you know vou are a lawyer." " I ought not to have that brought up against me," replied the witness smiling. During the course of his cross-examination Mr. Partridge manifested a tendency in answering ques- tions to branch out into collateral matters, and Mr. Beach more than once asked Judge Neilson to in- struct the witness to confine his answers to the ques- tions. Edward J. Wright, a resident of Greenwich, Conn., was the next witness for the defense. Before the examination was begun, Mr. Evarts offered in evi- dence a letter from Mr. Tilton to Mr. Davis, dated at the office of The Golden Age, Sept. 18, 1871. In this letter Mr. Tilton asked the recipient and his wife to read his " Life of Victoria Woodhull," and to give him their impression of it. He said that he had understated rather than over- stated the facts iu that book. Mr. Wright testified that he had known Theodore Tilton by sight for eight years. On Nov. 4, 1872, soon after the pub- lication of the Woodhull article, which he had read, he took a train from Concord, N. H., for New- York. Soon after leaving Concord, Mr. Tilton entered the train and sat down near him. Another gentleman came in and sat down by Mr. Tilton's side. This gentleman asked Mr. Tilton about the Woodhull scandal. The latter replied that he had seen it in an Eastern paper, but said that he cared nothing for it himself, but that Mrs. Tilton was in delicate health and he feared for its effect upon her. Mr. Beach, in cross-examining this witness, said that he understood the conversation in the cars re- ferred to was iu reference to a speech made in Bos- ton by Mrs. Woodhull about Mr. Beecher and Mrs. Tilton. The witness said he distinctly recollected that Woodhull Cla flings Weekly was mentioned in that conversation, and that it referred to the Wood- hull scandal. During the cross-examination of Mr. Wright, Mr. Beach consulted with Mr. Tilton two or three times. The latter was busily writing during a large part of the day. There was a murmur of curiosity when a woman of very striking appearance was conducted to the chair as the next witness for the defense. She was of middle age, and was apparently weakened by sickness. Sho was examined by Mr. Shearman. 208 TRE TILTON-BEECHEE IBIAL. She gave her name as Elizabeth La Pierre Palmer. She had pursued the profession of a landscape artist andhadresided at Montmorency, S.C. At present she was staying with friends in this city. She had been married twice. She was divorced from her former husband, Herbert Daniels, in 1868. In 1874 she was married to her present husband, Frederick Augustus Palmer, an eclectic physician of Few-York. She had formerly, she said, resided in New- York, where she manufac- tured and sold ladies' stocking-suspenders of her own mvention. She occupied a pai't of Mrs. Woodhull's office in the Spring of 1871. She there met Mr. Tilton in February, 1871. She had heard Mrs. Woodhull and Mr. Tilton talk about the projected publication of The Golden Age. The substance of their conversation was that Mr. Tilton was to start The Golden Age, and run it together with Woodhull ^ Claflinh Weekly in connection with the Spiritualism movement. It was to be a radical paper, taking up all the radical questions of the day. Mr. Tilton had asked the witness to be an agent for his new paper, but she had refused. She saw Mr. Tilton at Mrs. Woodhull's office two or three times a day, during part of February and during March and April, 1871. She saw Mr. Tilton go to lunch with Mrs. Woodhull at least six times. Several times she heard Mrs. WoodbuU say to him, "Come, Theodore, let us go out to lunch." They called each other "Theodore" and "Vickey." She also saw Mr. Tilton taken into the back parlor, which was not thrown open to ordinary guests, and four times she saw him in Mrs. Woodhull's bed- room, sitting at a desk, and either talking or writing. Mr. Tilton treated Mrs. Woodhull very affectionately, and it was his common habit to put his arm around her. She had heard Mrs. Wood- hull talk of Mr. Tilton's becoming the head of the Spiritualists. Perhaps the most remarkable portion of Mrs. Palmer's testimony was in reference to a conversation which she had heard between Mrs. Woodhull and Mr. Tilton about the scandal. On that occasion Mr. Tilton had told Mrs. Woodhull that his wife was as pure as snow, and that the scan- dal was not true. The cross-examination of Mrs. Palmer was con- ducted by Mr. Beach, who was somewhat taken aback when, having asked a question relative to her husband's business, she turned to Judge Neilson and appealed to the Court, saying that that had no relation to this ease, and unless the Court compelled her she would refuse to answer. " That is not the first time 1 have been refused by a lady," said Mr. Beach, smiling. She was obliged to go on. The cross-examination developed the fact that Mrs. Palmer was a medium, and had as- sisted her husband as a clairvoyant by making examinations of patients. The skiUful lawyer led her on until she became interested in telling about her powers, and the counsel, jurymen, and audience Usteuerl with lively interest. She said she could, when in the proper condition, to a great ex- tent, read the secrets of others' lives— the acts which they had done. She announced her belief that around every human soul there was a band of guardian spirits, and that no evil influences can reach that soul, unless God opens the cordon of guarding spirits. She believed that no human soul was responsible for its acts, except that it would be responsible if it did not pray for the Divine assistance that could be had for the asking. Mr. Beach smiled when the witness announced that she saw a spirit standing near him. "Is it a good or a bad one, for I should like to know ?" he asked. She replied that it was a young lady— his daughter. " Well, I've had one of that kind," replied the lawyer, his face reddening. Mrs. Palmer went on to give her views about mar- riage and divorce. She said she was not a free lover, but believed that when a married man and woman found that they were totally incompatible, and couldn't possibly live happily together, they should be divorced. The witness proceeded at great length to explain her peculiar ideas of Spiritualism and religion, and talked so earnestly that her auditors paid close attention. She in- sisted on telling what she knew in her own way, and could not be made to entangle herself in contradic- tions. She repeated in substantially the same language what she had before said about The Golden Age, and the relations of Mr. Til- ton and Mrs. WoodhuU. She admitted that Mr. Tilton's familiarities with Mrs. Woodhull must have been seen by Col. Blood and Stephen Pearl Andrews, since they were neither open nor concealed. She said she believed in the God of the Christians and in the Lord Jesus Christ,although she held some peculiar views about the relation of the latter to the Father. Near the close of the session, Benjamin F. Tracy was called and sworn as a witness for the defense. His examination, conducted by Mr. Evarts, had pro- ceeded only a little way, when the Court adjourned. lESimOXI OF SA2IUEL D. FABTEIDGE. 209 THE PEOCEEDIXaS-YERBATBI. S.l^IUEL D. PARTEIDGE EECALLED. The Court met at 11 a. m., pursuant to ad- lournment. Samuel D. Partridge was recalled and Ids cross-exam- ination resumed. 3Ir. Beacli— INIr. Partridge, on your examination tlie other day you spoke of a clieck -^liicli "was handed to you The Witness [rising]— Will you excuse me 1 I wish to correct a mistake that I fell into, as I understand, on Friday. A Juror— A little louder. Judge Xeilson— Sit down, Mr. Partridge. Make your coiTection, Sir. The Witness— As I understand, I stated that I belieyed that it was in 1872 ; I should have said 1871. I don't know how— I must have misapprehended the question, I think. A Jm-or— We can't hear. Mr. Beach— The substance is : " As I understand, I 6tat€d on Friday that it was in 1872 ; it was in 1871. I must have misunderstood the CLuestion." The Witness— The publication of the "biography was the matter, I think. Mr. Shearman— The publication of the "Life of Mrs. Woodhull." THE APPEAEAXCE OF THE BOWEN CHECK. ^Ir. . Beach— Wlien you were examined before, Mr. Partridge, you spoke of a check which was handed to you as the cashier of the firm of Woodruff &. Robinson 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. What was the amount of that check? A. $7,000, if I recollect right. Q. Who drew it 1 A. It was signed, I think, by H. C. Bowen— Mr. Bowen's check, I think. Q. You knew Mr. Bowen, didn't you ? I knew him by eight. Sir; I hadn't any acquaintance with him. Q. You knew him very well by reputation ? A. Yes, Su\ Q. Can you recollect the precise form of the signature ? A. I do not. Sir. Q. You think it was H. C. Bowen 1 A. It was the same check that was handed to me the other day, and credited to Mr. Bowen. Q. I didn't ask you that. A. I think that was the check. Q. What? A. I don't recollect that I looked particu- larly at the signature. Q. Credited, did you say, to :\Ir. Henry C. Bowen 1 A. It was credited to Mr. Tilton. Q. You said to Henry C. Bowen a moment ago 1 A. WeU, I made a mistake. Q. Made a mistake 1 And it was payable to Mr. Tilton, you s:iy 1 A. Thut is as I understand it ; yes, Sir. Q. Well, are you quite sure of that, or whether it was indorsed over to Mr. Tilton? A. Mr. Tilton was an in- dorser on it. Q. Well, was he the first indorser ! A, I would not be sure, Sir. Q. What 1 A. I won't be sure how that was ; I didn't look attentively at that part of it the other day. It might have been drawn by somebody else to the order of Mr. Bowen ; I could not say certain ; I don't remem- ber. Mr. Evarts— Mr. Partridge, I think you will find it, per- haps, convenient to speak a little louder when you know that the jury cannot understand you. The Witness— Yes, Sir. Mr. Beach— Do you recollect how the check was in- dorsed? A. I recollect that Mr. Tilton was an indorser on it, and Woodruff & Kobinson were indorsers on it ; as to any other— there may have been one other, but I don't remember who it was. Q. Was it indorsed by Woodruff & Robinson when it was presented to you? A. No, not when it was presented to me ; it was when it was presented to me the other day. Q. Xo, no ; when it was originally handed to you, was it indorsed by Woodruff & Robinson ? A. No, I think not. Q. Did you see that indorsement put upon the check ? A. I couldn't tell you whether I did or not. Sir ; it is not Q. Wait a moment, Sir. When you answer my question please stop. And you put the check, I understand, in the drawer ? A. I did. Q. And there were two apartments in the drawer ? A. There were more apartments than two. Q. WeU, there were two ? A. The front part of the drawer was divided into narrow apartments, and the back part of it was not divided ; there were two in that sense. Q. And the check, I understand, you put in the front apartment of the drawer? A. Yes, Sir. THE SHAPE IN WHICH THE CHECK AIST) YEL- LOW PAPER CA^IE. Q. And this yellow paper you put In the back portion of the drawer? A. In the back portion; that is, according to my recollection. Q. Were the two papers, the yellow paper and the check, attached together in any form when you received them ? A. I don't recollect. Sir, whether they were or not. Q. Don't recollect whether they were or not. Well, can't you recollect. Sir, whether they came to you an- nexed, and that you tmdertook to separate them ? A. I do not ; I know that they came to me at the same time. Q. That ain't the question I put to you. A. And by the same hand. Q. Wait one moment. Sir. The question I put to you was whether you can not recollect whether or not these pa* 210 TaE TILION-BE pers came to you annexed, and that you assumed to sep- arate them ? A. I don't remember. Q. If a check with a memorandum came to you in your business, did you assume the authority to separate them ? A. I don't remember in this matter whether— anything how they came, relative to each other, except that they were handed to me at the same time. Q. You are not now, Sir, answering my question, and I beg you to confine your attention to the question I put to you. I ask you whether, as the cashier of a business firm, when a check came into your hands with a memo- randum attached to it, you, as cashier, would assume, without direction, to separate them and put them apart 1 A. I don't recollect. Sir, that any such occurrence ever happened. Q. Would you consider it in the line of your duty to do that ? A. I should consider— it wouldn't be expected if a thing came attached to a check that I should deposit that, unless it was a part of the check. Mr. Beach [to the Court]— I don't know, Sir, as to this witness, whether he purposely avoids answering my question, and answers matters which are not pertinent or responsive, but I assume, if your Honor please, that I have a right to ask instructions from your Honor to him, that he should answer the question I put to him. Judge Neilson— Mr. Partridge, the duty of the witness is to attend to the very question put, and answer it as closely and directly as you can. The Witness— I will do so, your Honor. Judge Neilson— When you cannot answer it, say you cannot. Mr. Beach— Please attend, then, to this question. The Witness— I will. Sir. Q. When you, as the cashier of that firm, received a check with a memorandum annexed to it, would you con- ceive it in the line of your duty to separate those two papers and place them apart ? A. Well, Sir, isn't it proper for me to say that I have no recollection that any guch occurrence ever happened, and how can I tell how I should act? Q. You cannot tell how you should act 1 A. If no such thing ever happened Q. You could not tell. You have no sense of business propriety and duty, then ? A. If I Q. I am asking you, Sir, whether, as a business man, and trusted cashier of a firm, when a check came to you with a memorandum annexed to it, from a partner of the firm, you would consider it your province to separate those two papers and put them apart 1 A. Well, I don't know, Sir. Q. You don't know whether you would consider it your duty or not ? A. I don't know. Q. Did you do that on this occasion, with this check and memorandum ? A. I don't remember whether they came pinned together — fastened together, or not ; I don't remember. 'FJJHER TBIAL. Q. Well, Mr. Partridge, refreshing your recollection by your sense of duty and your practice, cannot you say whether or not they were attached when they came to your hands? A. I cannot, Sir ; I don't remember. Q. Well, Sir, you put the check in the front apartment of the drawer, and the memorandum in the back part of the drawer? A. Yes, Sir ; they were i^eparate then. Q. What ? A. They were separate then, at that time. Q. Well, I should suppose so, Sir. [Laughter.] It is not necessary that you should swear to it. How long did the check remain where you placed it in the fore part of the drawer? A. Well, I think that I deposited that the same day, Sir. Q. You think you deposited that the same day ? A. I think I did. Q. Cannot you tell by reference to your books? A. I can be i)retty well satisfied. Q. From an examination of the books? A. From an examination of the bank book, and see if I deposited the $7,000 check that day. It is not likely I had more than one. Q. Well, is there any memorandum upon your books by which you can tell upon what day you received the check? A. Yes, Sir. Q. What? A. Icau. Q. Have you examined them ? A. I have ; I looked. Q. What? A. I did. Q. Can you tell, then, from that examination of the en tries upon the book when you received it ? A. On the 5th day of April, if I recollect right. Q. On the 5th day of April ? A. 1872, 1 think. Q. Do the books so declare ? A. I think so. Q. You think so. A. It has been some time Q. Have you any recollection whether or not you did deposit it on the day you received it ; have you now any present recollection of that circumstance? A. Without reference to the book I cannot tell you, Sir. Q. You could not tell ? A. No, Sir. A HISTORY OF THE YELLOW PAPER. Q. How loug did this piece of yellow paper remain in the back apartment of the drawer before 3-ou took it and put it in your pocketbook ? A. It is impossi- ble for me to say exactly,, but I should think not a great while. Q. Well, two or three days or a week. How long ! A. Well, I cannot tell. Q. Sir ? A. According to— the impression that I ha^ e is Q. Just answer my question. A. I will. Mr. Evarts— He is. Mr. Beach — No, he is not answering. Mr. Evarts— According to his impression, he says. Mr. Beach— Yes. According to your recollection how^ many days— what length of time did this paper remain in the back apartment bctore yon took it out and itn( it TESTmo:SY OF SAM In your pocketbooTi! A. I shouW tMnk not a great TrMle ; but I cannot be explicit as to that. Q. According to tlie best of your recollection bo^ long 1 A. According to tlie best of my recollection I liad tliat in my pocket, I should think, two or three years. Q. Well, that is very pertinent to something I may ask you by and by. A. Well, I cannot say. Q. Do you understand my question, Sir ? A. If I under- stand your question, you wish me to say hoTV many days, or precisely ho?r long that lay in the back part of the dra^ver before I put it into my pocket ? Q. Yes. Sir. I did not say " precisely," but I said ac- cording to the best of your recollection. A. "Well, I don't recollect. Q. Xow, you seem to understand the question; mil you ans"^er it ? A. I don't recollect. Q. Tell me, according to the best of your impression. A. The best of my recollection is — the best of my impres- sion is that I cannot tell exactly what time it was. Q. I didn't ask you to tell me exactly. A. I cannot tell you; I hare no criterion by which I can recollect. Q. According to the best of your recoUection, nid it remain in the back drawer a week before you took It out ? A. I could not tell you. Sir. Q. What ? A. I could not say certainly ; I should think it did, however. Q. Well, two weeks ? A. I could not tell you, Sir, how long ; it did not remain a great while. Q. Well, you have said you should think longer than a -week « A. Yes, Sir. Q. How «ith regard to two weeks? A. I could not tell you. Sir. Q. Well, what do you think about it 1 A. I have no recollection about it. Q. WeU, you think it remained there longer than a week; how much longer than a week, should you think ? A. I could not tell you. Sir. Q. "V^Tiy, if you think it remained there longer than a week, you must have some impression about it 1 A. The only impression that I have about it is that it did not remain there a great while. Q. Then you took it out, folded it up, and put it in your pocketbook? A. I put it in my pocket ; yes. Sir. Q. Do you rememlier how many times you folded it 1 A. No, Sir; I do not; I don't remember. It is folded; I don't remember anjT:hing abnut that matter. Q. What? A. It is folded now; it was folded when I put it into my pocketbook. Q. Is your eyesight good enough to see whether the holes of the check and the paper correspond, placing those pin holes together ? A. I can't see the pin holes. Q. Can't see the pin holes ? A. Xo, Sir. Q. Have you the pocketbook in which you kept it ? A. I have ; yes. Sir. Q, Let us see it! VEL D. PABTEIDGE. 211 The Witness [Producing his pocketbook] — There, if I recollect aright it was kept in that compartment. Q. Now, fold it up as you kept it there ; doi't tear it. The Witness— Will you have the kindness to fold it; I eannot see. :Mr. Beach— WeU, I have put it in the folds as they are. [Folding paper and handing it to witness, who tried to put it in the pocketbook.] WeU, that is enough ; you needn't put it in. Then you folded it twice ? A. I don't recollect. Q. ^Tiat ? A. I don't recoUect anything about it ; I don't recoUect. Q. WeU, you must have folded it three times. There it is ; you see it, don't you ? A. Folded it so it would go in there. Q. WeU, you folded it three times, did you not 1 A. Do- you expect I recollect fi' m\ that time until now ho"W I many times I folded that piece of paper, as though I had I nothing else to think of ? i Q. WeU, there is the pocketbook, there is the paper. Yon see how it is folded to go in there, and you see it won't go in without folding, don't you ? Mr. Evarts— That is reasoning; not memory. Mr. Beach — I ask bim to look at this paper and teU me how many times he folded it to put it into this pocket- i book. The Witness — I can't teU you anything about it. Q. No ; but looking at the paper and your pocketbook, and making the experiment, you can tell ? A. Well, you can tell Q. Can you tell ? I want to get it on the record. A^ You can get it on the record as soon as you please ; I put it mto my pocketbook. Q. You take that paper with your pocketbook and teU me how many times you folded it to get it into your pocketbook ? A. WeU, it requires the folding that it has now to get in there. Q. That is three foldings, isn't it ? A. Well, I can't see,. Sir. Q. Look at it— yes, you can see that; Iknowbettert A. That is one Q. That is one, and that two, and that three— that makes three, doesn't it ? A. WeU, I don't see three- unless you cotmt one, two, three. Q. This is one, ain't it, to fold it this way? A. Oh, yes^ Sir. Q. And that is another, and that is another? A. That Is another. Q. How long did you carry it in your pocketbook? A. WeU, fi"om the time I put it into it imtU the other day^ in my pocketbook. TO WHOM THE YELLOW PAPER WAS SHOWN. Q. Did you have it out at any time? A. I have. m TEE TILTON-Bl Q. How many times? A. I could not tell you how many times. Q. Wlien did you first have it out ? A. I don't recol- lect of ever showing that Q. Wait a moment ; when did you first have it out ac- cording to your recollection ? A can't tell you, Sir, only— I can tell you that since a particular time. Mr. Evarts. That is, taking it out, showing it. Mr. Beach— I don't ask him ahout showing it to any- body. The Witness— Oh ! I have no recollection of ever taking that out untU I took it out to show it to somebody. Q, Well, when did you first take it out to show to some- body, then 1 A. It was since — I have no recollection of ever showing that to any one imtil since these state- ments. Q. Since what statements ? A. Well, statements that were made last Summer, I think. Q. That is the first time that you took it out I A. I have no recollection of taking it out Q. To whom did you first show it? A. I could not tell you that. Q. Who is the first person that you recollect that you showed it to ? A. I should think that the first persons I showed it to were individuals in our own family. Q. Well, who 1 A. In our own family— in my own family. Q. Well, who? Who] A. My wife, or my children, or both, perhaps, at the same time ; I don't know Q. Well, I want to know whom you recollect first to have shown it to ? A. I don't recollect who I did first show it to. Q. Well, who do you recollet of ever showing it to ? A. I recollect of showing it in my family ; I recollect of show- ing it to a gentleman by the name of Clark. Q. Where does he reside? A. He resides in North- ampton. Q. What is his full name ? A. His full name is— I think It is Josiah, Sir. Q. When was that ? A. That was last Winter. Q. Well, who else do you remember showing it to f A. I remember showing it to Mr. Albert Woodruff. Q. Albert Woodruff? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Who is he ? A. He is Mr. Albert Woodruff ; he was formerly a member of the firm of A. Woodruff & Robin- eon. Q. Was he a member at the time you showed the paper to him ? A. No, Sir ; he was not. Q. Where was he when you showed it to hmil A. I was at his house. Sir. Q. Where ? A. In State-st., Brooklyn. . Q. In this city ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. When was that do you think 9 A. I should think that way not more than 10 days ago, or a fortnight, per- liaps ; that was recently. EC HER TBLAL. THE YELLOW PAPER KEPT AS A CURIOSITY. Q. Now, in the month of April, 1872, weie you personally acquainted with Mr. Tilton? A. I had seen him repeatedly; I never had any acquaintance with Mr. Tilton ; I know him well by sight. Q. Well, at that time did you know anything about the diflBculties between Mr. Tilton and Mr. Bowen? A. I knew, previous to this, that Mr. Moulton, and I think Mr. Tilton was with him, came to me one day Q. No, no ; I am m)t asking about that. A. I am tell- ing all I know about it, if that is what you want. Q. WeU, I don't want it all ; it would be a burden to me to carry it. I am asking you if, at the time this check was handed to you, you were acquainted with the diffi- culties between Mr. Moulton and Mr. Tilton— Mr. Tilton and Mr. Bowen, I mean ? A. All that I knew— that I recollect that I knew at the time that I received this check, was that I had been informed that Mr. Tilton, on his way to see Mr. Bowen, had some paper printed in type ; that he was going to see Mr. Bowen and show it to him and tell him tha»l; he must settle with him, or pay him some money o? something or other, or he should publish that ; that id all that I knew about it up to that time. Q. And that you had heard from other parties ? A. That I had heard from other parties ; yes. Sir. Q. At the time you took out this yeUow paper and put it in your pocket-book, had you heard anything more about it ? A. I had not heard anything more. Q. Hadn't heard anything more 1 A. That is all that I Q. Now, when did you first communicate to any person that you had this papei f A. WeU, I told you I did not re- member when Q. What? A. Since— I don't think I ever mentioned it to any one until since Q. Those statements last Summer? Yes, Sir, those statements ; I think it was, as I mentioned, since those statements. Q. Were there any other checks in that drawer at the time you put these papers in it ? A. I presume there were, but that is a mere matter of guessing ; I don't re- member anything about it ; there generally was checks there. Q. You did not attach those papers together with a pin ? A. I never did— not to my recollection ; I have no recollection of ever anything about pins or pinning in connection with it. Q. Have you no idea how those pin-holes got in there t A. No ; not the least in the world, Sir. Q. Least in the world ? A. Don't know anything about it ; I don't recoUect anything about it. Q. Did you communicaie to any momber of that flim that you had taken this paper from their drawer and put it in your pocket-book 1 A. Not at that time that I know of ; no, I never did. TESTIMONY OF SAM UEL D. PAETRIDGIJ. 213 Q. You never ETH LA PIERRE PALMER. 219 Mr. Shearman— If you can. Are you at present stop- ing in Xew-York \ A. I am. Q. With whom are you at present stopping"? A. Mrs. John Keyser. Q. The wife of John H. Keyser. A. Yes, Sir. Q. In Second-ave. ? A. Yes. Sir. Q. Your health is not very good. I suppose ! A. No, Sir ; I am not guite well. Q. Still, try to speak louder. Where were you born and brought up? A. I was born in Ticonderoga, on Lake George. I was brought up in Elizabethtown, in this State. Q. Elizabethtown, Essex County ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Did you afterward remove to Massachusetts? A. I did. Q. Where did voir live in Massachusetts ? A. I lived in Cambridge a part of the time. Q. About how long? A. I was in Cambridge nearly five years. Q. After that where did you live ? A. In Boston. Q. About how long there? A. Three or four years. I think. Q. Did you afterward remove to this State 1 A. I did. Q. "^Tien did you come back to ^Tew-York State ? A. In the Spring of 1871. Q. What was your occupation at Cambridge. Mrs. Palmer ? A. I was studying as a landscape painter— an artist. Q. A landscape artist ? A. Yes. Q. Have you pursued that profession? A. I have, Sir. Q. Did you afterward enter into any other business ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. State what that business was, and what led you to it'? A. I invented a lady's stocking suspender, and went to Waslungton and patented it. and afterward manufac- tured itr—afterward manufactured it and introduced it all through the country. Q. What is your husband's name ? A. Frederick Augus- tus Palmer. Q. Have you been married more than once ? A. Yes, Sir; twice. Q. Who was your former husband? A. Herbert Daniels. Q. How is it that you have been married again ? A. I was divorced from my first husband. Q. Who obtained that divorce? A. George Hart of this city. Q. I mean as between you and your husband— did you or did he obtain it ? A. I did. Q. You obtained the divorce? A. Yes. Sir. Q,. And when did you marry your present husband ? A. On the 19th day of March, 1874. Q. WTien did you marry your former husband ? A. On the 16th day of March, 186S. Q. You were married, then, about six years I A. Yes, Sir. 220 THE TILION-BEECRER Q. Now, Mrs. Palmer, did you ever form the acquaint- ance of Mrs. Victoria C. Woodhull 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. Will you state about what time you formed her ac- quaintance ? A. In May of 1870. Q. Under what circumstances ? A. T was here holding a convention in connection with Mr. Heywood and others. Q. Mr. E. H. Heywood ? A. Yes, Sii\ Q. He is a prominent labor reformer of Massachusetts f A. Yes, Sir. Q. Were you interested in the Labor Reform move- ment? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Go on and state what occurred ? A. I was on the Executive Oommittee and one of the Vice-Presidents of that Association, and I invited, in connection with others Mrs. Woodhull to speak at that convention. Q. »id she come? A. She did. Q. Prom that time forward you had an acquaintance with her? A. Yes, Sir. Q. State whether you ever occupied any portion of her oflace? A. I did. Q. When did that begin ? A. In the Spring of 1871. Q. Under what circumstances did you come to share a portion of her office ? A. Mrs. Woodhull gave me, very kindly, permission to take my business of my stocking- suspender into her office, and to work from there. Q. When did you become, if ever, acquainted with Mr. Theodore Tilton % A. In the Spring of 1871. Q. And where ? A. At Mrs. Woodhull's office. Q. Now, can you fix the date so far as to say whether it was before or after the first publication of The Golden Age that you became acquainted with Mr. Tilton at Mrs. Woodhull's office 1 A. It was before. Mr. Shearman- TH.-.t it is agreed, was the 4th of March, 1871. [To the witness.] About how long before that date do you feel at all positive that you saw Mr. Tilton at that office? A. Either the last of January or the first of February. Q. That is, you mean the first part of February f A, Yes, Sir ; the first part of the month. Q. Not necessarily the first day? A. Not the day, Sir ; I could not tell anything about the day. Q. Can you recollect anything of the circumstances Tmder which you first saw Mr. Tilton there? A. Yes, Sir. Q. State what they were. A. Mrs. Woodhull told me she had Mr. Beach— Wait a moment. TRIAL. THE *'THE GOLDEN AGE" TO SUPPORT SPIRITUALISTS. Mr. Shearman— No ; I mean the circum- stances, so far as when Mr. Tilton was present. A. I caUed— r called at Mr. Tilton's office with Mrs. Woodhull. Q. And did he call at Mrs. Woodhull's office ? A. Yes, Bir. Q. What happened on that first interview at Mrs. Woodhull's office ! A. I don't remember. Q. Did you hear any conversation between Mr. Tilton and Mrs. Woodhull concerning the projected publication of The Golden Age ? A. I did. Sir. Q. Was there any discussion about its prospectus ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. State what that conversation was as near as you remember, giving the words or the substance of the words ? I cannot give the words at all, but the general form Q. The substance? A. The general conversation, a number of times, was Mr. Beach— No, no ; not a number of times ; that time. Mr. Shearman— Well ! Mr. Beach— Let her answer yom.' question. ^Mr. Shearman— I want the conversation about the pro- spectus or the plans about The Golden Age ? Was there more than one conversation on that subject ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Are you able to distinguish between the conversa- tions, or not ? A. I don't think that I can, definitely. Q. Then you can state the substance of those conversa- tions ? A. The substance was that Mr. Tilton should start this paper, and if possible they should run the two papers in connection with the Spiritual movement. Q. You speak now of The Golden Age and of Woodhull & OlaMn's Weekly ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Was anything said about what kind of a paper TTie Golden Age was to be— I mean between Mrs. Woodhull and Mr. Tilton? A. Yes. Q. What was said? A. It was to be a radical paper, taking up all the radical questions of the day. Q. Did Mr. Tilton make any proposition to you in rela- tion to T7ie Golden Age ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. What was that? A. He wished me to become an agent for him. Q. You did not, however ? A. No, Sir; I did not. Q. Now, how frequently, during the period of Febru- ary and March, 1871, did you see Mr. Tilton at Mrs. Woodhull's office ? A. Almost daily ; sometimes twice a day— three times. Q. And dming what period did the frequency of Mr. Tilton's visits to that office continue 1 A. All through the month— the latter part of the month of February, and of March, and of April, of 1871. Q. During the Summer of 1871 was he also a frequent visitor at the office ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Did your ever see Mr. TUton take lunch at Mrs. Woodhull's office? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Did you see that frequently t A. I cannot state that it was frequently ; but I saw him lunch there a number of times. Q. How many times do you feel sure that you saw him take lunch there ? A. I would not — I could not swear to having seen him take lunch there more than six times ; I don't think. TJESTlMOyr OF MBS. ELIZABETH LA PIEBBE FALMBB. 221 Q. But can vou swear to liariiig seen Win oftener in the oflSce. and at alDout the period of luncli time '? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Did you take lunch, ■witli Mrs. Woodiiull on those oc- casions ? A. I never took lunch yrith Mrs. Woodhull and Mr. Tilton. Q. You did sometimes with Mrs. Woodhull when Mr. Tilton was not there '? A. Several times. Q. Did you ever hear any conversation between Mr. Tilton and :Mrs. T7oodliull on the subject of going out to lunch? A. I have never heard any conversation between them, but I have heard Mrs. Woodhull say, " Come, Theo- dore, let us go out to lunch." Q. Have you heard that more than once ? A. Yes, Sir. FAMILIAEITIES BETWEEX ME. TILTON AND MES. WOODHULL. Q. Xow, did you ever see, diu^ing the Spring and Summer of 1871, Mr. Tilton at the house of Mrs. WoodhuU ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. How often do you suppose you saw him there i A. Almost every evening, during the same periods that I liave spoken of seeing him at the office. Q. "What was Mr. Tilton's habit with regard to th.e room he would occupy when he came to that house? A. He usually remained a few moments in the parlor— in the front parlor— and afterward retired to the back parlor with :Mr5. Woodhull, and perhaps Miss Claflin, or with Colonel Blood, or sometimes alone with her ; or up stairs to the room occupied by Mrs. "Woodhull and Colonel Blood. Q. In this back parlor of which you speak, were the other guests seated, or was it kept separate from the front parlor? A. It was kept separate fi-om the front parlor, as a general thing ; it was rarely ever tlirown open to general or casual guests. Q. And where did the general guests sit? A. In the front parlor. Q. Did you ever see Mr. Tilton in Mrs. Woodhull's bed- room ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. How often did you see him there ! A. I could not swear to h.aving seen him there more th.an four times. Q. But is it your impression that you saw him oftener— your best Impression ? A. Not that I saw him oftener ; but that I knew he was there. Mr. Beach— Well !— but it was no matter. That must be from information, I suppose 1 Mr. Shearman— I suppose so ; or she might have heard him speak. Mr. Beach— WeU, I don't know. I will get at it, though. Mr. Shearman— You say you knew that he was there ; do you mean that you knew from some one else's mfor- mation, or from hearing Mm speak— his voice t A. From some one else saying that he had gone there. Mr. Beach— Wait one moment. Don't state what was said to yoTL I move to strike tliat out, your Honor. Judge Xeilson— Yes. that last c'ause. ^Ii". Shearman — I want to ascertain the character of her information. It shows that the other matter was not ' ! To wiriiess.] Wnere was this bedroom of Mrs. WoodhuU —on which floor ? A. Up one flight from the parlor— tlie back room. Q. Up one flight of stairs ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Were papers or writing materials kept in that room ! A. Yes, Sir; there was a desk there, and Colonel Blood did most of the writing there in that room in the evening. Q. What was Mr. Tilton doing on tliose occasions when you saw him there ? A. He was sitting at tlie desk, either talking or writing. Q. Did you, on any other occasion, see Mr. Tilton on his way up stairs 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. With, whom was h.e when he was going up stairs on those occa.sions] A. With Mrs. Woodhull. Q. About what time of day was it ? A. In the evening. Q. Late in the evening or early? A. About 9 or 10 o'clock. Q. What were you doing on tliose occasions lo wMoli yon refer ? A. I was about leaving the house. Q. Were you bidding th.emgoodby? A. Yes, Sir. Q. State just what their position was. What position did Mrs. Woodhull and Mr. Tilton occupy on those occa- sions to which, you refer wlien th.ey were going up stairs and you were bidding them goodby 1 About how far up the stairs were they ? A. Sometimes, or several times, I saw them just starting to go up, and other times I have seen them at the head of the stairs, and other times half wayupth.e stairs; it was not always when I was going out : sometimes I was going into the back parlor, back and forth, and saw them go up. Q. Can you recollect whether on some of those occa- sions you bade them " good night" as they were going up- stairs! A. Yes, Sir, Q. About how many times do you recollect that? A. I don't know that I can swear to bidding them "good nighit" more than once on tlie stairs. Q. To bidding them " good night" more tlian oncet A. Not bidding them " good night." Mr. Beach— Was that when she was going ont! The Witness— "^Tien I was going out. Mr. ^^hearman— But how many times can you swear to seeing theia going up tlie stairs, or starting up the stairs, together 1 A. Four or five times. Q. Besides this one ! A. Yes, Sir. Q. Now, you say that you saw Mr. Tilton, you are pretty positive, four times in Mrs. Woodhull's bedroom up st-airs; can you state whetlier on any one of those occasions Mrs. Woodhull was taking Mr. Tilton around on a tour of in- spection 1 A. No, Sir, never. Q. Tliat is to say A. Not in my presence. Q. She never was doing it when you saw her ! A. No, Sir. Q. Was he standing or ieat^d! A. Seated. 223 IHM TILTON-B Q. Every time? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Every time of the four times ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Ttien are you able to be positive in saying that he ■was not engaged in looking over the rooms to see whether they were furnished or empty 1 A. He was not, at the time I saw him. Q. What was Mr. TOton's manner toward Mrs. Wood- hull ; what degree of familiarity existed between them during that period ? A. Their manner was always very affectionate toward each other. Q. How did they address each other 1 A. *' "^cky " and "Theodore." Q. State what, If any, familiarities existed between them to your observation— familiarities of manner. Did they kiss each other? A. I could not swear to seeing them kiss each other but once ; but I have frequently seen Mr. Tilton sittmg with his arm around Mrs. Wood- hull, on the sofa. It was the common habit when he sat down by her to put his arm around her. Q. When they were standing, did you ever see him put his arm around her ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Did that hat^pen frequently ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Did that aiuount to a habit or not ? A. It was a habit. Q. Did you ever hear any conversation between Mr. Tilton and Mrs. Woodhull on the subject of one or the other of them becoming the head of the Spiritualists of the United States ? A. That was frequently the talk between Mrs. Woodhull and Theodore Tilton at this time that I have spoken of— their first acquaintance. Q. Well, which of them was it that A. Mrs. Wood- hull— that was the conversation on the part of Mrs. Wood- hull at the time that I called at his office with her, the first time that I saw him. Q. Well, was anything ever said about Mr. Tilton becoming the head or leader of the Spiritualists ? A. By Mrs. Woodhull— yes. Q. To him ? A. Yes, Sir. MR. TILTON DENIES MRS. WOODHULL'S CHARGES. Q. Do you recollect any conversation between Mrs. Woodhull and Mr. Tilton on the subject of a scandal about Mr. Beecher, prior to the publication of the card of May 22, 1871 ? A. I don't understand your question. Q. You remember there was a card published by Mrs. Woodhull on the 22d of May, 1871 ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Did you not see that card 1 A. Mrs. Woodhull read the card to me before it was published. Q. Before it was published ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Now, can you recollect whether before she read the card to you in that way there was any conversation be- tween Mr. Tilton and Mrs. Woodhull on the subject of the charge against Mr. Beecher and Mrs. Tilton? A. Yes, Sir, once in the back office. Mrs. Woodhull was speaking of this charge against Dir. Boeoiior and Mrs Tilton, and EEGHEU TBIAL, Mr. TUton started up, his face flushed, and says : " Vicky, that is not true. My wife is as pure as snow, and no such relation ever existed between Mr. Beecher and my wife It is false." Q. Did he say anythiug about never having told her so ? A. He said, " I have never told you so. You may have iaf erred it from what I have said." These— this may not be the exact words that I have just given you, but it is the idea. Q. The substance ? A. The last that I have given you is the idea; the first part of it were the exact words. Q. What was Mrs. Woodhull's reply to him ? A. Mrs. Woodhull stepped up to him and laid both of her hands on his shoulders, facing him, and said, " Now, Theodore, Theodore, you know it is not in the nature of things that a man and woman should be thrown together as Mr. Beecher and Mrs. Tilton were and have nothing of that kind take place between them ;" and he soon left the room— the office. _ PROOFS OF THE SCANDAL SHOWN THE WITNESS. Q. Do you recollect an occurrence in the early part of 1872, a considerable time prior to the pub- lication of what is known as the " Woodhull Scandal," when any proofs were exhibited to you 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. Who was present on the occasion ? A. Mrs. Wood- hull and Theodore Tilton ; there might have somebody else in the room, but I don't remember. Q. Now, will you state what occurred on that occasion, as far as Mrs. Woodhull and Mr. Tilton were concerned? A. Mrs. WoodhuU and Mr. Tilton came in hastily to the private office, where I was engaged on my stocldug-sus- penders. and Mrs. WoodhuU says, " I have something to show you, Daniels," and she commenced reading what I afterward heard called, and heard at the time called, the Woodhull Scandal ; read a portion of it ; Mr. Tilton only stopped for a moment, or a few moments, and went out immediately. Q. Well, about what time in the year was this, Mrs. Palmer? A. This was some little time before I went into my house in Twenty-seventh-st., which was in May; it was some weeks before this— some four or six weeks before this, I think. Q. Some four or six weeks before the 1st of May ! A. Yes, Sir; in 1872. Q. 1872? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Well, after Mr. Tilton went out did Mrs. Woodhail give you these proofs ? A. She did. Q. Did you read them? A. Yes, Sir, I did. Q. What were the contents of those proofs, the sub- stance of it? A. It was substantially the same that I saw published afterward in The Weekly, as " The Great Woodhull Scandal"— "Beecher-TUton Scandal." Q. You said you had heard it called "The Woodhull ficfindivl." Do you mean to say that at that time it wafl TESTUlOyY OF MBS, ELIZABETH LA PILEB£ PALMER, 223 called '•The WoodliuU Scandal," or "Tlie Beecher Scan- dal?" A. It was called ■■Tlie WooiiiLull Beeclier-Tliton Scandal," always. Q. Yes. Xow, did you make any remark on ilie snb- ;c-ct or tliis proposed publication, in the presence of Mr. Tilion ? A. Yes. Sir. Q. Wtiat did you say \ A. I said, ''Mrs. "Woodhull, if you publisli that scandal or any other scandal in your paper concerning — or publish anything concerning, the private lives of any persons whatever— I will have noth- ing more to do with you. I will never work with you again, and I will have nothing to do with you if you meddle with tlie private lives of any persons. It will be your death-blow if yorf do that ; it will be your death- blow, and it win be IMr. Tilton's death-blow, if you do it." Q. What did Mrs. Woodhull say ? A. 1 don't remember what she said. Q. Did she say anything i A. I don't know that she made any reply; I don't remember. Q. Didnt Mr. Tilton say anything \ A. No. Sir. Mr. Tllton left Immediately. Q. But he heard you say this 3 A. He must hare heard ; he was in the room. Q. He was p]'esent in the room, at least ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Did you e"er hear any conversation between ilrs. Woodhull anU ^Ir. Tilton concerning Mr. Tilton's biogra- phy of :Slrs. Woodhull ! Mr. Evarts— Tliat is a new subject, and it is 1 o'clock. The Court then took the usual recess until 2 o'clock. THE .^^TEliXOOX .SES.SIOX. The Conrt met at 2 p. in., pursuant to ad- jomnment. Elizabeth La Pierre Palmer was recalled and the direct examinanon resumed. Mr. Shearman — ZVlrs. Palmer, I was asking you before the recess as to any interview which took place between Mr. Tilton and Mrs. Woodhull concerning the ''Life of Mrs. WoodhulL" I ask you now whether you were present at diiiw interview between them on that subject ? A. Not until after it was pubUshed. Q. After it was published, I mean. A. After it was published ? Yes, Sir. Q. Were you present at any interview when anything A. Yes, sending out the book ^ wtis done in regard to Sir. Q. State what passed between Mr. Tilton and Mrs. Woodhull on that subject ? A. Mr. Tilton looked over the list of names where the " Life " was to be sent, and on one occasion he brought in some tracts of me Golden Age. or tracts that belonged to him, which he wished sent to pai ticular individuals with the Life "'—with some of the books of the " Life "—a few of them. He seemed to superintend the sendinc away. M:-. ■Beach— Never mind, inudan] ! - , , _x:iaT i«not quite the proper shape in which to put it : you must tell what acts he did, Z^Irs. Palmer, and not what he seemed to do : any acts that he did, or any words that he said, or the substance of the words, if there is anything further. A. I think I have told you all T remember. Q. Now, madam, do you recollect the Sunday on which the famous Commune procession took place * A. Yes. Sir. Q. Can you tell how you spent that day yourself 1 A. I spent the day with my friends in Madison-ave.— the greater part of the day. In the latter part of the after- noon I went in to Mrs. WoodbulTs, and was there for a while. Q. Where did your friends live ? What friends were you stopping with 1 A. William B. Hatch's, No. 210 Madison-ave. Q. How long did you stay there ? A. I was there about six months. Q. About what time of the day did you go down to ^Mrs. WoodhuU's I A. In the afternoon. Q. Did you that afternoon Oh '. one moment. Did you yourself take any part in the Commune procession? A. No. Sir. Q. When you went down to !ylrs. Woodhull"5 was 3Irs. Woodhull at home ? A. No, Sir. Q. Did you see her come in ? A. I did Q. State under what circumstances you saw her come in. and who was with her. A. I was standing at the win- dow and looking out, when a carriage drove up. and Mr. Tilton and Mrs. Woodhull and 31is5 Claflin got out of the carriage and came into the room. Mr. Shearman— That is all, :Mr. Beach. CEO.^.S-EXAAIiyATIOX OE MES. EAEMER. Mr. Beacli— Madam, Tvliat year was it yon stated you was married to Mr. Daniels. A. 1S6S. Q. 1S6S ? A. 1S68. Q. What? A. 1S6S. Q. 1S68 ! A. Yes, Sir. Q. Where did the marriage take place ! A. At the Eev. 3Ir. Sargent's, on Beacon Hill. Q. In what place, madam? A. At the Pev. ^Lr. Sar gent's, on Beacon Hill, in Boston. Q. In Boston. I beg pardon. I am not familiar with Boston. And where did you then reside after the mar- riage i A. We went immediately to live in some rooms which my husband had furnished in a bank which he was carrying on. Q. In Boston, I suppose ! A. Yes, Sir. Q. How long did you remain there? A. Eemained there about six months, I think, in that building. Q. I don't mean that particular building, but in the City of Boston ? A. Eemained there until the Spring of 1871. Q. Until the Sirring of ISTl I A. Yes, Six. 224 THE TILTON-B. Q. And where then did you remove to ? A. To New- York. Q. You and your husband ? A. Yes, Sir. No, Sir, I came here without my husband. Q. You came without your husband. What time in the Spring of 1871 ? A. I came here in the last week of Jan- nary of 1871. Q. The last week of January of 1871 1 A. I don't mean the last week ; I mean the week after the holidays of Jan- uary. I cam© the week after New- Year's. Q. That would be the second week of January? A. I don't know whether the second week; it was the week after New- Year's. Q. Well, where did you take up your residence then at that time, in New-York? A. At A. S. Hatch's, in 49 Park-ave. Q. What business was your husband engaged in in Bos- ton when you left In January, 1871 1 A. He was manu- facturing my stocking-suspenders, and sending them on to me in New- York as fast as I ordered them. Q. And he continued up to what time? A. Up to 1872, the May of 1872, when he moved here. Q. When what ? A. When he moved to New-York. Q. He moved to New-York ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. In the Spring of 1872 % A. Yes, Sir. Q. And you continued to reside at Park-ave. ? A. I was there until about the 1st of May. Q. Of 1872 ? A. Yes, Sir ; no, Sir ; of 1871. Q. Of 1871 ? A. Of 1871. Q. Where then did you go ? A. Then I went back to Boston and stayed during the month of May, and made preparations to go West. Q. You returned to your husband's house in Boston ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. And remained there about how long ? A. During the month of May, and perhaps into th-i it June ; I couldn't tell exactly ; it was in the month of June that I returned here— the early part of June that I returned here. Q. June, 1871 ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. You returned again to New-York ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Where then did you take up your residence ? A. I went to the Cosmopolitan Hotel. Q. As a boarder? A. Yes, Sir. I don't know as a boarder ; I stopped there. Q. How long did you remain there f A. I was thero perhaps two weeks, or three weeks, or four weeks ; I cannot teU exactly, I got a severe cold and went back again to Boston, and stayed a few weeks. Q. When did you return again to New- York ? A. I re- turned in about two or three weeks' time. Q. Some time in July following ? A. I think it was in July ; I couldn't tell exactly ; it was three or four weeks. Q. Where then did you take up your residence in New- York? A. Then I went to Madison-ave. with my Mends. ^ECEEE IBIAL. Q. The same name that you have mentioned? A. Yea Sir ; a brother of A. S. Hatch, the banker. Q. And how long did you remain there? A. I remained there about six months. Q. Well, what change did you then make in your resi- dence? A. Then I went to the hotel, the Westmoreland Hotel, and was there perhaps three weeks— two or three weeks ; and from there I took a house in Twenty-sev- enth-st. Q. Any one with you at the Westmoreland Hotel ? A. No, Sir ; I was alone. Q. You then took a house where ? A. At the Westmor^ land Hotel. Q. From there you say you took a house ? A. Yes, Sir, on Twenty-seventh-st. Q. Twenty-seventh-st. ? A. Twenty-seventh-st. of this city. Q. Of New-York? A. Yes, Sir. Q. For how long did you lease that house ? A. Two years. Q. Did you occupy it for that time ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Was yoirr husband, Mr. Daniels, with you? A. He was there a part of the time. Q. During what part of the time ? A. He was there during the year of 1872 and a part of the year 1873. Q. During the whole year 1872 ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. How ? A. Yes. Sir. Q. And during what part of the year 1873 ? A. The early part of the year ; I couldn't tell just the month. He was coming and going always ; sometimes he would be there for three and four weeks together; and then he would be away for a month, or a week, or three or four days, or perhaps six weeks at a time. Q. Who were the inmates of that house during the time you occupied it ? A. My inmates were varying, changing ; I let part of my rooms. Q. To whom did you let them ? A. I let the first floor— the parlor floor— to a doctor— Fred. A. Palmer, my present husband. Q. Frederick A. who? A. Palmer. Q. When did you let them to him ? A. The Ist of May, when I first went into the house. Q. Did he remain in the occupancy of them during the lease? A. Yes, Sir, during the entire time. Q. What portion of the house did you occupy 1 A. I occupied the second floor. Q. Did you let any other part of the house? A. Yes, Sir ; I let the back room of the floor that I was on most of the time, and the upper floor, all of it, with the exception of a small room for my servants. Q. To whom did you let the back room ? A. Up stairs, on the floor that I was ? Q. Yes. A. It was to patients of my husband. Q. Dr. Palmer? A. Yes, Sir. I Q. To whom did you rent the upper floor ? A. To pa- TUSTIMONT OF MBS. ELIZA tients a part of tlie time, and an artist a part of the time. Q. Wiiat artist ? A. George Allen, a portrait painter. Q. Well, then, during most of the time the portion of the house not occupied by your present husband and yourself was occupied by patients under his treatment 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. What school of practice does he belong to 1 A. Mag- netic physician. Q. A magnetic physician ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Well, will you give us some general idea of his mode of treatment] Mr. Shearman— One moment. ]Mr. Beach — Does he apply electricity 1 Mr. Shearman— One moment. We obiect to that, if your Honor please. We do not see that this is in any way material, what the mode or the school of practice was, homopathic, allopathic, electric, Thompsonian, or mag- netic, or what it was. Judffe Nellson— I suppose the counsel only asks for a general view. Mr. Beach— That is all, Sir. I am not trying to learn the secrets. Sir. [Laughter.] Judge Neilson— No. The Witness— If the gentleman will allow me, I ought properly to have said that his practice is electric rather than magnetic. Q. That is, he adopts the best part of all schools 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. Well, is he an electrician? A. I could not answer that question. Q. Well, how does he apply magnetism? Mr. Shearman— I take it this is going into the details ; it will open an endless inquiry as to the different schools. Mr. Beach— Oh! it will not be very long. Sir. I am cross-examining, Sir, and inquiring into the history a little. [To the witness.] Will you answer me, madam, how he applies his magnetic treatment ? A. I think that I shall appeal to the Court, that my husband's business as a physician has nothing to do with this case whatever, and shall, unless the Court compels me, refuse to answer the question. Q. Well, it is not the first time I have been refused by a lady. [Laughter.] Did you participate in his practice? A. So, Sir. Q. Not at all ? A. Not to participate in the practice. Q. How? A. Not to participate in the treatment of his patients. Q. Did you aid him in the practice ? A. No, Sir. THE WITNESS A CLAIRVOYANT. Q. Well, YOU seemed to qualify your answer to my question. Did you act as a medium in the dis- covery of the diseases of patients ? A. I did, Sir. Q. You are a spiritual medium, then— profess to be ? A. That depends entirely upon what you meiin by a spir- itual medium. BETH LA FIEEBE FALMEB. 235 Q. Well, what you mean ? A. I am not called upon to describe the term. Q. Oh, yes, you certainly are called upon. I call upon you. A. I am not very good at description, and shall not be able to give you any description. Q. Madam, I differ with you in regard to your capacity to describe ; I thought your descriptive faculty was very excellent. A. If you will tell me what you mean by a spiritual medium, then I will answer your question to the very best of my ability. I don't understand you. Q. Don't you understand what the term means in com- mon phraseology ? A. I understand a good many mean- ings to the word " spiritual mediimi." Q. Well, in any of its meanings do you profess to be one? A. Yes, Sir. Q. And you was called upon in that capacity to aid your husband in detecting the diseases of patients that applied to him ? A. I was called upon at times to make clairvoyant examinations of the patients of my husband. Q. When did you say you was married to Dr. Palmer ? A. On the 19th day of March of 1874. Q. That was just before the termination of your lease ! A. Yes, Sir. Q. And this practice of aidins: him you had pursued be- fore you became his wife? A. Yes, Sii'; not of aiding him, but of examining patients clairvoyantly. Q. That was done for compensation ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Did you have any stated part of the proceeds of the business? A. No, Sir. Q. Paid by the job ? A. I was paid for whatever I did. Q. Well, paid for the particular service you rendered f A. If I made a clairvoyant examination of a patient I was paid so much for that examination ; the patient un- derstood this and paid me. Q. Undoubtedly, madam. A. Handed the pay to me, not as a part of the business, but as a clairvoyant. Q. When you made these examinations were you in what is termed a state of trance ? A. I cannot tell you, Sir. Q. How ? A. I cannot tell you. Q. You cannot tell me ? A. I don't know. Q. Did you have a perfect self-consciousness at the time ? A. No, Sir, I did not. Q. Then you supposed yourself to be in a condition of trance, did you not? A. I had entire confidence in the persons who told me that I was in a trance. Q. I have no doubt of that, madam ? A. That is all the knowledge I have of it. Q. So that when you made these examinations you went into a state of per^)nal unconsciousness ? A. I suppose so. Q. Well, you know you was not conscious. of your con- dition and the revelations you made at the time, was you I A. I was not conscious of saying anything or doing any- thing. 226 TRE TILTON-B. Q. Have you heard tlie term "trance medium" used ever? A. Yes, Sir, a great many times. Q. Is that the description of the condition or faculty ■which you possessed ? A. I don't think it Is, not in the common acceptation of the word. Q. Well, wherein did you suppose the diflference to ex- ist, Mrs. Palmer 1 A. I could not explain the difference, only I know that there is a difference. Q. And yours was a higher state or spiritual condition? A. I cannot tell. Q. Well, did you conceive it to he so ? I don't suppose you could tell. A. I had no thought on the subject at all until you have asked me to think on it. Q. Well, when in that condition you could detect the condition of the physical system of a patient ? A. I don't know. Sir ; I could not. Q. Well, the spirit, the force, the power which you supposed operated within you, enabled you to commimi- cate to Dr. Palmer, or whoever else was treating the patient, the condition of the patient? A. I was told when I would awaken that such was the fact. Q. Well, you had no douht about it ; you believed in the possession of that spiritual power or agency, did you not? A. Yes, Sir, I believed in it; but belief and knowl- edge are two different things. Q. Certainly; I am aware of that, madam. Did you upon other occasions act as a medium of that character, besides for your present husband, Mr. Palmer ? A. Well, what do you mean. Sir ? I will answer your question if I can understand what you want. Q. What I want to know, madam, is whether upon other occasions you acted as a medium— spiritual medium ? A. Yes, Sir; a great many times. Q. And for various purposes and objects, or was it en- tirely confined to the practice of medicine? A. It was not confined to the practice of medicine. STRANGE EEVELATIONS ABOUT A CLAIR- VOYANT'S GIFTS. Q. Did you suppose this spiritual power en- abled you to detect other secrets or invisible conditions than those in the human frame? A. Yes, Sir ; even when I am in my normal, or seem to be in my normal state- that I can answer to as having knowledge concerning. It is more than belief. Q. That is, when you are in what you consider a per- fectly natural, normal condition, you can see secrets, con- ditions, invisible to other persons who have not the par- ticular faculty which you possess ? A. Yes, Sir, when I am in the peculiar spiritual or magnetic state, and yet I am perfectly imeonscious. It enables me to read the secrets of people to a very great degree. Q That is, you can read the Rocrets of their minds, or the operations of their minds or hearts ? A. I don't think It is the operation of their mind, but I am enabled to see the acts of people, that they have committed during their ^JEdEEB TBIAL. life, because they are all photographed upon the soul of the man or the woman, and in this clairvoyant state where I am perfectly conscious, apparently, I am enabled to read as clearly what is written on the soul of a man or woman, all their past acts, as you are enabled to read the page of a written book. [Sensation.] Q. Yes. How does this mysterious power supervene, Mrs. Palmer? How do you feel the communication, the approach of this clairvoyant condition ? A. I feel, in the first place, a strange sensation in my eyes and head, and my vision seems to be turned within, so to speak, and I seem to see not with my eyes, but from the forehead rather than the eyes. I don't hardly know how to answer your question. I am perfectly willing to answer your question. Q. Oh, I have no doubt, madam. A. But T don't hardly know what you want ; I don't hardly understand your question. Q. Well, the purpose of ray question— it was perhaps obscurely conveyed— was to learn whether this clairvoy- ant «ondition was voluntarily, or whether it came insen- sibly and unconsciously ? A. It comes without any voli- tion on my part ; I have nothing whatever to do with it any more than you have. I have no power to compel it to come to me, no power of entering into such a state. When this power comes to me, and takes possession of me, or overcomes me, or affects me, it comes without any consciousness on my part. For instance, I may be thrown into a peculiar, half-conscious state, and lose the consciousness of all persons around me, and yet be perfectly conscious of that which is right before me, as you are now. Perhaps my hand will be taken and affected, therj the hand and the arm, and a poem written through my hand, or some re- markable revelation of prophecy, or something of that kind written through my hand ; and again I am thi-own into a state where I become totally unconscious— that is, T am told that I am — and through my lips are pom*ed hymns, and revelations, and poems, from the old poets» and men and women, who lived long ago, giving unmis- takable evidence that they still live, that they are not dead, and that they still live, giving unmistakable evi- dence of their presence ; but I have no power to ask them to come tome, if that is what you want to know. Q. No. A. They come of their own free will, whenever the wiser power that is guiding aU that is, or the band that surrounds me sees fit to open the door, because around me, and around you, and arouud every other human being, is a band of spirits that take up their abode around them when the child is born, and that band pro- tect the child, or the man, or the woman wherever they go, and no other spirit has any power or any right to ap- proach you, or to approach me, or to approach anybody else, only as the band opens and allows them to come iu for some wise purpose, which God Himself governs aud controls and admits. TESTmoyY OF MBS. ELIZA Q. Well, you suppose this band of spirits wliicli sur- rounds every human soul at its birth into the world is a band of benignant and good spirits, don't you 1 A. Al- ways. Q. Then no human soul can be assailed with improper influences and temptations unless God opens the oircle or spiritual influence for the evil spirit to enter ! A. Most certainly not. 2^0 human soul is ever left to the mercy of a good spirit or a bad spirit. God Himself controls every human soul, man or woman, and not only permits all of their acts, but impels their acts for a Avise pui^ose, which will he seen soon or late. Q. Do you consider the human soul responsible for the ar ts on earth 1 A. Yes and no. Q. Well, we have had that answer here before. [Laugh- ter.] It has bothered us very gi-eatly. A. Well, I will answer you then without the "yes " — no, Sir ; no human soul is responsible for its acts, because no human soul is responsible for its birth ; no human soul is responsible for any act. because if you lift your hand in that manner [illustrating], you don't know the eflect itis going to have upon disph;cing the air, and upon every other human being that IIa cs; you don't know the efi'ect of any single word that you drop ; you don't know the effect of any single act of your life, what it is going to be upon any other human soul, and therefore you are not responsible. Q. You don't believe in free agency, then ? A. Agency and freedom are two words that are so diameti-ically op- posed to each other that I cannot understand that they belong together at all. Q. Well, perhaps it is covered by your answer that you don't believe in persymal responsibility for htmian ac- tion? A. No, Sir; I do not. Q. That is, no matter what a person may do on this earth, there is no iusr responsibility A. Yes, Sir ; there is a just responsibility in this wise : if any human soul believes in God, and asks to be protected from evil, or rather imdeveloped spirits, and is joined unto the Divine Spirit of God, or, rather as our Lord and Master said, " grafted into a true vine, which is the Son of God," then no evil can approach them. If any human soul will ask God to protect them, through our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, then they will be protected ; and in that wise they are responsible. Q. But you say i-hat every human soul at Its birth is at onc€ under the Influence of this circling band of spirits ? A. That God appoints for them ; yes. Sir. Q. And that those influences which are blessed in the first instance become injurious only by the per:nission of the Lord? A. I don't think they ever become ujui-ious. because when anybody's spiritual vision is opened so that they can see, they will see that all evil is only a manner of growth that the Lord permits < '.-ery himian souT to go inr ) or faeir growth, and for t^i -ir spiritual good, soon or late. Q. That is, if a man acts badly, It is a sort or Go.lly dis- ^ETH LA FIERBE PAL:\1EB. 227 cipline to make him better? A. Xo, Sir; I don't say that ; that is your words, not mine. Q. Well, I oiily supposed that to be the result of youi principle. A. Xo, Sir ; I only wish to say that God sees the end of every human being's life, andjust exactly as a florist gives every little flower just exactly what it needs for its growth, and its best growth, so God, our Heavenly Father, gives every human soul just exactly the disci- pline, and the life, and the experience, that that human soul needs, not to glorify God, but to develop that human soul into its highest and best and noblest possibilities. Q. Well, you believe in fore-ordination ? A. Xot as the Church teaches it ; no. Sir. Q. Xo, I don't suppose you believe in it as the Church, teaches it. A. I believe in reincarnation. Q. Well, I imderstand you that you are a medium, as you believe, through whom departed spirits communi- cate to the visible, material world? A. Yes, Sir ; I am. Q. You have no doubt about that ? A. I have no more doubt about it than I have that God Uves. or that yoa are questioning me now; it is not belief, it is knowledge ; I not only know that they commrmicate with me, but I see them plainly; I have even seen a spirit by you while you are talking to me ; I see them and hear them at times. Q. Well, is that one of the good or bad ones? I would like to know. [Laughter.] A. I cannot tell you ; only I should think it was a daughter— a young lady. Q. Well, I have got one of that Idnd. WeU, madam, pass from that subject. A. I am perfectly willing to linger on that subject, for I am more interested in that than I am in anything else. Q. Well, I have no doubt of it, madam. It is very inter- esting listening to your ideas. It relieves us fi-om a good deal of responsibility here. Wh.en was you divorced from Mr. Daniels 1 A. In the month of March. Q. 18741 A. Yes Sir. And when was you married to Dr. Palmer ? A. In a few days afterward ; no, it was a few weeks after. Q. Oh, it is unimportant. A. It was a very short time, I know. Have you any sympathy with the socialistic doctrines of the times. Mrs. Palmer ? A. Well, if you wiU. tell me what you mean by that, then I will answer your ques- tion. Q. Well, I judge from the fact of your obtaining a divorce and being married to your present husband, that you believe in the propriety and sanctity of the marriage relation ? A. Most certainly, and always have done so. Q. And you have no sort of sympathy or countenance for what is called the free-love doctrines? A. No, Sir, and never had. Q. That is, indiscrlmiaate association ? A. The only- sympathy that I ever had with the doctrine of free-love is that I believe that men and women should lire happily together ; that is, husbands and wives should do aU that lay in their power to make each other happy, and to live TRE TILTON-PWECHEB TBIAL. happy in this life, and after both have tried and done their best, and it becomes utterly Impossible in the na- ture of things for them to live together happily, then I believe in their separating legally, and, if they choose, reunite themselves with others, if they find any one else whom they love well enough to marry in legal bonds. Q. Yes; you believe an honest and a serious effort should be made for a happy association ? A. I most cer- tainly do. Q. And if that cannot be accomplished, if there is in- vincible uncongeniality between the husband and wife, why then you believe in the propriety of their separa- tion? A. I most certainly do; their legal separation; and I believe in no other relation, save the relation of husband and wife. I don't believe in any promiscuity either in marriage or out of marriage. Q. Well, take our own State iov instance, where a di- vorce is only allowed— that is, an absolute divorce— for adultery, how would you get your uncongenial spirits apart according to law t A. Well, I don't know how to answer you, because I don't know the question you are asking me. You are supposing a question. I don't want to suppose any questions. I want you to ask me plain English. I am willing to answer anything ywu will ask me. Q. Where did you obtain your divorce? A. Here, in this State. Q. On the ground of adultery ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Suppose a ease of uncongenial association of hus- band and wife, where it was impossible for them to live happily together, and no pretense of adultery upon either side, have you any theory in regard to them what should be the practice of the two ? A. Yes, Sir ; I have. Q. Well, what is it ? A. My belief is that they should go straight to the Legislature and have an act passed that shall enable men and women to separate decently, just as they come together decently, without compelling either one or the other to become a criminal in order to be free. Q. Well, suppose the Legislature would not grant relief, what would you do then ? A. I would get up a petition that would go from Maine to Georgia, and get every un- happy man, or woman, or child to sign It, and compel the legislator— the Legislature— legislators to pass that act, such an act. Q, Well, suppose, after all, the Legislature would not ; what then would you do ? A. I can't suppose an impos- sibility. [Laughter and applause.] Q, But you would get rid of the association in some way ? A. No, Sir ; if there was no way to get away from it legally and rightfully, I would stick by it and ask God to help me to endure it. THE WITNESS'S INTRODUCTION TO MR. TILTON. Q. Well, that would be very honorable. I understand you to say that you became acquainted with Mr. Tilton about the last of January or first of February, 1871 ? I can't call it an acquaintance ; I saw him. Q, You saw him ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Well, you were introduced to him ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. And conversed with him? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Well, about that date you saw and conversed with him, both at The Qolden Age oflBce and at Mrs. WoodhuU's oflace—business offlce—in New- York ? A. I don't know whether it was The Golden Age omce; Mrs. WoodhuU asked me to go with her to call vipon Mr. Tilton. Q. It is not proper for me to call for her conversation ; but I only want to know the point or place where you saw Mr. Tilton? A. I don't know where it was ; it was said to be Q. I understood you to say it was at his office ? A. Mrs. WoodhuU said it was ; I don't know anything about it ; I wasn't acquainted with the city; I didn't tnow anything at all about the streets, and I don't know where the otflce was, and could not tell you to save my life. Q. I was going to ask A. It won't do any good, though ; I don't know where it is. Q. It was the office of The Golden Age / A. I don't know. Sir, Q. As you understood? A. The Golden Age wasn't started then. Q. Well, it was at his office ? A. I don't know. Q. It was said to be his office ? A. Mrs. WoodhuU said it was his office— or— I don't know that she said it was his office; I would not swear to that ; she asked me to go with her to see Mr. Tilton. Q. You have sworn to-day on the direct examination, and you have now A. I swore that I went with Mrs. WoodhuU. Q. To his office? A. I supposed it was his office. Q. Well, you were told it was his office, you say, by- Mrs. WoodhuU? A. Well, I should have to make a cor- rection there; I could not swear that she said it was his office ; I don't know ; my impression is that she said it was his office; I supposed it was his office ; I went there with her, and that was the impression on my mind it was his office; it might not have beeo l»is office ; IcotQdnot tell you. Q. Now, can you not, by tasking your recollection, give me some idea of the place in New-York where that wast A. Oh, I could not tell you to save my Ufe ; I went there once after that, with Mrs. WoodhuU and Miss Claflin. Q. Can you not teU me something about the appear- ance of the place? A. I recoUect going up one flight of stairs; they were rather narrow stairs; and I recollect that there were two rooms. I don't recoUect anything about the office, the first time I went there ; it was only my second visit there. Q. WeU, it was the same place you recognized 1 A. It was the same place. Q. That wiU do just as weU, then. WeU, can you give us any further particulars ? It was up a narrow flight of TESTniOSY OF MRS. ELIZABETH LA FIEBEE PALMEE, 229 stairs, and two rooms ? A. Tliere was one room tliat opened out of tlie ottier; but wtietlier there was any entrance from tliat oflSce I can't tell. It seemed to be Moulton's and Tilton's office together ; Mr. Moulton vras tliere the se cond time that I went there ; and I went there for the purpose of t»eing introduced to Mr. Moulton. Q. And how long was the second time after the first ! A. Only a few days. Q. Then it was in January, 1871, probably, that you met Mr. Moulton there 1 A. February; I think it was February. Q. February, that you met Mr. Moulton there ? A. It was ; I think it was February. Q, And was there introduced to biin ] A. Yes, Sir. Q. ByMr. TiltonI A. Yes, Sir; went there to be in- troduced to him. Q. You went there to be introduced to him 1 A. Yes, Sii'. Q. Wlio did you go with ? A. Mrs. Woodhull, and Mr. TllTon, and Miss Claflin. Q. You went with 3Ir. Tilton, INIrs. Woodhull, and Miss Claflin 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. In February, 1871? A. I cannot say that it was February ; it might have been March ; but I think it was February ; it was cold weather. Q. Well, I understood you to say it was a few days aft«r the flist time you went to that office ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. And the first time you say was in January 1 A. Jan- uary or February. Q. 1871 ] A. January or February, 1871. Q. WeU, I understood you to say January, and to have said so on the direct examination, and also on the cross. A. I think if you will look carefully that I said January or Febmary. Mr. Shearman— The last of January or the first part of February. 3Ir. Evarts— The last part of January or the first part of February. :Mr. Beach— Yes ; I remember that. The Witness— Well, this that I have just been speaking of might have been some little time after ; I could not tell the time ; it is confused in my mind ; I could not tell the second time I went there ; it might have been weeks afterward. >Ir. Beach— WeU, Mrs. Palmer, I never hold a witness particularly to dates or times ; where did you first get acquamted with Mr. Tilton 1 A. That is the first time I ever saw him, the time that I went to this office, or said to be office, with Mrs. WoodhuU; that is the first time I ever saw him in Xew-York. Q. I beg your pardon ; I was inattentive to the first part of your answer ; was it at his office that you first bex;ame acquainted with Mr. Tilton ? A. The first time I saw him was at Boston, at a lecture where Wendell Phil- lips presided. Q. The point is, where did you first become accLuainted with him 1 A. The first time I "became a^jquainted with him, or spoke to him, was in this office when Mrs. Wood- hull went with me to see him. Q. So I understood; and how soon after that intervie-w at the office where you found Mr. Tilton did you see him at :virs. Woodhull's office ? A. Oh, I think the next day. Q. Next day; and from that time constantly on, almost daily ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Well, you got to be pretty well acquainted with him, I take it ? A. No, Sir, I did not ; Mr. Tilton rarely ever had anything to say to me — scarcely noticed that I was present, apparently. Q. WeU, can you tell whether this office where you saw Mr. Tilton had the appearance of an editorial sanctumi A. I could not tell you anything about that, save that I saw a table there with some papers on it, and a desk in an inner room where I saw Mr. Moulton, and there was a little marine picture hanging on the wall— a little— I should think it was a water-color picture, a little sea view, hanging on the wall, and I was only there a few moments or a short time ; that is the only recollection I have of it; I haven't a very good memory for those things; I am very absent-minded; I might come into this room and sit here an hour, and see nothing that is here scarcely— could not tell you anything about it, unless something fixed it on my mind— something definite fixed it on my mind. Q. That is when you are in one of your mediumistio conditions ? A No, Sir, it is my constant habit. Q. Did you have a conversation, on this occasion when you were introduced to Mr. Moulton, with Mr. Moulton 1 A. No, Sir ; Miss Claflin went there to see him on some law business that had nothing to do with the Mr. Evarts— That interview is not one that we have opened. Sir, and it is not one that they have a right to give. Mr. Beach— I haven't gone into it. I will ask that, though, if your Honor permits me— if she called with iVIrs. or Miss Claflin, and Miss Claflin wished to consult ]Mr. Moulton on some law business. Judge Neilson— Well. The Witness— Well, you would have to let me teU the whole story in order to get it. ]SIr. Beach— I have no objection, if my learned friends do not object. Mr. Evarts— It has nothing to do with this business. Mr. Beach— Yery well, you can tell me the character of that law business if you please ] Mr. Evarts— No, that is going into it. Mr. Beach— I want to know what the law bustuess wa» about. Mr. Evarts — Well, that is going into it; we objects Judge Neilson— I think we won't admit it. Mr. Beach— Consult him as a lawyer. The Witness— Are you waiting for me to answer f 230 THE TlLroy-B THE FREEDOM BETWEEN THE WOODHULLS AND MR. TILTON. Mr. Beach— No, madam, it is my own dull- ness. How early after your acquaintance witli Mr. Til- ton and intercourse with liim at Mrs. Woodliull's, did he address lier as " Vick," or " Vicky," and she him as "Theodore?" A. Within a week; within a very few days ; I don't know but within two days ; within a week, certain. Q^Well, I am trying to learn from you, madam 1 A. Within a week, certainly ; it was immediate ; their ac- quaintance ripened very rapidly. Q. Ripened rapidly ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Then it ripened after your acquaintance with them t A. I never had much acquaintance with Mr. Tilton. Q. Well, what acquaintance you did have — ^you had an introduction to him, and I understand you that this fa- miliarity ripened after your acquaintance with Mrs. WoodhuU and Mr. Tilton hegan 1 A. Yes, Sir ; I was ac- quainted with Mrs. Woodhull— well acquainted— before that. Q. And you observed the progress of its A. Yes, Sir. Q. [ContinuingJ— culmination and growth, and I uudcr- sta.nd you that it was the habit— it became in a very short time the habit of these two persons to address each other in the way you have spoken, and for Mr. Tilton to indulge in these familiarities ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. They were not concealed at the office, were they 1 A. The) were not very open. Q. What ? A. They were neither concealed nor open ; it was certainly not in the Q. Well, you had not become very intimately ac- quainted, I think you said, with Mr. Tilton. A. You must understand Q. It was practiced openly before you, wasn't it 1 A. Yes, Sir ; I was attending to my own business in the in- ner office, and was frequently there when no one else was there. Q. Certainly, no doubt of it, and you seem to have been attending a little to others. Was Col. Blood about the office ? A, Yes, Sir, almost always. Q. Almost always ; well, these familiarities must have been observed by him then ? A. Most certainly. Q. Certainly they were ? A. Most certainly. Q. To your knowledge practiced in his presence ? A. Most certainly. Q. Do you know Mr. Stephen Pearl Andrews 1 A. Yes, Sir, I know Mr. Stephen Pearl Andrews. Q. Was he very considerably about the office ? A. No, Sir. Q. What ? A. No, Sir ; not much. Q. Well, did you ever observe this familiar intimacy of intercourse to appear before Mr. Andrews 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. Then he must have known it 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. Well, you knew Mr. Andrews to have been an inmate KECEER 'IIUAL. of Mrs. Woodhull's house'? A. Yes, Sir; part of the time. Q. During what time? A. During this period of time that I have spoken of. Q. Covering the intimacy and associ? ton between Mr. Tilton and Mrs. Woodhull ? A. No, Sir • no, Sir. Q. Well, during what time, then? A. Dmnng the early part of it. Q. Well, what year— 1871 ? A. 1871. Q. And from the commencement of your intercourse at Mrs. Woodhull's house, Mr. Andrews was there, wasn't he? A. No, Sir; I think Mr. Andrews left there some little time before they left the house in Thirty-eighth-st. Q. Before what? A. I think that Mr. Andrews left Mrs. Woodhull's some little time before the intimacy ceased between Mr. Tilton and Mrs. Woodhull. Q. Well, the question was whether Mr. Andrews was not an inmate of Mrs. Woodhull's house in the early part of 1871, when you first visited there % A. Yes, Sir. Q. Now, do you say that he left his residence in that house during that year? A. I think that he did. Q. During 1871? A. I think that he did. Q. And what time 1 A.I could not tell ; I don't remem- ber. Q. And for how long ? A. I cannot remember ; he left it entirely. Q. What? A. He left there entirely ; moved away from there. Q. You are not certain that he left before the early part of 1872— January, 1872, are you? A. No, Sir, and I could not swear thitt he left at all; it is only my impression. Q. WeU, these visits of Mr. Tilton to the house of Mrs. Woodhull, and familiarities there, of which you have spoken, were during the j'ear 1871 ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. And up to what timj> did you observe them ? A. During all that year, I think. Q. During all the year 1871 ? A. I think so. Q. Well, wiL you please reflect, so that you can speak with some ceriainty upon that subject? A. I think so— 1872 ; it of course began in January— began in the Winter ; I think that it continued up to the time just before the Steinway Hall meeting; I know that it did; after that I don't know anything about it. Q. After that you don't know ? A. After that I don't know anythiug about it. Q. And the Steinway Hall meeting you understand to have been in the Fall of 1871 ? A. Yes, 1871 or '2 ; I don't know— I don't remember when the Steinway Hall meeting was, whether '71 or '72, but this acquaintance continued up to the time of the Steinway Hall meeting. Q. Just before the Steinway Hall meeting, I under- stood? A. Yes, Sir. Well, it was up to the time of the Steinway Hall meeting, not before it; but it ended, so far as I knew anything about it, with that meeting. Q. Was Mr. Blood in what you called the bedroonc TESTIMONY OF MBS. ELIZA of Mrs. Woodliull when you saw Mr. Tilton there ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Mrs. Palmer, you say you were present at a conver- sation or consultation between Mr. Tilton and Mrs. Woodhull, at the office of Mrs. Woodhull, concerning the prospectus of The Golden Age? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Will you give me the date of that conference, as near as you can 1 A. It was, I think, in the month of Febru- ary ; I know that it was. Q. The month of February, 18 ? A. '71. Q. '71 ? A. It was just before the starting of the paper. Q. Well, we will see about that. Where were you re- siding then? A. I was residing at my friends' in Park avenue— 49 Park-ave. ; I was there for a number of ^eeks ; durins all that period. Q. In what part of the office was the conference held 1 A. Sometimes in the front office and sometimes in the back office ; it was spoken of a number of times. Q. Mr. Blood present ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Participate in the discussion? A. Yes, Sir. Q. And any one else besides you^rself and him, and Mrs. Woodhull and Miss Ciaflin, and Mr. Tilton 1 A. I did not partake in the conversation at aU. Q. Vo, I don't understand that you did ; you were present and heard it ? A. I cannot teU you ; there was 80 many coming and going in the office, and this thing was spoken of openly between Mr. Tilton and Mrs. Wood- hull and Mr. Blood. Q. Madam, you are not answering my questions— un- consciously, probably. I want you to speak of any par- ticular occasion, as I did understand you to on the direct examination, when there was a conference between Mrs. Woodhull and Mr. Tilton concerning the prospectus of The Golden Age. A. Well, I can t«ll you only one definite time ; there were a number of times, but I can only tell you one, and that I can't give you the language of. Q. Oh, no. A. I can only give you the idea. Q. Well, that is the one at which you say Mrs. Wood- hull, and Miss Claflln, Mr. Blood, and yourself A. I don't know that Miss Ciaflin was present ; I would not swear that Miss Ciaflin was present ; I would not swear that anybody was present but Mr. Tilton and Mrs. Woodhull at the one which I have in my mind now, which I Q. But you said Mr. Blood was present at that ? A. He was present at a uumb^ir of them— at a number of these conferences. Q. Why not at this one 1 A. This is the only one that 1 can swear to anything definite. Q. Why do you get him out of the way now ? A. I don't wish to get him out of the way at all. Q. Was he there 1 A. He was not there. Q. Which room was it in 1 A. In the back room ; I have no desire to get rid of people at all, in any of these con- ferences. Well, you say there were a number of these con ^ETH LA PIEBBE FALMEB. 231 versations 1 A. Yes, Sir ; it was a common thing. Q. At which Mr. Blood was present frequently 1 A Yes, Sir. Q. Well, how are you able to distinguish this one from the rest so as to say Mr. Blood was not there ? A. It was probably the first one ; it might have been and it might not have been. I don't know how I am able to do it ; I only recollect the fact, but I cannot tell how I do it. Q. What 1 A. I say I cannot tell you how I do i+ ; I only know that I am speaking of a fact without telling you how I do it. Q. Well, do you say now that you have a present recol- lection that Mr. Blood was not present at the conversa- tion to which you now allude in the back room? A. Yes, Sir, for there were a number at which he was not pres- ent—not only this one, but there were a number at which he was not present ; it was a frequent thing for Q. Well, but this conversation was of the same charac ter and to the same effect as the others, you say ? A. Yes, Sir ; but this one happened to fix itself on my mind. Q. And some of them were in the back room, I sup pose ? A. Yes, Sir, I presume they were ; I don't re- member. Q. Now, I ask what circumstance or incident there is which enables you to say that at this particular one of which you speak Mr. Blood was not present t A. At this particular one of which I am speaking now— what fixes it in my own mind— I was filling an order for stocking-sus- penders, and was putting them up in the boxes and mark- ing them, when Mrs. Woodhull and Mr. Tilton came into the room. Q. Now, wait one moment. Was that an unusual event for you to do, to fill an order ? A. No, Sir. Q. Well, that does not seem to be a circumstance which shoiUd enable you to remember that Mr. Blood was not present ? A. Yes, Sir ; because it was an unusual thing for me to remain and continue my business when Mr. Tilton came into the office— into the back office ; there was always a sign that Mrs. Woodhull gave me if she wished to be alone— if anyone came in ; and I was in the back office, and anyone came in, I would simply give her a look to know, and bow my head to her, or some sign I would give her, to know whether she wished me to leave her alone. Q. That happened very often, I suppose ? A. Well, that I can't say, whether it was often or not ; it is too long ago, and too many things intervening ; I can't tell you. Q. It does not seem to be such an especial circumstance as should enable you to say that Mr. Blood was not tliere ? A. I don't know tlie question that you are asking me. Q. I say that it dtu s not seem to be a eircumstauce of so much importance as to enable you, by it, to say that Mr. Blond wnis not present in the room at the time ! A. Well, Mr. Blood wasn't present. 232 IBE TILTON-B Q. Well, tliat is a matter of simple recollection 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. Now, will you tell me what that conversation was ? A. The conversation was concerning THE TALK ABOUT MAKING MR. TILTON'S PAPER RADICAL. Q. No ; I want to know the conversation- how it happened and how it progressed ? A. Well, I don't know how you want me to answer you. Q. I want you to give me the language used by the speakers as near as you can. A. I told you it was impos- sible ; you must let me give it to you in my own way, or else I can't tell you at all. Q. Most certainly ; hut I do not want you to tell me they were conversing about a certain thing ; I want you to tell me what was said, as near as you can ? A. If you wUl let me have my way, I will try to give it to you. Q. Well, I have always found that I had to let a lady have her way, and I wUl let you. A. Thank you. I was at work flUing this order for stocking suspenders, and Mr. Tilton and Mrs. WoodhuU came into the room and didn't seem to pay any attention to me— my being there or not being there ; the door was open; they seemed to be continuing a conversation which they had begun Q. Well, really, madam, won't you permit me to insist that you should not tell me what they seemed to be doing or seemed to be thinking ; I don't know but you are mix- ing up your clairvoyant memory with your actual per- sonal memory, and I want you to tell me as near as you can. I do not ask for the very words, but the substance, as near as you can of what was said? A. If you get my clairvoyant recollection you will be quite as apt to get the correct version as you are now. Q. I am not throwing any reflection on your clairvoy- ant or spiritual powers, madam ; I perceive they are very great, but we cannot take them in the relations in which we stand to each other now, and you will please give me your recollection as a witness of the language that was used by the parties upon that occasion ? A. I can only give you the idea, Sir ; I could not give you the language to save my life. Q. Couldn't you give the substance of the language— the substance of what they said ? A. I will try ; I will do the best I can. Q. Well ? A. The substance of the language was that Mr. Tilton was about starting a paper, and that when he had started this paper he should use this paper in the in- terest of a new body, which should take in or embrace all of the Spiritualists, of which Mrs. Woodhull was the head, and they would unite the two papers and use them both to express the radical views of what they supposed to be the greater part of the community at large ; and I don't knew whether it was at that time or some other time they spoke of Q. Well, I wantikto tonflne It to that time; let ob get all EECEEB TEIAL. of that time ? A. Well, at that time I have given you all the idea and substance of it^that they were to unite the two papers and to use them as the organs of a new party, which should take in the Spiritualists, or the Spiritualists were to be the leaders in it; there was no hope in the other parties of doing anything. Q. No hope for the country ? A. I don't know whether it was for the country, or for the leaders. Q. Oh, or the politicians 1 A. The politicians. Q. Now, wasn't there something said about the name of the party! A. No, Sir. Q. Well, they were to found a new party ! A. No, Sir ; nothing said about the party, about founding a party ,^ or about a name for a party. Q. Well, there was something said about founding a new party? A. No, Sir; not founding a new party, but that this should be the organ of a new party— I was about to tell you that they were continuing apparently Q. I don't want anything about that. A. I am talking about this; they were apparently continuing a conversa- tion which they had begun in the front office, which I did not hear. IVIr. Beach— Well, madam, I don't want your judgment about that. Mr. Evarts— That is her observation. Mr. Beach— No, Sir. The Witness— I am not endeavoring to cover up any- thing; I want to give you the exact truth as I know how, and as far as I know it. Q. Oh, I don't doubt you are. Can you give me any- thing which was said which led you to the conclusion that they were continuing a conversation commenced elsewhere ? A. No, Sir ; I could not ; it is only my im- pression. Q. Your impression ? A. Not a ^-lairvoyant impression, either. Q. Well, didn't they indicate in some form the party designation that was to be assumed ? A. No, Sir. Q. There was to be a party formed? A. Yes, Sir. Q. As you understood ? A. I had understood it before ; it had been talked of for weeks. Q. Wait one moment; I am not asking you for any- thing that had been — I am asking for this ; is this the con- versation that you related to Mr. Shearman on your direct examination? A. I don't remember; I should have to know what my direct examination was ; there was so much of it that I cannot remember. Q. There was not so much of it ; he called your atten- tion to a conversation in which this question of the estab- lishment of The Oolden Age was spoken of. A. If I un- derstood Mr. Shearman's question, it wasn't of any one particular time ; I supposed it was several differtnt times ; I was not conscious that he was asking me for amy one particular time. Q. You have now given us what occurred at that con- versation ; do you recollect anything you had heard from TESUMONY OF MRS. ELIZA *l»ei«i apon the subject before that conversation? A. I don't remember whether it was before or after this par- ticular time ; 1 cannot tell. Q, Do you recollect anything else that was said, either before or afterward, upon that subjecj? A. You have talked so long that I have forgotten what the subject was you were speaking of. Q. It was the subject of the establishment of The Golden Age and the formation of a party that was to supplant all th« other parties of the countiy ? A. It was hardly the forming of a new party ; it was really taking up or gath- ering up all the best elements of both parties. Q. A consolidation of all the scattered elements of par- ties. A. Yes, and especially of the Spiritualists. Q. Under the lead of the Spiritualists ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. With Mrs. Woodhull as the leader? A. Mrs. Wood- hull and Mr. Tllton the leaders. Q. They were to unite as leaders ? A. Yes, they were to be united. Q. And they were to combine their papers ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Were they to amalgamate them ? A. I think not ; I think one was to admire the other, and the other to admire the one. Q. A sort of mutual admiration society ? A. I think so —they were mutually to sustain each other. Q. How long had The Woodhull <£ Claflin Weekly been established then ? A. I don't know anything about that. Q. Had you read it before? A. Yes, Sir. Q. How long had you been in the habit of reading it ? A. I had not been in the habit of reading it very much; it was not a habit. Q. Only an occasional inspection of it 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. Mr. TUton wanted you to become an agent of this new enterprise? A. Yes, Sir. Q. What business were you engaged in then? A. My Btocking-suspenders. Q. You declined that employment? A. Yes, Sir, I did; I had enough business of my own to attend to. I was in need of an agent myself. Q. Before the establishment of this Golden Age I under- stood you that there was some conversation about the proof, or you saw the proof of the Woodhull article as it waa published ? A. Before the establishment of The Gol- den Age f No, Sir. Q. When was it f A. It was before the publishment of the card; not a proof of it at all ; it was not the proof; Mjs. Woodhull read to me the card which appeared in The New-YorTc World. Q. That was the May card? A. Yes, Sir. Q. May of what year was it? A. May of 1871, I suiv pose; whenever the card came out; I cannot tell the year; whenever the year wa&— 1871, without any doubt. Q. I understood you to say that she showed you the proof of the scandal ! A. Yes, Sir; but that was later. Q. When was that I A. That was about two months ^ETH LA PIERRE PALMER. 233 before I went into my house in Twenty-seventh-st.; I went in there on the let of May ; no, it was the 15th of April; I didn't go into my hou^e in May; I went in on the 15th of April, and it was some weeks before this that Mrs. Woodhull not only showed it to me, but I saw it two or three different times. Q. The proof of the scandal as it was afterward pub- lished ? A. It might not be exactly as it was published. Q. But the substance of the thing ? A. The substance of the Woodhull-Beecher-Tilton scandal. Q. You mean a printed ofllce proof ? A. I mean print- ing like newspaper proofs— like a newspaper printed on Q. That must have been when ? A. It was in 1872. Q. The early part of March, 1872 ? A. I suppose it was about two months before I went to my house ; I think two months, or perhaps six weeks. Q. February or March, 1872 ? A. Yes, Sir ; I think so. Q. And the substance of the article which afterward appeared in The Woodhull & Claflin Weekly was what you read in these proofs ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. They were shown to you as the proof from the Wood- hull & Claflin office ? A. I don't Imow where they were from ; she didn't tell me where they were fi-om. Q. Where were they first shown? A. The first I ever saw of them was in the back oflBce, as I gave it this morn- ing in my direct examination. Q. These proofs were public in the office ? A. Not at all; they were kept very secret. Q. Who was present when they were shown to you! A. No one but Mr. Tilton the first time that I ever saw them ; they were never shown publicly— not to me. Q. Mr. Blood is a habitue of this office? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Did he see them? A. I don't know whether he did or not ; he didn't see them in my presence ; not at that time; he did afterward, afttfr they moved into the Twenty-third-st. house; he was taken sick, and Mrs. Woodhull sent for me to come over, and again there she showed them to me. Q. When was that? A. About May or June, after I had been in her house a good deal. Q. May or June, 1872? A. Yes, Sii*. Q. That is not the one shown to Mr. Tilton ? A. I had seen them with her at that time— the proof of the Tit for Tat" article. Q. Well, didd't Mr. Andrews also see them at that timet A. I don't know. Sir. Q. The "Tit for Tat?" I don't know anything about that. The Witness— At the same time Mr. Evarts— At the same time she was shown the " Tit for Tat" article. Mr. Beach— Well, I inove to strike that out. Judge Neilson -Yes, Sir. Q. Did you ever learn who was the author of that article ? A. No. Sir ; I never asked. 234 THE TILlON-BEECHELi TBIAL Mr. Evarts— Which one 1 Mr. Beach— The one we are talking of— the Woodhull scandal ? The Witness— I never Imew who was the author of any oi these articles that were written. THE EXHIBITION MADE OF THE PEOOF- SHEETS. Q. You may restate, if you please, the scene which you observed between Mr. Tilton— what passed between Mr. Tilton and Mrs. Woodhull. What did you see at the time that these proofs were shown to you In the hack room ? A. The first time I saw them % Q. During the interview you gave to Mr. Shearman ? A. Mr. Tilton and Mrs. Woodhull came in from the back room and sat down on the sofa. Mrs. Woodhull says : " Daniels" Q. Said what? A. She called me Daniels, instead of giving me my full name : " Daniels, there is something I want to show you." I can't remember if I made any re- ply. She read me a part of this scandal. I turned to her and said : " Mrs. Woodhull, if you publish that scandal, or a scandal concerning any other individual, cr, in short, if you have anything to do with the private lives of any individuals whatever, I will have nothing more to do with you, and I will not work with you again. You have no right to touch the private life of any one ; you are at work as a reformer, and not to go into the private lives of anybody." I don't know that any reply was made to me. Q. Was that the whole of that interview ? A. No, I think not, but it is all that I can remember. Q. It is the same one that you gave to Mr. Shearman ? A. Yes ; and now I do not pretend, and I did not pretend then, to give the exact language ; there might be a prepo- sition, or a conjunction, or some word put in, or left out. Q. But you have given on this cross-examination all that you now recall % A. Yes, Sir. Q. I thought you said something to Mr. Shearman about an allusion to Mrs. Tilton ? A. That was another affair altogether. Q. What 1 A. That was another affair altogether. Q. No, it was in this conversation ? A. I think you will find, if you look back, that you are mistaken. Q. Then it was not in this conversation ? A. I think not ; it should not have been if it was. Q. I think you put it in this conversation ? A. It should not have been there. Q. Where ought it to be ? A. It ought to have been an- other affair and another time ; and I do not recall any- thing but the circumstances ; I do not know how it came about. Only that Mrs. Woodhull was talking very eagerly to some one who came into the office. Q. There were no proofs present then 1 A. No, Sir ; nothing to do with proofs at this time; Mrs. Woodhull was speaking of the scandal that had been bruited about concerning Mrs. Tilton and Mr. Beecher. Q. And Mr. Tlltun c»mt! i X. fettr. Tnton— I don't know whetlier he came in, or wnether He was there ; but Mr. TUton's race flushed clear to his hair., and he says i " Vicky, tha t is not true ; my wife is as pure as snow, and no such relation ever existed between Mr. Beecher and my wife." Q. I understood you to give that in the other interview on your direct examination ? A. Did Mr. Shearman ud- derstand me in that way 1 Mr. Shearman — It is all right ; I think you stated it ae, you do now. Mr. Beach— Never mind. The Witness— If I said so, it was wrong. Q. When was this last conversation you have spoken of ? A. It was long before these proofs were ever brought out ; this was in 1871. Q. How long before % A. It was in the first acquaintance of Mrs. Woodhull and Mr. Tilton ; it was before the card came out at all. Q. Were the proofs shown after the card appeared ! A. The proofs did not come out until 1872, and the card came out in 1871. Q. And this conversation you now speak of ? A Was before the card came out. Q. It must have been in January or February, 1873 ? A. Or March or April or May— I cannot tell ; along there somewhere ; it was before the card came out. Q. How long was it that you saw the proofs there be- fore you went into your house ? A. I think two months or six weeks ; it i)ossibly might have been only a month, but it was probably two months. Q. When did you understand this scandal was pub- lished? A. In the Fall of 1872 ; it was a common thing; it was known by a great many before it was published at all ; that is, it was circulated privately. Mr. Beach— I move to strike out all the answer from the words, " It was a common thing." Judge Neilson— Yes. Q. And at the time that Mrs. Woodhull addressed you in this way, saying, " Daniels, I have something I want to show you," or to that effect, Mr. Tilton was the only person present besides yourself 1 A, He was ; she came in and shut the door. Q. And she showed you the proofs ? A. No, she read it ; she showed it to me after Mr. Tilton had gone out; she put it in my hands after Mr. Tilton had gone out. Q. And nothing was said except what you said to her in regard to the propriety of publishing the private Ufe of individuals 'i A. Yes, there was more said. Q. Nothing that you recollect? A. Nothing that I recollect. Q. And when she said that she had something: to show you, how much did she read of the proof ! A. I can't teU you, because I saw it three or four different times ; I read it myself, and I can't tell which time it was that I saw the whole of it. TESTIMONI OJS MBS. J^LIZA Q. Have you any idea of how much slie read now 'I A. I think she read the whole of It. Q. You think she read the whole of it, do you ] A. I think she read the whole that simply concerued Mr. Beecher and Mrs. Tilton. A. The whole of the paper? A. Not the paper; it was 6lips or proofs. Q. So far as it related to Mr. Beecher and Mrs. Tilton 1 A. I think so ; still, I would not swear she read the whole of it then, because I saw it several times, and I «annot swear which time it was that I saw the whole of it. Q. Was there any documents incorporated in the proof she read? A. I think not. Q. No letter ? A. No, Sir, there was no letter ; she brought it in her hand. Q. Have you now any distinct recollection of any part she read, so that you can repeat it, or the substance 1 A. ^o, Sir ; I would not undertake to repeat the substance, because it was absolutely the same thing as published. Q. "Wait one moment ! I understand you to say that you would not undertake to repeat the substance of it now— any part of it ? A.I would not, for although I have read the whole of it afterward, I would not undertake to re- peat it now. Mr. Beach [to Mr. Morris]— I don't think I want to ask any more. Is there anything else ? Mr. Morris— No, I think not. Mr. Beach— That is all, madam. RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION OF MRS. PALMER. Mr. Shearman— Was Mrs. WoodlniU what is commonly known as a Spiritualist ? Mr. Beach— I object to that. Mr. Shearman— This lady has been asked a good deal about her own belief in this examination. I simply pro- pose to show this whole circle was one. Judge Neilson— That was under the license of cross-ex- amination. No. Q. I ask whether you believe in the God of the Chris- tians ? A. Most certainly I do. Q. Do you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ ? A. Most certamly I do. Mr. Shearman— That is all. Judge Neilson— That is all, Mrs. Palmer. RE-CROSS-EXAMINATION OF MRS. PALMER. Mr. Beach— Do you believe in Christ as God ? A. No, Sir. Q. You do not believe in the divinity of Christ 1 A. Most certainly I do ; T believe that your son is not you, but he is your son ; and I believe that the Lord and Mas- ter Jesns Christ is the Only Begotten Son of the Ever- Living God. Q. You believe in the Godhead ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. In the Trinity? A. Yes, Sir. LA FIEBEE PALMER. 235 Q. Why not believe in Christ's divinity? A. I do be- lieve in his divinity, most certainly. Q. If you believe in his Godhead, three persons joined in one— the Trinity— how do you separate the identity of the Father and the Son ? A. Just the same as I would separate your son from you ; and yet you belong to one family. Q. Then you don't believe they are identical ? A. I don't beUeve they are one person ; I believe that God is Father, and the Holy Ghost is Mother, and that Jesus Christ is the Son. They are one family. Q. You believe that God the Father is the parent and the Holy Ghost is the mother ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. And Christ is the Son ? A. Yes, Sir ; He Is the God of this planet, not the God of the whole imiverse ; but I believe that Jesus Christ is the literal God of this planet on which we live. Q. That is. His sovereignty is confined to this earth 1 A. Yes, Sir ; He is the literal King and Lord, the Master and Ruler and God of this planet ; He created it, and rules over it and reigns over it. Q. That you suppose must be by deputation from God the Father ? A. No, Sir ; I believe this if» His inheritance; I believe this is His birthright. Q. Whom does He inherit it from ? A. F^-om His Father, God ; not by deputation, but because it is Hi« inheritance, given unto Him because He is of age. Q. Then you do not suppose that the Sou ha« the same extent of sovereignty and power as the Father ? A. Most certainly not ; o«nly on this planet ; only on this planet the sovereignty of the Son is superior to that of the Father. Q. On this planet His sovereignty Is superior to that ol the Father? A. Yes, Sir. Q. And that He has no sovereign power beyond the boundaries of this earth. A. Yes, I believe he has. Q. Sovereign power? A. Yes, sovereign power; but not to the extent that the ever-living God has. Q. It cannot be sovereign, then ? A. Yes Sir. Q. Sovereign, and yet subject to God the Father ? A. Yes, because I believe there are a great many planets, and He may have one, or two, or more planets besides this one, over which He rules also. Q. I don't understand you to believe, then, that the Son has the same breadth and extent of sovereignty as the Father? A. No, Sir. Q. Only over those particular planets which He has in- herited from the Father, which are subject to His con- trol ? A. That is what I mean. Sir. Q. Do you not believe the Scriptural account of the birth of the Savior ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. How, then, do you make the Holy Ghost the mother ? A. In this way : I don't believe that God ever abrogated any of His laws ; and I believe when He saw fit to send Jesus Christ, His only begotten Son here on this planet, in the form of man, and to become a living 286 TEE TILTON-BEECRER TBIAL. man of God in one— I believe that He over sliado wed Josepli, tlie fatlier, and that the Holy Ghost overshad- owed Mary, the mother, and that Joseph and Mary were both thrown into a deep, death-trance, where neither of them was conscious of their acts more than a dead body, and thar there and then, in a perfectly natural manner, Jesus Christ was begotten of Mary, by the overshadow- ing of these two spirits, and that he was a Divine, holy child, begotten by the Holy Ghost and the Godhead. Q. "Was Mary the mother ? A. Yes, Sir, most certainly. Judge Neilson— I think that will do, Mr. Beach. Mr. Beach— Yes, I guess so, your Honor. Judge Neilson— That is all, Mrs. Palmer. [The witness retired amidst general laughter.] TESTIMONY OF GEN. B. F. TEACY. Benjamin F. Tracy was then called and sworn for the defense. Mr. Evarts— How long have you been a member of the Bar of this State ? A. I was admitted in this State in May, 1851. Q. And how long have you practiced your profession in this city? A. In this citj^ about nine years; eight years and over. Q. And before that, in New- York City at all? A. In New- York City something over a year. Q. Prior to your practicing here ? A. Prior to that. Q. During what period were you the United States Dis- trict-Attorney of this District ? A. From October, 1866, I think, until February, 1873. Q. Do you know the parties of this suit ? A. I do. Q. From what time and in what degree have you had acQiuaintance Avith Mr. Tilton? A. I have known Mr. Tilton by reputation for many years ; I knew him per- sonally first, I think, when he was editor of The Union, in 1870; since that time I have known him slightly; I ceased to know him much, I think, after he ceased to be editor of The Union, until after the publication of the Woodhull scandal, in 1872 ; then I met him again. Q. And with Mr. Beecher, from what time and in what degree have you had an acquaintance ? A. I have at- tended Mr. Beecher's church since 1867; I have known Mr. Beecher slightly from some time in 1868 or 1869, until after the publication of the "Woodhull scandal ; since that I have known him more intimately than before. Q. And what acquaintance, and through what period, have you had with Mr. Moulton ? A. I was introduced to Mr. Moulton in, I should say, the month of November, 1872 ; since which time I have known Mr. Moulton quite intimately. Q. And with the other members of the firm of Woodruft & Robinson, what acquaintance have you had, and during what period? A. I made the acquaintance of Jeremiah P. Robinson when I was in the Legislature in 1862. I renewed my acquaintance with him on coming to Brooklyn in 1865 I resided in Brooklyn when I came to practice law in New York, and I have known him by occasionally meeting him, from that time to the present time. I became acquainted with Franklin Woodruff in the Fall of 1871. I should think it was— I think it was in the FaU of 1871 that I knew him first, and knew him very well from the year 1871 ; from that time on to the present time I have known him very well. Q. Was this acquaintance with Mr. Franklin Woodruff a business acquaintance or a personal acquaintance I A. It was a personal acquaintance in the beginning. Q. Now, Sir, in the month of November or December, 1872, did you come into any association or conferences with either Mr. Franklin Woodruff, or with Mr. Moulton, or Mr. Tilton? A. I did with all of them. Q. How soon after the publication of the Woodhull scandal did the fact of the publication come to your knowledge ? A. Well, Sir, if that was published— if the 28tii day of October was the day that that was circulated, in the evening— that paper— I probably learned of it on the 29th of October ; but it was either on the 29th or the 30th of October. Q. Now, when first did you have any conversation with Mr. Franklin Woodruff, or Mr. Moulton, or Mr. Tilton, on the subject, and with which first? A. I first conversed with Mr. Woodruff on the subject. Q. And how did that arise ? A. A casual conversation in the street, when the subject of the Woodhull publica- tion was alluded to— I cannot say definitely how soon after the publication, but it was some days after. Q, And you met in the street, or were you standing in the street when he came along ? A. I don't remember definitely ; it. was in front of my office in Montague-st. ; but whether I was coming along and met him, or I was standing there and he came along and met me, I don't remember— I don't remember that. Q. Who introduced the conversation ? A. WeU, as a matter of memory, I cannot say positively. My impres- sion is that I did. Q. And how ? A. By referring to the fact that Mr. Moulton— that I hadn't observed any denial on the part of Mr. Moulton of the Woodhull scandal. Q. Well, what passed between you and Mr. Woodruff at that time ? A. Well, there was a general conversation on that subject, and Q. What was the substance of it— not in detail f Mr. Beach— I don't understand that this conversation has been mentioned. The Witness— That conversation has not been alluded to. Mr. Evarts— This is merely introductory. Mr. Beach— Wait one moment. Judge Neilson— He might mention the subject of the conversation. The Witness— It was the subject of Mr. Moulton's rela- tion to that scandal. te8timo:nt of be. IXJAMIX B. TEACY. 237 Mr. Evarts— And any proper or probable denial of it 1 A. Yes, Sir. Mr. Beach— Wait! Tbe Witness— Yes. Well, I understand it is objected to. Mr. Evarts [to Mr. Beach]— Do you object 1 Mr. Beach— No. Take it. Mr. Evarts— Well, that conversation produced no ap- pointment, did it ? A. No, Sir. Q. Now, when after that A. Well, it was consid- erable time after that. I can't say definitely. Mr. Wood- ruff came to me one day and asked me Q. At your office, was this? A. I cannot say that either, whether it was at my office or in the street. I know he asked me if I would consent to be consulted TEOUBLE ABOUT WHO SHALL CEOSS-EX- AMINE MR. TRACY. Mr. Beach [to Mr. Tilton]— Now, you see he is on the stand, and I cannot be here to-morrow. [To Mr. Evarts. 1 Can't you call some other witness ? I A whispered conference here took place between the counsel.] Mr. Beach— The difficulty, your Honor, that I have sug- gested to my learned friends is this, and it has just this moment occurred to me— I am obliged to be at court over the river, in New-York, to-morrow, and must be absent from this trial. Upon the contingency of Mr. Tracy be- coming a witness, his cross-examination, for personal rea- sons, had been assigned to me, and I cannot possibly be here in the morning to conduct it, and I suggested to my learned friends whether they could not supply other wit- nesses. If it was ordinary business. Sir, I desire to state I certainly should not be absent from this trial. Judge Neilson— I have no doubt your learned opponents wlQ accommodate you if they can. Mr. Beach— Mr. Keman is to be down from Utica for the purpose of argutag a motion of some importance with me, and he has telegraphed, and I cannot neglect the arrangement. M». Evarts [after conferring with ^Ir. Shearman]— We cannot, if your Honor please, arrange otherwise than to go on with Islx. Tracy ; but we shall leave it quite at our friends' disposal, when we come to the adjournment, whether they will adjourn until Wednesday morning. Mr. Beach— Oh, no, Sir, I am not going to ask another adjournment over the day. Some other gentleman must take the cross-examination. Mr. Evarts— "Very well, we are quite willing to accom- modate in any way we can. Mr. Beach — Well, I would not ask an adjournment. Mr. Evarts— They may take an adjournment, Sir. We will very freely adjourn. It does not make any difference to us ; we can always use the day. At any rate, we will do anything that we can, if your Honor please Judge Neilson— That I am sure of. Mr. Evarts — Still, we cannot very well arrange to call another witness. Mr. Beach [to Mr. Morris] — I cannot see an7 reason why Mr. Fullerton should not take the cross-examina- tion, or Mr. Pryor. [To Mr. Evarts.] I thinlc we had better adjourn now. Mr. Evarts— I want to relieve you lyir. Beach— May I ask your Honor the favor that we may lose these ten minutes remaining before the usual hour of adjournment, and adjourn now, so that Mr. Ful- lerton, who will take the cross-examination of the wit- ness, may be present at the direct examination. Judge Neilson— That seems to be quite reasonable. Mr. Beach— Thank you, Sir. The Court then adjourned until Tuesday at 11 a. m. SEVENTY-THIRD DAY'S PROCEEDINGS. AN ADJOURNMENT AFTER A SHORT SESSION. EX-JUDGE FULLERTON UNWILLING TO CKOSS- EXAMINE GEN. TB AC Y— TESTIMONY OF J. F. ST. GEORGE IN REGARD TO MR. TILTO^'S PART EN" THE COMaiUNISTIC PROCESSION. Tuesday, April 27. 1875. Fifteen minutes after the usual time for the open- ing of the proceediags, Messrs. Fullerton and Morris, and Evarts. Hill, Abbott, and Sheafinan entered the court-room together. Mr. Erarts addressed the court, saying that Mr. Beach was detained by the argument of a case with the Hon. Francis Kernan in another court, and Mr. Pryor, who had been asked xo conduct the cross-examination of Gen. Tracy in place of Mr. Beach, was kept at home by sickness. For personal reasons Mr. Fullerton had declined to cross-examine Gen. Tracy. jVlr. Evarts proposed that the examination of Mr. Tracy should be deferred until April 28, when Mr. Beach will be present. Some of the witnesses of the defense could not be present to-day ; they had only one ready to be sworn, and Mr. Evarts intimated that an adjournment of the court until April 28 would be acceptable to the defense. No objection was made by the plain- tifiPs counsel. 3klr. Morris stated that at the begin- ning of the trial the plaintifiPs counsel had divided their work, assigning a certain part to each man. To Mr. Fullerton had been assigned the duty of con- ducting the greater part of the examination of wit- nesses. Early m the trial it was intimated to them that Gen. Tracy might become a witness. Mr. Ful- lerton immediately said that he could not cross- examine him, and that duty was then assigned to Mr. Beach. 288 ThlE TlLTON-BEFAmEB TRIAL. The adjournraent was graated by Judge Neilson. The proceedings occupied about half au hour. J. Fraucis St. George, the only witness examined, was questioned by Mr. Hill. He said that he had lived all his life in Brooklyn. He had been engaged in journalism for 15 or 17 years. He had known Mr. Tilton by sight about 10 years, and was a compositor on The BrooMyn Union when Mr. Tilton was its editor. In December, 1871, he was connected with The New- Tork Standard, and on Dec. 17 was detailed by that paper to report the Communistic procession. He saw Mr. Tilton riding in the proces- sion in a carriage with Mrs. Woodlmll, Miss Claflin, and Col. Blood. A copy of The Slandard for Dec. 18, 1871, containing his account of the processiou, was shown to the witness and identified by him. Mr. Hill attempted to introduce in evidence a paragraph of this report, but it was ruled out by Judge Neilson. The cross-examination was conducted by Mr. Ful- lerton. THE PKOCEEDINGS— VERBATIM. MR. TRACY'S EXAMINATION DEFERRED. The Court met at 11 a. m., pursuant to ad- journment. Mr. Evarts— If your Honor please, the arrangements of our learned adversaries In regard to the continuance of Mr. Tracy's examination, in view of his cross-examina- tion, as they had proposed it among themselves, will not probably admit of his going on to-day. Mr. Pryor is de- tained by sickness of himself or his wife from coming out, and it has been expected that he might take Mr. Beach's place. Mr. Kernan is in town, and no arrange- ment can be made for Mr. Beach to be present to-day, but he can be here to-morrow. The witnesses that we might have prepared, or hoped to prepare, to fill the place to- day we are unable to bring forward, some of them being out of town, and we being unable to make arrangements for their examination, having waited the conclusion of Mr. Tracy's examination, which we supposed would take some time. We can occupy a little of the time with a single witness. Mr. Beach stated to your Honor that for pei'sonal reasons the cross-examination of Mr. Tracy had been committed to him ; we should think, for oiu' own part, that it is a very reasonable view of the matter, and we shall await Mr. Beach's return. That will be, how- ever, for your H(raor to determine. Judge Neilson— Gentlemen, we will take whatever course counsel may desire. Mr. Evarts— Very well, Sir. Mr. Morris— It is proper, If your Honor please, I should 3ta,te that from the very comme.ucement of this trial we had assigned the diflferent branches of the labor to differ- ent counsel. While Mr. Fullerton was to take charge principally of the examination of witnesses and their cross-examination, at a very early stage of this trial it was mtimated that a contingency might arise in which Mr. Trac3' would be a witness. Mr. Fullerton at once said that he could not cross-examine Mr. Tracy, aaid it was then arranged that Mr. Beach should cross-examine Mr, Tracy, and that has been the arrangement duriag the entire trial. Judge Neilson— I can very well appreciate that. Pro- ceed, gentlemen. TESTIMONY OF J. FRANCIS ST. GEORGE. J. Francis St. George, having been called for the defense and sworn, was examined as follows : Mr. HiU— Where do you reside % A. Iii Brooklyn. Q. How long have* you resided in Brooklyn? A. All my life ; for the last 32 years. Q. What is your employment or business now ? A. I am a journalist by profession. Q. How long have you been a journalist? A. Well, I— Q. Or connected with newspapers 1 A. For the last 15 or 17 years. Q. Were you connected with any newspaper published in the City of New- York in December, 1871 ? A. I was, Sir. Q. If so, state what one? A. The New-TorJc Standard. Q. In what capacity ? A. WeU, I was general utility man on the literary staff of that paper. Q. Were you detailed, or did you in point ef fact make any observations of the Commime procession? A. Yes, Sir ; I was detailed by the managing editor to write up that procession. Q. Were you out with that procession most of the day i A. Yes, Sir, Q. And saw it while it was in line ? A. Yes, Sir ; I was present at its formation, and I remained with it until it was dismissed. Q. Please give the line of the procession. A. The lino of procession was formed somewhere in the vicinity of the Cooper Institute ; it then marched down the Bowery to Great Jones-st., up Great Jones-st. to Broadway, down Broadway to Waverley-plaee, or up Broadway to Wa- verley-place ; from thence into Pifth-ave., up Fifth-ave. to the ttrrning point at Thirty-fourth-st., down Thirty- fourth-st. to Sixth-ave., down Sixth-ave. to Fourteenth- st., up Fourteenth-st. to the Lincoln Monument, where it was dispersed. Q. Now, Sir, did you immediately, upon making your observations of that procession, prepare an article for The sifandniyit? A. I made my notes as I went along. ting Moulton, and, he thought, hurt Ing the firm, and he had had a talk with Mr. Moidton about it, and had suggusted to him to consult me on the subject, if I would consent to be consulted ; I told him that I would on one condition— or, he said before I spoke that he wanted it understood that it was not te be a professional consultation, but a friendly one; that there was to be no compensation for the consultation, but the facts which were to be com- municated to me were to be kept by me with the same sacredness as if the consultation was a professional con- sultation, but he wanted me to be consulted, if I would be, as a friendly act to the parties. I said I would do anything I could to aid in the matter, but it must be on one condition and imderstanding— fully understood, that the consultation was to be in no respect hostile to Mr, Beecher. Mr. Woodruff knew my position and feelings toward Mr. Beecher in this matter, and he said : " Cer- tainly not ;" it was in the Interest of Mr. Beecher as well as of Mr. Moulton that the consultation was desired ; and I said, with that understanding, I would be of any serv- ice that I could to the parties. Q. Well, was that all that occurred between you at that 244 TtlE TILTON-BJEKCHJ^B IBIAL. time J A. Except that lie said lie would briug Mr. Moul- ton around and introduce him to me. I didnot linowMr. Moulton at that time; had never seen him, to my Imowledge. Q. Was there at that interview any discussion concern- ing the substance of the matter of the WoodhuU scandal, or of any denials, or forms of denials 1 A. Not in detail. I think that Mr. Woodrufi' in that conversation referred to some papers that were in the possession of Mr. Moul- ton ; and the character of those papers may have been re- ferred to in that conversation, but if so, generally. I think I learned the fact— possibly heard of it before in the streets during the discussion of the matter— that there were supposed to be papers in Moulton's possession, and I am quite confident I learned that fact definitely from Mr. Woodruff at that interview, that Moulton had papers which it would be necessary for me to see. I think it was in that connection that he made the request that whatever was communicated to me should be kept as sacredly as if it was communicated in the confidence of a professional engagement. Q. Was anything said in this conversation concerning any line or mode of denial ? A. Not between me and Woodruft". Q. [ContinuiQg.] Or of the difficulty of denial, or any- thing of that kind % A. No, I think not. THE FIRST MEETING AT GEN. TEACY'S OFFICE. Q. Now, what next occurred in this matter ? A. Very soon after that, it may have been the next morn Ing, but one morning very soon after that interview be- tween myself and Mr. Woodruff, he and Mr. Moulton came into my office about 9 o'clock in the morning, and he in- troduced Mr. Moulton to me. Q. Before that time he was not personally known to you ? A. No, Sir- ; that was the first I had ever seen Mr. Moulton to know him ; I think it was the first time I had ever seen him at all. Q. This was at your office 1 A. At my office in Mon- tague-st. Q. What was the interview there 1 A. The subject of the introduction was referred to— the conversation that I had had with Woodruff was referred to, and he came to Introduce Mr. Moulton to me, and to make an appoint- ment for an interview between Moulton and myself in re- gard to the subject of this publication, and what answer should be made to it. Q. Was the publication then present before you 1 A. It was not. Q. Were there any papers brought by Mr. Moulton, or otherwise present, connected with this matter 1 A. No, Sir. Q. What was the further substance, if any, of that conversation 1 A. The conversation was entii'ely general, such a conversation as would ordinaiily occur on such an occasion ; it was the introduction of Mr, Moulton to me ; there were some remarks incident to such an introduce tion, and then the subject of the conversation was alluded to, and the fact Q. The subject of the former conversation? A. No, the object of the introduction was alluded to. and the fact that they wanted to make an appoiutment with me, where the papers could be present and time had for con- sultation and consideration. The scandal was alluded to in a general way, but nothing definitely or specific, that I remember. Q. Was there anything said in this conversation con- cerning any proposed line or mode of meeting or denying the A. Nothing except the question that they wanted to submit to me was whether it was wise to deny— to make an answer to the publication in a public card, and if so, the form of that public card, and who should join in it, and how it should be made. Q. To proceed no further than that ? A. No, Sir. Q. That matter being reserved for the interview. Was there anything said at this conversation about it being necessary that the papers should be present for the in- terview, and where, if any, was the interview appointed to take place \ A. It was ; when they stated the object and purpose of the interview, I said : " Of course, I can say nothing on this subject until I see the papers, Mr. Moulton, which I understand you have in yom- posses- sion." He said he had papers ; perhaps he had said that he had papers that it would be necessary for me to see, before that, but I certainly said in that interview that no opinion could be expressed one way or the other con- cerning what action ought to be taken, without an ex- amination of the papers which he had ; and I understood at the time that he had a statement or communication from Ml". Beecher on the subject, and one also from Mrs. Tiltou. ^ THE CONSULTATION AT MR. MOULTON'S HOUSE. Q. Was an appointment made? A. An ap- pointment was made for the next Sunday afternoon, at Mr. Moulton's house. Q. Did you attend there ? A. I did. Q. Now, before going to that meeting, and, of course, therefore, before any of these interviews of which you have already spoken, had you had any commmiicatiou with Mr. Beecher on the subject of the consultation or in- terviews to which you were invited? A. No, Sir. Q. When you went there, therefore, you had nothing to say with Mr. Beecher, and had no instructions or author- ity of any kind from him? A. None whatever. Q. Now, Mr. Tracy, that interview, which has been made the subject of evidence— I wish you would state how the matter went on ; what hour of the day did you go there, and how long did tluit iiitri \ icw last J A. 1 went there inmicdintely after my Sunday diamvi : I can't TESTIMONY OF BE. «peak definitely as to the time, but I dine Sunday from one to half-past one, and went soon after that to Mr. Moulton's house ; I am confident I reached Zyir. Moulton's house between two and three o'clocli: that day. Q. And how long were you there before leaving: the house 1 A. I left the house not earlier than 10 o'clock, and perhaps as late as 11 o'clock, that night. Q. Now, at the first intercotirse there who were pres- ent ? A. When I went into the house I found :Mr. Wood- rufi' there, I am certain. I have a faint impression that Mr. Tilton was there also, but of that T would not be cer- tain. Mr. Woodruff and :\Ir. Moulton— :\Ir. Moulton and myself, and I thiuk 3Ir. Woodruff, soon after repaired to the itudy in the foui'th story. I am quite confident Mr. Woudruif went with us, nut of that I am not absolutely positive. On reaching the study in the fourth story Q. Mr. Tilton did not go with you ] A. Mr. Tilton did not go with us into the study, if he was in the house. After reaching the study, Mr. Moulton went, I think, to a tin box that he had, and took from it some papers. The first paper that he showed me was the paper then Imown as "The Apology." now called the "Letter of Contri- tion," and he showed it to me— gave it to me into my hands. I looked at it, and began to read it. Q. Is this the paper ? [Handing witness a paper.] A. That is the paper. Q. Just give us the number of the exhibit, Tracy, if you please. A. Exhibit ZSTo. 2. He handed me the paper, and I began to read it. The first thing that attracted my attention was the character of the handwriting, and I said to him, " Mr. Moulton, is this Mr. Beecher's hand- writing?" He said, "Xo." I said, "Whose is it?" "It is mme.'" I went through it that wav [tarning the leaves q.uickly]. I said, "' How do you wi-ite a letter to your- self r' And at the time I went through it that way [illus. tratingl, I said, quick, "It is not signed." He said, " Yes. it is." And just at that instant my eye caught this indorsement or memorandum at the foot of the sheet, not seeing it as I looked at them first in that way. He said. Yes, it is signed by Mr. Beecher and I saw the form of the signature of Mr. Beecher. Q. What did he say ? A. He said in that connection, It is a memorandum, or notes of a conversation I had with Mr. Beecher." I then read the paper over, sen- tence by sentence, and studied it for some few minutes— I don't kno-w how long, and I said, "I don't see that this paper prevents a denial of the WoodhuU publication. That publication charges that Mr. Beecher has lived a life of adultery with Mrs. Tilton for years. This paper states, I see, that ' she is innocent, sinned against, bear- ing the transgressions of another. Her forgiveness I have.' " I said, " It seems to me that that language would not be used of a woman with whom a man had lived la adultery for years." Mr. Moulton said nothmg. He then showed me — the next paper was the retraction " Tilton. , XJAm:S F. TBACY. 245 Q. Is that the paper 1 [Handing witness a paper.J A. That is the paper ; Exhibit No. 6. Q. Xo. 5 ? A. It is 5. It was first marked 6, and changed to 5. Q. Well, did vou read that \ A. I read that. Q. What did you then say to him upon reading that ? A. I don't remember whether I said anything to him on that subject before he showed me the explanation of lyirs. Tilton. He showed me that in about the same connection. Q. Xow, about this paper, did you make any comment about what the offense or charge in that paper was ? A. I did immediately on reading the paper, or very soon after — I cannot say the precise order in which T made the comment Q. What comment did you make ? A. I made it some- time during the conversation— a comment Q, At this stage what were you lookini: at, when you made this comment ? Mr. Beach— He savs he does not remember at what stage he made the comment. Mr. Evarts— Was it while you were looking at this paper 1 A. Yes, it was while I was looking at this paper ; it was while T was looking; he said after I had read what is the postscript to this retraction Q. What comment did you make ? A. I said during the conversation, or about that time, that this paper would simply seem to Imply that Mr. Beecher had been attempt- ing the virtue of Mrs. Tilton without success, or some general remark of that kind. Q. What did :Mr. Moulton say, if anything, about that? A. I don't remember that ^Ir. Moulton made any specific reply to my remark at this stage ; my recollection of Mr. Moulton's position at this stage of the iaterview was that it was one of sUence, showing me the papers, listening to my remarks and criticisms upon them without saying anythiag, until I asked him a cir.estion further on in the conversation. Q. Well, did you at this stage of the conversation ask him concerning the history and origin of that paper ? A. I did. Q. ^Miat passed between you on that subject ? A. I asked him the history of the paper ; he said generally that after Mr. Tilton had accused Aii>. Beecher. Mr. Beecher went to 3Ir. Tilton's house, while Mr. Tilton was absent, and obtained this paper fi-om :Mrs. Tilton ; and that on Mr. TUton going home and learning that fact, his wife gave him an explanation of this paper, which he also showed me. Q. Look at this and say if that is the third paper that was shown you? A. Y'es, Su-, that is the paper. :Mr. Evarts— That is Exhibit 6. Mr. Shearman— Yes, Exhibit 6. Q. Now, Sir. did INIr. ^foulron say to you anything con- cerning this retniouii is of the ^vife, and Mi\ Tilton's in- tprvenri'->n and wliac had been done about it? A. He 246 THE TILION-Bh did ; lie said that Mr. Tilton came to liim the next day, I think he said. Q. After this ? A. After this retraction was obtained by Mr. Beecher, very much offended that Mr. Beecher had obtained such a paper from his wife ; Mr. Moulton said that he went round to Eeecher's and obtained the paper from Mr. Beecher, and I then alluded witli him to the pistol scene. THE PISTOL SCENE DESCEIBED TO GEN. TRACY. Q. As mentioned in the WoodhuU publica- tion ? A. The Woodhull publication, in connection with his obtaining from Mr. Beecher this retraction ; and that is the first that I remember of Mr. Moulton beginning to talk to me during that interview— when I asked him about the pistol scene in connection with this paper ; he went on to state to me that he had— he said the statement in the publication that he obtained this by a threat from Mr. Beecher was false ; that he went to Mr. Beecher and asked him for the statement, and he told him that Mr. Tilton was very much offended at him for having ob- tained this paper, and he told him he thought he had done a very unwise and very wrong thing in obtaining such a paper from Mrs. Tilton under the circumstances ; that he asked him to return it ; that Mr. Beecher first objected, saying that he wanted it for his protection, and he did not see why he should surrender it. Q. Protection imder what circtimstances % A. In case the charge should be repeated; Mr. Moulton said he told him that if he would give it to him, he would keep it for him, and he would keep it with Mrs. Tilton's letter to her husband, which T had learned during this conversation had been given by Mrs. Tilton to her husband ; that he would keep this retraction with that letter. Q. You do not mean this letter? A. No. I mean another letter. Q. What letter ? , A. I mean the letter that is referred to in the retraction as inculpating him. Q. The letter of charge? A. The letter of charge, or whatever it was ; I don't think the character of it was then mentioned. Q. The letter to which the retraction referred? A, Yes, Sir. Mr. Beach— To which the letter of retraction referred? The Witness— Yes, Sir. Q. That refers to the first letter of apology, doesn't it ? A. A letter " inculpating my friend," Mr. Shearman— It refers to the letter of Mrs. Tilton's, dated Dec. 29. The Witness— I suppose it is the letter that now turns out to be the 29th, although the date of the letter did not appear then, because it was Dot present. Mr. Evarts- Wei], there is no diflBculty about that. Q. Well, that letter he would keep, which JEJrjRER TRIAL. Mr. Shearman— The one that has been destroyed. Q. Well, that he would keep the retraction, with the charge to which it referred ? A. Yes ; and he said in that connection, in saying to Mr. Beecher, "I wiU keep it as sacredly as I do the other paper— the letter;" he said, " I put my hand "—I understood him to say (and from his gesture I got the impression that his pistol was carried in a pocket on the hip)— but he said he put his hand on his pistol and said to Mr. Beecher, " I will protect it with my life;" and he said that was the only connection in which he referred to a pistol at that interview— he made no threat to Blr. Beecher, and never referred to his pistol ex- cept in saying, " I will protect the paper, if you give it to me, with my life." Q. Did he state explicitly that he did not threaten either in manner or in words ? A. He did, as I understood him; and he said that he— I asked him then— I said then, " The charge in the Woodhull publication is entirely false la this respect ? " He said it was ; no threat or anything of the kind. PARTS OF MRS. WOODHULL'S STORY DE- NIED. Q. Now, did you ask Mm where the letter of charge, or accusation, of Mrs. Tilton was ? A. I think that was spoken of, and he said it had been returned to Mr. Tilton and, I think, h added, destroyed ; at all events he told me that it was not present there, and gave me some reason for its not being present. Q. Did you discuss with him the question that had been suggested as arising between him and Mr. Beecher as to whether Mr. Beecher had done wrong in getting this retraction ? A. There was a reference to that ; I said I didn't see why he should charge Mr. Beecher, or that Mr. Beecher had done wrong in getting the retraction; I could not see that a man would not be justified in obtain- ing a retraction from a woman who had given a letter which had become the subject of accusation against him ; and then he called my attention to what I had not per- ceived in the reti^action; he said, "The retraction ia something more than a mere retraction ; it implies that Mr. TUtou coerced the letter from his wife, and that was what gave great offense to Mr. Tilton." Q. Were any other papers than these three shown to you by Mr. Moulton at the time? A. Not at this time. Q. Then how did the further consideration of the Wood- hull scandal come up ? Was the paper containing that scandal before you at the interview, and brought out ? A. I think it was— it was ; the next subject that I remember as having been alluded to by Mr. Moulton and myself was that part of the publication which represents that he and Mr. Tilton went with Mrs. Wooilhull into the presence of Mr. Beecher, and there Mr. Tilton made a speech to Mr. Beecher, urging him to preside at the Steinway Hall meeting ; I asked him if that scene occurred as stated in the Woodhull publication, and he said it did not. TESTIMONY OF Bl Q. Wliat language did lie use, or wliat form of expres- sion, in substance 1 A. He said it was false. Q. Was tlie part of tlie paper containing tills last state- ment read and considered between you when you were tbus discussing that point 1 A. That I cannot say pos- itively—of course the scandal was familiar to all of us at that time— the publication- the different parts of it ; it was either read, or else I remembered it so distinctly as to be able to aUude to it, and he remembered it so as to answer ; we understood each other on that subject ; whether it was done by reading, or whether it was done by recalling it from memory, I cannot now say. Q. And he said that the scandal was untrue in that re- spect % A. In that respect, he said, the scandal was un- true, or false— I am not certain which word he used. Q. Did you make any suggestion SOME LEADING QUESTIONS OBJECTED TO. Mr. Beach— It seems to me, your Honor, if the counsel will permit me, that this mode of examina- tion is somewhat leading— prelex. Mr. Evarts— I assumed— if your Honor Avill allow me a moment— I assumed that my learned f riend would con- sider Mr. Tracy's knowledge of the "True Story" as produced in evidence as sufficient, without producing the exhibit itself. [Handing witness Tribune copy of the " True Story."] Judge Neilson— No doubt. But the jury are entitled to the recollection of this witness as to what was said or what passed. Mr. Beach— Well, if the question applies to that it does not remedy the difficulty. Mr. Evarts— I know ; the objection is met. Mr. Beach— Now, I am i>erfectly willing that Mr. Tracy should refresh his recollection by looking at that pre- tended "True Story"— pretended copy of the "True Story." But then. Sir, when he looks at the memoran- dum he must testify from his recollection as to what was said by Mr. Tilton upon that question. Judge Neilson— Yes. thus refreshed, or not refreshed, so that you get his recollection ; that is the point. Mr. Evarts— Yom- Honor will perceive that the question which I fi-amed, I think (or intended to,) correctly, was a preliminary question asking him whether he was able to state, which of course he will answer according to his recollection whether he is. If he is not able to state, then, his imperfect recollection, or his complete recollec- tion, as it may turn out, will be the subject of a further inquiry. Judge Neilson— Well, you recognize this, of coui'se, that they have a right to exact his recollection of what was said. Mr. Evarts— Oh, I agree to that. Judge Neilson— Because, as to all witnesses, it is de- sirable to see how much the witness does recollect, and how much he does not. Mr. Evarts— I take it we all know that if, for Instance, an author is inquired of as to his being the author of a composition which was published in one of our reviews or newspapers, you cannot expect him to have commit- ted to memory his draft, and yet It Is the most direct and explicit evidence upon looking at the publication—" That is the paper that I wrote." Mr. Beach— It is quite a different thing from asking a third party whether that was the paper he wrote, ac- cording to his declaration, if made at the time. Mr. Evarts— Well, the third party has heard it read from the draft. Judge Neilson— Now, the witness has the benefit of see Judge Neilson—WTien I tuade lb© mumation T had inin^: this paper, I think you should interrogate him as to 250 THJ^ TlLTCm-BENfJHEB TRIAL, Ms recollection of what was said and read there on that occasion. Mr. Evarts— I think your Honor will perceive that my question is really (as I meant it to be) whether he can Btate. Then he can answer yes or no. Mr. Beach— Let us see what the question is first. Mr. Evarts— Mr. Stenographer will you read the ques- tion? The Tribune stenographer— No, Sir; the gentleman ^ho just left the court took my notes with him. Mr. Evarts— I will renew the inquiry. [To the witness. J You have before you Exhibit No. what? A. "D, 114." Q. D, 114, being a printed production of the " True Story" so far as in evidence. Upon looking at that, are you able to say whether the statement, as read to you by Mr. Tilton on that night, is this statement as you see it there, or any parts of that that you recognize as being in this statement as i*ead to you by Mr. Tilton ? A. Parts of it, certainly Mr. Beach— Wait one moment. That is not an answer to the question. Mr. Evarts— Are you able to state? Mr. Beach— The question is whether you are able to state Mr. Evarts— Are you able to state whether that is the same paper or parts of it ? A. I am. Q. Or whether parts of it are ? A. I am, in a qualified sense, able to answer your question that I am. Q. Well, what parts of this paper now before you do you remember as having been read to you by Mr. Tilton 1 A. Well, I cannot carry in my mind all this paper ; I have not read it through ; I can only say, from general recol- lection, that T remejoaber some documents that were in it being embraced in this paper that Mr. Tilton read, and I remember some themes discussed ; I remember generally the drift of that statement, but I should have to go over this, item by item, before I could answer your question accui-ately. Q. Well, as to the commencement— have you any recol- lection on that subject ? A. My recollection is that the statement that he read to me that day began substan- tially as this Mr. Beach— That i object to. Judge Neilsou— Oh, tell us what your recollection is, Mr. Tracy. A. My recollection is that the statement that he read that day began by an allusion to the publication of the Woodhull paper during his absence from the State. Q. Yes? A. And I recollect that he also alluded to the fact that when he arrived home, his first impulse was to write a card denying it or denouncing it in some way ; I do not remember the phraseology ; I remember that Mrs. Morse was introduced, his mother-in-law, in that statement; I remember generally, that the statement was a detailed narrative. Mr. Beach— Wait ; I object to that. The Witness— Let me understand. Is It desired that I should go over this, paragraph by paragraph, to see what I do or do not recollect ? Judge Noilson— No ; it is desired that you should tell us what you recollect was said and read that evening, refreshing yom* recollection, if need be. Mr. Evarts— So far as you can with the aid of that, paper, if it recalls to your mind and memory what oc- curred that evening. Mr. Beach— Yes, but I don't want the witness to make that paper testify instead of himself, and read it from that. Judge Neilson— No; you want his recollection of what was said and read. Mr. Evarts— He will not read it from the paper. Mr. Beach— I don't know whether he will or not. Mr. Evarts— He has not been asked to. The Witness— Well, of course, this putting this paper in my hands has not refreshed my memory, for I nave not read it. Mr. Evarts— You are to look at it. Judge Neilson— Well, Mr. Tracy, it seems to me it would be very easy for you to state, so far as you do re- member, what was said and read there on that occasion, and then matters omitted will be called to your attention afterwards. The Witness— If your Honor please, it is utterly im- nossible for me to repeat that paper that he read there; I cannot do that— I can onlv state the points touched upon by that paper, audits general drift, by stating the substance of it ; that is all I can do. I can go over this paper, passing each paragraph in review, and tell you whether I recollect that that was aUudedsto, or was not alluded to. Judge Neilson— Well, that is not what is desired. You should give, as it seems to me, what you remember was said, either by conversation or reading, as far as you do remember, on that occasion, and then further if the paper need be used The Witness— Does your Honor mean to suggest that I can repeat the language of the paper on the subjects that the paper touched on f Judge Neilson— Not the language of the paper, no, Sir ; but what was said and read according to your best memory, same as you would treat every witness when you examine him. Mr. Evarts— Well, Mr. Tracy, pursue that method now; what do you remember as having been included in this statement as read to you that night by Mr. Tilton 1 A. You mean the subjects included in it, Mr. Evarts ? Q. Yes, the subjects 1 A. Well, I remember that his re- lations with Mr. Bowen were treated of in that paper ; I remember that his breach with Mr. Bowen was set out in that paper ; I remember the letter of the 26th of Decem- ber that was written by him at, as stated, at the sugges- tion of Mr. Bowen to Mr. Beecher was in that paper ; I TESllMONY OF BK remember tliat the letter of Jan. 1, written by Mr. Tilton to Mr. Bowen, was in that letter with a statement. Q. Jan. 1, 1871 % A. 1871, with a statement of its his- tory ; I remember that it quoted a paper LAt this point, Mr. Evarts being engaged in consulta- tion, the witness ceased speaking.] Mr. Evarts— Well, you can complete this. The Witness— I know that the paper contained a state- ment of a writing from Mrs. Tilton informing her hus- band, that her friend, Henry Ward Beecher, had solicited her to be a wife to him with all that that implied. I recol- lect the statement as given that day to be substantially the statement here. THE OMISSIONS IN THE PRESERVED COPY OF THE " TRUE STORY." Q. Now, this paper here does not purport to be a full reproduction of any documents ; there is a gap in it as we all know. Do you remember anything that was in that paper, as read to you, that is not in this paper here? A. I think I do; I remember that that paper— in that paper was quoted all or a part of what is known as "The Apology" or "Letter of Contrition;" I cannot say whether it was all or a part. Q. That is this Exhibit No. 2? A. Exhibit No. 2; and I know that Mr. Tilton either read or spoke, in connection with that letter, a sentence complimentary to his wife for having resisted the amorous pleas of her pastor; I remember that phrase. Q. Well, Sir, you heard the documeut read % A. I did. Q. After it was read, please state, so far as you recall, what then occurred in the way of conversation? A. I listened to the reading of this document, and when it was through I asked Mr. Tilton, " What is your purpose, Mr. Tilton, in drafting such a document as that ?" He said he was trying to see whether he could frame a successful answer to the Woodhull publication. I asked, "With a view of publishing it ?" He said that that was to be a matter for consideration ; if he could frame an answer satisfactory to himself, he proposed then to submit it to Mr. Beecher, and if Beecher should bo satisfied with it, then to publish it. "Well," I said, "do you think Mr. Beecher will be satisfied with such a publication as that?" He said he didn't know ; that was the question. "Well," I said, " I don't think he will." He said, "He will have to be satisfied with what is the truth. " I said, " Cer- tainly, feut the question is whethet. that is the truth ; your wife says in her retraction that yoiu- charge against Mr. Beecher is not true." MR. BEECHER ACCUSED OF MEANNESS. —At that Mr. Tilton became somewhat ex- cited, and spoke vehemently against Mr. Beecher for having obtained that paper from his wife under the cir- cumstances. He said that it was a very mean thing for Mr. Beecher to do ; that his wife was sick and unable to NJAMIM F, TRACY. 251 resist his demands, and that he took advantage of her weakened condition and dictated to her that answer, ana got her signature to it, and that his wife had taken it l)ack, and Mr. Beecher had admitted that the charge which he then made against Mr. Beecher was true. I asked, "Where has Mr. Beecher admitted that?" "Why," he says, "in that Letter of Apology— in that letter or paper." I said, "Mr. Tilton, I don't think that you can say that Mr. Beecher has made any such admission in that paper." I then— I think I then took up that paper and went over it again ; I know I did after the statement— after Mr. Til- ton had made his statement. Whether I did it immedi- ately on his finishing it, or further on in the conversa- tion, I cannot remember ; but I went over that " Letter of Apology " again carefully, and I said to Mr. TUton : " The language of this letter or this paper is so general that I do not see that you can apply it to anythiner spe- cifically, and your wife has said that Mr. Beecher never made any improper solicitations to her." In that conver- sation, while he was excited, in denouncing Mr. Beecher, he said Mr. Beecher was an adulterer and he could prove it ; I remember that phrase, and I said to him, " With yom* wife ?" and he replied, " No, but with another woman," or " women "— " other women" — I am not cer- tain which phrase he used. We continued the discussion of that proposed answer of his to the Woodhull publica- tion. MR. TILTON DENIES BEING MRS. WOOD- HULL'S INFORMANT. Q. Now, Mr. Tracy, I will ask you a ques- tion here. Previous to this discussion in which Mr. Tilton made this statement that Mr. Beecher was an adulterer and he could prove it, as you have just repeated it, had there been or was there a conversation between you and him as to what the charge that he made against Mr Beecher was or what it was not ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Please state that? A. After he had finished the read- ing of this paper. I said to him in substance— 1 don't re- member the phraseology — " Your statenieut, Mr. Tilton, settles one thing— that you did not charge Mr. Beecher with adultery." He said, "No, my wife is a pui-e woman;" I remember that phrase and that (sentence oc- curring. Q. In that connection, or in this interview, was any- thing said between you and him as to whether he had conveyed to Mrs. Woodhull any such charge 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. What was that ? A. I asked him in that connection— somewhere in that connection— whether he had ever stated to Mrs. Woodhull what she said he stated in that— in her publication ; he said he never had ; he never had given that woman one word of that information; that in that respect that information was entirely false, or that publication was entirely false; we went on with the 252 THE TILTON-BEECHER TIUAL. discussion of that paper as a proposed answer to the WoodliuU pulbli cation, and the discussion was a very long one ; it is impossible for me to repeat or narrate all that was said pro and con on that matter ; there were various views of it suggested which I recollect, but it is impossi- ble to recall in the order in which they occurred. Q. Please state them as they come to your mind. A. I remember of saying to him— asking him at one point of the conversation, " Mr. TUton, tell me what are your present feelings toward Mr. Beecher," and he either said " They are kind and friendly" or " They are not unkind or unfriendly ;" I can't say which form of expression he used ; I said, " What is your motive in making an answer to the publication % Do you want to make an answer that will settle it and bury it, or do you want to make an answer that will continue this discussion?" He said he wanted to bury It and get it out of the way ; well, I asked him if he thought that publication would do It ; well, he— I don't recollect that he was clear in his answer in that respect ; he said he thought it was the best that could be done under the circumstances ; I said, " Why not deny this publication, Mr. Tilton 1 You say that you never gave this woman this information; you say that you never charged Mr. Beecher with adultery; now, why don't you deny the publication simply, and say that it is false; content yourself with a simple denial instead of such a statement as this?" He said— he gave two reasons in answer to that Question; in the first place, he said, "That is precisely what these women want me to do," or " this- woman wants me to do. If I come out and deny this publica- tion, and say it is false, that accuses them of having pub- lished a libel, and they will bring an action in the courts, and we will all be subpenaed, and we shall have to tell as witnesses, precisely what the facts are, and that will bring out the facts just as I propose to publish them, and I may just as well publish them this way as to have them brought out in a litigation." I attempted to ridicule the idea of their bringing a libel suit if he answered that card by a simple denial, and said, " An action for libel won't lie ; that is ridiculous to talk about an action of libel in connection with the denial of this publication." His reply was, " Well, they can bring it, can't they?" I said, " Yes ; they could bring an action, of course." " And they could subpena the witnesses?" "Yes." "Well," says he, " they don't care whether they succeed or not ; it will serve as a pretext to get the facts before the public, and therefore I have carefully framed an answer— tried to — which shall not be liable to the charge of libel, and yet which shall state the facts as they are." Another reason he assigned was that he thought the charge of Mrs. WoodhuU was too circumstantial and par- ticular to be answered by a general denial. He said that if The parties implicated in it simply denied it, that peo- ple would not believe the denial, that they would believe there was something more of it, and they had got to have a statement of what the truth was, and when they saw what the truth was they would say, " Well, we knew there was something in this, and now we know what it is," and they would be satisfied with it, but with a general denial they would not be satisfied. Those were the two reasons which he assigned for this form of statement. I argued against that, and argued in favor of a denial. He said, " I cannot deny"— he assignedno reason, but he said,"I cannot deny that truthfully ; I cannot say that this whole WoodhuU publication is false— in other words— " he said, " I can- not say it is a lie," and he there brought in his illustra- tion of The Police Gazette. He said, " You may take a Police Oazette, and you may know that there are a hundred lies in the newspaper, in that paper, but you cannot say that that whole paper is a lie; because it may contain a hundred truths. Now," he says, "whUethis publication of Mrs. Woodhull is generally false, there are things in it that I cannot say are imtrue ;" and diiring the course of the conversation he went on to specify, and did specify some things that he said he could not say were untrue, and therefore he could not publish a card truthfully which said that that paper was a lie or false. I argued against that as well as I could ; I said to him that, " Your illustration of The Police Gazette, Mr. Tilton, Is not true, it seems to me. This publication is a con- tinuous story, and it hinges upon two facts ; first, this statement that Mr. Beecher has committed adultery with your wife ; and, second, that you gave that information to Mrs. Woodhull. Now, if the story is false in those two particulars, you can truthfully deny it by simply saying it is false, and not saying that you say— tell the truth." WHAT MR. TILTON COULD NOT DENY. Q. Mr. Tracy, I will ask you a question. You spoke of his stating some facts— of his referring to some items in this paper that he could not deny ; can you state what those items were ? A. I can state some of them. Sir. He says : " I cannot deny that Mr. Beecher went to my wife and obtained this retraction; that I can- not deny. I cannot deny the facts of my own knowledge what she says Mrs. H. B. Stanton said to her." Q. That is Mrs. Woodhull ? A. Mrs. Woodhull said Mrs.. H. B. Stanton said to her: " I cannot deny of my own knowl- edge what she says Mrs. Davis said to her. 1 cannot deny this extract of a letter which purports to be from Mrs. Davis to Mrs. Woodhull," and he instanced several par- ticulars that he could not deny— more than I am able to recall, and thus fortified his argument that he could not say that that publication was a lie. The conrcrfiation, the discussion, went on until supper time, and we went down to tea, as I remember ; and after tea we went up and renewed It again, and It continued on from then until 10 o'clock. Q. Do you remember whether anything wff«* saiij upott the TUSTIMONF OF BIl Mr. Beach— Has tie given all tliat lie recollects now of tMs conversation 1 Tlie Witness— I liave not given all I recollect. Mr. Beacli— I think we had better get it, Sir. Mr. Evarts— Well, I propose to, but not at this mo- ment. Mr. Beach— Well, I understand your Honor to rule that we were to get the continuous recollection of this wit- ness as to that interview. Judge Neilson— Certainly. Mr. Evarts— I propose, with your Honor's permission, to ask the witness a question now with respect to the portion of the interview that is apparently closed, and I do not know that it is necessary to wait for the end of the other portions of the interview. [To the witness.] You have said that there were some other facts, or parts of Mrs. Woodhvill's articles that he could not deny— some which you have not repeated ? Mr. Beach— And which he could not recall. Mr. Evarts— And which you cannot recall. Now, I ask you, do you remember whether in this connection he Bpoke about presiding at the Steinway Hall meeting 1 A. I do ; I remember he said that he could not deny that he had presided at the Steinway Hall meeting. Q. Do you remember his spying in this connection any- thing about a denial of the publication of the Woodhull card 1 A. In The ^Yorld—l remember that. The paper was gone over quite carefully, what he could and what lie could not deny. Q. Now, go on with the interview farther, so far as you recollect it. A. Toward the close of the interview or dur- ing—I remember another point now that occurred during thifs discussion. I discussed with Mr. Tilton the proba- bility of the truth of his wife's statement in regard to the charge of improper proposals. I remember saying to Mr. Tilton in that connection, " Mr. Tilton, I can understand how you may believe Mr. Beecher has been guiity of that oflfense, and I can understand possibly how your wife may have conceived that he had intended to make to her an improper suggestion ; but now, isn't it more probable that this statement of your wife that Mr. Beecher made an improper proposal to her is the result of a misunder- standing on her part, that she has misconstrued some re- marks of his into an improper suggestion, or that she has repeated something to you which you have construed into an improper suggestion on the part of Mr. Beecher, and that that is the origin of this whole matter 1" He thought not. He thought there was no mistake about it. I said, ** Mr. Tilton, do you pretend to say that Mrs. Til- ton, in the language she has given you, quotes precisely the language which Mr. Beecher used to her 1" He said, " Yes, certainly." I said, " Do you say— do you say that Mr. Beecher said to Mrs. Tilton, ' Mrs. Tilton, I desire you to be a wife to me, with all that that implies' — do you say that Mr. Beecher used the last phrase * with aU that that implies,' to Mrs.— to your wife !" He VJAMm F. TBAC7. 253 said, "I won't say that housed those precise words to her, but that was an inference from the suggestion that she was to be a wife to him." " Well," I said, " if that part of it is an inference, Mr. Tilton, why may not all of it be by inference from what he said?" I pressed upon him the suggestion that as his wife had denied the improper solicitation, now if IVIr. Beecher denied it, and he made this publication that he thought— that he was thinking of making, I thought the public would be likely to accept the explanation that this matter arose from Mrs. Tilton misunderstanding what Mr. Beecher had said, or she having repeated some remark that Mr. Beecher had made to her to her husband, who had misunderstood it, and that that was the origin of the difficulty. And we dis- cussed the question whether, if he was friendly to IVIr. Beecher, or not unfriendly to him, whether it would not be wise to consider whether that was not the truth, and whether the public would not be more likely to accept that explanation and be sat- isfied with such a statement, than they would with a statement which, in my judgment, Mr. Beecher mu?t certainly de-ay, if made, and which his wife had already denied. That phase of the matter was dis- cussed, and I pressed that publication strongly upon Mr. Tilton , and at great leng-th during that discussion. I pre- sented my views of that matter to him, that that might be a satisfactory explanation and one which the public would accept, if made by him ; but at the close of the conversation, I remember that Mr. Moulton asked me what I would propose as a solution of the matter, and I then asked them again, or said to them, " That depends upon what you want to accomplish ; if you want to bury this scandal, and extinguish it, I think I can propose a plan that will accomplish it." They asked what it was ; and I stated it. _ MR. TILTON WANTS THE PAPERS PRE- SERVED. — I said, "You want to deny that publication, declare it to be a lie, and destroy the documents that you have here." Mr. Tilton at that remark of mine, turned and said, " I will not permit the destruction of the docu- ments—of these documents. If these documents were destroyed, Mr. Beecher would turn on me, and rend me.'* I said, " Mr. Tilton, I can conceive no possible object which Mr. Beecher could have to revive thi8Scandal,or this story. It seems to me that every consideration must lead him to wish it buried, and buried out of sight, and if it is once buried I can imagine nothing that would induce him to revive it, for the purpose of spiting you." Well, he said, he thought he would, or if he didn't, members of Ply- mouth Church would. I said, " What have members of Plymouth Cliui*ch got against you 1 What motive can they have for reviving this t " He said that the members of Plymouth Church felt that he had been slandering or injuring Mr. Beecher ; and in tJtiat connection he stated 254 THE TlLTOii-BEEGHEE IBIAL. that iu 1871, I think it was, when this thing was dis- covered, he had spoken harshly of Mr. Beecher — that he had felt harshly toward hira, and had spoken very harshly against him, and members of the church thought that he had heen slandering Mr. Beecher, and it was these documents— I won't say that he said that— he said, if these documents were out of the way Mr. Beecher would not restrain the members of Plymouth Church who wanted to attack him. That led me to make this further suggestion to Mr. Tilton. I said, " To meet that, Mr. Til- ton, how would it do if you and Mr. Beecher and your wife can agree as to what the real facts are in this case ; how will it do for you and Mr. Beecher to go before one or more eminent citizens of Brooklyn, who are strangers to this contro- versy now, and in whom the public have confidence, and there make a mutual statement of what the real truth is in this matter, and out of which all this story has sprung, and then destroy the documents. I said that course will prevent either one from ever going back upon the other, because he will be bound by the statement that he has made to this person, or these persons, who always can state what the fact was, and Mr. Beecher cannot go back on you nor you on Mr. Beecher ; and it seems to me that that will bury this whole controversy, if you want to bury it." He thought not ; he differed with me ; and the result was we came to no conclusion that night, so far as the publication of a card was concerned, or so far as an- swering this "Woodhull scandal by a publication to be made by one or more of the parties. I don't know when Mr. Tilton left that interview, whether he left it before I did or not. I know I stayed late, and I cannot say that Mr. Tilton was there when I left or not. My impression is that he left before I did. I know there was a conversa- tion between Mr. Moulton and myself that night— whether it occurred in Mr. Tilton's presence or not I can- not positively say— on the subject of what could be done for Mr. Tilton, and how he co«ld be restored to the con- fidence of the people again and put upon his feet. A TRIP TO EUROPE ADVISED FOR MR. TILTON. Q. Well, wliat was said between you and Mr. Moulton ou that subject? A. Mr. Moulton asked me, in substance, what, in my judgment, could be done for Mr. Tilton, if this matter was buried in this way. I said that I thought the only course for Mr. Tilton was to go to Europe; that, in my judg- ment, his connection with the Woodhull woman, the writing of her life, and then the publication of this scandal, had so shaken the confidence of the pub- lic in Mr. Tilton that it would be impossible for him to rebuild himself here ; that I did not thiuk that any prom- inent newspaper could take him on the editorial staff ; but, I said, he is a ready and able writer; if he goes to Europe and gets out of this locality and atmosphere, the public will cease to associate his name with Mrs. Wood- hull ; he can become a correspondent of one or more newspapers, and he can write letters that the public will read and discuss, and he will come to be talked about as a writer upon European affairs, and after three or fom" years' absence I think this matter wiUbe so far forgotten that Mr. Tilton can come home and take a position upon the editorial staff of any of the prominent newspapers of the country. In my judgment that is the way that Mr. Tilton can rebuild himself in the confidence of the people, and it is the only way. Q. Did Mr. Moulton reply in any way to that ? A. I don't remember that he made any definite reply to that. MRS. MORSE NAMED AS MRS. WOODHULL'S INFORMANT. Q. Now, Mr. Tracy, in this interview was any suggestion or inquiry made as to the sources of Mrs. Woodhull's information, affirmatively? A. There was. I asked that question. When Mr. Tilton said he had not informed— given Mrs. Woodhull any of this information, I said to him: " How do you think she got it then ?" He then referred to Mrs. Morse again, and said that he sup- posed she had got it from Mrs. Morse, his mother-in-law, and he again dwelt upon the peculiarities of Mrs. Morse, and said that Mrs. Morse was in the habit of repeating to neighbors, out of her hatred for him, Mr. TUton, in sub- stance as follows: "Why! don't you believe," or "don't you think," that Theodore charges Elizabeth with hav- ing been doing this or that with Mr. Beecher, or of stat- ing this thing or that thing ; that that was the form in which Mrs. Morse had propagated these stories, by ac- cusing Mr. Tilton of having charged such and such things, and that it went from ear to ear in that way, and he supposed it had reached Mrs. WoodhuU, and that she had gathered it up and magntfled it into the present pub- lication. Q. Was anything said as to Mrs. Morse's having com municated the facts of the intercourse between Mr. Beecher and Mr. Moulton and Mr. Tilton, with regard to the pistol scene, or anything of that kind? A. I don't think there was. Q. Now, in the course of this interview, Mr. Tracy, when the subject of the publication of this paper that was under consideration for publication was up, was any- thing said as to whether Mr. Beecher could stand such a paper as that 1 A. I have already alluded to that, Mr. Evarts, I think. I stated to him that 1 didn't see how Mr. Beecher could stand such a paper as that, and I didn't believe he would ; and it is in that connection that Mr. Tilton said he would have to stand what was true ; and I said: "That is the question, Mr. Tilton, whether ihis is true ; your wife has denied it ; now, if Mr. Beecher denies it" TESTIMONY OF Bl THE rOLICY OF SEPAEATE DENIALS. Q. Well, if you have already stated it you need not repeat. Now, in tlie course of this con- versation was there a consideration or sugges- tion talked of between you and Mr. Tilton— be- tween you and Mr. Moulton and Mr. Tilton— as to bow this whole scandal of Mrs. Woodhull, as published by her, might be treated by separate denials? A. There was. Q. What was said on that point 1 A. In discussing how it could be denied, among other ways, I suggested that each party might deny specifically the scandal so far as it implicated them in it or referred to them ; and in that connection I referred to the fact that Henry B. had already denied the scandal. Q. In some publication? A. In some publication as I understood ; and I said that had done great good— her de- nial had done great good. I said : " Now, Mr. Moulton says that that statement, so far as it refers to him as an actor in this scandal, is untrue. He can publish a card saying in substance that so far as his name is mentioned in that scandal it is untrue. Then you can publish a card saying that so far as that scandal refers to you as an actor, you can brand it as false. If you do that, in my judgment, it will liUl the scandal." Q. What was said by him, if anything, in that connec- tion ? A. In that connection in— no, he said he could not— he would not deny it in that way ; that he thought the only form of denial which could be made would be to tell the true story, and contradict the false story by simply telling the true one ; that he would not brand that story as a lie, for the reasons which I had recounted. In that connection of denial I remember that Mrs. Davis was aUuded to— Mrs. Paulina Wright Davis— and in that connection Mr. Tilton either read to me the letter from Mrs. Tilton, or the statement of Mrs. Tilton, in regard to the relations of Mrs. Davis to her family, or he stated them, I cannot say which ; but in that interview I re- ceived the information that Mrs. Davis could and would deny the scandal— her part of that scandal, and that her case would be covered also by these specific denials. Mr. Tilton said that the scandal, so far as it represented Mrs. Paulina Wright Davis as an intimate friend of his fam- ily, was untrue, and he gave me the particulars of her acquaintance with the family. Q. Was anything said at that interview about the con tuiuance, or possession, of these papers in existence being a danger of an explosion ? A. I think it was at that interview— I cannot say positively whether it was at that interview or a subsequent interview with Mr. Moul- ton, buv; I think it was at that interview— I think I said it that evening to Mr. Moulton, before I left. Q. What was the observation? A. In regard to his keeping— being the custodian of these papers and the im- possibility of permanently extinguishing this scandal so 'JNJAMIN F. TEAGY. 255 long as those papers were kept in existence. I said in my judgment it would be utterly impossible to keep this scandal from the public, or to extingtdsh it, so long as these documents were kept in ex- istence ; that it was impossible for these parties to maintain an armed neutrality toward each other. I remember using that expression ; I said that if these documents were kept in existence something would occur to bring about a collision, and I said to Mr. Moulton, I don't believe you can remain the custodian of these pa- pers without its involving you ; I would no sooner keep these papers in my house," I said, "than I would keep a powder magazine there I remember that expression. Q. Now, Mr. Tracy, I caU your attention to a statement which the witness, Mr. Woodruff, has made concerning this interview, or the interview this evening, that you have been speaking of ; Mr. Vv^oodrufl' says that Mr. Moul- ton immediately proceeded to tell Gen. Tracy all about the case. Mr. Beach— What page do you refer to, Sir ? Mr. Evarts— 344. And then being asked by the coimsel, What did he tell him ; just repeat it now ?" The witness says: "And his connection with the case; he told him [that is, Mr. Moulton told Mr. Tracy] that the essential points of this Woodhull scandal were true?" A. Mr. Moulton made no such statement to me. Q. Did he make any such statement in substance or in effect ? A. He di-d not. Q. Did he tell you that the essential points of this story, as published in the paper, were true ? A. He did not. He and Mr. TUton both told me, when they were together, during that conversation Mi\ Beach— You are not answering the question now, Sir. You are volunteering. The Witness— I think not. Mr. Beach— Well, I think you are, and I beg you not to do it. ^ GEN. TRACY'S ALLEGED REMAEK ON LYING. Mr. Evarts— Was any general statement made by Mr. Tilton or Mr. Moulton on that subject ? You have given the conversation ? A. The general statement they made to me was that the story as told by Mrs. Wood- hull was essentially false. Q. Now, Mr. Woodruff subsequently in his testimony says that he objected to making any statement in a pub- lic card ; that he, Mr. Woodruff, objected to Mr. Moulton making any, and in objecting said, " I would protest against ; that I would not, as he was a partner of mine —that I would not allow it ; I thought it would be very wrong to make any such statement of a story that he knew was true — deny it in a public card." And then this is imputed to you Mr. Beach— WTiere is that paper ! Mr. Evarts— Page 345 ; at the top of the first column. [Reading.] " Gen. Tracy replied that he did not recom- 356 THE TILTON- BEECH JSn TRIAL. mend lying, but lie thought in some cases— in this case particularly — that a man would he justilied in denying that story," He gives that as an occurrence at this inter- view of which you speak. Did you say anything of that Mnd % A. I did not. Mr. Woodruff did object Mr. Beach— Wait one moment. The Witness— What is the remark ? Mr. Beach— I asked you to wait one moment. You have answered the question. The Witness— Ah ! Mr. Evarts— Now, was any part of this that I have read to you as coming from Mr. Woodruff, an occui-rence at that interview 1 A. It was. Q. What did he say? A. Mr. Woodruff did object to their denying the story in a public card. Q. Well, what did he say 1 A. He (Mr. Woodruff) so far as I remember his participation in the conversation, took Mr. Tilton's view of the case. Mr. Beach— That I object to, and move to strike out. Judge Neilson— Yes. Mr. Evarts— What did he say, so far as you recall— the substance of it ? A. Well, he said, in substance, that they could not deny the whole of that story ; that, part of the story being true, it would not be the right thing to pub- lish a card saying that it was a lie, saying that it was false ; and he did obiect to their publishing a card. I remember Mr. Woodruff's objection to their publishing a card. Q. And was anything then said as to Mr. Moulton's hav- ing verbally denied it 1 A. There was. They had been denying it Q. What was that % A. They had been denying it be- fore that interview, and were to continue denying it pri- vately. The only question discussed there was whether it should be denied in a public card, and if so, what the form of that card should be, and who should sign it. Mr. Evarts— It is now 1 o'clock. The Court here took a recess until 2 p. m. MRS. OYINGTON RECALLED FOR CROSS- EXAMINATION. The Court met at 2 p. m., pursuant to ad- journment. Mrs. Maria N. Ovington recalled, and cross-examination resumed. Mr. Shearman— Mrs. Ovington has been recalled, if your Honor please, at the request of the other side, for further cross-examination. Mr. Fullerton— Mrs. Ovington, you stated when you were ui)on the stand before, I think, that Mrs. Tilton came to your residence on the morning of the 11th of July, 1874 ] A. Yes, Sir. Q. And that she rode with you to Coney Island on the day previous, the 10th of July? A. She did. Q. What time in the afternoon or evening of July 10th did you leave Mrs. Tilton 1 A. I think it was about 5 o'clock ; it was near or about 5 o'clock. O. And where did you part with her? A. At 174 Livingston St. Q. Her residence ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Do you recollect whether or not Mr. Tilton was be- fore the Committee that evening? A. He was. Q. Do you know where the Committee met that evening 1 A. At Mr. Storrs's. Q. Did you know, when Mrs. Tilton and you parted, that Mv. Tilton was to be before the Committee that evening? A. I did not. Sir. Q. Did you learn it at any time during the course of the evening of the 10th? A. I did, Sir. Q. And how did you learn it ? A. There were one or two friends, I think, in, as was the custom. Mr. Cleve- land called, and I asked him if Mr. Tilton was to be before the Committee — if he knew when he was to be there; he said he believed he was to be there that even- ing — he thought he was. Q. Did you make any request of Mr. Cleveland at that time? A. No, Sir; I don't think that I did; I don't remember that I did. Q. Didn't you request him to inform you of the fact if Mr. Tiltou went before the Committee ? A. I might have done so, but I don't think I did. Q. Did Mr. Cleveland inform you of the fact that even- ing? A. He did, at my request. Q. At your request ; well, that is Wiiat I was asking you— if you requested him ? A. Not when he was at my house. You have gone ahead a little fast. Q. Did you request him to communicate with you dur- ing that evening in case Mv. Tilton went before the Com- mittee ? A. I don't think I did; I afterward wished that I had, but I don't think tliat I did. Q. I think you don't comprehend the full pweep of the question, Mrs. Ovington. Did you request him on that evening to communicate with j^ou in case Mr. Tilton did go before the Committee ? A. I don't think I did, but I think I can explain to you what you wish to know. When Mr. Cleveland called, I asked him if Mr. Tilton was to be before the Committee that evening— if he knew whether he was ; I think he said he thought he might be, but didn't know ; I don't remember the answer, but at any rate I felt an anxiety to know, and wrote Mr. Cleveland a note asking him if Mr. Tilton was before the Com- mittee. Mr. Sheai-man— Wait a moment, Mrs. Ovington. Mr. Fullerton— That was embraced in my question, whether you made the request of Mr. Cleveland 1 A. I thought you meant whether I made it in his presence. Q. No, that evening. A. I wrote a request ; I did not make it— not verbally ; I wrote one. Q. You made it in writing ? A. I wrote one— yes, Sir. Q. And by whom did you send that note ! A. The tele- graph messenger— District Telegraph. TESTlMChM OF MBS, MARIA N. OVINGTON. 257 Q. What time in the evening vas ths,t done ? A. I couitl not say exactly ; between 8 and 9, I think ; I have the record at home ; I can show it to you. Q. How soon after the writing and sending of the note did you receive a reply from Mr. Cleveland? A. Imme- diately. Q. And what information did he give you 1 A. I have the note if you wish it. Q. Please. The Witness— Mr. Shearman, both notes, the note that I wrote him and the one he replied; I brought them with me when I came on the stand before ; they were not called for. Mr. FuUerton— I understood they were not in existence at that time. The Witness— I didn't say so, Sir. Mr. Fullerton— No, no; I didn't say I understood so from you ; I got the impression somewhere. The Witness— Yes, Sir. [Mr. Shearman produces the letters called for and they were examined by Mr. FuUerton.] Mr. FuUerton— Now, after you received a reply from Mr. Cleveland, did you communicate with Mrs. Tilton ? A. I did, immediately. Q. Sent a letter to her ? A. I did ; yes, Sir. Q. How did you send iti A. By the telegraphic mes- senger. Q. And what time in the evening f A. I could not say exactly ; I have the record, but directly that I received the reply from Mr. Cleveland. Q. And it was the next morning that Mrs. Tilton came to your A. The following morning ; yes, Sir. Q. I did not understand what time you sent the letter to Mrs. Tilton that night. A. As soon as I received Mr. Cleveland's reply. Q. About what time in the evening was it ? A. I can- not say; I think about 9 o'clock; I should judge about that time. Q. Do you recollect what time you sent a note to Mr. Cleveland ? A. I do not exactly ; I think it was between 8 and 9 o'clock, and the reply eame immediately, and I then sent the answer to Mrs. Tilton. I don't think it was much after 9; it may have been half-past 9 ; it was between 8 and 10 o'clock, at any rate, that these notes were sent. Mr. FuUerton- That is aU. Mr. Shearman- Will you hand me those notes, if you please f Mr. FvQlerton- Oh, have you seen that note that you sent to Mrs. Tilton, since that night 1 A. I have not ; I regret to say that she destroyed it. Q. Well, what request did you make of Mrs. Tilton 1 A. I informed her what I had written Mr. Cleveland. Q. What request did you make, if anything? A. I will give it to you as well as I can remember the contents of the letter; I could not say exactly what was written, but I said that I had kept my promise to her to inform her, if I knew it, when her husband was before the Com- mittee, that I had written Mr. Cleveland and received this note, and I think I worded it exactly as Mr. Cleveland had written me, teUing her that I would be very glad to have her come with me that night if she wished to do so, and she wrote me a note in reply. Q. Never mind that. A. I have the note here if you wish it. Q. No. A. It may save my coming again; that is all. Q. No, you won't have to come again. EEDIRECT EXAMINATION OF MES. OYINGTON. Mr. Shearman— Please look at that paper, and say if that is the note which you wrote to Mr. Cleveland 1 [Handing witness a paper.] A. T beUeve this to be the note, Sir. Q. Look at this paper and say whether this is the an- swer which you received from Mr. Cleveland ? [Handing witness a paper.] A. I believe that to be the answer. Q. Look at this and see if this is the envelope in which it came ? [Handing witness an envelope.] A. Yes, Sir ; that is my penciling ia the corner. Q. Look at this paper and state whether that is the an- swer which you received from Mrs. Tilton that night f [Handing witness a paper.] A. That is correct. Mr. Shearman— Now, if your Honor please, we offer this note to Mr. Cleveland in evidence. [Reading.] Friday, p. m., July 10, '74. Mr. Cleveland. Dear Sir : Is Mr. Tilton with the Committee this p. m., or wiU he be informed of anything that may disturb him % Please send word by bearer, as I hat^e promised in that case to telegraph Mrs. TUton to come and remain with me to-night. I may have forgotten to mention this when speaking to you this p. m. Yours sincerely, M. N. OVINGTON. No. 148 Hicks-st. [Marked "Exhibit D, 137." Mr. Shearman— And the envelope from Mr. Cleveland addressed, "Mrs. Ovington." I offer that [marked, " Ex- hibit D, 138."] Mr. Shearman— I now offer the letter from Mr. Cleve- land in reply : [Reading.] Dear Madam : TUton is here, but I guess you need not send for Mrs. T. Yours always, c. [Marked " Exhibit D, 139."] Mr. Shearman— I now offer the reply of Mrs. Ovington, the contents of which have been given in evidence. Mr. FuUerton— Let us see that ; it may not be admissi- ble. [Examining the letter.] No objection to it. Mr. Shearman— This is the letter from Mrs. TUton to Mrs. Ovington : [Reading. | My Beloved : Do not fear for me. I wiU stay to- night and come to you in the morning. We wUl both trust and wait on the Lord. Aff., Your own, sister, Elizabeth. [Marked "Exhibit D, 140.") 258 THE TILTON-Bl Mr. .Fullerton— If I Tinders tand you correctly, Mrs. | Ovington, you commutiicated Mr. Shearman— One moment, Mr. Fullerton. Let me ask one question. [To tlie witness.] Did you communi- cate or sliow this note of Mrs. Tilton's to your husband that evening ? A. Immediately. Mr. Fullerton— Well, I don't see the importance of it. EECROSS-EXAMINATION OF MRS. OVINGTON. Mr. Fullerton — I understood you to say that you communicated the contents of the note of Mr. Cleve- land to Mrs. Tilton. A. I think, if I remember correctly, that I put the note before me and wrote from that, saying that was Mr. Cleveland's letter to me. Q. Then you inserted a copy of it — a literal copy? A. I thfhk so ; I am not certain ; I think I did. Q. Did you communicate any other information to her, excepting that fact that you had addressed Mr. Cleve- land and received that reply? A. Nothing else that I remember, except that Mr. Tilton was before the Commit- tee, and invited her, if she wished to do so, to come to me that night. Q. You did not communicate anything to her, then, to the eflFect that something would take place, or had taken place, before the Committee that would disturb Mr. Tilton 1 A. No, Sir ; I knew nothing about it ; I did not write anything of the kind. Q. Did you expect her the followins morning after re- ceiving that note ? A. I did not expect her. When she said she would come to me in the morning I thought it was merely as a call or conversation, but as I said to you on my other examination, it was a great surprise to me that she came to our house. Q. Well, you did not expect her, then, at all ? A. I thought she she might come as a call. Q. Well, I am not referring to whether it was a call or Whether it was a permanent stay that she contemplated ; did you expect her the next momtag ? A. I did not ex- pect her more than her note indicated, that she would call upon me in the morning. Q. Well, did you think she would call, as the note indi- cated'? A. I thought she might. She was ia the habit of calling, Mr. Fullerton, and had been for years, upon me. Mr. Fullerton — WpII, that is all, unless Mr. Shearman wants you. ^ RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION OF MRS. OVING- TON. Mr. Shearman— At what hour of the day did you expect Mrs. Tilton would call, if at all, the next day ? A. I didn't know ; she said in the morning. I merely thought she was coming to talk over her private matters^ with me, but I didn't know at what time. I know noth- ing more than the note indicated. Q. At what time did she actually come t A. She came before breakfast. ^tJOHBR TIUAL. Q. Had you any expectation that she would come at such an early time 1 A. None in the least. Q. Had you any expectation that she would come for any other purpose than her usual ordinary call ? A. I did not, unless it might be to talk over her matters. Mr. Shearman— The contents of some letters were given in evidence, because the letters were not then to be found— on your examination. We have now found the letters, and we propose to put the whole letters in [hand- ing the letters to Mr. Fullerton]. Mr. Morris- Can't we agree upon the time, so as to close this point— as to the time when Mrs. Ovington com- municated with Mrs. Tilton 1 According to the telegraph message, it was five minutes past 10. Mr. Shearman— Certainly ; that is my recollection of it. [To the witness.] Mrs. Ovington, we understand that the time when you communicated with Cleve- land Mr. Morris— With Mrs. Tilton— it was five minutes past 10. Mr. Shearman— I wouldn't want to be so exact, but is that about the time 1 The Witness— I can make it correct by showing the record, but I think you have that, Mr. Morris ; I think you took it. Mr. Morris— Yes, we examined it. The Witness — I think you took the record, Mr. Morris, from the District Telegraph oflBce. You have it, I think. Mr. Morris— No, I have not the record. The Witness— I understood you had. Mr. Morris— Only the memorandum. The Witness— Mr. Shearman, do you wish me to say why I wrote this note to Mr. Cleveland 1 I think, per- haps, it is but justice to myself to do so. Mr. Shearman— Well, if it is in justice to yourself. Mr. Fullerton— No. The Witness— I think, if you will allow me, Mr. Fuller- ton, it will explain the matter a little more clearly. Mr. Fullerton— I understood you wrote to him to know whether Mr. Tilton was going before the Committee. The Witness— Yes, Sir. Mr. Shearman— Well, I will ask that question in justice to .yourself. State with what motive you wrote the letter to Mr. Cleveland? Mr. Fullerton— That is unimportant. Judge Neilson— I think we will take that. Mr. Shearman— Go on. A. I had promised Mrs. Tilton that if I knew of Mr. Tilton's being before the Committee at any time I would immediately Inform her of it. Mr. Fullerton— That is already stated and on the record. The Witness— And the reason that she wished me to inform her, she feared that Mr. Tilton Mr. Fullerton— One moment. That is not Mrs. Oving- ton's motive ; that is another person's motive. TESTIMONY OF MRS. Judge Neilson— You are permitted to sta^^'^ ^- vie^rs, Jlrs. Ovington — your own motives. Mr. Fullerton— Slie lias stated. Tlie Wituese— Iknewtliat Mrs. Tilton feared Mr. Til- ton Mr. Fullerton— One moment. Mr. Shearman — State tlie reason in your own language. Mr. Morris— She has stated it. Mr. Shtarmau— If there was anyfiu'ther reason, you are an iloerty to state it. The Witness— It was merely according to my — 3Ir. FoUerton— It has already heen stated that she had promised to inform Mrs. TUton, and that proraise she ful- filled by the writing of this note. That is aU very plain and all very proper. The Witness— That is correct, Sir. Mr. FuUerton— There is no reflection upon Mrs. OTiuM- ton at all in that respect. Judge Neilson— Mrs. Ovington cannot state anything- that Is predicated upon the supposed condition of Mrs. Tiiton's mind. Mr. Evarts— No, we agree to that. She might state, I suppose, that her reason for doing this was that she was to commtmicate to her— that Mrs. Tilton had asted her Judge Xeilson— I ruled that the lady could state her motives in writing. Mr. Evarts— She had promised to write. The Witness— Shall I teU you why I had promised ? That is what I mean. Mr. FuUerton— That is already stated. Vfiij, Mrs. Ovuigton's promise was because Mrs. Tilton asked her to Nv^'ite and let her know. The Witness— And IMrs. Tiiton's reason for asking me Mr. FuUerton— Mrs. Tiiton's reasons are not to be given. Judge Xeilson— That is a part we cannot take, JUrs. Ovington. The Witness— Yes, Sir ; I didn't understand that. Judge Neilson— I think Mrs. Ovington is perfectly clear in this matter. A FIGHT TO EXCLUDE MRS. TILTON'S NOTE TO MRS. OVINGTON. Mr. Shearman— If your Honor please, we now offer the note in evidence, from Mrs. Tilton to Mrs. Ovington, the contents of which were stated by Mrs. OviQgton on her previous cross-examination, as nearly as she could state them, and with very remarkable accu- racy, certainly, being from memory, and we now offer the original note itself in order to make it complete. It was brought, out by our learned friends on tlir> other side. Mrs. Ovington did not tben have anv opportunity to go «i)d -and tbf paper ^ABiA y. OYiyoToy. 259 Judge Neiison— It was brought out on a conversation with Mr. Tilton ; therefore you may bring it in. I Mr. Fullerton— The note was not brought out in the ' conversation with him. Judge NeUson— The contents. Mr. Fullerton— Mrs. Ovington stated here in her evi- dence what she said to Mr. Tilton, which embraced that note as she then remembered it. Judge Neilson— I think the question is whether that don't open the door for the note now. Mr. Fullerton— That is their evidence. Certainly it would not open the door to admit the letter itself, be- cause Mr. Tilton replied to ^Irs. Ovington upon the strength of Mrs. Oviagton's recollection of the note at the time. Judge Xeilson— Not if tJiey opened it— if it was new ma iter by them. Mr. Fullerton— It is matter by them, Sir, not "by us. Mr. Evarts— The point, I take it, is this, if your Honor please; if we had then had the note we should have offered it as being the note which Mrs. Ovington commu- nicated to Mr. Tilton, but the paper not being at hand, or not being supposed to be in existence for the moment, she stated that she gave the contents of the letter. Her principal recollection wasthatshe gave the contents of the letter, which she then had, and then the letter being miss- ing, when the rules of proof would have re- quii-ed the paper to be produced as being the best evidence of its contents, she swearing that she communicated the contents, that was displaced and we had to take in lieu of it, as the best to be got, the secondary evidence of what the contents were. Now the proof puts us— the examination puts us in the same posi- tion, as we stibmit to your Honor, in regard to this paper, that we should have been in if the witness at the time had it in her hand and said. ** I communicated the con- tents of this note," and then we should read it. Judge Neilson— The contents were only before us, or proper to be brought before us, because this witness stated the contents in her conversation -with 3Ir. Tilton ; that is all. Mr. Fullerton— Yes, Sir. Mr. Evarts— That I agree ; but still the recollection is " I stated the contents," and now we are put, in the sec- ondary form, to her remembrance of what the contents were. Mr. Fullerton — She gave the contents. Mr. Evarts— I know, but it was from her memory. Judge Neilson— It is not material what the contents were, the question having been what she told Mr. TUton the contents were, and about that there is no dispute. Mr. Evarts— No, I think not ; that is, that is my pointy if your Honor please, and I wUl be very brief about it. I imderstand the state of the thing to be this : that the witness's recollection is that she stated to Mr. Tilton the contents of the note, whatever those contents were. If 260 IKE TILTON-BEBCEEB TBIAL. the note had been here, then we should have had a right to read the note, because that speaks for Its contents, and she has sworn she communicated the contents ; hut the note not being here, we then had to prove what she had communicated by her memory of the contents, instead of the vrritten contents. That is my proposition. Judge Neilson— Suppose, Mr. Evarts, you now have the letter before you, and you find in it some matter which Mrs. Ovlngton did not state to Mr. Tilton in the conver- sation with him ; it clearly ought not to be admitted. Mr. Pullerton— That is just the reason why they want to prove it. Sir. Mr. Evarts— That will be brought out, if it be so, but that is not the state of the proofs upon which I am pro- posing the question of law to your Honor. The state of proofs upon which I propose the question of law is that this lady stated the contents of the note. That would have authorized us to read the note as being the evidence of its contents. Judge Neilson— So far she had stated it. Mr. Evarts— Well, she says she stated the contents. Judge Neilson— Well, suppose a part of it she did not state. Mr. Evarts— Well, the way the imperfection arises is that, not having the note, she is obliged to recur to mem- ory for what the contents were. Judge Neilson— The primary duty of the witness, then, was not so much to state the contents of the note as to state what she told Mr. Tilton That was the vital thing, embracing the contents of the note, so far as she remem- bered it. Mr. Fullerton— Mr. Tilton's reply to that communicar tion was predicated of what Mrs. Ovington stated to him in regard to the contents of the note. Judge Neilson— Perhaps, if the note itself had been be- fore him, his conversation might have been different. Mr. Fullerton — Mrs. Ovington undoubtedly gave the contents of that note as she recollected it. Now, if she omitted to state anything, then Mr. Tilton is not to be concluded by what he stated to Mrs. Ovington. Judge Neilson— In that case he had not the opportu- nity to reply. The Witness— If your Honor please, I stated the note to Mr. Tilton at the time of receiving it. I recalled it here some months afterward. Mr. Fullerton— Undoubtedly. The Witness— Perhaps my memory was better then. Judge Neilson fto the witness]— You were examined with reference to youi- conversation with Mr. Tilton. and you stated truly, according to your best recol- lection, all that you told Mr. Tilton 1 The Witness— Yes, Sir. Judge Neilson — That embraced the contents of the let- te:-, which, according to your memory, you had com- nmnicated to him ? The Witness— Yes, Sir. Judge Neilson [to the counsel]— Now suppose that Mrs. Ovington did not state the contents of the letter, as she then recollected. Mr. Evarts— That we agree, but she did not recollect it in full. Mr. Fullerton— That we don't know, but you certainly will not hold Mr. Tilton responsible for the contents of a letter which was not stated to him. Mr. Evarts— Now, if your Honor please, let me call at- tention to a ruling in this case : [Reading.] The plaiutiff 's witness having testified that he told Mr. Beeeher the substance of the charges he intended to lay before the Commit-tee: Held, that the plaintiff was en- titled thereby to put in evidence the written Judge Neilson—" The written charges." Mr. Evarts— "The written charges," wholly on the groimd that the substance had been communicated. THE NOTE EXCLUDED. Judge Neilson— I should have admitted those charges, independent of any conversation with Mr. Beeeher, just as I admitted the church record; they were a part of the record ; they were entitled to come in any way, as a part of the proceedings of the church. I think that is all with this lady. There is no difference or diffi- culty about it. Mr. Evarts— WeU, if your Honor please, we think, with due submission, that if we are not entitled to read the letter, we are entitled to take the witness's memory now, upon being refreshed by seeing the letter, of what she told Mr. Tilton. Mr. Fullerton— No, no. Judge Neilson— She was examined fully on that sub- ject. Mr. Evarts— I know, but she had no opportimity to re- fresh herself. Judge Neilson— The note itself would not refresh her. Mr. Evarts— That depends upon whether her sub stantive evidence, so far as giving the contents of the note, was told him. The Witness— I don't think, Mr. Evarts, I can give it any more correctly now from memory than I did when I was on the witness-stand before. Mr. Fullerton— That is unfortunate for Mr. Evarts. The Witness— You want me to tell the truth, don't you, Mr. Fullerton 1 Mr. Fullerton— Certainly. The Witness— And I would like to tell the whole truth. Mr. Fullerton— I know your anxiety, but I couldn't yield to it, possibly. The Witness— I suppose not. Mr. Evarts— Your Honor will be so good as to note our exception to the ruling which excludes this lelter. TESTULONY OF Bl GEN. TRACY'S TESTDIONY COXTIXUED. Berg. F. Tracy was tlien recalled, and Ms dii-ect examination restimed. Mr. Erarts— Before passing to otlier interrie-ws, I will ast you one or two questions. During tliis intervie-w, or after tlie same, was any suggestion made as to wtiettier or not you should communicate any part of this to Mr. Beecher ? A. Not during that interview. Some days— a day or to, or more, after that, I had a conversation with Moulton, in which it was agreed that I should see Mr. Beecher. Q. In respect to your having had this interview ] A. Yes, Sir. Q. Well, Sir, did you see JVIr. Beecher, and repeat to him any part of this interview ? A. I saw ]Mr. Beecher and repeated to him some part of the interview. Q. ^Tiat did you say to him 1 3Ir. Beach— It is objected to. Mr. Evarts— Did you mention the fact of the inter- view % A. I did mention the fact of the interview. Q. Well, wait a moment. Well, that, I suppose, is not objected to. I will ask this question, which will raise the question : Did you state to him anything concerning the documents that had been shown you, or the charges that were made and that were disclaimed? Mr. Beach— Objected to. I do not perceive, Su', how any statement made by Mr. Tracy to Mr. Beecher, in the absence of Mr. Tilton, could be received as evidence. Mr. Evarts— I understood it was at Mr. Moulton's re- ciuest that he came there. Mr. Beach— Mr, Moulton is not Mr. Tilton. ]\Ir. Evarts— Substantially. Mr. Beach— Substantially 1 Mr. Evarts — Yes, substantially. Judge Neilson— I thinic we cannot take it. Mr. Evarts— Your Honor, I think, has had occasion to rule that when a request is made by one paity that a f fimmunication should be made to another, that that au- thorizes it. Judge NeiLson— Yes, request by the party. Mr. Evarts— Yes, Sir, by the party. Judge Neilson — By the piirty; this was a request by Mr. 3Ioulton. Mr. Evarts — Xow, the sole ground upon which this in- terview was allowed to be given in evidence on the part of our learned friends was that Mr. Tracy stood there to represent Mr. Beecher, and so authorized to be given in evidence, as if in the presence of Mr. Beecher, what they gave in evidence. Judge Neilson— Yes, Sir. Mr. Evarts— Now, I have proved by this gentleman that he had no previous authority from Mr. Beecher, and had made no communication to him [Mr. Beecher] concerning any proposed interview. Now, after that, I propose to show by this witness, if I am allowed by the rules of evi- dence, so to disclose what he did say at the r.-quest of INJAMi:^ F. TRACY. 261 these parties — I say Mr. Moulton; I mean Mr. Moulton; it is from his mouth it came— to Mr. Beecher, concerning what had taken place at this interview. Judge Neilson— It seems to be a subsequent and inde- pendent conversation. Mr. Evarts — Your Honor will remember how much there was of subsequent conversation between Mr. Beecher, Mr. Moulton and ]Mr. Tilton, which was stated in the line of evidence, as presupposing that all that had passed between Mr. Tracy and these gentlemen was at Mr. Beecher's charge. There was no ground for bringing in anything that was testified to with regard to Mr. Tracy except that ijro tonfo,^7'o Jictc wee, he was Mr. Beecher; and now when I show exactly what the connection was — to wit, known before and afterward, by express request and by communication from them — the extent of that communication, I submit, is proper to be given. Judge Neilson— If the communication to I*Ir. Beecher was by Mr. Triton's request, he may give it. IVIr. Evarts— Not by Moulton's? Judge Neilson — No. Mr. Evarts— Have we not connected Mr. Moulton throughout all this prosecution with Mr. Tilton, and shall not this interview be permitted to be shown ? Judge Neilson— I think we will have to exclude this. Mr. Evarts— Has not Mr. Moulton represented the views of Mr. Tilton over and over again ? Does he not stand as Mr. Tilton, pro tanto, in all the interviews be tween him and Mr. Beecher ? Judge Neilson— I think I cannot receive it. Sir. Mr. Evarts — Will your Honor be good enough to note our exception ? I want to state the details of my uflfer. We offer to prove the facts communicated by Mr. Tracy to Mr. Beecher— such facts as were commtmicated by Mr. Tracy to Mr. Beecher arising at this interview. Judge Neilson — Yes. Q. Now, Mr. Tracy, up to the time of your first inter- view with Mr. Woodruff, which preceded any more definite interviews, had you known or heard anything concerning the Woodhull scandal, except what was pub- li^lied in the papers or in the street ? A. I had not. SOME COXTRADICTIOXS OF ME. WOODRUFF. Q. And from what individual had you heard anything about it prior to this interview on Sunday night —that is, professing any knowledge of it ? A. No one except the brief conversation I had with INIr. Woodruff on the subject, and the brief conversation I had with him and Mr. Moulton in the olfice, on the morning. Q. This conversation was the whole source ? A. It was my only source of knowledge, except what was open to papers. Q. Do you remember, concerning this narrative or paper read to you by ilr. Tilton, whether or not it con- tained the final letters, dated at the end of December, wliich foim a purl of the " True Story " as given in evi- 263 TRli TrLTON-Bi ienceliere? A. I do not— if you mean, t>y the final let- ters, Mrs. Tilton's letter and Mr. BeecliPT's letter of Dec. 29. Q. I describe tliem as the final letters. TLcy are these letters, at all events, dated Dec. 29 1 A. No, Sir, they were not present, nor referred. Q. They were not referred to or read ? A. No, Sii-. Q. Now, do you rememher whether at this interview anything was said on the suhject of lying, or as to what would be lying 1 A. During the discussion tliat ensued between myself and Mr. Tilton as to wliat answer lie could make to this publication— I urging him to content himself with a simple denial of it, and he insisting that he could no1>— the question did arise, and was discussed as to whether a simple denial of the scandal would be a truthful statement— I arguing that it would imder the circumstances, and giving him my reasons— he arguing that it would not ; and then the question of what would be lying and what would not be lying was undoubtedly discussed. Q. That is, whether the statement or denials in the form that you proposed would or would not be the entire truth? A. Yes. Mr. Beach— One moment. Sir. I object to that ques- tion. Mr.Evarts--Why { Mr. Beach— Well, simply because tnc witness iS given his statement, and you reform it by putting it in n other shape. Mr. Evarts— No. Mr. Beach [hastily]— I think you do; I am entitled to my own opinion about that; Mr. Evarts — Certainly ; and am I not enUtled to mine % The difi'erence of oi>inion does not imply that I am right or that 5'ou are wrong, by any means. Mr. Beach— It does not, nor the reverse. Q. I want to call your attention to a point in Mr. AVood- ruff^s testimony, Mr. Tracy, at page 345, near tlie top. He said that "Gen. Tracj' spoke ;;nd siiid: 'Cuu't Moulton and Tilton go to Europe for one or two years V and he re- plied, 'No, that could not be done; Mr. Robinson, the other partner, was in Europe, and it Avould be impossi- ble.' " Now, Mr. Tracy, did you say anything in this in- terview about Mr. Moulton going to Europe ? A. I did not. O,. "Was the subject of Mr. Moulton going to Europe spoken of in any way by you 1 A. Not that I remember ; I am confident it was not. Q. Was anything else said concerning Mr. Tilton's go- ing to Europe than what you have stated? A. Nothing that I can recollect ; I have stated the substance, I think, of what was said In regard to Mr. Tilton going to Eu- rope. Q. I ask your attention now to a point in the testimony of Mr. Moulton, page 116 ; he says, speaking of what he Baid to Mr. Beecher, " I said to Mr. Beecher " ^JiJCHEB IRIAL. Mr. Beach— What page, please? Mr. Evarts— Page 116. [Reading:] "I said to Mr. Beecher [Mr. Moulton says] I told Mv. Tracy the truth of the matter ; I told him the fact of the case as it was— that you had been guilty of sexual intercourse with Mrs. Elizabetli Tilton; and he said, in the presence of my partner, if that was true, it must be concealed at all hazards." Was there any such conversation at this inter- view between Mr. Moulton and yourself 1 A. The inter- view on Sunday ? Q. Yes. A. No, Sir. Q. And he adds, " And T said thct Mr. Tracy said that, although he did not recommend lying; this was one of the cases in which lying was justifiable." Did that form a part of your conversation 1 A. No, Sir. Q. In any way ? A. No, Sir. Q. Did anything of that kind occur between you and Mr. Moulton at any interview ? A. About lying 1 Q. About the sexual intercourses, or lying about it ? A. Nothing of the kind. Mr. Beach— Wait one moment. Mr. Moulton has sworn to nothing of that kind. Mr. Evarts— He has not, except at that interview ; that is tmderstood, imless there is some question about the difierence of day or date. Mr. Beach— I understand this was the interview on Sunday, November 10. Mr. Evarts — I understand so. Mr. Shearman— I don't understand that it is fixed. Mr. Beaeh—Mr. Tracy has just said it was on Sunday. He says it was an interview at which Mr. Woodruff was present ; he identifies the interview. Mr. Evarts — I think that is so ; it does not appear in any other interview. Q. I ask your attention now to a passage in Mr. Tilton's testimony, speaking of this interview — this Sunday night interview. Mr. Tilton says : A. Mr. Tracy told me [That is at the bottom of page 423J Mr. Tracy told me that it was a case which ought to be veiy summarily treated. He said that he had told Mr. Woodruff, and had told Mr. Moulton, and he would teU me, that while in the ordinary affairs of life lying Avas not justifiable, but was reprehensible, yet this was a case in which the truth ought to be denied, and that lying was right. Now, did you say anything of that kind ? A. Nothing, except the phrase, "that this was a case that ought to be summarily treated ; " the rest of that— what you have read— never occurred. Q. Yes. Was there anything said concerning lying, ex- cept in the form that you have given it, as to the differ- ent statements that he could make ? A. Nothing, except the form in which I have given it, and the discussion which grew out of that. There was a discuesion, whether the form in which I asked them to put it, and said they could truthfully put it, would or would not i > TESTIMONY OF BENJAMIN F. TBACY. lyiner ; and in that d'iwussion tbey took several phrases and various forms of expression ; and I said that this story was essentially false, and I believed that they co\ild truthfully deny it without being compelled to state the tacidents connected with it which they admitted to be true ; and that if they omitted these, and to specify those, would not be lying. It is barely possible that in that discussion, which at some times became warm, I said, in characterizing this publication, " If that was a lie, if the publication was concerning myself or my fam- ily, it was a lie that I would take the responsibility of teUing ;" I may have said that. Q. That is, iu that form of denial ? A. In the form of denial. Q. You proposed that you would take the responsi- bility ? A. Yes ; I should take the responsibility, if it was my case, of making that form of denial to such a publication ; and I did not believe that a person could teU what was essentially false about another, and in order to compel him to deny it, at the same time compel hkn to state the incidents which might be dragged into that statement which were true. Q. Now, did you in this interview say this to Mr. Tilton, or anything equivalent to it in substance or effect : " I address that statement, Mr. Tilton, particularly to you, as I have done to them, for the reason that if the facts in this case are ever made public, if the story is ever confirmed, it will not only ruin Mr. Beecher and your wife "—of course, "not only ruin Mr. Beecher and your wife— of com'se it will ruin them— but it will also ruin you, because the world will never forgive you for having condoned your wife's crime. " Now, did you say, at this interview, anything of that kind? A. There are several things stated in that ques- tion; I undoubtedly did say that if this scandal was not extinguished, and if it was published ia the form that he proposed to publish it in, it would ruin him and his vrife and Mr. Beecher; I undoubtedly did say that; Iremember say- ing to them, in one phase or another of that conversation, that this was a matter to be met and dealt with promptly, and not to be smothered; it had got to be killed, or it would kill them. Q. Well, did you ta that connection, or in any part of this interview, say to him that the world would never forgive Mr. Tilton for having condoned his wife's crime ? A. No, Sir; no such thing was said in that inter view— the subject of condoning his wife's crime was a matter of conversation Mr. Beach— You are not asked that, Sir. The Witness- The subject of condoniug was not Mr. Beach— You are not asked, Sir. Q. Well 1 A. fContinuing :] In that interriew on the subject of condoning his wife. Q. Or his haviug condoned his wife 1 A. Or his having condoned his wife. Mr. Evarts— It stands, then, no part of his answer, I suppose, except that there was nothing said at this iater- view ; other interviews I shall take by themselves. Mr. Beach— How is that I Mr. Evarts— Strike out " the subject of condoning hie wife's crime was a matter of conversation " Judge Neilson— Strike out the lavst part. Mr. Beach— We will let it stand on the motion to strike out, and appear as it ordinarily does, Sii*. Judge Neilson— Yes. Mr. Beach— I mean it won't be erased from the minutes. Judge Neilson— No, not erased ; they will add the mo- tion. Mr. Evarts — It will appear that you stopped him from going on. Mr. Beach— Well, I want it to appear that he tried to go on. Mr. Evarts— Now, Mr. Tracy, did you have an inter- view with Mr. Moulton on or about the 24th of June, 1874? A. I did. Q. In regard to this matter, or application to you in connection with it 1 A. I did. Q. Well, Sir, what was that ? MR. MOULTON AND MR. TILTON DECLARED TO BE ONE. Mr, Beacli— Li regard to what? Mr. Evarts— In regard to this matter, and any applica- tion in respect of it. Mr. Beach— Have we given any evidence of that inter* view ? Mr. Evarts— I don't know that you have. Mr. Beach— Well, we object to it, then. Mr. Evarts— You have given evidence in regard to sub- sequent interviews, and this Mr. Beach— Do you suppose that makes this admis- sible % Mr. Evarts— Yes ; and this is an introduction of Mr. Moulton's application to him to come back to the matter. He had nothing to do with the matter from '72 untU 1874. Judge Neilson— With whom is the conversation you are suggesting ? Mr. Evarts— The conversation is with Mr. Moulton— the same as the other conversation was ; it introduced Mr. Tracy into this business ; and this is an introduction of him into the business on the same footing and in the same way. Judge NeUson— On a later day? Mr. Evarts— On a later day. Judge Neilson— Conversation they have inquired into 1 Mr. Evarts— They have inquired into. They have given evidence concerning interviews subsequent to this time. Mr. Beach— We have not inquired into this interview at all, and the counsel does not pretend it. Mr. Evarts— Well, they have inquired, if you please, 264 THE TILION-B. into the interview of drawing Mr. Tracy into this otHer. Now, is it to be proposed here as a rule for the remaant of this trial that Mr. Moulton has no connection with Mr. Tilton ? It has not heen the rule up to this time ; hut from the last week in December, 1870, this matter has heen intrusted by Mr. Tilton to Mr. Moulton as his ally and representative and agent; and the trial has gone through upon that proposition. Mr. Fullerton— It is not thi'ough yet. Mr. Evarts— So far— is the remnant of this trial to be conducted on the principle that Mr. Moulton did not speak for that side of this business ? AEGUMENT OF MR. BEACH. Mr. Beacli— This is but a repetition, Sir, of the argument and the effort which the gentleman made but a little while ago, and in which he was overruled by your Honor. After the interview of Sunday, Nov. 10, was given by Mr. Tracy, the couusel undertook to prove, by the same witness, a subsequent interview between him and Mr. Moulton, and the same questions, in the same emphatic language and manner as now addressed to your Honor, as to whether Mr. Moulton is to be re- garded as a separate existence from Mr. Tilton or not in this trial, was put, and your Honor seemed to think that there was, in regard to the conduct of this trial, a slight distinction between these persons. Mr. TUton, as I ap- prehend, has not conferred upon Mr. Moulton, during any of the progress of these transactions, any authority to represent him in. any conversation or in any.dealing with Mr. Tracy. The first connection between Mr, Tracy and Mr. Moulton was with reference to Mr. Moulton's individual and personal interests in this mat- ter, under the stringent advice and control of his partner, Mr. Woodruff. Mr. Tracy became connected with these interviews, and with Mr. Tracy, through the eommunica- tion to Mr. Beecher by Mr. Moulton of what transpired at those interviews, and through a subsequent agency which was conferred upon Mr. Tracy by Mr. Beecher to represent him, about which more will be said as we get along. Now, upon what principle is it. Sir, that the coimsel is to assume that Mr. Tilton is to be concluded by tlie declarations of Mr. Moulton upon this subject, or by the declarations of the counsel and the present attorney of this defendant made to Mr. Moulton 1 There is no Identity of legal right ; there is no identity of interest ; there has been no connection nor association between the two parties which makes Mr. Tilton responsible for the acts and the declarations of Mr. Moulton in his absence ; and I submit, your Honor, that there is no prin- ciple, nothing in the evidence upon which an argument can be founded to justify the reception of the declarar tions of Mr. Moulton, or of conversations which may have occurred between him and any other party. It is enough for Mr. Tilton, Sir, to answer for himself, for his own declarations, and that he will do. And it is quite DECREE TRIAL, enough for this witness to reveal the communications which have passed between him and his quondam client, Mr. Tilton, witliout traveling into conversations at which Mr. Tilton was not present, and where he could not speak and answer for himself, had between this witness and Mr. Movilton. It is quite well suggested, Sir, that Mr. Moulton no more (and I think scarcely so much— cer- tainly not so much), so far as interest was concerned, and as devotion and zeal on the part of the agent was coii- cerned in these transactions, did not represent Mr. Tilton so much, by far, as he did Mr. Beecher. He has been called, Sir, somewhat sneeringly, but it is not an epithet which he need disclaim, " The Mutual Friend" of these parties. He was undoubtedly the mutual friend, but not authorized by either to hear declarations or to make declarations which should bind either, e«.cept where the direct authority has been traced from the one or the other to him. Mr. Evarts— I will read one part of my learned friend's observations which relate to the question of evidence. Mr. Beach— They all relate to it. Mr. Evarts— That is, in your opinion. Mr. Beach— Well, in the opinion of ordinarily intelli- gent men. Mr. Evarts— No doubt, but I am speaking for myself. Mr. Beach— But you are so far above us that we cannot altogether understand. Mr. Evarts— Or below, if you please. Mr. Beach— Oh, no ! Mr. Fullerton— Well, get on the right plane, and go on and have it out. Mr. Evarts [to Mr. Fullerton]— You ought to turn around when you address me. Mr. Fullerton— I am addressing the Court, Sir. ARGUMENT OF MR. EYARTS. Mr. Evarts— Now, if yoiir Honor please, tlic subject matter of this interview, as i propose to give it, is connected with interviews which follow, and which have been, in the main, subjects of evidence. The stage of the transaction which had been reached at the date, concerning which I am now pressing inquiry, was the stage after the publication of the Bacon letter, and when there was a series of conferences and consultations, which have been gone into by the plaintiff's counsel in their evidence between Mr. Moulton, and Mr. Tilton, and Mr. Beecher, or between Mr. Moulton, as representtai? Mr. Tilton, and Mr. Beecher, as to what was to be said or could be said or done in regard to the healing of the difficulty of what is known as the Bacon letter ; and Mr. Moulton gives evidence of this kind. Mr. Beach— Where ? Mr. Evarts— On page 114. The witness says : I had a subsequent conversation with Mr. Beec"ter about it — about a subject which is uot imporviiut oxcept as showing the date— probably subsequent to tliu 5tlj of TESTlMOyT OF BFXJAMiy F. Tj:ArY. 265 JulT Suh-seciuent v^e ^vill say to tlae 5tli of July lie had an interview TTith Mr. Beecher— and I told him that I had seen Gen. Ti-acy concerning a reply to the Bacon let- ter, and that I had asked Gen. Tracy if he had submitted the paper to him, and I said to Mr. Beecher that ^Nlr. Tracy's reply ^as that he had seen a paper in ^rhich he thought he detected my handi^vork, and that Gen. Tracy had said to me that the ^ords, "I have committed no crime," really said nothing, etc. Your Honor may remember there ^as considerable tes- timony on that subject. Noav, this interview that I pro- pose to sho"sv betwe.:-u Mr. Moulton and ]Mr. Tracy as oc- | curring in the end of June— after the 24th of June— after the situation vras produced, Avas a part of the consider- ation concerning hoTv the Bacon letter Avas to be dealt ■with, out of -vrhich a few days later there came a pro- posed cavd called the Carpenter card, because it is in Mr. Frank Carpenter's handwriting, a fevr days after this, which formed the subject of this conversation to which Mr. Moulton reff'rred in his conversation with Mr. Beecher. T^'ell, now, of course it is not to be denied that we have a right to go into the alleged conversation between Mr. Tracy and Mr. Moulton, which formed the subject of commimication through 3Ir. Beecher. But this inter-siew that I now speak of is the precedent and pre- liminary introduction by Mr. Moulton to Mr. Tracy's at- tention of this Bacon letter, and of the subject of answer- ing it, or dealing with it, closing vvlth the deferring of the matter to a further interview until more reflection had been given to the subject. And then these further inter- views that are thus prepared for, and preceded by, the interview that I seek now to introduce in evidence, have been made the subject of evidence. Xow, I submit to your Honor that Mr. Moulton does stand in the position confessedly upon the evidence of representing Mr. Tir. on in the conduct or consideration of this matter, and that the whole series of his interviews with Mr. Tracy, or any other person that finally come to an interview as the result of the preceding conferences and the then present conference, which are in evidence, and in regard to which Mr. Beecher is to be affected by communications made to him, that Mr. Tj aey is permitted to present his view of the facts as oc- cmTing at those interviews; that you cannot dislocate and cut in two the tenor of postponed conferences which all, really, are one conference, and the result of which forms the sub]ect of the testimony which has brought Mr. Beecher, and so the statements of Moulton concerning Tracy's action into the case. It is one con- ference, so to speak, beginning, if you please, on the 25th July, repeated on the 25th of June, repeated and ending on the 6th or 7th of July, and then produced in the shape of Carpenter's card, and conferences which have been introduced, as pertinent and substantial affairs in the case. Now, this is the interview that I propose to show between Mr. Moulton and Mr. Tracy, sought by Moulton, "Which brings Mr. Tracy back into this case ia 1874, for this interview concerning which we have Mr. Tracv's evidence, was in the very end of 1872, and there was no connection at any time intervening, no conferences be- tween Mr. Tracy and any of these people. ZSTow, Mr. Moulton brings him in action, and he has been used — Mr. Tracy's presence ha-s been used as a means of stating conferences that were to affect Mr. Beecher without any evidence that I know of in the matter, except that two years before something had been said about it which was charged to Mr. Beeeher's account, and for which Mr. Beecher has been made responsible — ^it has been applied in that way. Xow, that is my proposition that in the end of June, Mr. Moulton resorts to Mr. Tracy for judicious counsel in the interests of the parties for the dealing with the then new^ stage of matters — to wit: the publication of the Bacon letter; and the sequel is certain results arrived at which have been given in evidence by the plaintiffs, and which we shall of coiu\?e be at liberty to follow with evidence on those points as well as on this. AXSWEEIXG AEGOIEXT OF MR. BEACH. ;Mr. Beacli— The counsel is diiven, and neces- sarily driven. Sir, by his own reflections upon the ques- tion in. debate, to assume false premises and mistaken facts, to enable him to reason at all upon the question. He assumes that this interview in June, which he now proposes to prove, was but the antecedent, the prelimi- nary part of a continued and lengthened discussion upon the same subject between Mr. Moulton and the witness. Xow, Sir, upon what authority does he do that ? The interview which we proved was subsequent to July 5, 1874, as appears from the book and the page referred to by the counsel. Judge Xeilson— That is the interview with Mr. Beechert Mr. Beach— Yes, Sir, the interview with Mr. Beecher, of July 5, in which Mr. Moulton communicated to Mr. Beecher a conversation he had had with Gen. Tracy. There was nothing: in the position which Gen. Tracy occupied at that time in connection with this interview which charged Mr. Beecher with any responsi- bility for his declarations, and it was only through the circumstance that what occuiTt-d between Mr. Tracy and Mr. Moulton was subsequently commu- nicated to Mr. Beecher and approved by him. recognized by him. that it became at all material, or evi- dence at all in the case. Xow, in that relation, Sir, of that interview tliere is nothing which justifles the coun- sel in saying that it was a continuation of a previous conversation between Mr. Tracy and Mr. Moulton ; there is nothing which authorizes hun to say that the rejection of this prior interview is a dislocation of the intercourse between these two parties npon a given subject. They were separate and independent iaterviews, but whether or not they relate to the same transaction, discussed the same question, viewed the same policy suggested by 266 THE TILTON-BEEGHEB TRIAL, either party as proper to be adopted with reference to th«i Bacon letter, we don't know. Counsel only eays it was the preliminary introduction to that discussion, that it was the recall of Mr. Tracy to his allegiance to this transaction. There Is nothing. Sir, to justify that. The simple proposition before your Honor is whether, having proven a conversation occurring be- tween Mr. Tracy and Mr. Moulton upon the strength of its communication subsequently to Mr. Beecher, and rati- fication by him, or some action on his part in regard to it, the counsel is entitled to prove another conversation be- tween Mr. IMoulton and Mr. Tracy as against Mr, Tilton.who so far as it appears, never heard It, to whom it was never communicated, who never authorized it. But it is sur- prisin g, your Honor , that such a proposition sliould be made. Suppcse it were upon the same subject, suppose Mr. Tracy was the autborized representative of Mr. Beecher, where is the authority from Mr. Tilton conferred upon Mr. Tracy or upon Mr. Moulton to consult upon the sub- ject of an answer to the Bacon letter or upon any other subj ect or topic connected witli tbe Bacon letter % And by what right do these two gentlemen, disconnected with Mr. Tilton in interests, attempt by their consultations or suggestions or declarations to conclude the legal rights of a party to this action. But, furthermore. Sir, my friend still insists that Mr. Moulton was the representative of Mr. Tilton. Indeed, Sir! In regard to the answer to this Bacon letter, the representative of Mr. Tilton authorized to negotiate and speak for Mr. Tilton, guiding the policy of Mr. Tilton in regard to the proper answer honor and duty called for to that letter ! Why, he was the special emis- sary and agent of Mr. Beecher, working in the interests of Mr. Beecher, in my judgment faithless to the true in- terests of his more ancient friend. He was endeavoring to suppress tbe answer to the calumnies and reproaches, under the leading of Dr. Bacon, produced as against Mrs. Tilton ; and he it was who says that he would rather pay the $5,000—1 think the evidence justifies me in saying that he offered to Theodore Tilton $5,000 if he would not publish the contemplated answer to the letter. Sir, these two gentlemen, upon that question and in regard to the policy to be adopted in relation to the charges made by Dr. Bacon, humiliating and disgraceful and dfstructive to my client as they were, these gentlemen stood in direct and personal opposition, Mr. Moulton rep- resenting Mr. Beecher and laboring in the interests of Mr. Beecher, and Mr. Tilton representing his own man- hood and speaking for his own justification. And yet the counsel has the effrontery in an argument to your Honor to maintain that Mr. Moulton is the representative of Mr. Tilton, and that the interests of Mr. Tilton before this Court and jury shall be concluded by what he may have been indiscreet or wise enough to say, I care not which. I insist to your Honor that there is no principle of right, there is nothing in this evidence showing any such association with or authority upon the part of Mr. Moulton which justifies the reception of these declara- tions. THE CONVERSATION RULED OUT. Mr. Evarts— The authority, Sir, to which T refer is Nesbitt vs. Stringer, 2 Duer, 26. [Reading.] Where defendant's liability is sought to be proved by Inference from circumstances, or from his verbal declara- tions or admissions, he is entitled to demand that all the circumstances and particulars of conversations relating to the subject-matter shall be taken into consideration, even though some of the conversations took place upon different days. My learnedfriend also was wrongin his estimate of the ac- tual situation. It was after the publication of the Bacon letter that this interview to which I call attention occurred in reference to what Mr. Tilton should do in answer to Dr. Bacon's contumelious observations, if they were such, what was to be done to prevent the injury to Mr. Tilton'a family which would grow out of a meeting of the Bacon letter, in its imputations against Mr. Beecher, by Mr. Beecher, by a public investigation. That is the situation. Judge Neilson— The conversation with the witness that you propose to give was after the publication of Mr. Til* ton's Bacon letter. Mr. Evarts— Yes, Sir. Judge NeUson— So I understood. I think that strengthens the objection to it. Mr. Beach— What possible analogy any legal mind, not to say any human mind, can see between this authority and this question Judge Neilson— That is a good authority, properly applied, Sir. That is aU the trouble. I think we wUl not receive this, Mr. Evarts. Mr. Evarts— Well, Sir, it was applied to the proposition that in the course of a relation from which a conclusion IS drawn, you cannot limit a party to the right to give the conversation where the conclusion is drawn, but he may prove preceding ones, though on different days. Judge Neilson— Certainly. Mr. Evarts— That is my proposition— all these conver- sations as they occurred between the parties Mr. Beach— That is another matter. Mr. Evarts— It is not. Do you say Mr. Beach— I beg yom- pardon. Judge Neilson— Regarding this as an independent con- versation, not opened by the plaintiff, I think we cannot receive this evidence. Mr. Evarts— Very well. Sir, I wiU lay a foundation for the proof and your Honor will dispose of it. Q. Did you have an interview with Mr. Moultoji on or after the 24th of Jime of last year? A. On the evening of the 24th of June, if that is the date on which the " Bacon letter " was published in The Golden Age, I had an interview with Mr. Monlton. Q. Where was that i A. At his house. TESTIMONY OF BENJAMIN F. TLlAiJY. 267 Q. How did that interview come about? A. He sent for me to come to his house. Q. Did you go by Mr. Beecher's prociu'ement in any •way ? A. No, Sir. Q. Had you uny authority from him, or had he any Imowledge of your going ? A. No, Sir. Q. Now, Sir, what matter was brought to your atten- tion by Mr. Moulton at that interview 1 A. Mr. Tilton's letter to Dr. Leonard Bacon. Q. Hud you seen it before? A. No, Sir. Q. Did you Icnow of its existence or publication ? A. I did not. Q. Did Mr. Moulton state to you what the objects of this— what his object in having this interview with you •was? Mr. Beach— I object to it. Judge Neilson— We cannot take that. Mr. Evarts— Now, I propose to show, if your Honor please (and I will make my offer brief), that Mr. Moulton ■desired the attention of Mr. Tracy, and his suggestions as to the proper treatment of this publication in reference to preventing any investigation or further publicity as proceeding from Mr. Beecher. Mr. Beach— I object to it, of course, Sir. Mr. Evarts— Yes, I understand. Your Honor excludes that evidence ? Judge Neilson— Yes. Mr. Evarts— And we except. Judge Neilson— On the former occasion, when the con- v^ersation with Mr. Tracy at Mr. Moulton's house was ad- mitted, the occasion -when Mr. "Woodruff was there, it was received, rightfully or wrongfully, in view of the evidence then before us, showing that the interview was in pursuance of some arrangement with Mr. Beecher; and there is a question of fact to be passed upon finally by the jury. This occurs loug afterward, and is utterly discon- nected ; it is even after the publication of Mr. Tilton's letter to Dr. Bacon. I think it is an independent con- versation and cannot be received. It stands precisely as If Mr. Moulton had conversed with any other person on the subject. Mr. Evarts— As if there were two strangers talking together. Judge Neilson— Yes, Sir. Mr. Evarts— There is a view, perhaps, however, that your Honor should take into your survey, and that is, that evidence has been given of subsequent, following in- terviews, in which it has been claimed on the other side that Mr. Tracy was there as the representative of Mr. Beecher. Mr. Beach— Those were given on our part as charging Mr. Beecher. Mr. Evarts— Yes ; as charging Mr. Beecher. Mr. Beach— Quite a different attitude, and different Mr. Evarts— But on the ground that Mr. Tracy was in, by Mr. Beecher's procurement ; and it has been shown that this interview that I have brought to your Honor's attention was not by Mr. Beecher's procurement, nor upon any authority from him. I must leave it, of course, to your Honor's ruling and my exception. "SCARCELY A WORD OF TRUTH" IN GEN. TRACY'S OPENING. Q. Now, Mr. Tracy, after this interview, did you see the " Bacon letter 1 " A. After that evening 1 Q. Yes. A. I did. Q. Did you see it that evening at this interview 1 A. Well, I saw it, and heard it read ; I did not read it. Q. You knew of it, then, at that time 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. Now, the next morning you read it yourself in the papers, I suppose ? A. I did. Q. Was there a publication that appeared in any of the papers of this city as of an interview between yourself and a journalist, relating to that "Bacon letter?" A. There was. Q. After that was published, did you have an interview with Mr. Tilton? A. I did. Q. How soon after ? A. Next day. Q. That would be 26th 1 A. The 27th the interview was. Q. The interview was on the 27th. What passed be- tween you and Mr. Tilton at that interview ? Did you call upon him, or he upon you ? A. He called upon me at my office. Q. What was said at that interview ? A. He came in and Mr. Beach— Is that any interview we have given in e^vi- dence ? Judge Neilson— It is an interview with the plaintiff. Mr. Beach— Sir ? Judge Neilson— It is an interview with the plaintiff. Mr. Beach — Yes, Sir ; but I wanted to know whether this gentleman goes on to it without any e"vidence before in regard to it. Judge Neilson — It is referred to on the cross-examina- tion, I think. Mr. Beach— I had forgotten. The Witness— I do not think it is, your Honor. Judge Neilson— They ask Mr. Tilton if he did not go to Mr. Tracy's office. The Witness— I don't think it is referred to in the cross- examination. Judge Neilson— I may be mistaken. Mr. Beach— Do you still think it was. Sir ? Judge Neilson— I am not certain. Sir, but I am inclined to think it was. Mr. Beach— It would make it still worse for the purpose of contradiction. Judge NeUson— I may, perhaps, have been conlounding it with the reference made in the opening. The Witness— Possibly. 268 TEE T1LT(W-B Judge Neilson— It has been referred to somewliere. Mr. Evarts— Yes, Sir ; I think it is in onr minds as part of the record heretofore. Judge Neilson— Yes. Mr. Beach— It does not affect the question of the admis- sibility of the evidence. My only point was lo know whether it had been referred to in prior evidence, so as properly to call for an answer from anybody, or whether this is volunteered testimony. Judge Neilson— Yes, Sir. I think it is a new occasion and a new interview. Mr. Beach— Well, aU right. Judge Neilson— Referred to in the opening, I think. Mr. Evarts— That is, the opeiiiug on our part. Judge Nellsou— Yes. Mr. Beach— Well, fortunately that opening is not evi- dence. Mr. Evarts— Why not ? Mr. Beach— Why not! Because tiiere is scarcely a word of truth in it, from beginning to end. Judge NeiLson— That is the reason they are going to examine the witness in regard to it, I suppose. Mr. Evarts— That does not exclude evidence, that it is not true. Mr. Beach— Yes, Sir, it does, unless it is sworn to and verified by some other mode than Mr. Tracy's simple utterance as counsel. * Mr. Evarts— Well, I will not press this at present, Mr. Tracy ; I will take up a matter that I can dispose of within a few minutes, and about which there is no doubt. MORE BICKERING OVER THE TESTIMONY. Q. Do you remember in August, 1874, an interview between yourself and Mr. Moulton, which has been made the subject of evidence, in regard to obtain- ing the documents from him for Mr. Beech er? A. That was in July, Mr. Evarts. Q. July, yes; the interview was in July, but the answers did not come, I think, until early in August. A. No, Sir. Q. Will you please state how that arose? Mr. Beach— Can you refer to where that is mentioned! Mr. Evarts [to the witness]- What occurred between you and Mr. Moulton ? The Witness— Mr. Beach is looking for the evidence. Mr. Beach— Wait a moment, Sir. Judge Neilson— If it was an application for the papers on behalf of Mr. Beecher, of course you can show it. Mr. Evarts— Yes; Mr. Moulton gives the interview be- tween Mr. Tracy and himself, and I will examine Mr. Tracy as to that. Q. Now, how did that arise, and what occun-ed ? A. I took a letter from Mr. Beecher to Mr. Moulton. Q. That is the letter of July 24, is it ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Which is in evidence 1 A. Which is in evidence. I am not certain that the interview occurred on the day of EC HE Li LJILAL. the date of that letter ; it either occui-red on that day or a day or two afterward ; I could tell, probably, if I knew the day of the week that the 24th was. But I took a let- ter Mr. Beach [still se.ii'chlng the record] — Wait a moment.- Mr. Evarts— Do you find it ? Mr. Beach— Yes, Sir ; I find it, but it is upon cross-ex- amination. Mr. Evarts— Well? Mr. Beach— Well ? Judge Neilson— Necessarily it was on the cross-ex- amination. It was in reference to Mr. Beecher's seeking to get the papers. Mr. Beach— Certainl3% Sir. Judge Neilson— Now, it is perfectly competent to sho'W that Mr. Tracy, on behalf of Mr. Beecher, went with one of those letters and sought to get the papers. Mr. Beach— That is in proof. Mr. Evarts — But Mr. Moulton's statement of any con- versation or transaction, that we drew out on cross-ex- amination, does not preclude us from giving what occured by another witness. It is not collateral. Mr. Beach— My friend will modify that statement, for it certainly does, in regard to some matters. The q.ues- tion is whether this is collateral, or material to the issue. Mr. Evarts— Well, I assume that it is not collater al. Mr. Beach— I don't know why you should assume that. Mr.'Evarts— How is it collateral ? Mr. Beach— How is it material, as between Mr. Tilton and Mr. Beecher, that Mr. Beecher applied to Mr. Moul- ton for copies of letters, and that he declined to give them, or that he did give them ? Mr. Evarts— It certainly is not collateral in the sense of being extraneous to the subject or the issue. It is not In the nature of a collateral impeachment. It may be sub- ordinate ; it certainly is not collateral. Mr. Beach— Well, the counsel makes a distinction, very refined and mystical, as between collateral and subordi- nate. This is collateral. Sir, in legal phraseology, be- cause it does not bear directly upon the merits of the issue, and whatever does not is collateral in the sense of the law. Mr. Evarts— Well, the only question is this, whether, in the line of this controversy, their giving evidence as to Mr. Beecher's course of conduct in regard to suppressing or shaping, or directing investigations, representations, explanations, is or is not collateral. It is not collateraL It is bearing upon the dii'ect issue of the adultery, by showing, in the nature of confession or conduct, that which implies guilt. Otherwise we have no space in our record for all this evidence that has been given, running through the West charges and a variety of other matter. That is what I mean by saying that it is not col- lateral, although it may be subordinate, and may be un- important, or important, as the examtuation may show. Now, this was one of the things done. On cross-examinar TFSTniOJI OF BESJAMIS F. TRACY. 269 tloiL I dreTT from Mr. Moulton, or tliere Tvas dravm from Mr. M<--ultun, a certain vie-^— 'orrect in pa^'t, or in whole, If jou please— concerning tliat- mtervle^v and Ms dealing witli tMs matter. Now, tliere is nothing in the fact that I took on cross-examination his testimony that pre- vents me from proving hy another -vvitness vrho knows •what really occurred, what did occur, and (lualifying or flatly contradicting his view of the matter. It is not as if I had ashed him a question derogatory to his character on extraneous matters. There I tahe the answer of course. That is what I understand to he the legal sense of "collateral." If my friend insists that he is more cor- rect in regard to the phrase than I am, we won't dispute at)out it. But this helongs to the issue, and is one of the elements and chains of evidence; and I propose to show now [Mr. Ahhott here made a suggestion to Mr. Evarts.] Mr. Evarts— If it came in any shape as outside of the issue, why, it would he a question of hias, and the con- duct of a witness in respect to bias is not collateral in the sense that you cannot contradict him. Bias, then, he- comes a matter to he proved— to wit: it helongs to this issue ; it helongs to this issue as hearing upon the ques- tion of whether or no he has espoused one side or the other, and has acted with hostility and injustice toward the other party ; so that if, in that sense, it is collateral, why, bias can always he shown, and we are not concluded hy the witness's statement concerning his hias. Mr. Beach— Upon the question of hias your Honor has ruled, and the law undoiihtedly is, that in an attempt to ehow hostility or unfi-iendliness of feeling on the part of a witness, you can merely ask in general terms with re- gard to its existence ; you cannot go into the details of any dilficulty or transaction between the witness and the party against whom he appears, for the purpose of draw- ing an inference, or establishing a conclusion of enmity— so that it is not necessary in that view to consider the question presented to your Honor, because this was an application for letters, or copies of letters, to which it is supposed Mr. Beecher was enti- tled from Moulton as the trustee and deposi- tory in whose hands they had been placed. It is out that Mr. Moulton refused it. It is proven by him, It is proven by the correspondence between the parties It is proven by them orally and in writing, and therefore, so far as that fact indicates any unfriendliness or enmity, It is proven, and proven so far as it can be properly proven under the rule. Xow, how does the conversation between Mr. Moulton and Mr. Tracy, which they drew out on the cross-examination, how does that become ma- terial, in any sense, to this issue 1 Mr. Tracy, represent- ing Mr. Beecher. applies to Mr. Moulton for copies of these documents Mr. Moulton makes certain declara- tions In regard to the propriety of delivering them, and W* views of the honorary obligation which rests upon hiu:. "^T^ Tracy, representing Mr. Beecher, combats i"hese ^-iews, and perhaps makes some very forcible and striking suggestions to Mr. Moulton in regard to his duties — undoulitedly forcible and striking, as that gentle- man. Mr, Tracy, never speaks except in that character and to that effect. But what has Mr. Tilton to do with all this, Sir ? By what right does Mr. Tracy, repre- senting Mr. Beecher, by explicit authority, seek an inter- view with ^Ir. Moulton, and make declarations and make arguments to be testified to by him npon the stand, as against Mr. Tilton 1 And by what process does the gen- tleman make these interviews and these declarations by legal strangers to us evidence as against ns ? Why. Sir. there is a continual strife before your Honor to make the j declarations of ilr. Moulton testimony against !Mr. Til- ton. Not only that, but, by putting forward Mr. Moulton 1 as the representative of Mr. Tilton, to make whatever Mr. Tracy chooses to say, as the counsel of Mr. Beecher, to Mr. Moulton evidence as against ilr. Tilton ; and to get, through Tracy counsel and Tracy witness, an argu- ment upon this witness-stand, under the sole m nity- of an oath, from this counsel and witness. Xow, I would like to know, Sir, how that is to be accomplished, and how my client, entirely innocent of all these transactions, not present at the interviews, or knowing any- thing about them, or giving any man a credential to represent him at them, is to be injured by this mode oE gettingup arguments, to be sworn to upon the stand by a counsel in the case. It may seem to your Honor consistent with those rules of justice and of evidence which guide a court of justice ; but it seems to me that it is an evasion of every principle of eqidty and right, and is an effort which should be discoun- tenanced by the indignant intelligence of the Court. Judge Jy'eilson- The suggestion sought to be made, per- haps, at the expense of Mr. Beecher, that during a course of time and for whatever reason as assigned by each party, he discouraged investigation or sought to put it by, flows on down to the time when the Tilton-Bacon letter was published. Then a committee was appointed,^ and the relations of the parties changed ; and then Mr. Beecher sought to reclaim from Mr. Moulton the papers or copies of them for use before the Committee. Most of these papers were papers which Mr. Beecher himself had given to Mr. Moulton, and he vrrit^s a letter, which iBr perhaps, in evidence, or is one of those excluded Mr. Evarts— Yes, Sir, it is in evidence. Mr. Beach— It is in evidence. Judge Neilson— Mr. Tracy, representing Mr. Beecher, very properly takes the letter to Mr. Moulton, and I chink he is qtiite at liberty to say that, at the reqneat of Mr. Beecher, he took that letter to Mr. Moulton Mr. Beach— Undoubtedly. Judge Neilson rcontlnnlng] — In order to get the papers, and that he got them, or did not get them— If there was a refusal to state the fact, but not to give the conversatio-n or arguments that occurred between them. 370 TEE llLTOJS-BEEChlEB lELAL. Mr. Beach— That is all I object to. Judge Neilson— He has a right to prove the fact of the delivery of the letter, and the success or failure of his mission. COUNSEL HAVE A LAUGH AT THE JURY'S EXPENSE. Mr. Evarts— It is time to adjourn. Judge Neilsou— No, let us have this answer ; let us get through with this branch. Mr. Evarts— Well, Sir. Judge Neilson— I will interrogate him, If you are fa- tigued. Mr. Evarts— I am not fatigued in the least, but my learned friend [alluding to Mr. Beach.] Mr. Beach— Oh, I am willing to stay here all night waiting for my friend. Mr. Evarts— The jury are not fascinated with either of us, and they don't wish to have any more of us. Mr. Beach— They are sick enough of us, no doubt, [Laughter.) Mr. Evarts— Now, Mr. Tracy, you may^ remem- ber that at this interview something was said of a letter which you then presently wrote. Have you that letter? A. I have, but I desire to say, Mr. Evarts, if you will excuse me, that if it be true that this conversation was gone into on our cross-examination and not on the direct examination, I hope that that question will not be put to me, because I purpose to confine my evidence entirely to conversa- tions which the plaintiff has himself introduced, and where he has introduced my name. Judge Neilson— Then you agi-ee with the ruling which T have just made— to wit, that the conversations are not to be given. Mr. Evarts [to the witness]— That I understand, and have always understood. But this is simply supplying the deflniteness of proof which, in the absence of that letter, was not existing. The Witness— I have that letter. Mr. Evarts— Well, we will leave that. Judge Neilson [to the witness]— You delivered that to Mr. Moulton? The Witness— I offered to Mr. Evarts— No. Mr. Tracy wrote a letter, seeing tliat Mr. Beecher's letter required originals. Your Honor will remember that Mr. Moulton testified that seeing that Mr. Beecher's letter required originals, and Mr. Tracy recog- nizing the point that perhaps Mr. Moulton might not wish to part with the originals Judge Neilson— But would give copies. Mr. Evarts [continuing] then undertook to write a re- quest or intimation to Mr. Moulton that copies would be equally satisfactory. Judge Neilson— I will take the fact that that was his request, and that it was declined, if that was the fact. Mr. Beach— Oh, copies were declined, Sir, as well as originals ; there is no doubt about that. The Witness— Yes, Sir; he declined to receive my letter, and asked me to take back Mr. Beecher's. Judge Neilson— You didn't get the copies ? The Witness— I didn't get the copies. Mr. Beach [to the stenographer]— Please strike that out. The Witness— Strike it out. Judge Neilson [to the jury]— Crentlemen, get ready to retire. The Court then adjourned until 11 a. ra. on Thursday. SEVENIY-FIFTH DAY'S PROCEEDINGS. MR. TRACY CROSS-EXAMINED. closk of the direct examination of mr. tracy —Statements of mr. tilton and mr. mottlton contradicted— hostilities opened by mr. beach— an aggressive cross-examination. Thursday^ April 29, 1875, The direct examination of Mr. Tracy was concluded to-day, and the cross-examination by Mr. Beach was begun. Very few exceptions have recently been taken by the counsel on either side to Judge Neilson's rulings, but to-day Mr. Evarts felt constrained to depart fiom this custom. He had offered to intro- duce new evidence in the shape of an in- terview with Mr. Tracy in relation to the scandal published in The BrooMyn Daily Union of June 26, 1874. He maintained that it was competent evi- dence, having been the public expression of Mr. Tracy's views at that time. It was, however, ruled out by Judge Neilson, and Mr. Evarts excepted to. the ruling. The direct examination of Mr. Tracy terminated earlier tban was anticipated. The main object was to elicit from Mr. Traoy contradictions of some of the plaintiff's witnesses. Mr. Evarts held iu his hands a copy of tliepriuted report of the plain- tiff's case, and picked out passages from the testi- mony of Mr. Tilton and Mr. Moulton which he read to the witness, asking him whether they were true. The passages related principally to what Mr. Tracy w as alleged to have told Mr. Tilton about the Investiga- ting Committee. Mr. Tracy said they were not true, denying absolutely with respect to some, and qualifiedly with respect to others. In his testimoii v Mr. Tilton said that Mr. Tracy told him, before Mrs. Tilton had gone before the Investigating Cojnm it- tee, he had instructed her what to say. and how to say it — put the questions to her, that she might make no blunders in ausAvering them. This Mr T?:STIMOJ^Y OF BEyJAMl^s F. TEACY. 271 Iracy deolai^l he had never said. He likewise de- nied that he had told Mr. Tilton that the Committee would not inquire closely enough to get at the truth. He called in question other statements that had been made by Mr. Tilton and Mr, Moulton. He also swore positively that Mr. Woodrufi did not tell him that Mr. Tilton's charge against Mr. Beecher was adultery with his wife. Mr. Beach began his cross-examination of Mr. Tracy in his usual vigorous manner, startling every- body by his first question, which was in substance this : Whether the vsdtness had suggested questions to Mr. Porter when the latter was cross-examining Mr. Moulton. Mr. Tracy did not remember doing so. "When cross-examining Mr. Moulton in regard to a Htigation of Woodruff & Eobinson, did you stand up behind IVIr. Porter and make suggestions V asked IVIr. Beach. ' I did not !" replied the witness, with great em- phasis, half rising from his chair. Mr. Tracy had acted as counsel for the firm of Woodruff & Robinson, and the insinuations, which the question might have been thought to convey, that he had made improper use of professional se- crets, probably lent piquancy to his reply. The cross-examination, after opening in this ag- gressive manner, assumed the nature of a legal duel between the examiner and examined, and its progress was watched ^ath great amusement by the specta- tors. Several times Mr. Tracy, who took the severe questioning of Mr. Beach in great good nature, laughed heartily at the manner in which he was brought to task by Mr. Beach for insisting on an- swering in his own way. Considerable surprise was manifested by the audi- tors when the witness was asked whether he was the author of the opening speech which he had made for the defense. His face flushed as he replied that to a large extent he was. Mr. Beach insisted on having a more explicit answer. Objection was made by the counsel for the defense to these ques- tions, but Mr. Beach said he wished to show in what character that opening speech, "overcharged with malignity, and," as he thought, " vnth untruth," had been made. Judge Neilson permitted the ques- tion to be asked again by Mr. Beach, and Mr. Tracy finally replied that he had composed most, but not all of it. Gen. Butler's relations to the case were the princi- pal subject of ia(Luiry by Mr. Beach. The particulars of the consultation between Mr. Tracy and Gen. But- ler at the Fifth Avenue Hotel in August, 1874, were ' all gone over. Mr. Beach wished to ascertain in what manner Mr. Tracy had gone into that consulta- tion. This led to another duel of words. Mr. Tracy finally stated that he had gone intending to do a friendly act, to prevent the publication of a scandal the eft'ect of which would be to breed demoraliza- tion. He denied that he told Gen. Butler that he appeared as the representative of ]Mr. Beecher. Questions about IVIr. Tracy's visit to Boston to Gen. Butler last Summer led to an amusing scene. Mr. Beach was endeav- oring to find out whether he had gone wdth or with- out Mr. Beecher's consent. The witness insisted that he could not answer without entering into an ex- planation. "It's a mere speculation, Sir," he said. "Ah! speculation. Sir !" exclaimed Mr. Beach in an inde- scribable manner that set the audience into a muffled roar of laughter; "isn't it a conclusion in your mind f Mr. Tracy at last said that he never sup- posed he went against Mr. Beecher's wishes. This Mr. Beach declared was the answer wliich he had been for a long time trying to get. The witness insisted that this was the first time the form of the question had admitted of that answer. Mr. Beach then called for the reading of the preced- ing questions and answers. The Tribune stenog- rapher accordingly read them, beginning well back, and an amused expression on the faces of both Mr. Beach and Gen. Tracy gradually deepened into a smile, as they listened appreciatively to their words, which had been very earnest when struck ofi^ at a heat, but which sounded very funny when read by a third person. Once ]Mr. Tracy had answered, " I don't remember definitely." "Definitely," exclaimed Mr. Beach; "what are you covering up under the word definitely ?" " Nothing," replied Mr. Tracy, with a laugh. The interview between jMt. Tracy and Gen. Butler, at the former's room, immediately after the Fifth Ave- nue Hotel consultation, was one of the priucipal top- ics. Mr. Beach wished to know whether either Mr. Tracy or Gen. Butler was preparing a statement for Mr. Beecher on that occasion. The witness wanted to answer in his own way, and Mr. Beach insisted on having shorter and more direct replies. " Can't you answer ?" asked ;JIr. Beach. "No, but I'll tell you what occurred," replied I^Ir. Tracy. "No, you won't — I beg your pardon," said Mp'- Beach. 272 TEE TILION-B Mr. Shearman came in for his share of the " scuffling," as Mr. Evarts once called it. Mr. Beach had said that an answer given was not honest. After- ward he said he did not apply the remark to the wit- ness. " We understand Mr. Beach's remark was purely- Pickwickian," said Mr. Shearman. " Well, Sir," returned Mr. Beach in a severe tone, " there is no one more competent or apt to deal in Pickwickian sense than that gentleman," indicating Mr. Shearman. Mr. Tracy said that at his room Gen. Butler had be- gun to dictate a statement which he thought Mr. Beecher might make, but he did not finish it. After returning to Boston he sent Mr. Tracy a paper, which the latter had returned within two months, without payiDg any attention to it. THE PROCEEDINGS— VERBATIM. GEN. TRACY NEVER MR. TILTON'S COUNSEL. The Court met at 11 a. m., pursuant to ad- journment. Benjamin P. Tracy waa recalled and Ids direct exam- ination resumed. Mr. Evarts— Mr. Tracy, have you ever been in any mat- ter or in any form an attorney or counsel or legal adviser of Mr. Tilton ? A. Never. Q. Wliat employment or relation of advice or assistance had you in respect of the Church Committee or its inves- tigations? A. I was requested by the Church Committee to attend their meetings and aid them in the examination of witnesses thatmisjht appear before them. Q. Was it employment for compensationi A. No, Sir, a mere friendly act. HOW GEN. TRACY BECAME COUNSEL FOR MR. BEECHER. Q. Now, when did you become counsel of Mr. Beecher in this matter at all, and how 1 A. I was asked to become counsel to Mr. Beecher soon after the commencement of the action — I don't know how soon — by Mr. Shearman. I did not determine whether I would accept the retainer of Mr. Beecher until sometime in Sep- tember, not at least imtil after yourself and Judge Porter liad been employed, and the other coimsel had been de- termined on. Q. And then the qtuestion of your acceptance was de- termined by you ? A. It was. Q. And in favor of acting for Mr. Beecher, with yom' as- sociate coimsel 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. When did you first anticipate being a witness in this cause? A. Not until after the plaintiff had given evi- dence of interviews between myself and Mr. Moulton FF.CREE TEIAL, and Mr. Tilton, in which it was alleged that T represented Mr. Beecher in those interviews. After that evidence had been given I considered the question whether It was my duty or not to be a witness. Mr. Beach— Well, we don't want that statement, Sir. Mr. Evarts— Well, after that was done, was the ques- tion of whether you should be a witness submitted to any consideration or opinion ! Mr. Beach— That is objected to, Sir. Mr. Evarts— Why is that. Sir? Judge NeUson— I think he may take the naked fact that the question was considered by him and his associates— the simple naked fact. Mr. Evarts— That it was submitted to fhe judgment of others is the main point. How is that, Mr. Tracy 1 A. It was submitted to my associates, and I followed their iudgment. Mr. Beach— Well, Sir, I move to strike out the latter portion of that. Judge Neilson— Yes; "It was submitted to my associ- ates." The act of his being here shows that he followed their judgment. Mr. Evarts— Presumptively. The Witness \Sotto voce}— Not necessarily. THE "UNION" INTERVIEW WITH GEN. TRACY RULED OUT. Mr. Evarts— Though an obstinate man might have gone against it. [To the witness.] Mr. Tracy, please look at this paper; come down from the stand a moment. [The witness examined abound volimie of The Brooklyn Union and then resumed his seat. J Q. Please look at The BrooJclyn Daily Union of the issue of Friday, June 26, 1874, and say if this is the publica- tion of an interview with you to which you have referred in your testimony ? A. It is. Mr. Evarts— I oflfer, if your Honor please, to put that in- terview in evidence, not of com'se as evidence that any statements are representations of facts, or proof of facts, but as evidence, and of some importance, I think, in some subsequent connections, that this was a public declara- tion of Mr. Tracy's views of certain facts in this case, growing out of interviews between himself and Mr. Moulton and Mr. Tilton, which were well known to them as his public declarations, and the subsequent rela- tions preserved between the parties after that publica- tion. Mr. Beach— We object to it. Sir, as incompetent and immaterial. Judge Neilson— I think the mere fact that the publica- tion was made can be taken, but that is as far as you can go. Mr. Evarts— That is in evidence, but unless the nature of the publication — your Honor perceives, as my learned fi-iends do, that a state of public declaration on the part TESTIMOyi OF ££yJAMiy F. IF ACT. 273 of Mr. Tracy, Imown to these gentleraen as a public declaration, and presumptively Ms views and Ms opin- ions, and tlien a continuance of relations with Mm in re- gard to matters that may he brought in evidence in refer- ence to interviews concerning which they have given evidence, may be an important element. Their conduct towards Mm after that publication goes to sustain, if you please, the view that we take as to their subsequent rela- tions. Here certainly was a public declaration, I say, in general. Judge Xeilson— I don't thini we can receive it, Mr. Evarts. Mr. Evarts— Tour Honor will allow us to have it marked for identification ? Judge ZSr--^ilson— Yes. Mr. Evarts— And permit us to except to its exclusion. I dare say it is sufBciently described to be identified. It 1= a subdivision of a general subject headed " The Scan- dal," and the subdivision is headed. " The ifature of the Scandal Expained." Judge Neilson — What paper Is it, Sir 1 Mr. Evarts— It is J7!e JBroo/^-?vn Union o' Fridav, June 26. 1374. Mr. Shearman— The stenographer had better mark it, hadn't he ? GEX. TEACY'S IXTEEVIETVS WITH ^lES. TILTOX. Mr. Evarts— No ; the particular copy of tlie paper is of no importance. [To the witness.] Gen. Tracy, It has been a subject of evidence as to your interviews or conversations with [Mrs. Tilton preceding lier examina- tion before the Committee ; I will ask your attention now t.:' that point of time, and ask you to state when and how you first came into any conversation or meeting with Mrs. Tilton, and what passed between you and her prior to her delivering her statement to the Committee, on the night, I tMnk, of the 6th of July 1 Mr. Beach— So far as that question calls for what passed between Mrs. Tilton and ^Ir. Tracy we object to it, as im- material and incompetent. Judge Xeilson— It will answer your purpose to describe wbether he met her, and how long they conversed, and wbo was present. Mr. Evarts— "Well, I dare say we can get along without runmng against any legal prejudices of my learned friends. Mr. Beach— Prejudices ! Mr. Evarts— VTell. Mr. Tracy The Witness— Shall I bcg'n at the tiu\e If r^i met Mrs. Tilton 1 Q. Ves. .rust give the 'acts concerning your meeting with her ; and then I, perhaps, tvlU. ask some questions that -will nor be objected to. A. In the afternoon of July ^late iB Uib '.ftemoon— I wr.s at Mr. Beecher's.. and I tbere lf;arne/l that Mrs. O^ngton hyi b- en --o Mr. Po^ch- ' er's with a message wmch she desii'ed to eommtmicate j to htm ; I learned also that !Mr. Beecher preferred nor to 1 have a commumcation from Mrs. Ovington, or not to see ' her, and requested me to go around and see rf she would I deliver whatever commtmication she had for him to me. j Mr. Beach— This is trespassin g. Sir, upon the rule, I : think. The Witness— Then I will begin where I met Mrs. TH- . ton, if you prefer it. Mr. Evarts— I think tMs is substantially in evidence be- I fore, if your Honor please. Judge ^feilson [to the witness] — Then you went to Airs. Ovington' s and met her ; is that it? A. ZSTo, I went to Mr. Ovington's and introduced my sell to !Mrs. Ovington, and told her my object in coming there. Ml-. Evarts— Had you any acquaintance with her be- fore 1 A. I never had seen [Mrs. Ovington- before that, and she said Judge Xeilson- Xo, you learned that Mrs. Tilton was there. The Witness— I learned that 3Irs. Tilton was not there. Judge Xeilson— But would be ? i The Witness— Xo, I did not learn that at that time. Mr. Evarts— We cannot anticipate, if your Honor please, exactly how it came about. Judge ZseiLson— That is true. Mr. Evarts — 3Ir. Tracy, understand not to give any conversation, except how it came about that you saw Mrs. Tilton. Mr. Beach— We don't want the substance of the conver- sation in the shape of a narrative. The Witness— I will avoid any obiection, I think. Mr. Beach, As the result of my interview with 3Irs. Oving- ton, she went to Mr. Beecher's ; and as the result of what passed there, she stating that Mrs. Tilton would be at her house, she thought ; on her return, I went to see if :Mrs. TUton desired to go before the Committee. Q. Went to [Mrs. Ovington's ! A. Went to 3Irs. Oving- i ton's, and. on reaching there, I fotmd that Mrs. TUton had been there and had gone away, but would return with her stepfather, Judge Morse, later in the evening ; I think I then went to dine, and, after dinner, returned to ! Mrs. Ovington's, and either Judge Morse and [Mrs, Tilton were in the house when I went, or followed me in very i soon after, and I was there introduced to Mrs. Tilton by her stepfather, Judge Morse. Q, Was Judge Morse a previotis acquaintance of yours! A. He was ; I had known Judge Morse slightly for several years. Q. And Mrs. Tilton— had you any personal acquaintance with her ? A. [None whatever. Q. Did you [know her by sight! A. Well, I think I should have recognized Mrs. Tilton by sight ; I remember having seen her in Plymouth Church once or twice, but I nove'^ hi 1 gpoken with her, and bad no QC'QuaiTitan'e -^tliheT 274 TH.E TlLTON-BREfmEB TRIAL. Q. Now, before she left Mrs. Ovington's to j?o before the Committee, did you have any conversation with her, and it so where and of what length? A, She did not leave Mrs. Ovington's to go before the Committee, Mr. Evarts ; the Committee came to her. Q. Yes, that is so. A. On being introduced to Mrs. Til- ton, the object of her visit was stated generally in the presence of Mr. and Mrs. Ovington, Judge Morse and myself. She was considering whether she would or would not Mr. Beach— Wait a moment. Sir. Mr. Evarts— Well, that we have had. The Witness— There was a general talk on the subject. She went apart and had a private consultation with her stepfather, Judge Morse, and returned to the room and said Mr. Beach— It is hardly worth while to go into those details. You ain't very good at avoidance. Mr. Evarts— Well, I don't know ; I think so. [To the witness.] She gave you an answer as to going before the Committee ? A. She did, and Judge Morse left the house. I left immediately after to go to Mr. Storrs's and notify the Committee. I did so, and they came aroimd to Mr. Ovington's house, where Mrs. Tilton was. Q. Now, what further interview, if any, did you have with Mrs. Tilton before she commenced her statement before the Committee 1 A. When we reached Mr. Oving- ton's, I was told that Mrs. Tilton and Mrs. Ovington were in the dining-room below, and I went down there. Mrs. Tilton was just finishing her tea. I notified her that the Committee were present, and she immediately — we passed up to the parlor floor, she and Mrs. Ovington pro- ceeding up stairs. Q. To the story above ? A. To the story above. Q. Above the parlors? A. And returned in a few moments, and she was introduced to the Committee — the different members of the Committee— and proceeded at once with the statement. Q. Now, at this interview between yourself and her in the tea-room was anything else said excepting that the Committee were ready to to hear her statement and that she was ready to give it ? A. There was a single word said— a single sentence. Mr. Evarts— Well, shall I have that, Mr. Beach? Mr. Beach— I think not. Sir. Mr. Evarts— Did it relate to the appointment of going before the Committee ? A. It did. Q. Now, were you present during the examination of Mrs. Tilton ? A. I was. Q. And did you attend to and hear all the questions and all the answers ? A. I did. GEN. TRACY AND MR. TILTON TALK ABOLT MRS. TILTON'S TESTIMONY. Q. Now, Sir, evidence has been given by Mr. Tilton concerning an interview with you on the day after, I think, this examination of his wife. Did you have such an interview 1 A. I did. Q. How did that come about? A. By an appointment made by Mr. Moulton, for me to meet Mr. Tilton at hia house that next evening. Q. And you did so ? A. I did so. Q. Now, Sir, what passed at that interview between you and Mr. Tilton? A. Well, it was a long interview ; a good deal was said. The main subiect of conversation was the appearance of his wife before the Committee— the difierent members of the Committee, what impression she made before the Committee, the details of which con- versation I cannot repeat in the language m which it occurred that evening, but the substance of which and the drift of which I know. Q. WeU, Sir, what was that ? A. Well, Mr. Tilton asked me about his wife's being before the Committee— asked me how she came to go before the Committee, and I told him the facts so far as I knew them ; told him how I first met his wife, how she determined to go before the Com- mittee ; that I went for the Committee and they came around to Mr. Storrs's house— or Mr. Ovington's house, and she made her statement before the Committee ; I told him that I was present at that statement, that I heard all the questions that were put to her, and all the answers that she made ; I stated generally the drift of what she said, to him, and her bearing before the Committee and the impression that she made upon the Committee, so far as I observed it ; he inquired particularly about that, and what feeling her statement seemed to produce on the minds of the Committee toward himself, and I told him that, as far as I had observed it. Q. Well, what did you tell him in that regard ? A. I told him that Mrs. Tilton's statement was very kind to ward him ; while she had denied positively the state- ment of the Woodhull scandal and of improper relations with Mr. Beecher, and had also denied positively that Mr. Beecher had ever made an improper proposal to her. yet she had not accused Mr. Tilton, or spoken harshly of him at all ; on the contrary, she had spoken in the kind- est manner of him, and I think that I told him that she expressed in some manner her— in some words, I have forgotten what— her affection for him, and that she explained her motive in coming before the Com- laittce, that after the publication— she said after the i)ublication of the " Bacon letter" she felt it to be her duty to seek out some of her brethren in the church and to make a communication to them of the facts in this case, and I repeated to him what she said about her duty to deny it, to herself— for her own sake and for the sake of her children. Then he asked me who tha TESTLMOI^Y OF BE members of tlie Committee were, and I told him, naming them over, andwe discussed the various characteristics of each member of the Committee and how they felt toward him and toward Mr. Beecher, he giving me what infor- mation — or his views of each member of the Committee, and I giving him my impressions ; and he spoke there of whether that Committee could ever be induced to believe or eay they believed that Mr. Beecher had been guilty of wronging htm or committing an offense against him. He said very strongly that he did not believe they would; that they were determined to aoQLuit Mr. Beecher of all wrong, and they never would say that Mr. Beecher had com- mitted a wrong against him ; and I combated that view, because I told him that I was satisfied from what I knew of the Committee, and what I had seen of them, that the Committee would make a report that the facts presented before them justified; if those facts condemned Mr. Beecher, they would condemn; if they acciuitted him, they would acquit him, and they would condemn or acquit just to the degree that the facts would warrant ; and that discussion went on a long time, until late in the night ; that was the general nature and drift of the talk. Q. When you were speaking to Mr. Tilton concerning his wife's attitude and statements as toward himself, did you say anything to him on the subject of her continued pm'pose or wish to remain with him ? A. I did. Q. What did you say to htm tu that regard 1 A. I said to him that his wife expressed a desii-e aud a determtua- tion to preserve her family, and to continue to live with her husband and to struggle on and live down this story. Mr. Beach— When was that 1 On the 7th of July 1 A. This was on the 7th of July. CONTEADICTIOXS OF MR. TILTOX. Mr. Evarts— I call your attention, Mr. Tracy, to this statement of Mr. Tilton's— [Reading] : Gea. Tracy told me that I need have no anxiety con- cerning the formation of a committee ; that Mrs. Triton had gone down to the Committee at Mr. Ovington's house ; that previous to the assembling of it, he, Gen. Tracy, had instructed her what to say and how to say it —put the questions to her, that she might make no blun- ders in answering them ; that when she came before the Committee, she astonished and surprised all of them with her eloquent allusions to her pastor and to her hus- band. In this interview was anythtag said by you to this effect, in whole or in part, that you had uistructed her what to say and how to say it— lirut questions to her that she might make no blunders tu answertag them ? A. Xot a word. Q. In youi- intercourse, at any time, with Mr.-. Tilton, before her examtaation was completed, had you m any wiiy, or in any part, prepared her for the questions or the answers in that exammation % A. No, Sir ; not unless the remark I made to her fli-st should be dee j;r3d a prep- arati(m ; Twill state the remark X^x I did make to her if it is permissible. XJAmN F. TEAC7, L?5 Q. Wen, what was that ! ]\Ii\ Beach— That is objected to. Mr. Evarts— I think we have a right to give that. Sir ? Mr. Beach— I don't know why they have a right. Sir. Mr. Evarte— I have a right to give the negation by showing what was said. Judge NetLson— That you have given. Mr. Evarts— Now, the witness says not unless this single remark which he has already referred to, and which he was not allowed to give, was a negation. Judge NeUson— WeU, that rule would admit any con- versation that might be suggested in the absence of the party in interest. IVIr. Evarts— Not necessarily, I should think, if your Honor please; it would admit any qualifying statement in the denial which the \vic,uess makes; that, I suppose, a witness is always entitled to. Judge Neilson— Yes ; and I think you could ask him now whether in that single observation any direction was given in respect to her answers. Mr. Evarts— Well, I will ask him that. [To the wit- ness.] In that single observation to which you refer, was there any direction given in respect to her answers? A. No, Sir. Judge Neilson— It seems to me, Sir, that covers the ground. Mr. Evarts— Well, Sir, that is sutiicient. I believe it is already in evidence by Mrs. Ovington. Mr. Beach— No ; you are mistaken. iVIr. Evarts— Now, Mr. Tracy, Mr. Tilton says this also, in respect to this same interview ; he says that you said to him : Now, if you take right advantage of Mrs. Tilton's ap- pearance before that Committee, and of the tender hearts of those gentlemen toward all the parties in the case, particularly toward you, now is an opportunity to sup- press the scandal forever. Then he proceeds : It is a woman's right (he says) to deny it ; let her deny it ; let her stand on the denial. Now, cooperate with that denial, and it can be made a success. Did you say anything of that kind to :Mr. Tilton '? A. No, Sir, except that I said that she had denied it, and that she said that it was her right and her duty to deny that statement. Q. Mr. Tracy, a certain passage between Mr. Tilton and yourself before the Committee in regard to your acting as counsel notwirhstanding what you had said to him, has been given in evidence, and in that statement the statement that you had previously notified him ; do you remember the occurrence before the Committee in which A. T do. Q. Yes; well that is— that I believe is sulBciently in evidence — ^now, Mr. Tracy, before that time had you given notice to Mr. Tilton, and when and how] A. I had given him notice. Q. When was that ? A. Well, it was between the 10th. 276 THE TILTON-BEEGEEB TlilAL, and tlie ISth. of July ; I cannot state definitely, as I was seeing Mr. Tilton almost daily from the 27th of June until about the 13th of July ; sometimes oftener than once a day. Mr. Beach— What year 1 The Witness— '74 ; and it is impossible for me to state, therefore, vrith deflniteness the time ; but I am sure it ^as after I had heard of his conversation at Ovington's on the 9th of July ; and I am inclined to think it was after I had heard his wife had left him, but of that I am not certain. Mr. Erarts— Where did it occur, the interview or the conversation ? A. I think it occurred at the club. Q. The Brooklyn Club 1 A. The Brooklyn Club— it may Tiave been at my office ; Mr. Tilton was in the habit of dropping in at my office frequently ; and he was also in the habit of dropping in at the club when I was taking lunch or at dinner; and I met him in the street often. We had casual conversations ; at times we had set con- versations; audit was one of the casual conversations either in my office or at the club when I told him Q. Well, what passed between you— how was the mat- ter introduced? A. Referring to the conversation in 1872, 1 said to him : " Mr. Tilton, as long as you adhere to the case that you then stated to me, I shall adhere to the promise I made you ; but I desiie to say to you that when you change your case against Mr. Beecher, if you ever do, and state a different case from what you stated to me, I shall not regard my promise then made to you as binding upon me." Q, What did he say to that 1 A. He said that he could not see whether— how that would release me from my promise ; that I had made my promise not to be counsel for Mr. Beecher in case he and Mr. Beecher came into collision; and whether he stated the same case now against Mr. Beecher that he stated then or not, he did not see that that would release me. I told him I thought I did ; that that was a matter of judgment, whether it did or not; it was my judgment that it did, and that I should act upon it in that contingency. Q. Did he say anything in regard to it ! A. I think he did not; that was the substance of the interview. Q. Now, you have said that you frequently had meet- ings, casual or otherwise, with Mr. Tilton during this period. What wewe your relations, friendly or A. Friendly. Q. Were these interviews, any of them, sought or in- vited by you ? A. None that I remember, not a single one; every interview I ever had with Mr. Tilton, so far as I n*i, «' remember, was either sought by himself, or was the result olf an appointment made by Mr. Moulton. Q. In his behalf? A. In his behalf, or in behalf of Q. But not through youl A. Not through me, nor at my solicitation. Mr. Beach — He does not Include in that the casual in- terviews of which he has spoken of at the club or other- wise. Mr. Evarts — Well, interviews that were entirely casual. The Witness— Oh, accidental meetings in the street could be said to be sought by no one, but when Mr. Til- ton sought me at the club, when I was lunching, and sat down at the table and had a conversation with me, I treat that as an interview sought by him. Q. You didn't seek an interview ; you didn't commence or seek the conversation at the club with him, finding him there? A. No, Sir; and the club is not the place where Mr. Tilton is in the habit of resorting except to see some one ; that is, I never saw hun there— I think I never saw Mr. Tilton at the club except when he had come to have some interview with me ; I don't remem- ber that I ever did. Q. I recur now to the interview, Mr. Tracy, that you, I supposed, completed— the interview of the /th. Now, Mr. Tilton says this, as coming from you : He said, (speaking of you Mr. Tilton says). He said something like this: " There are a niunber of gentlemen, and they can summon whom they choose. They can summon Mr. Beecher, and he can say what he chooses, little or much ; they can summon Mrs. Tilton, and she can say what she chooses, little or much ; they can sum- mon you, and you can say what you choose, little or much ; and the Committee will be bound to make their report, and on the basis of the truth, for they won't in- quire enough to get the truth ; they will be bound to make their report on the basis of what those people choose to put down before them, and what you wiU choose to put down before them ; only," he said, " a proper, gentlemanly, and respectful report would be to the advantage of all parties." Now, Sir, did you have any conversation of that sub- stance, or A. No, Sir ; not in the sense that it is there stated; the question of the mode in which the Commit- tee would get witnesses before them was probably dis- cussed, and it was quite likely stated that they had no compulsory Mr. Beach— Well, I had a little rather that this gentle- man would not reason on the subject ; if he will, give us the benefit of his recollection. Mr. Evarts— No matter ; just give us what you remem- ber—what is your recollection upon the subject. A. Well, I recollect that the Committee and its mode of proceed- ing was discussed between Mr. Tilton and myself, and I recollect the question of the power of the Committee was discussed ; I do not remember positively whether it was — whether I stated there that they had not the power to compel the attendance of witnesses or not ; if thjt question was asked — I don't know whether it was or not positively, Q. You don't recollect about that? A. I know I no v r stated what he says there about the Committee's not in- quiring after the truth, or not wanting the truth; I don't recall precisely the words you have read; that I kuow I never stated. TESLIMONY OF BEyJAJ^LIX F. mACY. 377 Q. " They won't inquire enougli to get the truth." A. I never said that. Q. Or of that effect? A. I never said that,' I said that the Committee's report Tvould undouhtediy proceed upon the evidence before them and would he in concurrence with that evidence whatever it might be ; that I said. Q. And otherwise than that you didn't make the state- ments? A. I did not. Q. Or to the effect here given— now Mr. Tilton further says this : Gen. Tracy then asked me what sort of a report would satisfy me— what Mnd of a report I would stand by. I told him I would stand by any report which did me no in- justice, and which reinstated Elizabeth. " "Well," said he, " all I want you to bear in mind is this: you may make any Idnd of report you choose which don't charge 3Ir. Beecher with adultery, or with any such crime as that he cannot maintain his pulpit. Make the offense anything you choose, and I will procure the passage of the report, only," said he, " of course the committee could not bring in a report that he was guilty of adultery, or of anything That compromised his character and standing as a clergy- man. Make a report of that Irind and you can make it ad libitum, according to yooir own wish and will." A. There was nothing said at that interview on that night on the subiect of my getting the Committee to make a report, or what kind of a report the Committee would make ; whatever there is of that conversation did not occur on that night. Q. At this interview, then, nothing of this Mnd oc- curred! A. No, Sir. im. TILTOX'S PEOPOSED STATEMENT FOE THE COMMITTEE. Q. Now, subsequently, an intei-view has been drawn into evidence at which something was said about a report and a report or draft of a report was present; do you remember such an occasion ? A. I do. Q. Yes, when was that 1 A. The report was presented by :Mr. Tilton on the morning of the 9th of July ; I had seen him on the morning of the 8th, after the interview in the evening, I think, but I certainly saw blTn on the morniug of the 9th, when he had what is known on this trial as the " Long Report," present Mr. Evarts— What id the number of that exhibit, Mr. Shearman ? Mr, Shearman—" D, 45." Mr. Evarts [handing paper to witness]- Just look at this " Exhibit D, 45 "—look at that paper, Mr. Tracy, suf- ficiently to ascertain if that is the paper that was made the subject of conversation on that night. A. I did not have this paper in my hands on that morning ; I heard Mr. Tilton read it, and have heard it read on the trial, and have read some part of it myself. He read a paper that morning in my presence which was to the tenor and effect of this paper, but I cannot identify the manuscript, nor can I say that— affirm of my own knowledge— that this is in aU respects the paper that he read there ; I have no reason to doubt that it is. Q. Well, he did read through a paper ? A. He did rea through a paper, of about this tenor and effect. Q. And it was considered and talked about between you? A. Yes, Sir. Q. And, so far as you now recall that paper and exam- ine this, you suppose that this is the paper? A. I sup- pose that this is the paper. Q. Was :Mr. Moulton present at this conversation ! A, Mr. Moulton 1 he was there. Q. You three were together 1 A. We were. Q. Now, wUl you state that conversation and how this report figured in it! A. If I saw Mr. Tilton on the 8th of July, then I learned the fact of his ha^-ing gone home on the night of the 7th from him, and seeing his wife ; if I did not see him on the 8th, then the following conversa- tion occurred on the 9th ; I am not absolutely positive of having seen him on the 8th of July, but I think I did on that morning ; I think I saw him two mornings ki suc- cession, but of that I would not be positive, but at one or both of these conversations he said that he had gone home after the interview of July the 7th, had seen his wife, had called her up, had kissed her, and said to her that he had seen Gen. Tracy and had learned from him the details of her statement before the Committee ; that he had ex- pressed himself reconciled to that statement, and that the next morning they arose and talked over the matter and consulted in regard to a report which should be made by the Committee which should settle this matter and end this scandal ; he said his wife was very happy over the result; he said that he and his wife had sat down and prepared this document, as one with which she would be satisfied and he would be satisfied ; he read it over to me— he read the report to me, and after listening to it, I said to him, " "^Tiy Mr. Tilton there are many things stated in that report that of course the Committee could not, under any circumstances, say," He said he was aware of that; that he had only prepared it as a suggestion of what cotild be done. He did not expect the Committee to adopt this report as he had drawn It literally ; he had brought it down for suggestion and to see what was thought of it. I said to him that it was a step in the right direction ; that I discovered by it that he and Mr. Beecher had substantiallj' agreed on the offense that was alluded to, and covered by the "Apology," and tliat I considered the pivot on which the whole case turned ; that if they agreed on that, there was no difficulty, as it seemed to me, in their making a statement which -would authorize the Committee, and justify the Committee, in stating this case substantially as he covered this point of it in the report; and he asked if the Committee would make that report; I said, " Of course they won't make it, unless there Is evidence given before them that requires them to make it ; the Committee are not going to adopt this report at your suggestion, Mr. Tilton, without any evidence ; but the parties have got to come before the Committee and state facfes, and if, in the 378 TEE TILION-JRI statement of facts, that statement warrants a report of this description, I have no doubt that they will make it." Q. Was anj-thing said by Mr. Tllton as to whether he was ready or mlling to give the facts, according to that report? A. I certainly so understood Mr. Tllton, that that was the agreement between himself and his wife, which they had arrived at. Q. Well, was that all that was said about this report ? A. That was substantially all that was said about this report. Q. Was the report taken away by him— that is, did you take it away 1 A. Well, I didn't take it ; it was either kept by him or by Mr. Moulton. Q. I believe you have said it was never in your hands t ^. It was never in my hands before. Mr. Shearman [suiting the action to the word]— I will take it out of your hands now. Q. Mr. Moulton has stated in regard to this interview this. Mr. Fullerton says : [Reading.] I am now trying to prove what Mr. Tllton said at the time of the actual handing of that paper to Mr. Moulton. We made objection that Mr. Beecher was not present. Then the witness says : [Reading.] Mr. Tracy was a party to it [that is, to the interview J, and he said he represented Mr. Beecher. Did anything of that kind occur on your part at that intorvie w ? A. I never said T represented Mr. Beecher, on any occasion, at any time, in the sense of being a sub- stitute for him. I never said that, or claimed to repre- sent Mr. Beecher in any sense, except as a friend whose Judgment he would be likely to rely to a greater or a less extent. That was understood by Mr. Moulton always, and by Mr. Tilton. I never said anything else. Mr. Beach— Wait one moment. I move to strike that out, Sir, that that was understood by Mr. Moulton and by Mr. Tilton. Judge Neilson— Yes. Mr. Evarts— Well, they had a great many understand- ings. At this interview did you say that you represented Mr. Beecher, in any way ? A. I don't remember that any such thing was said or talked of at that interview. Q. This interview had been sought by them, as you say ? A. Yes, Sir ; I was requested to come around that morning. Mr. Evarts— Your Honor has made this ruling, which seems to be pretty near, if not entirely, equivalent to this proposition. [Reading from a memorandum.] Mr. Tilton having said, in answer to a general question on direct examination, that defendent never denied the criminal intercourse, added: "Whenever he spoke of it he always said the criminality attached to him alone." Held, that the motion to strike out as not responsive, as stating genei-al result of conversations, instead of stating what was said, and when, should be denied. Judge Neilson— The witness did say what was said in that case. Mr. Evarts— No; he stated that whenever he spoke of '^J/jJfJEER TRIAL. it, he always said so and so ; that is, giving the result^ but not the words of special occurrence. Now, the un- derstanding, whatever it was, was produced, I suppose, necessarily by the conversations on the subject. Judge Neilson— Yes. Mr. Evarts— And I will ask Gen. Tracy this question* then. [To the witness.] Mr. Tracy, in reference to this subject of representing Mr. Beecher, dui-ing any of these interviews that you have spoken of, or any interviews with either of these gentlemen, did you say to them that you represented Mr. Beecher in the interview 1 A. No, Sir. Q. Was there ever made to you any claim or sug- gestion on the part of Mr. Moulton or IVIr. Tilton that you did represent Mr. Beecher 1 A. Never. Q. Now, I ask you whether at this interview when the paper was before you, this report, this was said by Mr. Tilton, according to your recollection of anything that occvirred? " Well," said he [meaning yourself], " all I want you to bear in mind is this : you may make any kind of report you choose which don't charge Mr. Beecher with adul- tery, or with any such crime as that he cannot maintain his pulpit. Make the oflfense anything you choose, and I wiU procure the passage of the report. Only, of course, the Committee could not bring in a report that he was guilty of adultery, or of anything that compromised his character and standing as a clergyman. Make a report of that kind, and you can make it ad libitum, according to your own wish and will." A. No, Sir ; there was something said in that conversa- tion that the statement in that report, the statement of what the apology referred to, was in substantial accord- ance with what Mr. Beecher said it referred to, and it referred to a matter that did not compromise his moral character; and I did say in that conversation that I should not, so far as I was concerned — I should not stand at all on a phraseology of statement or report that did not compromise the moral character of Mr. Beecher. Q. I call your attention now to a point in Mr. Moulton's testimony applicable to this same interview. He gives, as a part of a conversation which he had with Mr. Beecher at some part of this interview, this, as coming from you, or occurring on your part at that interview : That he (Mr. Tilt. Now, did you say anything to the effect of this lata clause? A. I did not. There was a conversation which embraced more or less of the first clause. Q. Is it the conversation which you have given 1 A. It is. TESTIMOSY OF BJ^WJAMM F. TRACY. 279 Q. Did anything occur at tliat interview that is covered \>j this recital, other than as you have stated it in your testimony % A. Not as I understand tliat recital. ME. BEECHER'S PAYMENTS OF MONEY DAM- AGING TO MR. MOULTON. Q. Now, Mr. Tracj, an interview has been in- troduced in evidence in which something was said be- tween you fit is said by the witnesses or the witness] and Mr. Moulton on the subject of money having ap- peared in the course of this transaction ; do you remem- ber such an interview ] A. I do. Q. When was that ? A. I cannot state definitely, but it was some of the interviews that occurred between Mr. Moulton and myself between, I think, the 13th and the 20th of July. Q. Where did that occur? A. I should say that it occurred at Mr. Moulton's house. Q. And who were present 1 A. Mr. Moulton and my- self. Q. How did that interview come about ? A. We were speaking, as I recollect it, of Mr. Tilton's contemplated statement which he had promised to make before the Committ(;e on the 20th of July, I think— given notice that he should make a statement, and in the course of conversation I said to Mr. Moulton, " I don't see, if Mr. Tilton has any regard for your interests, how he can press this matter to such an extent that the full history of this transaction will have to be stated, for if it is, I don't see how you can keep from coming out the fact that money has been paid by Mr. Beecher in this matter." That is not the form of the conversation; excuse me. I said, " I don't see how this can go on so that a full history of the case has to be stated, without resulting in serious injury to you." He said, " How? What do you mean ?" I said, I mean the fact, Mr. Moulton, that money has been paid by Mr. Beecher in this matter." Said he, "Mr. Beecher had no business to tell you about that money ; that was a matter of confidence between Mr, Beeche» and myself. Mr. Tilton knows nothing of that money, and it is a very mean thing in Mr. Beecher to have told you of it;" and he became somewhat excited in his remarks, and I felt constrained to say to him that I did not get my informa- tion from Mr. Beecher in regard to that money. He said, "If you didn't get it from him, whom did you get it from?" I hesitated to answer. He pressed me very strongly to tell him, and I finally said, " I got it fi-om your partner, Mr. Moulton, Mr. Woodruff." Q. Mr. Franklin Woodruff? A. Mr. Franklin Woodruff. He was the first man who informed me of the fact that money had been paid for Mr. Tilton. He then made some severe remarks about JVIi-. Woodruff for having told me, and said again that that was a matter of strict confidence between himself and Mr. Beecher, and that he had denied the payment of that money, and that Mr. Beeeuer must. I said to him, " It ^viU be very easy for Mr. Beecher not to state the payment of that money, Mr. Moulton, provided he is not required to give a history of this case : but if Mr. Beecher is compelled to make before the public a full statement of this case, I don't see how he can conceal the fact that money has been paid, and if that fact transpires, I think it will do you great injury." That is the substance of that inter- view. A Juror [to IMr. Evarts]— What was the date of that interview. Mr. Evarts— It was somewhere b tween the 20th and the 30th of July, of last year. The Witness— I think it was. It was after Mr. Tilton has given notice through The Argus t-iat he should make a statement before the Committee, and the time for that statement, I think, had been appointed for the 20th of June, and I think it was intermediate those two days Mr. Beach— The 20th of July, you mean. The Witness— July ; yes, Sn-. Mr. Evarts— I said July. [To the witness.] When Mr. Moulton, in this conversation, said to you that Mr. Tilton didn't know anything about the payment of money, did you make any observation to Mr. Moulton ? A. I said to Mr. Moulton that I thought that was ?j matter that he and I had not better discuss. Q. WeU, was it any further discussed ? A. I don't think it was. Q. Mr. Moulton has given a statement of this kind, as a part of a conversation between himself and Mr. Beecher : I told Mr. Beecher that Mr. Tracy wanted me to com- municate the fact that I had received $5,000 from Mr. Beecher, to Mr. Tilton, in order to stop him from the pub- lication of his statement. Did anything of that kind occur ? A. I did not say to Mr. Moulton that I desii-ed him to communicate that to Mr. Tilton. He may have inferred it from what I did say. Q. Well, what you did say you have stated ? A. I have stated. Q. You did not say anything otherwise on that point ? A. No, Sir. Q. Mr. Moulton says [reading] : I said, when Mr. Tracy wanted me to tell Mr. TUton, that that would be a serious embarrassment to me per- sonally, in consequence of my having received that money, and I said to Mr. Beecher that I told Mr. Tracy that I was perfectly willing to be guided by him with sound advice, with any moral, good reason— with any good reason, and I would cooperate with him to induce Theodore Tilton not to publish his statement ; but I would not, on any such ground as that, undertake to stop its publication. Mr. Tracy told me that would cause me trouble if it was published, and I told him if it caused me trouble it must cause me trouble, that I had done no wi'ong, and I didn't fear any trouble that would come from that. Did tha^ occur between you and Mr. Moulton ? A. Not except as I have stated. I don't think it occurred as he has stated. Q, Did he make any statement to you that if the com- 280 TEE TlLTON-h munication caused him trouble it must cause liim trouble '{ A. I don't think he did, though he may have said that. I told him that it would cause him trouble ; that it would be a serious injury to him to have that tact published ; and he may have said if it does transpire and injures me, I can stand it, or something of that kind, I don't remem- ber that ; but he said that Mr. Beecher must deny it— that he should denv it, and Mr. Beecher must. I told him that 1 didn't think Mr. Beecher would deny it if forced to make a statement, or if he Mr. Beach— That was not called for. Sir. Mr. Evarts— He has already stated it. Mr. Beach — I know he has already said it, and therefore there is no necessity for repeating it without its being called for, Mr. Evarts— It is a qualified statement. Mr. Beach— It is part of the argument. Mr. Evarts— Was anything else said at this interview between you and Mr. Moulton in regard to Mr. Tilton's being informed or knowing anything of this matter of the money, other than what you have stated ? A. I think not. I think he simply made the remark that Mr. Tilton knew nothing of where that money came from. That was his phrase. Q. WeU, when you disposed of that branch of the mat- ter by saying you thought you and he had better not discuss that matter of Mr. Tilton's knowledge, in what form, so far as youremember, did that pass between you ? A. I think I said in reply to that : " Mr. Moulton, whether Mr. Tilton knew where this money came from or not, is a matter that you and I probably had better not discuss I" and I don't think he made any reply to that. MR. TILTON APOLOGIZES TO GEN. TRACY. Q. Do you remember, Mr. Tracy, after the pas- sage between you and Mr. Tilton before the Committee (on the 22d of July, I think, it is said to have been, or about that time), as to your having given a pledge— do you remember seeing Mr. TUton again that day ? A. I do. Q. How, and under what circumstances 1 I saw him at Dieter's saloon that day, when I was dining. Q. There with your family ? A. There with my daugh- ters. Q. WeU, did he then have anything to say on the sub- ject of that occurrence? A. He did. He came into the room Mr. Beach— Is that a conversation which has been given in evidence 1 Mr. Evarts— It is not a conversation that has been given in evidence, but it relates to this conversation ; it is a sequel to this conversation that has been given in evi- dence, that occurred before the Committee. The Witness— It was perhaps Mr. Beach— No, it is not the sequel of it. Mr. Evarts— You will see that it is, if you listen to it. The Witness— It was, perhaps, an hour after the scene iJFJOEEB IRIAL. before the Committee, or possibly more. I was dining in Dieter's with my daughters, and he came in and passed. by me to the back part of the saloon ; (I was in the front part), and as he passed me he threw his arm around my neck and put his head down to mine and said, " Mr, Tracy, if I said anything this afternoon that hurt your feelings, you must forgive me," Mr. Beach— It is a wonder t^ ere was not a kiss on that occasion. [Laughter.] THE INTERVIEW AT THE FIFTH AVENUE HOTEL. Mr. Evarts — WeU, you can cross-examine on that. LTo the witness.] Mr. Tracy, there was an inter- view between yoiu^self and Mr. Moulton that occurred at the Fifth Avenue Hotel, which has been introduced into the evidence. Now, did you have an interview with M;-. Moulton there, and, if so, when was iti A. I went with Mr. Moulton to tho Fifth Avenue Hotel on Sunday even- ing— I think Aug. 9— where I had an interview with Gen. Butler. Q. Well? A. And a very small portion of which Mr^ Moulton was present at. He was not present at the in- terview. Q. At the principal interview ? A. At the principal in- terview between myself and Gen. Butler he was not present. Q. Well, it is not the interview with Gen. Butler that I have to do with now ; that has not been made a subject of evidence. Mr. BCoich- 1 think it has. Mr. Evarts— Except as to results. Mr. Beach— Mr. Moulton was present at a very consid- erable part of the interview, and he has stated a portion of it. Mr. Evarts — Very well ; tl.c matter that I am now dealing with is this. In regard to anything between yourself and Mr, Moulton, Mr, Tracy— in respect of any advice asked by^ him or given b^ you in respect to his dealing with the scandal, or the situation as it then stood, do youremem- ber any conversation with him in regard to the papers, or what should be done with them ? A. Yes, Sir ; we had conversation that day ; I had been at Mr. Moulton's a good deal that day— had gone to the Fifth Avenue Hotel with him ; and his relation to the scandal Mr Beach— Well, what is it 1 Do you direct attention to the conversation at the Fifth Avenue Hotel ? Mr. Evarts— I was not going to get the conversation. It is the fact that there had been a conversation between them. [To the witness.! Now, Mr. Tracy, was there a conversation between youreelf and Mr. Moulton in regard to what disposition or use should be made by him in re- spect of any of these papers which were there at the time ? Mr. Beach— Do you refer to a conversation at the Flftfc Avenue Hotel? TESTIMONY OF £E. lyjAMlJS F. TRACT. 281 Mr. Evarts— At the Fifth Avenue Hotel. The "Witness— I cannot say, Mr. Evarts, whether Mr. Moulton was present and participated, in any conversa- tion at the Fifth Avenue Hotel, when the subject of his position and what he ought to do— or what he should do was talked about. Mr. Evarts— Very well. The Witness— He may or may not have been present at some part of such an interview. Q. That is the conversation between you and Gen. But- ler 1 A. Gen. Butler. Q. That I do not go into. Then I understand your last answer to be, in substance, that you don't remember any conversation between yotirself and Mr. Moulton on the subject of what you advised him to do, or what his duty to do about the papers was, as forming a part of that in- terview at the hotel ? Mr. Beach— I do not understand him to say so, Mr. Evarts. Mr. Evarts — Then we will have the answer read. :Mr. Beach— He says he is uncertain whether Mr. Moul- ton was present when the subject was discussed between him and Gen. Butler. Mr. Evarts— Well, the stenographer will read the answer— I think the answer to the last question. [The Tribune stenographer here read the answer.] Ml'. Beach— Mr. Moulton's testimony shows that he was present at that conversation, and he has given a part of It. Mr. Evarts — There was a conversation, no doubt, about that— the question is The Witness— I can state this, that Mr. Moulton went with me to the Fifth Avenue Hot«l, went into Gen. Butler's room ; the subject of our visit was introduced, when I remember that Gen. Butler requeslr^d IVIi-. Moulton to retire from the room. Gen. Butler and I had an interview ; I understood Mr. Beach — Never mind. Mr. Evarts — Gen. Butler and you remained ? A. Yes ; and Mr. Moulton came back after the interview was over, and Gen. Butler announced to him the result. Kow, I cannot say definitely, precisely what was talked about while Mr. Moulton was present and what was talked about when he was absent ; I cannot draw the line there with accuracy. Q. You did have a conversation on your way up ] A. We did. Mr. Evarts— And of that no evidence has been given, that I can see, on the other side. Q. Kow, Gen. Tracy, you have been counsel tor the firm of Woodruff A: Eobinson ? A. I have. Q. During the last how many years t A. Well, I am ^wt tlielr regular counsel ; I have been employed for them I on two occasions, I think ; the last occasion was in the Winter— the Fall of 1873 and the Winter of 1874, Q. Professionally— as a lawyer ? A. Yes, Sir. Mr. Evarts— That is all. CEOSS-EXAMINATION OF GEN. TRACY. Mr. Beacli— During tlie time Mr. Porter was cross-examining Mr. Moulton, did you make suggestions to him as to what questions to put? A. I cannot say. Sir; I don't remember whether I did or not; 1 presume — possibly I did. Q. Don't you recollect of standing up behind Mr. Porter and making suggestions to him of questions ? A. I do not remember. Q. Sir 1 A. I do not remember whether I did or did not. Q. When Mr. Porter was cross-examining Mr. Moulton in regard to the litigation had with the Government, don't you remember of standing up behind Mr. Porter and making suggestions to himi A. No, Sir. Q. Ehl A. No, Sir. Q. You don't remember that % A. No ; I do not. Q. Do you know you did not % A. I never made any suggestions to him Mr. Beach — Wait a moment 1 wait a moment ! Well, can you now remember the fact whether you did or not, while Mr. Porter was conducting the cross-examination, make suggestions to him of questions to be put 1 A. I cannot ; I do not know whether I did or not. Q. ^Tien did you first become acquainted with this ease on trial 1 A. You mean this action 1 Q. This case on tiial ? A. I cannot state definitely^ Sir; but Q. You understand my question 1 A. I do. Mr. Evarts— He was proceeding to answer. The Witness— I am proceeding to answer your question. Mr. Beach— T don't think you were. Mr. Evarts — Yes, he was proceeding to answer the question. ]Mr. Beach — I know he was proceeding to answer some- thing. The Witness— It was after the retainer of Judge Porter and Mr. Evarts. Q. That does not nelp me as to the time ? A. I cannot tell you the date, Sir. Q. Then can you not say so ? A. I can say so. Q. You cannot tell the date 1 A. Not the precise dat« ; not the day of the month. Mr. Evarts— I submit, if your Honor please, the witness has a right to answer as to the date. He has been asked the date, and he has a right to give it as near as he can. Mr. Beach— There is no objection to that. Mr. Evarts— Then let him give it. The Witness— I cannot give the day of the month ; I remember the occasion ; but the day of the month I can- not give you ; I remember it was after Q. I don't ask you that A. Oh, I vmderstood you to. 282 THE TILTON-BEFjOHER TBIAL. Q. Then you cannot give the date ? you the day of the month. Q. Can you give me the month 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. What mouth was it % A. September. Q. September of what year \ A. Of 1874. Q. When was the suit commenced ] A. I cannot tell you that. Q. Can you tell me the month 1 A. I think it was in August. Q. You think it was in August ? Were you retained be- fore the answer was put in ? A. No, Sir. Q. Do you remember the date of the answer ? A. I do not. Q. Do 3^0 u i-emember what mouth that was in 1 A. I do not now. Q. "Who first applied to you to become connected with this iietion ? A. ]Mr. Shearman, I think. Q. When was that application made ? A. Very soon •after the suit was commenced. Q. How soon should you thiuk ? A. I cannot tell you ideflnitely, but perhaps a week, perhaps a week after the ^action was commenced. Q. Did he show you the complaint 1 A. No, Sir. Q. When did you first see the complaint? A. Well, T cannot say as a matter of fact that I have ever seen it in the world; I perhaps have, but I do not now recall any instance where T ever road the complaint. Q. Were you consulted as to the answer ? - A. I think not. Q. Will you swear that you were not? A. I think I will. Q. WiU you % A. I do. Q. By anybody] A. Ah! I did not say that no one talked with me about the answer, or what answer ""t^ould be put in ; parties — outsiders and newspaper men — may have spoken to me about it ; when you asked me if I was consulted about the answer, I supposed you meant con- sulted as counsel. Q. You know what consultation means. Do you say that you were not consulted by any one as to the form of the answer ? A. I do not think I was. Q. Will you swear you were not 1 A. I swear, accord- ing to my best recollection, that I was not ; I will not ^swea^ that there was not some casual conversation. Q. I talk about consultation, not about casual conver- sations ; and I understand you to swear that you were not consulted in regard to the character or form of the answer that Mr. Beecher should interpose in this case ? A. I undertook to see Mr. Beecher Q. [Interrupting.] Do you swear that. Sir? A, I swear that I was never present at any consultation when the subject of the answer that should be interposed to this action was talked of. Q. That is not a direct answer to my question, and I want one. Will you swear that yow never were consulted in regard to the character or the form of the answer that I cannot give [ Mr. Beecher should interpose in this case 1 A. I cannot give you any different answer on that, except to say that I might have been spoken to in the street, or casually meeting Mr. Shearman when the subject of the answer might have been alluded to, and if I had it would have passed my recollection and I not recollect it ; I remember no such occurrence. Q. That is all you can say on that subject ? A. Yes, Sir. MR. TRACY'S FIRST CONSULTATION WITH MR. BEECHER. Q. And do I understand you to say that you never saw the complaint in this action ? A. I say I don't recollect ever having seen it ; I may have seen it. Q. Did you ever have a consultation with Mr. Beecher in relation to this action % A. Yes, with reference to the trial— yes, several of them. Q. Y'es ; well, I will ask you when the first was 1 A. Well, not until the case was at issue, and I think not until it was expected to be tried in the coming term of the court. Q. Then you say that there was no conversation be- tween you and Mr. Beecher in regard to the su;>ject of this action imtil after the case was proposed to be moved for trial, do youl A. If you mean by the subject of this action that Mr. Beecher and I never talked of the scandal, then I say we did; but if you mean that I never had a consultation with Mr. Beecher in reference to this ac- tion—the trial of this action— then I say I never did until after the cause was at issue, and I think not imtil it had been noticed for trial. Q. I don't limit my inquiry. Sir, to the technical defini- tion of a consultation; I asked you if you talked with Mr. Beecher about this action before the time you men- tion when the case was expected to be moved for trial? A. I don't recollect that I ever did. Q. WeU, do vou recollect that you did not ? A. My general recollection is that I did not. Q. Is your recollection so precise and definite upon that subject that you will swear you did not 1 A, Well, if you will fix the date when the cause was noticed for trial I can tell you better. Q. I am adopting a refei'ence which you yourself made. You can fix the date for yourself. A. I shall have to ask Mr. Shearman to fix it for me. Q. I don't care who you ask. A. If I knew when the cause was first noticed I could tell better. Mr. Shearman— May I give the date? Mr. Beach— I have no objection. Mr. Shearman [examining papers]— It was the 7th of September. The Witness— Then I am certain that I never had a con- versation with Mr. Beecher until the cause was noticed for trial. Mr. Morris— I don't think that date is correct; thj an- swer had not been served at that time. te8TIMo:ny of bu. 'XJAMiy E. TllACl. 2S3 Mr. Shearman— Yes, it was the 7th of September ; I ^ess I am right ; the answer was served on the 7th of September, and a notice was served with it. Mr. Beach— You are aware that at that date Mr. Beecher wa« out of town 1 A. Yes, I knew generally the fact that he was out of town. Q. Before the time given as the 7th of September, had you talked with Mr. Shearman or Mr. Sterling, his part- ner, tn regard to the action? A. Oh, I probably had. The— 7th— of— September 1 [Pausing.] I think I remember call- ing at Mr. Shearman's office one day to see him before the answer was served and not seeing him, and talked with Mr. Sterling ; but I think I learned from him that the answer had not been served ; that is the only interview that I remember ever to have had with either Mr. Shear- man or Mr. Sterling previous to the serving of the answer. Q. About how long was that before the answer was served ? A. I cannot tell you. Q. As near as you can. A. Oh, it may have been ten days ; I cannot tell you more definitely ; my impression is that it was after an answer had been sent down from Mr. Beecher and had been returned for another verifica- tion ; I think I learned that fact from Mr. Sterling, that an answer had been received from Mr. Beecher and haa been returned to him, as the verification was informal, or something of that kind. Q. Did you communicate with Mr. Beecher during his absence 1 A. No, Sir. Q. When, iVIi\ Tracy, did you first have a conversation with Mr. Beecher upon the subject of this scandal ? A. I should say it was within a week after the Sunday inter- view at Mr. Moulton's house. Q. That Sunday interview, do you understand it to be as the others do, on the 10th of some month. What month was it, Mr. Morris 1 Mr. Morris — November. Q. The 10th of November, 18721 A. I have heard no one state the date of the interview before. Q. I have heard it stated ? A. I don't think it was stated in evidence. Q. We'\ was that the date of it ? A. I cannot fix the date of that interview, my recollection would be that it was later than the 10th of November, and earlier than the 8th of December, but I am unable fi-om my recol- lection to fix the Sunday on which the interview occured. Q. I am certain Mr. Woodruff spoke of it as having oc- cured in the Autumn of 1872 ? A. That is possible. Q. Cannot you fix any nearer date than those you have mentioned 1 A. No, Sir; I think it occurred— my best recollection is that it occurred either on the 17th or the 24th of November, or the 1st of December. GEN. TRACY'S PLEDGE TO MR. TILTON. Q. Tlie 17th or 24th of November, or the Ist of December ; and that interview at Moulton's study which you have related was preceded by two interviews, I understand you, with Mr. Woodruff? A. Yes, Sir. Q. The fixst interview with Mr. Woodruff was at your office ? A. No, Sir, the first- if you mean by that the first talk? Q. I mean the first of these three interviews of which you have spoken ? A. Well, strictly speaking, Mr. Beach, I saw Mr. Woodruff three times before the interview at Moulton's house, where the subject of the scandal was talked about— where the scandal was talked about be- tween mysell: and Mr. Woodruff. Q. WeU, where did they happen ? A. One happened in the street, and the others Q. Which was that ? A. The first ; the other two I think happened at my office ; one was the interview with him and Mr. Moulton when Moulton was introduced to me. Q. In this interview at Moulton's study I understood, you to say that IMr. Tilton addressed you in this form : " Mr. Tracy, I will ask" — or he said : " I am about to (I am not sure which)— to make a statement to you about my case against Mr. Beecher ; I don't know what the etiquette of yoiu* profession allows. If I make a state- ment of my case against Mr, Beecher to you, and ^Ix. Beecher and myself should afterward come into collision, would the etiquette of your profession permit you to be counsel for for Mr. Beecher?" I replied, "Mr. Tilton. without discussing what the etiquette of my profession would or would not allow, I say to you that if a person having a controversy with another, comes to me and makes a statement of his side of the controversy, and the parties should afterward come into collision on that case, I should not feel at Uberty to become counsel for the other party." By the term, " if the parties should afterward come into collision," did you understand Mr. Tilton to refer, and did you yourself refer, to an ordinary litigation of an action in court, or a collision in other forms ? A. I don't remember that that word suggested any definite shape in my mind at that time. Q. Will you answer me. Sir, whether you understood that pledge which you then made to refer to an ordinary litigation in cotu-t, or to a collision occurring in any other form ? A. Well, I can only judge how I used it from the language then use J, now ; as a matter of memory I don't recollect, Q. You do not know ? A. I did not say I do not know. Q. Well, I understood you to say so. If you know you will tell us, won't you? A. I say I don't recollect. Q. WeU, then you don't know. A. That is a matter of reasoning. Mr. Evarts— It is not necessary to reason. ]Mr. Beach— Yes, it is necessary to reason. [To the wit- ness.] Do you recollect what the statement of Mr. Wood- ruff was in regard to what your pledge upon that oc- casion amounted to ? A. I have a general recollection of what Mr. Woodruff said about it, but I cannot repeat it. Q. Well, to refresh your recollection, I will direct your attention to it if I can put my eye on it. [Tariiiug te 284 THE TIJjTON-B Mr. Morris.] Will you turn my attention to it, Mr. Morris ? [Mr. Morris looka for the place, assisted toy Mr. Moul- ton.] Q. This is the conversation which Mr. Woodruff gives- speaking of Mr. Tilton, he says that he said to you : If Mr. Beecher and I should ever get into law, or into court in regard to the matter, could you, or would you ever be counsel on his side t And Gen. Tracy said no, that he could not and should not, and he need not have any fears on that score. That was the reason of my asking the question, Mr. Tracy— to know whether you understood the pledge which you then gave to Mr. Tilton to be limited in its ap- plication to a litigation in a court of justice, or whether it applied to any collision which might afterward occur between Mr. Beecher and Mr. Tilton in any form in rela- tion to the subject matter of this scandal? A. Well, now, what question do you ask ? Q. I ask you now how you understood the extent of that pledge ? A. I say, as a matter of recollection, I don't know that I stopped to consider the question, or to understand to what extent Mr. Tilton meant to have my pledge given at that time. Q. Did you mean your pledge to apply to all collisions, both legal, social and otherwise ? A. I should say I did not from the form of the language which Mr. Tilton used; he used the word " collision;" now I should under- stand that to be a collision in a court. Q. As you now suppose, you then imderstood it to ap- ply to a litigation lq court ? A. I did ; I now suppose I then understood it so. Q. I understand, Mr. Tracy, that you informed Mr. Moulton at a later period that yo u should consider yourself absolved from the obligation of that promise, if he changed the nature of his accusation against Mr. Beecher ? A. I did. Q. When do you say that notice was first given 1 A. It was somewhere from the 10th to the 13th of July, I thmk. Q. 18741 A. Yes, Sir; 1874. Q. And when did you first suppose that Mr. Tilton had changed the character of his charge 1 A. I cannot say then that I supposed he had changed it. Q. And what was the charge, as you understood it to be made, at the time you gave this pledge to Mr. Tilton 1 A. That Mr. Beecher had made improper solicitations to Mrs. Tilton. Q. Well The Witness— Ah, I cannot say that. Mr. Beach, ex- cuse me. Repeat your question again. Q. I want to know what was the nature of the charge you understood Mr. Tilton to make against Mr. Beecher at the time you gave him this pledge ? A. Mr. TUton had not, at that time, made his statement against Mr. Beecher, and, therefore, I did not understand from him ^ECRER 'lElAL. what the nature of the charge was to be ; my only under- standing of it was what I had gathered from the paper* that I had seen. Q. When did you first gather from Mr. Tilton the na- ture of that charge 1 A. That day, immediately following the promise. Q. Well, what did you then understand it to be 1 A. An improper solicitation on the part of Mr. Beecher to Mrs. TUton. Q. And it was because, as you supposed, that charge was changed into a specific accusation of adultery, that you considered yourself at liberty to act for Mr. Beecher ? A. I did. Q. Did you understand, Mr. Tracy, as a lawyer, that any litigation between Mr. Beecher and Mr. Tilton could grow out of a charge of improper solicitation made by Mr. Beecher to Mrs. Tilton? A. I did not; after I had heard his statement the idea of a litigation growing out of it never occurred to me as possible. Q. At the time you gave this pledge, you had heard from these parties, I suppose— Mr. Moulton and Mr. Woodruff— what the charge was ? A. No, Sir ; not defin- itely—no, Sir. Q. And when was it that you say you made up your mind that no litigation could grow out of it ? A. On hearing Mr. Tilton's statement that day. Q. On hearing Mr. Tilton's statement that day. Then you gave your pledge generally, without understanding what the nature of the accusation was? A. I gave my pledge just as I have stated it to you. Q. Did you give your pledge without understanding the nature of the charge which was made against Mr. Beecher at the time the pledge was given ? A. I gave my pledge without knowing from Mr. TUton definitely what his charge against Mr. Beecher was to be. Q. Mr. Tracy, my question must be answered in its full scope. Did you give your pledge which you have stated, to Mr. Tilton, without knowing or understanding what the nature of the accusation was he made against Mr. Beecher 1 A. I knew nothing more of it than what I have stated to you. Q. Wbat did you kuow in regard to the nature of the accusation at the time you gave your pledge 1 A. I knew that the WoodhrUl publication had been made, whici> charged adiUtery ; I knew Q. And you knew it was denied, did you not 1 A. 1 knew Q. You knew it was denied, did you not! A. Yes, tu one sense. Q, Then that passes out. Give us something else. A.^ I am telling you I knew that the Woodhull publication had been made, which charged adiUtery ; I knew that I had seen the " Apology '* of Mr. Beecher ; I knew that I had seen the retraction of Mrs. TUton, and I knew from that what it referred to, as far as that discloses ; I had seen the explanation ; I had asked Mr. Moulton if Mr. Tilton TESTIMONY OF BI charged Mr. Beecher with adultery, and he said he did not. Beyond that I did not know what the nature of Mr. Tilton's charge against Mr. Beecher was to be, at the time that I gave the promise. Q. From the facts which were before your mind at the time the pledge was given, what did you understand to be the natiu'e of the accusation made against Mr. Beech- er 2 A. I can't say that I had any definite understanding of what the accusation was, or was to be. Q. Well, you understand that it was not adultery ? A. I did ; that is, I imderstood from Moulton that THton did not charge Mr. Beecher with adultery. Q. That was your understanding 1 A. Yes. Q. That acceptation of the language you had then of nw charge ] A. Yes, Sir. Q. You understand it was a charge to the extent of im- proper solicitations ? A. No, I can't say I did definitely iTiidf^^Tstand that. Q. WTay, did you not understand that there was, in these papers which were read to you, a statement of Mrs. Tilton to that effect? A. I understood from the papers that the foi-m of implication was that Mr. Beecher had in some way attempted the virtue of Mrs. Tilton. Q. And it had been repulsed, I understood you to say ? A. Well, I inferred that from the statement. Q. You stated so in your direct examination. Mr. Evarts— You are now bringing in a conversation that occurred after the pledge. Mr. Beach— No, I beg pardon ; it was at the same inter- view of the pledge ; whether it immediately preceded or immediately followed it, is of little consequence. Judge Neilson— Is it not now the time of taking a re- cess? Mr. Beach— Just as your Honor pleases. The court then took a recess until 2 o'clock. THE AFTERNOON SESSION. The Court met at 2 p. m., pursuant to ad- iom-nment. Benjamin F. Tracy was recalled. GEN. TRACY'S IDEA OF THE ORIGINAL CHARGE. Mr. Beacli— Mr. Tracy, at this interview which you have related at Mr. Moulton's study, at which Mr. Moulton, Tilton, Woodruflf, and yourself were present, at the close of it what did you understand to be the charge made by Mr. Tilton against Mr. Beecher ? A. I understood the charge to be that Mr. Beecher had made improper solicitations to Mrs. Tilton. Q. Which had been refused or repulsed by herl A. Yes, Sir. Q. And you distinctly understood, you say, up to that period, that the accusation was not that of adultery 1 A. I imderstood so. Q. And you say that up to that period you had not re- 'XJAHIT^ F. TEAOY. 385 cclved any intimation that the charge on the part of Mr. Tilton was adultery, from any source? A, No, Sir, I don't say that. Q. You don't say that? A. No, Sir. Q. Well, then, you left that interview with the under- standing that the charge was improper solicitations, and nothing more ; and, understanding that, you had given a pledge that you would not appear as the coimsel for Mr. Beecher in any litigation which might occur between him and Mr. Tilton growing out of the charge ? A. I cannot s&y, Mr. Beach, that the idea of litigation occurred to me after Mr. Tilton's statement ; I cannot say, therefore, that I left the interview Q. Well, we have got that settled; you told all about that; I don't want to unsettle what we have got estan- lished. You told me that you understood at the time, as you suppose, as you imderstood now, that your pledge referred to the ordinary litigation in court ? A. That is, when I made it. Q. Well, it was made at that interview ; did you change your mind in regard to the extent and character of the pledge during the interview ? A. No, but I chauged my mind as to the result that might flow from it. Q. Well, that we will see about. Then, we start with these premises that you understood your pledge to be that m case of any litigation between Mr. Beecher and Mr. Tilton, growing out of the subject of that conversa- tion, that you could not appear as the counsel of Mr. Beecher ? A. I so— I assume now that I so uadeT stood It at the time when I gave it. Q. And you understood at the close of that conversa^ tion that the only charge preferred by Mr. Tilton against Mr. Beecher was improper solicitations to his wife ! A. Yes, Sir. Q. Now, as a lawyer, will you teli me how you under- stood that any litigation could grow out of improper solicitations from a third party to a woman 1 A. I did not; when Mr. Tilton stated his case against Mr. Beecher, I dispensed at once with the idea that litigation would grow out of that direct charge, as possible ; I, of course, did not know but that it might grow out of it incidentally, but when I had heard tha i statement I had no idea that any — that the subject of that charge could ever be a matr ter of litigation in coui-t. MORE ABOUT GEN. TRACY'S PLEDGE. ' Q. Did you make any suggestions of that kind at the interview ? A. I think not. Sir. Q. Then you allowed yom- pledge to stand, confined to a question of litigation, when you knew as a lawyer that no litigation could grow out of the charge us then made 1 A. I did not refer to my pledge after I gave it. Q. Well, you allowed it to stand ? A. I allowed it to stand. Mj' pledge, as you will see, Mr. Beach, is a stat^ ment of the general rule, not applicable to Mr. TUton'a case, specially, but applicable to all oases. I stated a 286 IHE 11 L 'ION- imhUUI L: // TRIAL. general rule in answer to the question, and I did not refer to it after I stated it. Q. "What, you merely stated that as a general rulel A. Certainly. Q. Did not state it as applicable to that particular ease, then ? A. Not as particularly applicable to that ease, but as a general rule that included his case. Q. As in fact applicable to that case, didn't you state it 1 A. Applicable to it in the sense I now give, as in- cluded in the general rule, and of course applicable to the case. Q. You stated this general rule as applicable to the par- ticular question which Mr. Til ton addressed to you % A. Yes, Sir ; as including it and covering it. Q. You understood it to apply to that ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Then it is true, Mr. Tracy, that you gave that pledge and allowed it to stand, knowing as a lawyer that it was not possible for any litigation in court to grow out of the charge as then made by Mr. Tilton, didn't you 1 A. In the sense that that general rule is a pledge I stated, and I did not Q. I did not ask yon anything about a pledge. A. [Con- tinuing] Refer to it afterward. Q. Now, Sir, that is not the question T put to you at all. Did you not leave that interview with the promise which you gave to Mr. Tilton standing, Imowing that no litiga- tion in coui't could grow out of the charge as it was then made against Mr. Beecher ? A. I did, knowing that no litigation could grow out of the direct charge as then made. Q. Then you knew that the pledge or promise which you gave was entirely inapplicable to the matter, (lion Mr. Moulton was for the documents referred to by Mr 290 IH}^ TILTON-B Til ton, do you not? A. I tWnk tliere was a call — one of tlie calls by the Committee, that that construction was placed on its language ; I am not certain whether there was any broader call than that or not. Q. Well— [Reading.] We earnestly request that you bring all letters or docu- ments in your possession which are referred to by Theo- dore TUton in his statement before the Committee. A. Yes, Sir, I think that was one form ; I have an im- pression that was written, but used slightly different language, but I am not certain. Q. No, Sir, you can testify about it as a matter of recol- lection ; don't give us the impression. A. I won't. Q. Just make yourself certain upon that point ; well, Sir, at that interview did you advise, or request, that the papers should be produced? A. You may say that I ad- vised or requested it ; I can tell what I said Q. Well, I am endeavoring to avoid a long cross-exam- ination, if I can, Sir, and to get at some leading, promi" nent facts; I have no objection to your relieving your- seK. A. I don't think the word " advised " would be strictly applicable, because I don't think Mr. Moulton was present ; at a different stage of that interview the word " advised" might be appropriate. Q. Very well; we are not standing upon phrases, Sir. A. Well, T suggested two ways that I thought Mr. Moulton could honorably pursue under the ciicum- tances. Q. Well, I don't care to go into that. A. And in no other sense did I advise or request, I think. Q. Well, I want to know whether you advised or re- quested Mr. Moulton not to present the papers before the Committee ? A. I do not think that I put my suggestions either in the form of advice or request. I thuik my sug- gestions were in the form of a statement of what in my judgment Mr. Moulton ought to do under the circum- stances. Q. Well, in your statement of what Mr. Moulton ought to do under the circumstances, did you state that it was not best for Mm to present the papers? A. I don't recol- lect that I did. Q. Well, do you say you did not ? A. Oh ! I won't swear that, Sir; all my remarks might not have taken that form— I can't say ; I remember the general fact. Q. Yes, yes ; you have answered my question. The Witness [continuing]— That was stated there, and I don't recollect any other. Q. Well, you went over to this interview, you say, at the request of Mr. Moulton? A. I did. Q. For what purpose did you go ? A. To see Gen. But- ler as counsel. Q. Well, to see him upon what subject? A. Upon the subject of Mr. Moulton's action In relation to this scandal. Q. That is, what he should do with reference to the EECRJ^B TRIAL. Examining Committee? A. Yes, Sir, what course he should pursue. Q. Did you go as counsel for Mr. Moulton ? A. No, Sir. Q. Did you consider yourself in that interview as repre- senting Mr. Moulton, or as consulting on his behalf with his counsel! A. No, Sir. Q. WeU, pray, in what capacity did you go ? A. I went, Sir, as one who had been invited to cooperate with Mr. Moulton in this matter, by Mr. Moulton himself, as a friend of IMr. Beecher— one whom he said Mr. Beecher, he thought, would accept, whose ad- vice he thought Mr. Beecher would accept, if it was in concui-rence with his own, as one who was a member of the society of Plymouth Church, and was taking part iu the effort to prevent an open scandal by the publication of these charges. Q. Went as a general philanthropist? A. No, Sir. Q. WeU, you went out of universal benevolence ? A> No, Sir ; I went as a citizen, as a member of Plymouth Church, as a friend of Mr. Beecher, and as one who had an interest in preventing the publication of a scandal that I felt would breed more demoralization than any event of the last century. Q. Well, when was it ? A. When was this interview ? Q. Yes. A. August 9. Q. What year? A. 1874. Q. Had you talked with Mr. Beecher about this scanda! before that ? . A I had. Sir. Q. When first? A. In November or December, 1872. Q. November or December, 1872 — how often between that and Aug! 9 ? A. I talked with Mr. Beecher •once. I remember, in November or December, 1872 ; I talked with him again about five minutes on the 7th of January.. 1873, at the renting of the pews at Plymouth Chm^ch ; after that I remember no conversation with Mr. Beecher on the subject of this scandal until after the publication of the "Bacon letter." Q. How soon after that ? A. On Friday night, after tha publication of the Bacon letter, which was published, I think, Wednesday. Mr. Shearman— Friday was June 26, 1874. The Witness— June 26. Mr. Beach— Well, from June 26 to July 9, how fre- quemt were your interviews with Mr. Beecher— August 9, I mean? A. August 9. Well, they were frequent; I car' fc say how frequent; sometimes every day; sometiniis twice a week ; sometimes he went to Peeksldll, and waa gone ; but when he was in the city, I should say as often as two or three times a week. Q. Did you consult and advise with him upon the sub- ject at these interviews ? A. I consulted with him. Q. Didn't you advise him? A. Yes; to a greater or less extent, I did. Q. Well, you considered yourself as his adviser, didn't you ? A. No, Sir, Q. What? A. Not in the strict sense of adviser. Ti:^TI2lOXY OF BEyJAJdiy F. IBACY. 291 Q. oil : T am not talking a'bout " strict sense" novr, Sir. A. Well, I considered myself a? an adviser, as a friend ■vrould adNise anotlier in difflcultr. Q. Yes; you did not Irno^ that Mr. Eeecliev considered you as a prominent and reliable attorney and counsel- did not suppose that, did you ? A. Xo, Sir ; not in that connection. Q. Not in what connection? A. In the connection of my relations with him. Q. And you did not suppose that Mr. Beecher sought or was grateful for yom- advice because of your profes- sion? A. I canuot say how grateful he was. or how grateful I thought him to he; I caunor say. either, that he sought my relation because of my professional posi- tion. Q. Did you suppose, Sir, that he was consulting with you and valued your ad^*ice on account of yoiir profes- sional position ? A. If I thought an}-trhing on the sub- ject, I perhaps assv^med that that entered into his calcu- lation or his motive more or less. Q. Well, Sir, with that presumption, and having had these interviews with Mr. Beecher, and having given him advice, you went to this interview at the Fifth Avenue Hotel ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Did you there state to ]vir. Benjamin F. Butler— is that his name 1 Mr, Morris— Yes. [Laughter.] Mr. Beach [continuing]— Mr. Benjamin F. Butler— tliat you represented Mr. Beecher? A. Not in that language, Sir. Q. What * A. Not in those words. Well, in substance that 1 A. No, Sir ; I undoubtedly, quite likely, did Q. Never mind what you undoubtedly did ; we don't •want any further reasoning. Now, did you not upon that occasion represent to Mr. Butler that you appeared as the representative and counsel of Mr. Beecher ? A. No, Sir. Q. You did not do so in the presence of Mr. Moulton % A. No, Sii\ Q. Well, after that interview did you see Mr. Beecher ? A.. Undoubtedly I did, after that interview. Q. I don't want any " undoubtedly ;" I want your rec- ollection, if there is any. A. Oh, I did ; yes, Sir ; yes, I eaAv him after that, of course. Q. How soon after that did you see him I A. That was the 9th. Q. Yes 1 A. I can't say. Q. Well, give me the best of your recollection f A. I undoubtedly saw him vrlthin a week after that. Mrobu.>ly "'ithin three days ; it would depend upon whetLin- he was in town or not ; I don't remember. Q. Well, was the subject of your interview ;tt the Fifth A.venue Hotel a matter of conversation betw>' ju you and Mr. Beecher 2 A. I don't recoUect positively whether it »was or not. Q. W^ell, isn't it possible foi you to refresh your recol- lection upon that subject 1 A. No, Sir; I remember no conversation between myself and 3Ir. Beecher. Q. WeU, you have answered my question. A. Oh, ex- cuse me, Sir. Q. I don't want anything further. Is that the only con ference you had with Mr. Butler in regard to this scan- dal i A. No, Sir. UEX. TRACY GOES TO BOSTON TO SEE GEN. BUTLER. Q. Where else have you. conferred with him except at the Fifth Avenue Hotel, in New-York? A. Onc< in Boston. Q. In Boston! A. Yes, Sir. Q. When was that? A. About the first of July. Q. 1S74? A. Yes. Sir. Q. Was it on the 29th of June ? A. I cannot say tlie date definitely : it is about the first of July, I know. Q. Did you go to Boston for the purpose of consulting with him ? A. I went to Bostim for the purpose Q. Did j'ou go there for that piu'pose, I asked you? A. I went to see him. Q. WTiat ? A. I went to see him on this subject. Q. Yes ; you went to see nim on this subject ; how came you to go ? A. If you apply any technical meaning to the word consult, I did not go to consult. Q. Oh, no ; to confer. A. To confer with him. Q. How came you to go ? A. Because of a message which I understood Mr. Benjamin F. Butler sent to Mr. Beecher on the subject of this scandal. Q. Who did you understand it from ? A. :Mi-. Beecher. Q. Did Mr. Beecher request you to go ? A. No, Sir. Q. No suggestion from or with him in regard to your going? A. I can tell you what occurred, Mr. Beach. Q. "Well, you can answer my question ? A. No, I can- not, without telling you what occurred. Q. You cannot say whether there was any suggestion about your going to Boston between yourself and Mr. Beecher ? A. There was a suggestion about my going ; Yes, Sir, Q. Who made the suggestion ? A. I did. Q. Did Mr. Beecher concur in it 1 A. He did not. Q. Did he object to your going ? A. He did. Q. You went contrary to his wish ? A. I cannot saj^ that. Q. Went contrary to his objection, didn'x you? A. I cannot say that. Q. Why, yiiu went, didn't you ? A. Yes. Sir. Q. And he oUiccted to yoiu' going? A. He did when the suggestion was made first. Q. Oh A. Now. I will tell you— I will state th© fact?, if you want them. Q. Oh.no; wait a minute. [Laughter.]' Mr. Shearman— Yes, ask him. 292 THE TILTON-BEECHEB IBIAL. Q. And you did not go against Mr. Beeclier's objection 1 A. Well, I can't say that, either. Q. Can't you say whether you did or not 1 A. No, Sir, Q. Well, did he withdraw the objection which he made 1 A. Well, I can't say that. Q. Well, then, if he made an objection, and didn't with- draw it. you must have gone contrary to it. A. That don't follow. Sir. Q. Doesn't it 1 A. No. Q. Well, had you any knowledge of his wish upon this subject except what he said ? A. Well, I had what I might liave Inferred was some knowledge of his wish. Q. Now, Mr. Tracy, did you go to Boston to confer with Mr. Butler with or without the concurrence of Mr. Beecher? A. I cannot tell you, Sir. Q. Can't tell me % A. I will tell you the facts, and all I know about it, and then you can judge as well as I. Q. WeU, you cannot judge, you say! A. No, Sir; I can- not accurately answer ; I Q. Can't you form a conclusion upon that subject? A. No, Sir. Q. What? A. No, Sir. Q. You can't form a conclusion? A. I cannot form one that is definite, so as to enable me to say whether I did or did not go with Mr. Beecher's wish. Q. Yes, Sir; you have no understanding upon that sub- ject 1 A. No ; I don't say that ; I have an inference on the subject. Q. What is it ? A. Well, Sir, I have an inference that, after Mr. Beecher objected to my going at night, lie had seen Mr. Shearman in the morning and withdrawn his objections, and Mr. Shearman came to me and advised me to go, and my de- termination to go was the result of the conversation between Mr. Shearman and myself, and from the fact of Mr. Shearman's coming to me and consenting after being present at Mr. Beecher's objections, I inferred, without asking any questions about it, that Mr. Beecher had withdrawn the objections that he made the night be- fore, and I went to Boston. Q. Well, when you went, you supposed you were going with the concurrence of Mr. Beecher, didn't you ? A. I didn't suppose I was going Q. Now, did you suppose that or not ? A. I supposed he had withdrawn his objection- — Q. Did you suppose you were going with the concur- rence of Mr. Beecher ? A. I did not know whether Mr. Beecher knew I was going. Q. I ask you if you supposed you were going with the concurrence of Mr. Beecher ? A. I did not suppose any- thing about it. Q. You did not? A. No. Q. You had no idea about it ? A. Not definitely ; no. Q. Oh 1 not definitely. I asked you if you had any idea about it. [Laughter.] Judge Neilson— Gentlemen, please be quiet. A. I have stated to you all I know about it. Q, Now, wait, Mr. Tracy ; I am not asking you for a definite and unqualified fact ; I am asking you. Sir, as a man of intelligence and sense, whether, when you went to Boston, you supposed you were going with the con- currence of Mr. Beecher? A. I supposed Q. Now, I want you to answer that question. A. Well, I can't answer it, if your Honor please. Q. You can tell what you supposed. A. No, I can't say that I supposed that Mr. Beecher knew I was going when I started, and how I could know that I was going with his concurrence Q. You understood from Mr. Shearman that his objec- tion to your going had been withdrawn, didn't you 1 A. I say I inferred it. Q. Well, you understood it 1 A. Not from Mr. Shear- man ; no. Sir. Q. Didn't you suppose it? A. I supposed it; yes, Sir. Q. Then we will start there. You supposed his objec- tion had been withdrawn ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. And yet you had no supposition when you went whether you were going with the concurrence of Mr, Beecher or not ? A. Well, it is a mere speculation ; Mr. Beecher Q. Ah, a speculation 1 Is it not a conclusion of your own mind ? A. No, Sir ; I have no conclusion upon the subject. Q. T am asking what you supposed in your own mind, when Mr. Beecher's objection was withdi-awn to your go- ing A. I did not know that it was withdrawn. Q. You said you supposed it had been withdrawn. A. I said I inferred, from the fact of Mr. Shearman's coming to me, that he would not have come without Mr. Beecher had withdrawn his objection. Q. When you inferred that Mr. Beecher had withdrawn his objection, did you not suppose you were acting in accordance with his wish ? A. I cannot say that I sup posed one way or the other on the subject at that time. Q. Yes A. I don't think that I speculated on the question. Q. You went on to Boston ? A. I acted on the Q. Wait a minute. You went on to Boston to confer with Mr. Butler upon that subject, in which you con- ceived Mr. Beecher to be deeply interested, without hav- ing any idea in your own mind as to whether you were acting in accordance with the wishes of Mr. Beecher or against his wishes. Do you mean to swear that? A. I mean to swear that I went to Boston on the responsibility of Mr. Shearman ; and beyond that I did not inquire, and did not consider nor speculate, as to whether I was going with Mr. Beecher's knowledge or with Mr. Beecher's con- currence. Q. Mr. Tracy, when Mr. Shearman came to you ana consulted with you, and, under his advice, you went to Boston, did it not occur to you whether Mr. Beecher's ob- jection had been withdrawn or not ? A. I say \t did, nnd TUSTmONF OF BE I inferred from tlie fact of Ws coming tliat it had been -withdrawn. Q. And when you made that inference that that objec- tion had been withdrawn, you mean to say, do you, that the idea did not occur to you whether you were going to Boston in accordance with or against his wish 1 A. Ah, I don't say that, Mr. Beach. Q. You don't, eh? A. I never supposed I was going there against the wish of Mr. Beecher. Q. Well, I have been asking you that for some time 1 A. No, Sir, you have not. I beg pardon. That is exactly what you have not been aslring. Mr. Evarts— There is a distinction that he wanted to make. Mr. Beach— No, Sir; no, Sir : it is not a distinction that "he wanted to make, nor is it a distinction that my ques- tion admits. The Witness— It is just the distinction that I wanted to make, and have been trying to make all the time. Mr. Beach— Wl at prevented you from making it 1 The Witness— Simply because of the form of the ques- tion : this is the first time that you have asked the ques- tion in that form. Mr. Beach fto the stenographer] — Please give me those questions, two or three of them, and let us see. Mr. Shearman— How far back do you want him to go 1 Mr. Beach— Just as far back as you want him to go. [The Tribune stenographer read several of the pre- ceding questions and answers.] Mr, Beach— That will do ; I guess my questions do not prevent him from answering. The Witness— That is the first time that I understood your question— that I understood you to ask me if I went against .Mr. Beach— Then you had better understand the ques- tions as we go along. The Witness— Well, I think that is the first question, Mr. Beach, where you asked me that. When I say that I wanted to make that, I say Mr. Beach— Wait, wait. The Witness— WeU, if you won't permit me to ex- plain Mr. Beach— You saw Mr. Butler in Boston, did youl A. Te.s Sir. Q. And that, you say, was about the 1st of July, 1874 1 A. I think it was, Sir. Q. Had the Comraittee then been formed— called 1 A. Substantially. Q. The Investigating Committee 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. The Investigating Committee had then been named, hadn't it 1 A. I am not certain but one name was added after I went to Boston. Q. Whose name was that ! A. I should say it was Mr. White's, but I am not certain of that. Q DM[ you tell Mr. Butler anything about the calling t:irt V FnyfiHtigatlng Committee t A. I did not. SJAMm F. TEAOT. 293 THE INTERVIEW WITH GEN. BUTLER. Q. What was the subject of your conversa- tion with Mr. Butler 1 A. It was about the message he had sent to Mr. Beecher, and his knowledge of the scandal. Q. Was it not upon the subject of the best policy to be pursued in suppressing the scandal 1 A. The latter part of the conversation may have taken some turn of that description ; I don't remember about that. Q. Did Mr. Butler tell you that he knew what the char- acter of the accusation was against Mr. Beecher ? A. I don't remember whether he did or not. Q. You don't remember? A. I don't remember. Sir, whether Gen. Butler and I discussed his knowledge ; I don't know that he professed to have any special knowl- edge about the case, aside from what was gathered in the prints. I went there on the supposition Q. Oh, I don't want your suppositions. A. Exactly. Q. Did not Mr. Butler in that interview in words or in substance inform you that he understood the charge against Mr. Beecher to be improper connection with Mrs. Tilton 1 A. He may, or may not. Q. You cannot tell me now whether he did or not 1 A. I don't remember what Gen, Butler said he understood the charge to be, and I don't remember that he made any statement of what he understood the charge to be. Q. It is enough for you to say that you don't remember. You don't remember, you say 1 A. No, I don't say that 1 —I say that I don't remember definitely^— Q. Definitely ! What are you covering up under the word definitely 1 A. Nothing. ANOTHER CONSULTATION WITH GEN. BUTLER. Q. Very well then leave it out— you don't remember. WeU, did you have an interview with Mi Butler on the 20th of July 1 A. I did. Q. Where was that 1 A. At Mr, Moulton's house. Q. How came that interview about 1 A. I think Mi Moulton sent for me. Q. How did you learn that Mr, Butler was in New- York or Brooklyn? A, I think Mr. Moulton told me. Q, Was that the first you knew of his presence in New- York on that occasion ? A. July 20—1 think I knew that he was to come. Q. For the purpose of that interview ? A. What ? Q. For the purpose of an interview t A. For the purpose —on the subject of this scandal. Q. Well, for an interview ? A, For an interview. Q. With you ? A. No, not definitely with me. Q. Not with you! A. Not with me, aside from Mr. Moulton and the Q. Not with you 1 A. I supposed that I was to be notl> fied when he did come. 294 THE TILTON-B Q. And you siipposad that you would have an interview with him ? A. I supposed so. Q. Didn't you telegraph for him to come on 1 A. I did on one occasion. Q. Was not that the occasion ? A. I think not. Q. When was it ? A. I think my telegram to Gen. But- ler was at a later date. Q. When do you think it was % A. I think it was later ; I have got it here. [Referring to the telegram.J Yes Sir ; I am correct. Q. Did you not on this occasion, July 20, summon him to New- York 1 A. I think not ; I don't remember that I did. Q. Is that all you will say about it 1 A. That is all I will say about it ; I say I have no recollection. Q. What was the interview at Mr. Moulton's house about? A. It was about Mr. Tilton's proposed statement. Q. Well, did you understand, then, that Mr. Moulton was endeavoring to suppress the statement, to prevent the statement being made 1 A. I did. Q. You understood that Mr. Moulton was laboring for the purpose of avoiding any publication of this scandal at that time, didn't you ? A. I did. Q. At that interview of July 20th was it arranged in substance that the meeting of the Committee ;'or that night shoriild be postponed in some form, or put off? A. Not arranged., Mr. Beach — that does not express it. Q. Well, was it suggested ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. That the meeting which was called for July 20th, of the Committee, should be put oft, to give Mr. Moulton more time to control Mr. Tilton if possible ? A. To give Mr. Moulton and Gen. Butler more time. Q. Well, Mr. Moulton and Mr, Butler ? A. Yes, Sir ; that was suggested. Q. Was not that understood to be the purpose of the thi-ee parties ? A. The pm-pose of Q. At that meeting was not that understood to be a purpose to be accomi)lished ? A. By the postponement of the meeting of the Committee? Q. Yes A. Yes Q. Well, was not the suggestion made that yovi would not be present at the meeting of the Committee on that evening, and that if you were not present tbe meeting would not go on ? Was such a suggestion made ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Now, was not that the understanding A. Yes, Sir, I think that part of it was an understanding, that T should not be present Q. And that therefore the meeting would be postponed and Mr. Tilton and Mr. Butler were to A. Ah I that don't express it, Mr. Beach. I can tell you what occmred exactly. I think I can Q. No, I don't think you can ? A. I think I can. Q. Do you pretend to give exactly what occurred at these meetings? A. Not at all these meetings. Q. Well, at any of them ? A. I think I can tell you ex- actly what occurred on this occasion. Eb^CHER TRIAL. Q. Exactly ? A. Well, if you put a very limited mean ing on the word " exact," perhaps not; but I can give you substantially what occurred at this meeting, and really what occurred. Q. That is another thing. Because I want to know— if you are undertaking to give the precise language used at these meetings, I want to understand it. Are you pre- tending to that ? A. No, Sir ; when I am repeating con- versations r am not, as a rule, professing to give the pre- cise words, but the substance. Q. I supposed not. Was it not arranged and under- stood between Mr. Butler and Mr. Moulton and yourself, at this meeting on July 20, that you should not be present at the meeting of the Investigating Committee called for that evening, and was it not expected that in conse- quence of that absence of yourself that meeting would be postponed, and no proceedings taken on the evening of July 20 ? A. I cannot answer your question yes or no, Mr. Beach. Q. Weil. A. I will tell you what occurred. Q. Well, I will get it by somebody else, if you cannot answer it. Was it expected that Mr. Tilton would make his statement to the Investigating Committee on the evening of July 20 ? A. That was expected ; yes, Sir. Q. Well, you did appear on that evening at the Com- mittee? A. I did. Q. And the meeting was held ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. And Mr. Tilton made his statement ? A. Yes, SiT. Q. That, I understand, was the first statement, where he refused to make a statement, and whore he did not make a statement ? A. Oh, no ; that was Ms long state- ment ; that was the sworn statement. Q. July 20 ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Well, I was mistaken ; I thought it was the former one. Now, you afterward saw Gen. Butler, you say? A. Yes, Sir. A STATEMENT DICTATED BY GEN. BUTLER. Q. Where was that*^ A. At the Fifth Avenue Hotel. Q. When was it ? A. Aug. 9, 1874. Q. That is the interview spoken of ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Did you see him upon any other occasion ? A. Ye3, Sir. Q. Where was that ? A. I saw him on the evening of Aug. 10, at Mr. Moulton's house, and I saw him next morning. Q. Where was that, next morning ? A. That was at my room. Q. Your room— where ? A. In Montague-st. Q. At youi- house— where you lived ? A. I was board- ing at the time. Q. In your room at your boarding place, then ? A. Yes Q. Who was present at that interview 1 A. His private secretary. Q. Any one else ? A. I think not, Sir. TESIIMOXI OF Bl Q. Are ron quite certain about tliat t A. I am. Q. Was Mr. Beeclier in the house 1 A. No, Sir. Q. Had he been that day* A. No, Sir ; he never -was in the house, to my knowledge. Q. Were you ajid Mr. Butler then preparing a card to be issued or spoken by Mr. Beecher 1 A. No, Sir, Q. Were you not preparing some paper for Mr. Beecher to use t A. No, Sir. Q. What? A. No, Sir. Q. No paper for Mr. Beecher to use 1 A. No, Sir. Q. Were you preparing any paper? A. No, Sir. Twill state what occurred, if you want it. Q. Well, when I do, I will tell you. Were you pre- paring any statement? A. Well, I will say, Mr. Beach, that in that interview Q. Just answer my answer. A. I say that we were not ; I can state to you what occurred, precisely. Q. Wait a moment. You seem to be somewhat disposed to be critical, and I am inclined to indulge you. A. I see you are. Q. You say we were not. Was either you or Mr. Butler preparing a statement ? A. Mr. Butler— General Butler did Q. Can't you answer my question? A. No; I will answer it by stating what occurred. Q. No, you won't. I beg your pardon. Was either you or Mr. Butler preparing a statement on that occasion ? A. Mr. Butler dictated to his stenographer, or started to, and did to some extent, and quit on a conversation be- tween: himself and me; we had a conversation Q. Now, I am not asking for the details of that inter "View. I ask you simply the question whether either party dictated a statement, or prepared a statement A. You did not ask me whether he dictated. Q. Well, prepared a statement, I said. You have forced npun me matter which occurred, which I did not call for. Now, will you answer my question whether or not either you or Mr. Butler upn-^ that occasiou prepared a state- ment? A. I say vr- ' ' -. Q. Dill you prepare ::irt of a statement? A. :Mr'. Burler dictated Q. Did either of your prepare any part of a statement ? A. Mr. Butler dictated to his stenographer, who took down in shorthand Q. Well, Sir, I don't want it to be supposed that I ridl out what transpired at that inte rview, so as to mal:,:' :t the subject of evidence, for I do nor care to have it in. Judge Neilson— In orh : wortls, you don't ask for the ci'Uversation. Mr. Beach— No. Sir; hut this gentleman insists upon stating it. Mr. Evarcs— He asks whether either of the parties pre- pared a statem-ut, and tlie wl^n-'^s answers that Gen. Butler did dictate to u :-teuographer, who reported, or wrote in shorthand, sumethiug. '.XJAmS F. TRACY. 2^0 Judge Neilson — The answer may be well enough, if it is understood that it is not bringing in the conversation. Mr. Evarts— Well, it is not. That is all. He is asked if he prepared a statement, and he says that Gen. Butlei dictated to a stenographer, who wrote down Judge Neilson— A statement, In part. Mr. Evarts — I suppose so. I don't know what it was, 1 am sure. Mr. Beach— Was the statement completed? A. No Sir ; you mean that day? Judge Neilson— At that time ? Mr. Beach— I was going to add, then or afterward ? A. Now, I can't tell you that. I can tell you what occtu-red. Q. No you won't. Judge Neilson [to witness]— You have answered the question. Mr. Beach— Was that partial statement, partly prepared aud left unfinished, a statement designed for the use of 3Ir. Beecher? A. No, Sir ; it was designed for my use so far as it was designed at all. Q. For your use on behalf of Mr. Beecher? A. In one sense. It was suggestions to me. Q. Was it not suggestions in regard to a statement con- templated to be made or submitted to Mr. Beecher 1 A. It was a statement of what Gen. Butler thought Mr, Beecher's statement should be, made to me. Q. Very well. A. That is what it was, or purported to be, and he started to make it and then stopped. It was giving me his ideas on the case. Q. Did he take that off with him ! A. He did. Q. Did he afterward send you a full statement pre- pared? A. He sent me afterward a package which I never read Q. Now, Mr. Tracy will you answer my question 1 A. Well, T cannot tell you whether it was completed or not. Mr. Shearman— How can the witness tell whether it was a statement when he does not know that it was ? Mr. Beach— Cau't he say so, then? Mr. Shearman— Well, this is the fair and honest way of answering it. ^Iv. Beach— Well, I don't think it is either fair or honest. Mr. Shearman— I do. Mr. Beach— Very well. If you want to get into a con- troversy on that subject, let us have it out. Mr. Shearman— Very weU, let us have it out. The wit- ness is asked Judge Neilson [rapping on his desk |— That will do, ■ gentlemen. The witness says that Gen. Butler sent him some papers, which he did not read. Mr. Shearman— And I submit to your Honor that that is a fair and honest answer, and the only one that could be fairly and honestly made to the question. That is my proposition. Judge Neilson— I regard it as an answer. There is no occasion to say whether it is honest or not. The witness needs no compliments. 298 THE TILIOI^-BBFJJHER TRIAL. Mr. Shearman— Well, the counsel upon tlie other side V7as attacking the witness, when he said that it was neither fair nor honest. Judge Neilson— That was improper. Mr. Beach— It was not improper, Sir, in answer to the remark of the counsel upon the other side. Judge Neilson— If it was not applied to the witness, very well. Mr. Shearman— Then we are to understand that the gentleman's remarks are made entirely in a Pickwickian sense. Judge Neilson — Very well. Mr. Beach— Well, Sir, I know nobody more competent to deal in Pickwickian language than that gentleman. [Laughter.] Q. Mr. Tracy, did you afterward receive from Gen. But- ler a paper purporting to he a proposed statement for Mr. Beecher? A. I afterward received Q. Will you answer my question ? A. I cannot tell yon. Sir, for I never read it. Q. Did you ever read the letter accompanying that paper ? A. I am not sure that any letter did accompany it; if there was I have forgotten it. Q. You have forgotten that Mr. Butler wrote you a let- ter accompanying a package of papers he sent to you ? Mr. Evarts— Does he say he has forgotten ? When we " forget" a thing it implies we once knew it. He says he does not know if there was one. Judge Neilson— There is something in that distinction. Mr. Evarts — He says, " I don't know there was such a paper ; if there was I have forgotten it." Mr. Beach— What is my question ? Judge Neilson— Whether he read the letter. Mr. Beach— I think not. Let the stenographer read the question. [TTie Tribune stenographer read question and an- swer.] Mr. Beach— You have forgotten whether or not he sent you a letter? A. I have no distinct recollection; since you speak of it, it seems to me I did see a letter accom- panying the package, but I am not certain— or that came at the same time with the package. Q. Did not that letter in words or substance state to you that the offense of Mr. Beecher was adultery, or inter- cou»ee with Mrs. Tilton, and that the paper sent was the be^t statement he could make under the circumstances 1 A. If Gen. Butler wrote me a letter I would assume that was what was in the letter, because I know that that was Gen. Butler's view of the case at the tteae, and he was trying to see what kind of a statement he could make, on the supposition that Mr. Beecher was guilty. Q. Exactly 1 Exactlj' ! That was the basis or the aspect of the case represented by Mr. Butler in your conferences with hlml A. Not in afl the conferences. Q. In the conferences in Boston and the conferences here 1 A. About the conferences in Boston I don't re- member wuat Gen. Butler's impression or supposition was; I don't know that he stated it; I know distinctly that iu the interview at Moulton's house, on Aug. 10, Mr. Butler assumed Mr. Beecher's guilt. Q. What did you do vrith the package of papers 1 A. I returned it to Gen. Butler, without even keepiug a copy of it. Q. When did you return it? A. Well, it is within, I think, two months ; it was buried up in my papers ; I got the boy overhauling my papers, this Winter, and had a general overhauling, and that paper turned up; I had not seen it before since the time I got it ; I directed it to b& sent back to Gen. Butler, and I suppose it was. Q. When you and Gen. Butler parted, at the time of the interview at your room, did you not part with the understanding that he would prepare and for- ward to you a statement ? A. Yes ; he said it would con- tinue Q. Wait ; you :i;ive answered my quesdon. I did not ask that. A. You say a statement. I don't know what you call a statement ; it was not called a statement by Gen. Butler; that is not what he called it, nor what I called it. Judge Neilson — You mean a written view about it. Q. Well, if it was not a statement, what was it? A. Well, it was his views of Mr. Beecher's case, as he would present them. Q. Well, was it not in a form to be presented by some- body else beside Mr. Butler \ A. That I don't know, for I never read it. Q. Did you not hear the dictation % A. I heard what proceeded in the dictation. Q. Yes, Sir ; was it not in the form of a statement 1 A. I think it began in the form of a statement — yes, Sir. Q. Now, when he left, was it not the arrangement be- tween him and you that he should continue, or finish what he had begun ? A, I think it was. Q. Did you not request him to do it? A. After he offered to. . Q. After he offered to ! fLaughter.J You are sure that you did not do it until after he offered 1 A. I am sure. Q. But you did request him? A. Yes, Sir, after h» offere;!. Q. After he offered to do it, you requeste 1 him ; and y'?t when the paper came on here you did not deign to look atiti A. I did not, for it was too ; Q. When did it come 1 A. My recollection is it did not arrive until after Mr. Beecher's statement was pre- pared and published ; I am not, however, certain of that ; some days elapsed, and I had given up hearing from Gen. Butler on the subject, and I think, if I remember coiv rectly, that it was the very moruiug that Mr. Beecher's statement was pub'ished that I received this package from Gen. Butler, but of that I am n >t certain ; I Imowl did not read it at the time ; I know that. Q. Now, was it not understood or arranged, or dl» TESTIMONY OF BIB. oussed, between you and ]VIr. Butler, tliat tliis paper, wlucli Butler was suggesting or preparing, should be pre- sented and read by Mr. Beeeber to bis ebureb, and tbat Mr. Beecber sbouldmakeno statement before tbe Investi- gating Committee ? A. Mr. Butler made a suggestion of how be would treat tbis case. Q. Ob 1 jyir. Tracy, please answer my question ? A. Ee- peat it, ISIr. Beacb. Mr. Beacb— Tbe stenographer will please read it. Tbe Tribune stenographer read tbe question as follows : " Q. Now, was it not understood or arranged or dis- cussed between you and Mr. Butler, tbat tbis paper wMcb Butler was suggesting or preparing sbould be presented and read by ]Vlr. Beecber to bis cbiu'cb, and tbat Mr. Beecber sbould make no statement before tbe Investigating Committee V A. It was not arranged or underst('Od, or anything of the kind; that was Mr. But- ler's suggestion. Q. I ask you if it was not discussed 1 A. It was men- tioned by Gen. Butler— yes, Sir. Q. Was it discussed? A. I think it was discussed, in tbe sense that he made tbe proposition. Q. Yes. Well, was it not also, in connection with that suggestion, understood that Mr. Moulton should give up to Gen. Butler all the papers which he had, connected with the subject] A. It was not imderstood. Q. Was it not arranged tbat be should do it 1 A. No, Sir ; not that I remember. Q. Will you swear it was not arranged tbat be should do it 1 A. In what contingency ? Let me understand tbe question. Q. In what contingency ! In any contingency— that be sbould give up the papers that he held to Gen. Butler ? A. Gen. Butler said in tbe conversation, some part of It Q. I don't want that. A. I cannot speak of any propo- sition Gen. Butler made to me, that was an arrange- ment or imderstanding or an agreement ; I cannot say tbat. OFFER TO SHOW THE WITNESS'S ANIMUS. Q. Wlien you left from that interview, did you not understand tbat Mr. Moulton was to give up all tbe papers be held to Mr. Butler i A. No, Sir ; I can't say tbat I imderstood it. Q. And you don't know tbat Mr. Moulton sent on all tbe papers to Mi\ Butler, in compliance with tbe under- etanding formed at that interview ? i.. No, Sir. Q. Do you swear to tbat 1 A. No, Sir ; I imderstood Gen. Butler was to have Mr. Moulton deliver the papers If be could, or be made a suggestion tbat be should do it. Q. I don't want to go into details on tbe subject bo as to open it. Mr. Evarts— I think it is opened, Mr. Beach— I supposed not ; I have tried to keep it shut. Hr, Evarts— You have not succeeded. '^JAMIN p. TRACY, 297 Mr. Beacb— I am sorry; but if you bave any desire explore it, you have my full consent. Mr. Beach [to Mr. Morris]— What is tbis letter of But- ler's? Is this of any importance? [Looking at letter.] Mr. Beach— Did you ever see tbis letter, Mr. Tracy f [Showing letter to witness.] [Tbe witness looks at tbe letter, occupying a long time- in reading it.] Mr. Beacb— You are a mighty bad reader. Tbe Witness — I am ; I bave just discovered when tliis^ was written, now; I can't say tbat I ever saw tbat letter, IVIr. Beach ; I see when it was writtem and tbe occasion when it was wi-itten. Q. Was it not wi-itten in your presence ! A. I don't recollect that it was.' Q. Will you swear it was not ? A. No, I will not swear that it was not ; I know that G^n. Butler Mr. Beach— Wait ! wait ! unless you want to go into an argument. [Turning to Mr. Morris.] I don't see the im- portance of this letter, or tbe pertinency of it yet. If anybody else does, and tells me what it is, I will follow it up and give it in evidence. [To tbe witness.] Do you recollect tbe conversation you bad with Mrs. Moulton on the evening of Aug. 10, being Monday evening ! A. Yes, Sir. Q. That was tbe evening after Mr. Moulton bad made what is called tbe short statement ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. In place of tbe long one 1 A. Yes, Sir. Mr. Evarts— What is that, Mr. Beach ? Mr. Beacb— Tbe interview with Mrs. Moulton of August tbe lOtb. Mr. Evarts— We do not understand tbat an interview between Mr. Tracy and Mrs. Moulton is proper. Judge Neilson— It has not been inquired into, has it . Mr. Evarts— No, Sir. Judge Neilson— Then the counsel will not go into it. Mr. Beacb— I think I will, Sir. Mr. Fullerton—That does not follow, if your Honor please. Judge Neilson— It would follow, unless you propose to show Mrs. M'oulton gave the witness notice of something that he ought to know. As evidence of a conversation it- would not be admissible. ^Ir. Fullerton— Why, Sir, the dealing of tbis witness with any person connected with this case is a proper sub- ject of inquiry. Mr. Evarts — I don't understand bow Mr. Tracy is so identified with Mr. Beecber that conversations with him. can be given. We could not get Mr. Moulton into tbat position. I Mr. Fullerton- We do not propose to bold Mr. Beecber responsible for what Mr. Tracy did there. It is Mr. Tracy himself. We have a right to show tbe animus of the witness, connected with what he did and said. I*Ir. Evarts— Oh, if it is a question of bias, veiy well. 298 TEE TILTON-B Mr. Pullerton— Then you should not have objected until you knew what it was. Mr. Evarts— Yes, we have a right to ohject untU we un- earth the object. Mr. Fullerton— It lay on the top of the earth, to be seen with half an eye. Judge Neilson— I confess I didn't see it until you sug- gested it. Mr. Fallerton— Then I am glad that I made the sugges- gestion, your Honor. Judge Neilson — I believe it is time to adjourn. Mr. Beach— If your Honor wishes, I am willing to go on. The Court then adjourned until Friday at 11 o'clock. SEVENTY-SIXTH DAY'S PROCEEDINGS. THE DEFENSE RESTS. DECLINING TO CALL MRS. TILTON. B. F. Tracy's conversations with mrs. moulton INQUIRED INTO— ONE OP THEM DECLARED BY THE WITNESS TO BE CONFIDENTIAL— QUESTIONS AS TO THE SUPPOSED POSSIBILITY OF THE DE- STRUCTION OF THE SCANDAL DOCUMENTS— MR. TRACY THE LAST WITNESS FOR THE DEFENSE— plaintiff's COUNSEL OFFER TO ALLOW MRS TILTON TO testify— MR. EVARTS DECLINES THE PROPOSITION— OPENING TESTIMONY FOR THE PLAINTIFF IN RKBUTTAL— CHARLES C. STANLEY, GEO. W. MADDOX, AND JOHN SWINTON TESTIFY ABOUT MR. TILTON'S PLACE IN THE ROSSEL PRO- CESSION. Friday, April 30, 1875. Mr. Beach resumed the cross-examination of Gen. Tracy. His first question was whether the witness had not been consulting with his fellow-counsel about his testimony just before taking the witness chair. This was the provocation of several sharp replies as it was followed up by similar questions. One 01 the most important portions of the cross- examination to-day related to an interview be- tween Gen. Tracy and Mrs. Moulton about the time when Mr. Moulton's short statement to the Commit- tee was substituted for his long one. Mr. Beach asked if the witness at that interview had said to Mrs. Moulton, " Emma, you are a brave woman ; you have saved the old man to-day," and if he had questioned her whether she wouldn't destroy the papers if Jeremiah P. Robinson advised it. and had said to her, "If Frank ever uses that statement and the letters, you will be ruined socially, financially, and in every way." Mr. Tracy replied that he had WI^OHEB TRIAL. had a conversation with Mrs. Moulton on the subjects referred to in Mr. Beach's question, but that in sub- stance it was not what the question em- bodied. Before replying in reference to this con- versation Mr. Tracy objected to going into it, on the ground that it was a confidential conversation be- tween Mrs. Moulton and himself. Again, on his re- direct examination, Mr. Tracy said that he hoped he would not be questioned about the details of that conversation, but his obiection was set aside. He testified that nothing at that time was said about the destruction of the papers, either then or at a future date. Mr. Tracy denied that he had made other statements of a similar character in a previous conversation with Mrs. Moulton in 1874. Mr. Beach said that he intended to recall Mrs. Moulton and question her in reference to these conversations. Mr. Moulton's short statement was read by Mr. Beach, and the acts of the Investigating Committee were once more inquired into, and the circumstances of Mr. Richards's refusal to testify before the Com- mittee were touched upon. Mr. Beach asked some very searching queijtions about the relations of the witness with newspapers, and endeavored to find out if he had sought to influence any leading news- papers in favor of Mr. Beecher after the publication of the Bacon letter. Mr. Tracy said he had not sought to influence the course of any paper, although he had talked with newspaper men about the scandal. The re-direct examination of Mr. Tracy by Mr. Evarts was short. It drew out the fact that before Mr. Tilton's sworn statement was made public Mr. Tracy had consulted with others in reference to pro- curing an injunction to prevent the destruction of the papers. There was genuine surprise exhibited among the spectators, when, having asked a teyi more questions of the witness, Mr. Evarts turned to the Court and said in a low voice, " We rest." Few had expected that the defense would finish their case this week, as it was understood that there were a number of important witnesses yet to be called on that side. THE DEFENSE DECLINE TO CALL MRS. TILTON. Immediately ttfter the closing of the case for the defense Mr. Beach arose, and after remarking that during the course of the trial many references had been made to the fact that there were legal obsta- cles in the way of Mrs. Tilton's becoming a witness against her husband, he announced that the proseoa- TESTIMONY OF BE SJAMLN F. TRACT. 299 tion would make no objection whatever, and would waive entirely any legal objection, which they might have the right to make, to Mrs. Tilton's being called as a witness by the defense. Mr. Evarts replied that the question whether Mrs. Tilton could be a witness in this case had never been an actual question. " The law," said he, " prohibits it ; the- policy of the law prohibits it ; the general sense of the wisdom of that law pro- hibits it." The defense, he continued, had no opin- ion and no view that their case needed any more testimony than they had produced. All questions about their duty to introduce such evidence were hypothetical, and he should not have alluded to them in the least but for the proposition of the plaintilFs counsel. Mr. Beach replied that he thought Mr. Evarts was mistaken m his view of the policy of the law, and the question whether a wife should be allowed to defend herseK when placed in Mrs. Tilton's position. I Mr. Evarts finally said that he did not regard con- sent or stipulation between the parties in opposition to a law which excluded a witness on the ground of public policy as making hiin or her competent. Judge Neilson remarked that the offer having been made, and the question presented, and the learned counsel for the defense thinking it their duty to de- cline to accept the suggestion, he felt gratified that , the lady was not to be called. The vexed question of Mrs. Tilton s becoming a witness, which has led to 80 much rumor and conjecture, was thus finally settled. MR. TILTON'S PLACE IN THE ROSSEL PRO- CESSION. The plaintiff's counsel began their evidence in re- buttal by introducing witnesses to prove that Mr. Tilton did not ride with Mrs. Woodhull and Miss Claflin in the Rossel procession in December, 1871, and that Gen. Ryan had been mistaken for Mr. Til- ton. The first witness was Charles C. Stanley, a journeyman carpenter of Brooklyn, who had seen the procession, and who testified that he had seen Mr. Tilton walking with a gentleman during a large part of the march of the procession. His evi- dence was followed up by that of George W. Maddox, a real estate broker of New- York, who had been in the procession. He testified that he had seen Mr. iTilton walking in the procession, and not in company with any lady. On his cross-examination by Mr. Evarts, this witness created much anmsement by droll replies. Mr. Evarts asked him if he had ever been con- connected with a newspaper as a reporter. " Not as a reporter," replied the witness ; "I published a paper myself— got out three whole numbers." A roar of laughter succeeded this reply, while Judge Neil- son rapped angrily with his gavel, and the officers looked around bewildered. "Into whose hands did the paper pass!" asked Mr. Evarts. "It passed into— defunct," was the dry reply. This produced another burst of merriment, and the wit- ness covered his mouth with his hand and laughed slyly at his own joke. " Then," said Mr. Evarts, " it passed from the undertaker into the hands of the undertaker." The name of the short-lived paper was The International. Mr. Evarts wanted to know at what points the witness had seen Mr. Tilton in the Rossel procession. " It would be quite impossible," replied the witness, "for me to designate any particular point where I saw him— that is," he added by a pause, "I think I can't tell ; but peg away, perhaps I can.'- Mr. John Swinton was the last witness called for the plaintiff. He testified that he had marched arm in arm with Mr. Tilton from near the point where the Rossel procession was formed to the place where it disbanded, and that Mr. Tilton had not walked wyfch Mrs. Woodhull or Miss Claflin. Mr. Swinton proved to be an amusing witness when cross-examined. He had stated that he had allowed the procession to get out of sight and had attempted to head it off by cut- ting through side streets, and that he had finally reached it near the middle where he found Mr. Til- ton ; from that point he added that he could see neither end of it. " Was it on a trot ?" asked Mr. Evarts. " Well,* replied the witness, " I'm of an indolent habit, and perhaps as I went along I was musing on the in- finite." " And you struck the infinite," quickly re- turned Mr. Evarts, " about the middle, so that you could see neither end of it." The Court adjourned half an hour before the usual time, by request of the plaintiiFs lawyers, whose wit- nesses were not all at hand. On Monday they will produce other testimony in regard to the Rossel pro- cession, and will also introduce testimony con- cerning Mrs. Woodhull's relations to the case. 300 THE TILIVN-I THE PROCEEDINGS— VERBATIM. GEN. TRACY'S CROSS-EXAMINATION CON- TINUED. The Court met at 11 a. m., pursuant to ad- jOTUTiment. Judge Neilson— We will proceed, gentlemen. Benjamin F. Tracy was recalled, and his cross-exam- ination resumed. Mr. Beach— Have you been consulting with Mr. Evarts this morning in regard to your testimony? A. Mr. Evarts Q. Have you been consulting with him in regard to your testimony ? A. I cannot say that. He said to me that he should probably ask me a question, half a minute before I took my seat here. Q. A half a minute? A. Yes ; the last thing he did. Q. How long were you in consultation with him? A. Long enough for him to say to me, " I shall probably ask you " Q. Wait a moment I A. Excuse me. Long enough for him to pronounce a sentence of half a dozen worde, probably. Q. Is that all? A. That is all, Sir, on the subject. Q. That is the whole length of the conversation yiJuhad with him ? A. That is the whole length of the conversa- tion that I had, with Mr. Evarts this morning, on the sub- ject of my evidence. I talked with him in other respects, on another subject entirely. Q. Not on the subject of the case ? A. Not on the sub- ject of the case, or the evidence of the case. Q. Or on any matter connected with the case ? A. A matter connected with it, in regard to me personally ; yes. Sir. A CONFIDENTIAL TALK BETWEEN GEN. TRACY AND MRS. MOULTON. Q. Yes, I was calling your attention, Sii', yesterday, to a conversation you had with Mrs. Moulton ; when was that, with reference to the statement which was made by Mr. Moulton before the Committee ? A. It was the statement — the short statement, you mean ? Q. It was on that night A. The same evening. Q. At the time of that interview had you learned— did you understand that that short statement had been sub- stituted for a proposed long statement ? A, I did. Q. And that Mrs. Moulton had been to a degree instru- mental in accomplishing the substitution ? A. To a very large degree, I understood. Q. To a very large degree. Is that the short statement to which you refer, Mr. Tracy [indicating a statement in " The Great Brooklyn Romance "] ? A. [After looking.] Glancing at it, without reading it, Mr. Beach, I assume that it is. Q. That is the statement in this book which purports to ave been given on Aug. 10 ? A. Yes, Sir, Aug. 10. EEGREB TBIAL. Q. 1874 ? A. Yes. Sir. Q. Did you have, upon the occasion to which we refer, this conversation with Mrs. Moulton in substance — The Witness— Before you proceed to read, Mr. Beach, will you allow me to say Mr. Beach— Anything, Sir. The Witness— That at the time that I had that conver- sation I regarded it as confidential, with Mrs. Moulton. I assume, by your going into it, that you have the lady's consent to open that conversation here. Mr. Beach— Well, T have not asked her consent. I do not undei'Stand, though, that she makes any objection to your speaking of it. The Witness— Very well, Sir ; I assume that the lady consents. Mr. Evarts— We shall assume, if your Honor please, if this conversation is drawn out in part by the platntiflf * coimsel, that, so far as any question of confidence goes, this witness is relieved in regard to any of the rest of it. Mr. Beach— Well, I do not know what all this solemn formality means. Sir. I have never understood that there was any confidential intercom'se between Mr. Tracy auu Mrs. Moulton. Mr. Evarts— Verj^ well. Mr. Beach— I am very sure the lady does not consider it so. Mr. Evarts— That is enough. Sir. Judge Neilson— It would be desirable to respect the confidential character of the intercourse, if the witness 80 regards it, as far as is consistent with your duty. That is all. You are the judge about that. Mr. Beach— Yes, Sir. [To the witness.] Well, you don't put the idea of confidence upon the relation of client and counsel ? The Witness— Oh, no, Sir. It was a conversation which I held with a lady, in her own house ; a lady who T sup- posed at the time had confidence in me, and then re- garded me as her friend. It was a conversation when she was in an excited state, to a degree, and it is a conversa- tion that I have sacredly respected up to the time when you broached it here, ast night, never having communi- cated it to my associates, even. Mr. Beach— Yes. JOKES BETWEEN THE LAWYERS. Mr. Evarts— The only point is tliis, if your Honor please, that we shall claim the right to go into tlie ^ whole conversation, so far as it is pertinent to the cause, and important ; and it cannot be imputed to Mr. Tiaoy that he acts with impropriety, under that rule of law which requires him to state the whole conversation, in order to make it an exhibition of the interview— states the rest of it, when they have drawn out this part of it. That is all I have to say about it. Mr. Beach— WeU, I suppose. Sir, that the witness upon the stand, as a coumsellor of this Court, and the gentle- TESIIMOSJ OF BEyjA^LIX F. TRACY. 301 man "^lio makes fhis minatory address to us, understand 1 erfectly well that wlien I call out a conversation, or a part of a conversation, from this witness on tlie stand, it is entirely competent for tliem to ask attention to ttie remainder of tlie conversation wLlcli relates to tlie sub- ject about vrMcli I have inquired, and I do not see any necessity for this grand formality. Judge Xeilson— Mr. Evarts's suggestion proceeds upon Tlie theory that if you call out a part of The conversation he might not feel at liberty to respect The idea ThaT iT was coufidenTial, and might be obliged to call out the rest of it. Mr. Beach— This idea of a confidential communication i6 entirely a figment of the other side. There is no confi- dence about it. It was an ordinary conversation in regard to a transaction, then occurring, with which the husband of Mrs. Moulton was then connected. Judge Neilson — ^You have a right to examine in regard to it. of course. .'■•rr. Evarts— I am sorry my learned friend thinks it necessary to apply opprobrious epithets. Mr. Beach— How opprobrious? Mr. Evarts — To me. Mr. Beac^h— Certninly not. Sir. Mr. Evarts— Or to my statement? Mr. Beach— CV'rtainly not. Sir ; certainly not. Mr. Evarts— I supposed that what T said was sp^.d in the calmest manner, and with the utmost good faith, and ■with the best intentions : and yet my learned friend has chosen to characterize what I said as minatory. Mr. Beach— That is not opprobrious. Mr. Evarts— T thinlv it is. Whether it is as opprobrious as some epithets might be Mr. Fullerton— Tt is a Brooklyn term. Sir, not used in the ordinary sense. [Laughter,] Mr. Evarts— He says it is not. It was said in a tone and with appar nt feeling, as if my remark implied some discredit. I had no such intention. WHAT WAS XOT SAID 13ETWEEX GEN. TRACY AXD MES. MOULTOX. Mr. Beach— I am not going to say any more. [Laua-hter.] [To the witness.] Did you have, in sub- stance, this conversation with Jklrs. Moulton at the time referred to : " Emma, you are a brave woman ; you have saved the old man to-day ; I have just come from him, and he has sent his love to you, and says he relies upon you to save him ;'• Mrs. Moulton replying, "I don't know how I can save him;" and you replying to that, " I will tell you. Burn Frank's long statement, and bum all the papers he tas on the subject ;" to which Mrs. Moulton said, " I thmk the time has passed for the destruction of papers;" to "Which Tou said, " Won't you destroy the papers if Jere- miah Robinson advises !" and Emma said, " No, I won't do that on any one's advice;" to which you said, "WeU, if Frank ever uses that statement and letters, you will be mined, socially, flnancially, and in every way.** A. You ask me if I had that conversation, in subatance \ Q. Yes. A. I had a conversation with her on the sub- jects Q. Answer me that. A. I will in a moment— on the sub- jects alluded to there. Q. What 1 A. I had a conversation with her Q. Did you have a conversation in substance like thati A. No, Sir ; not in substance like what you have read to j me. j Q. Very well. It is easy to answer that. I Mr. Evarts— He was going to state, not what the con- j versation was, but that he had a conversation with her i on the subject. I I ME. MOULTOX'S SHORT STATEMEXT. I ! Mr. Beacli— I sliall probably ask him about that— I will now. [To the witness.] Did you have a con- versation referring to, or based upon, the circumstance that Mr. Moulton had substituted the short statement for the long statement before the Committee ? A. I did. Mr. Beach— I propose to read that statement, Sir, as evidence. Mr. Evarts— It is in evidence, as I understand. The Witness— Oh. no. Mr. Beach [in reply to a suggestion by one of the fendant's counsel]— No. this is not the one that was read to Mr. Beecher. Judge Neilson— Mr. Shearman, has that short state- ment been put in evidence i Mr. Shearman— No, Sir. There are so many long state- ments, that some statements are, by comparison, short. Judge Neilson— I put the question to you because you seem to understand this better than anyone else. Mr. Beach then read the statement as follows : GE>-TLEirEy OF THE Co>niiTTEE : When I was last be- fore you I stated that I would, at yom- request, produce such documents as I had, and make such statements of facts as had come to my knowledge on the subject of your inquiry. I fully intended so to, do, and have pre- pared my statement of facts as sustained by the docu- ments, and made an exhibit of all the papers that have come in any way into my possession, bearing on the controversy between the parties. That statement must, of course, bear with more or less force upon one or the other of them. On mature reflection, aided by the advice of my most valued friends, I have reconsiderea that de- termination, and am obliged to say to you that I feel compelled from a sense of duty to the parties, to my re- lation to their controversy, and to myself, neither to make the statement nor produce the docrmients. When I first became a party to the unhappy controversy be- tween Beecher and Tiltoa, I had no personal imowledge, nor any document in my possession, which could affect either. Everything That I know of fact, or have received of papers, has come to me in the most sacred confidence, to be used for the purpose of compoeing and settling aU. difficulties between them, and of preventing, so far as possible, any knowledge of their private affairs being brought to the public notice. For this ptirpose all their matters have been intrusted to me and lor none ocher. If I should now use them, it would he not for the par. 303 THE TlLlON-BhJECEEE TRIAL. pose of peace and reconciliation, but to voluntarily take part in a controversy whicli they have seen tit to renew between themselves. How faithfully, earnestly, and honestly I have labored to do my duty to the parties for peace, they both know. The question for me to settle for myself, and no other, is now, ought I to do anything to aid either party in a re- newed controversy by use of that which I received and have used only to promote harmony ? On my honor and conscience I think I ought not. And at the risk of what- ever of misconstruction and vituperation may come upon me, I must adhere to the dictates of my own judgment, and preserve, at least, my own self-respect. I call attention again to the fact that yours is a mere voluntary tri1)unal, and whatever I do here is done by a volimtaryand not compelled witness. Whether before any tribunal having the power to compel the production of testimony and statement of fact I shall ever produce these papers or give any of these confidential statements, I reserve to myself to judge of the emergency, which I hope may never come. Against my wish— as I never have been in sympathy with a renewal of this conflict— a part of these documents have been given to the public. In so far confidence in regard to them has ceased. It is but just, therefore, and due to the parties, that the whole of those documents, portions of which only have been given, shall be put into your hands, in response to the thrice-renewed request of the Committee. I have, therefore, copies of them, which I produce here and place in the hands of the Committee, with the hope and request that after they have been ex- amined by them they may be retm-ned to me. If any controversy shall arise as to the authenticity of the copies or of the documents, on that point I snail hold myself open to speak. With this exception — except in defense of my own honor and the uprightness of my course in all this unfortunate and unhappy bTisiness, the purity and candor of which I appeal to the consciences of both parties to sustain— I do not propose, and hope I may never be called upon hereafter to speak, either as to the facts or to nroduce any paper that I have received from either of the parties involved herein. Frank Moulton. Q. Mr. Tracy, were you present at the meeting of the Committee upon the 10th of August, at which that short statement was presented by Mr. Moulton ? A. I was. Q. Did you have an interview with him upon the sub- ject of tliat statement before he went before the Com- mittee 1 A. You mean at Mr. Storrs's house, before he went before the Committee? Q. Yes, at Mr. Storrs's house, before he went before the Committee % A. Yes, Sir, for half a minute or so, or something like that. I ju ;! spoke to him on the subject of his statement before he went before the Committee. Q. Did he not, before he went before the Committee, state to you the substance of the statement ? A. No ; ex- cept by referring to the character of the statement in a way so that I understood it was not to be th;' long state- ment which he had proposed to submit, but a substituted statement. Q. Well, a substituted statement in general to the eflfect of the one which I have just read ? A. Well, from previous conversation I inferred from what Jie said that it was to be of the character, or something of the character, of that statement. Q. Was not that conversation in the presence of Mr. Munson, the gentleman who sits before me 1 A. It was ; Mr. Munson was present at that meeting. Q. Well, Sir, was not Mr. Mtmson present in the front parlor of Mr. Storrs's house on that occasion, at a con- versation between you and Mr. Moulton, in regard to this statement, and in that conversation did not Mr. Moulton, in the presence of Mr. Munson, communicate to you the substance of the statement I have just read ? A. I cannot remember whether Mr. Munson was present in the front parlor or not. I know he came with Mr. Moulton that day, and was present with the Committee ; and I un- derstand that Mr. Moulton did communicate to me in sub- stance Q. That will do. A. So I understood— that the short statement was to be substituted for his contemplated statement, in substance what it proved to be; although 1 never had seen or heard read that statement until I heard him read it there. Q. Did you, upon the occasion of that interview, ex- press your approval of the change of policy adopted by Mr. Moulton 1 A. I have no doubt I did. Q. Had you before that labored to produce that result; I A. Yes, Sii' ; in a sense I had. Q. Did you have another conversation with Mrs. Moul- ton prior to the one to which I have just called your at- tention, in the Summer of 1874, and, I think, after the call of the fnvestigating Committee ? A. Well, without more definite specification, I cannot say, except to say that I had several conversations with Mrs. Moulton dur- ing the Summer of 1874. Q. WeU, it was after the Bacon letter % A. Oh, yes ; I had nothing to do with any of it until after the Bacon letter in 1874. Q. I have omitted one question in regard to this other conversation, which was on a separate memorandum and not brought to my attention. Did you, in the interview with Mrs. Moulton, of which I have inquired, say in sub- stance to Mrs. Moulton, " Kick Tilton out of the house, and destroy the statements and letters. If you do not, they will destroy you and your family, socially and pecu- niarily ? " A. No, Sir ; not m the sense that that is put there ; not in the manner. Q. Well, you did not say that in substance t A. No ; not in the manner that question Q. No ; I am not asking about the manner— did you say that in substance ? A. No, Sir ; not in substance ; I can tell you why I did not, if you want to know. The ques- tion, as you put it there, conveys an entirely differou; meaning from our talk — my talk at Mr. Moulton's. Q. Well, Mr. Tracy, I did not refer to manner or asao- cialion 1 A. No ; I refer to suljject matter. Q. I i-efer to the substance of this language. A. So do I. Q. Very well ; I understand it. Now, Sir, in the prior TJ'JS'IIMONY OF BE conversation to wliicli I liave just alluded, did you in substance say to Mrs. Moulton, "The truth nuist not come out in this case ; Mr. Beeeher must not go down ; think of the effect upon the church, and its demoralizing effect upon young men!" A. No, Sir; I never had any such conversation with Mrs. Moulton, except the last phrase, probably— the subject of the demoralizing effect of this scandal has been the subject of conversation be- tween Mrs. Moulton and myself. ME. RICHARDS' S APPEARANCE BEFORE THE COMMITTEE. Q. Did you see Mr. Richards when he was belore the Committee 1 A. I did. Q. Did you have a conversation with him at the place where the Committee met, before he presented himself to the Committee] A. I did. Q. Did you ask him any questions in regard to what he knew ? A. I did. Q. Did you ask him whether his sister had ever con- fessed to him to adultery with Mr. Beeeher 1 A. I did ; I did in substance, I think. Q. In substanbe ? A. No, I did not ; that is not the form of the question. Q. Well, in substance that \ A. No ; I asked him if his sister had ever Q. One m(<»iient. A. Excuse me. Q. I do not ask what you asked him. Did you not, iu substance, inquire of him whether his sister, Mrs. Tilton, had ever admitted to him adultery with IVIr. Beeeher ? A. I don't think I did. Sir. Q. Did not, in answer to your question, Mr. Richards say to you that he declined to answer it, or in substance that 1 A. Mr. Eich^ds declined to answer Q. Oh, I don't ask what it was— I ask you If he did not Bay that, in substance ? A. Well, I say I don't remember putting such a question tu Mr. Richards. Q. Then you do not remember his declining to answer % A. Oh, yes, Sir; I remember his declining to hold any conversation with me, or commimicating to me anything of what he knew in regard to this case. Q. What 1 A. I know that Mr. Richards said that he would commimicate nothing to me of what he knew or did not know in regard to that matter ; that it was a family matter, into which he had refused to be drawn, and would not be drawn. Q. Well, I did not ask you about that, Sir ; my question has altogether a different significance. Did you not in that interview put a question to Mr. Richards calling upon him to state whether or not his sister, Mrs. Tilton, had confessed or admitted to him (Mr Richards) or to Mrs. Richards, his wife, the fact of Illicit connection, or advdtery, or aejual intercourse, with Mr. Beeeher 1 A. No, Sir— not as speciflcaUy as you put it, nor in substance WJAMi:^ F. TRACY. 303 Q. I asked you whether you, in substance, put a uy in- quiry of that character] A. I answered you, not in sub- stance. Q. Very well. Now, did not, in answer to such an in- quiry upon your part, Mr. Richards decline to answer any such interrogatory] A. Mr. Richards declined to answer any interrogatory, and gave me notice that he would not answer any interrogatory concerning his family relations. Q. Well, we have got that before ] A. Well. Q. Now, was not such an iaquiry, in substance, put hiru, and did not Mr. Richards then decline to answer it ; and did you not, in substance, reply: "That won't do; that in substance affirms the truth of It ] " A. No ; I can tell you what did transpire, Mr. Beach, if you wist to know exactly. Q. Well, you have very often addressed that to me, and you have found that your very kind offer has not been accepted] A. I know it has not. Q. And it won't be accepted in future, so you can keep it back. A. You frame a question to call for a particular answer, which I cannot give. AN INTERVIEW BETWEEN GEN. TRACY AND MISS TURNER. Q. Certainly I do; the substance of a particu- lar answer i call for. Did you have an interview with Bessie Tiarner before she went before the Committee! A. I did. Q. Where was it ] A. At Mrs. Ovington's, I think. Q. When did you become acquainted with Miss Turner? A. The same evening she went before the Committee ; never saw her before. Q. And about what time of the day did you form her acquaintance] A. WeU, I can't teU you definitely; it was in the aftenioon, some time. Q. Where ] A. At Mr. Ovington's. , Q. And did you have a conversation with her that after- noon upon the piazza of Mr. Ovington's house! A. I should say not. Sir. Q. Sir? A. I shotQd say not. Q. Did you have one with her in the back parlor ! A. In the back parlor— I should say it occurred in the back parlor, but I am not certain about that. Q. You are right, I think ? A. It occurred in the back parlor somewhere. Q. Do you know Mr. A. B. Martin! A. I do not think I do. Q. Did you see a gentleman of that name, at the time of your conversation with Bessie Turner, sitting upon the piazza, right in the rear of the back parlor! A. No, Sir, I did not. Q. Didn't you see him ! A. No, I don't know that I did; I don't recoUect any such thing. Q. Well, do you remember of seeing a gentleman therOt 804 THE TILTON-BI Ml'. Martin, or a stranger to you, at the time— on tlie occa- sion when you had an interTi»'W with Bessie Turner ! A. I don't remember any such thing, Sir. Q. How long was that interview? A. "Well, I have no definite recollection, except :hat it was short. Q. Did you not have an interview upon that occasion with Bessie Turner, in which you conversed with her in regard to her Imowledge of this discussion, of over an hour? A. I should say not, Sir, over an hour. Q. Will you swear it was not? A. I won't swear definitely as to the time; I cannot do that. Q. Will you swear that it was not over two hours 1 A. Yes. Q. You will « A. Yes. Q. And that is the only positive oath you will give as to the length of the interview ? A. Well, I should say, my best recollection Q. No ; wait, wait, wait ! A. Yes ; I am going to an- swer. Sir. Q. No ; I don't think you were. A. Well, I thought so. Q. Is that the only positive statement you will make in regard to the length of the interview 1 A. Well, I don't know what you call a positive statement, Mr. Beach. Q. Well, I mean a statement, sworn to positively, un- der oath. A. I can't say ; according to the best of my recollection, Sir Q. I don't ask you that, according to your best recol- lection. A. [Continuing.] Tt was not over an hour. Q. Very well ; is that all you will say about it ? A. That is as positive as I will be ; I cannot be more positive than to give you my best recollection. MR. WOODRUFFS INFORMATION ABOUT THE MONEY TRANSACTIONS. Q. Well, that answers it, Sir. Yesterday I omitted to ask you a question in regard to Mr. Woodruff and the subject «£ your having conversed with him in regard to money for Mr. Tilton or his family furnished by Mr. Beecher— after the conversations to which your attention was directed yesterday, did you not have an interview, and shortly after (last Summer, though, I think it was) an interview with Mr. Woodruff, in which he leproached you for having revealed to Mr. Moulton the fact that he (Mr. Woodruff) had told you in regard to money ? A. Yes, Sir ; I did. Q. And did you apologize to him for having revealed it? A. In a sense I apologized, Q. Well, do you still say that Mr. Woodruff did not give you any information in regard to money furnished by Mr. Beecher ? A. No ; I say he did. And when do you say that was ? A. I say that that was from— not less than three— in my judgment from three to six months after the interview at Mr. Moulton 's h()use on Sunday ; I remember it very well. Q. And at what interview was it that you commvini- lEGHEB IRIAL. cated to Mr. Moulton the fact that you 1 ad obtained this information from Mr. Woodruff? A. I toid you yesterday that it was at some interview that I had with Mr. Moul- ton between the 13th and 20th of July, 1874, 1 think. THE SUMMONING OF MR. TILTON BEFORE THE COMMITTEE. Q. Yes. Were you present when Mr. Tilton was summoned before the Committee ? A. I don't remem- ber ; if you will call my attention to the place whore it occurred I can refresh your recollection— refresh my recollection. Q. Well, it was in the street. Sir— that is a pretty indcfl- . nite place— as near as I can get it, id front of the Acad- emy of Music? A. Who was present beside? I don't recollect. Q. Well, I don't care to state just now. A. WeU, I don't recollect. Q. How % A. I don't recollect. Q. Don't you recollect that you were present when he was summoned before the Committee, and that you ad- vised him not to go ? A. No, Sir ; I don't. Q. Will you swear you did not ? A. No, I will not swear to that ; I don't recollect the occurrence at all. GEN. BUTLER'S WRITTEN OPINION. Q. You stated yesterday, Mr. Tracy, that the document of which you spoke as having been dictated, or prepared, or sent forward to you by and from Mr. Butler was returned to him. A. Yes, Sir ; that is, I state, as I stated yesterday, that it was found in— by a yoimg man who was overhauling my papers and regulatiiig them this Winter, and I directed him to put it in an en- velope and return it to Gen. Butler, directed to Boston. Q. Do you know whether it was put in ? A. I don't know, Sir ; I assumed it was, and I have never inquired since. Q. Have you received two letters from Mr. Butler re- questing the return of that document ? A. No, Sir. Q. What ? A. No, Sir ; Mr. Butler requested the return of it. Q. Well, don't A. I never received any letters that I am aware of. Sir, requesting *ts return. Q. Mr. Tracy, you have been very active in this matter in all the departments of this scandal, on behalf of Mr. Beecher, have you not? A. WeU, ihe scandal has so mauy departments that I can hardly say that. Q. Well, you have got drawn into most of them, have you not ? A. No, I have not ; some of them I have never • entered. Q. What one did you keep out of ? A. I had nothing to do with the church proceedings, for instance — one depart- ment of the scandal, I suppose. Q. WeU, by the church proceedings you don't mean the Investigation Committee? A. No; I mean the West charges and the Council. TLSTIMOXI OF BE PLAmiFFS COUNSEL REBUKED BY THE JUDGE. Mr. Beacli — Xo, no; Mr. Beeclier took charge of that. Mr. Evarts— Oil, no ; tliat is not part of 3Ir. Tracy's tes- timony, nor of any inqniry that lias iDeen made. Mr. Beacli — Xo ; tliat was my remark, Sir, founded upon the eridenee. Mr. Evarts— Well, we should get into a great debate wietiier it was f oiinded on the evidence, or tlie result of imagination. Mr. Beaci— "We proiiaWy won't get into the debate here. Mr. Evarts — Xo : but then it ought not to be begun. Mr. Beach— It is not begun. Mr. Evarts— You began it, I thin"k:. Mr. Beach— Xo, I don't think 1 began any debate. Mr. Evarts— You made a statement, as you say now, based upon the evidence concerning my client. Mr. Beach— Yes. Mr. Evarts— That is a matter to be debated to the jury. Mr. Beach — Certainly. Mr. Evarts— You say it cannot be continued, and I say 80, too. Mr. Beach— I didn't say that it could not be continued ; if I should say that it could not be continued. I siould itate an untruth, because the gentleman does con- tinue it. Judge Xeilson— The real fact is that the observation ought not to have been made. Mr. Beaoh— Well, I don't know, Sir. Judge Neilson— Xor should it be continued. It T^ould have been better not to have made it, of course. Mr. Beach— Well, perhaps it would have been better not to have made it, because it has brought my friend, Mr. Evarts, to his feet. Mr. Evarts— And you from yours. Mr. Beacli— From my feet ? Oh, no, no ! it will be a long time before the gentleman shall succeed, Sir, in throwing me from my feet ; he had better not indidge in any triumphant anticipations until the time arrives. Mr. Evarts— Only this is not an anticipation, Mr. Beach— Speak up loud so that I can hear yotu Mr. Shearman— It is a matter of realization, not antici- pation, 80 far as this question is concerned, GEN. TRACY'S ACTIVITY IX ME. BEECHEE'S BEHALF. Mr. Beacli Tto tlie witness]— WeU, wiU yon answer my nue^rion ? The Witness— If you will repeat it ; I have forgotten "What it was. Q. Whether you have been an active and ardent friend of Mr. Beecher during the progi-ess of this scandal, or :SJAMiy F. IF. ACT. 305 the agitation of this scandal ? A. During some portion of it I have. Q. From what period I A. Well, I have since the Bacon, letter, more active than before — much.. Q. Well, weren't you active before ? A, Xo ; I can hardly say I was active before that, 3Ir. Beach ; I was a friend of 3Ir. Beecher's Q. Did you make any statements for the papers before that ? A. Before the Bacon letter ? Q. Yes. A. Xo. I think not. Sir ; I don't remember any. I am confident I did nor. Q. Confident you did not ? A. I think not. Q. Xor wT."ite any statements for the papers ? A. Be- fore the Bacon letter 1 Q. Yes, before the Bacon letter ] A. I have no recol- lection ; if you will suggest any article, Sir, I will be able to answer it promptly, but I have no recollection of any article or proceeding before the Bacon letter; I should confess myself very much mistaken if there is any. Q. Did you converse much on the subject before the Bacon letter ? A. Oh, yes ; with, certain parties I did a good deal— that is in the period of December— Xovember and December, 1S72 ; after December, 1872, 1 was prac- tically out of the scandal, and out of the matter until the publication of the Bacon letter, and talked but very little about it ; of course incidentally as people talked, and the subject came up. Q. Well, did you at any time before the Bacon letter make suggestions to leading and influential ioumalists in re^^ard to notices of the scandal ] A. I recall no instance of the kind ; I suppose you mean by journals some promi- nent editor or some prominent writer on a journal. Q. Certainly. A. I recollect nothing of the Mnd. Q. Well, is your recollection so accurate that you are willing to say that you did not 1 A. Oh, no, Sir ; when you broach a subject that happened two or three years ago, and it is sprung upon me in an Instant, I would not say positively whether I did or not, without reflection, on the instant ; I may have done so and forgotten it, but I have no recollection of it now. If you will name the person or occasion, I will tell you very quick whether I did or not. Q. Well, I understood from your evidence that since the Bacon letter you have done these things 1 A. I have. Q. AVritten articles for the journals on the subject ? A. Xo, not written. Q. Haven't written any ? A. Xo. Q. And haven't consulted in regard to the form of any or the publication of any ? A. Well, that would be too broad Q. Xo, it ain't too broad. A. Yes. Q. Xo. A. I have published two interviews of my own. Q. Xo, I don't speak of inter\-iews. A. Well, then, you mean Q. I speak of other articles in the papera, A. You mean editorials I THE llLTON-BEh](^HEE lELAL, Q. Articles in papers ; I don't know whether they are editorials, or communicated, or what 1 A. Well, I will answer and see if I can cover your ground; I have never Q. Never mind now ; I will put my question, and I will ask you to answer that ; have you not, since the Bacon letter, written and published, or dictated and caused to he published, articles favorable to Mr. Beecher concern- mft- this scandal ? A. No, Sir, I think not ; I recall no instance ot the kind ; if you mean by articles that I have talked with newspaper reporters Q. No, I don't mean that. A. Don't mean that ? Q. No, Sir. A. Aside from that I have no recollection at all. Q. Have you assisted in the composition oi any article of that character since the Bacon letter ? A. Since— the— Bacon— letter ? [Reflecting.] I don't recall, Sir ; I think not; I speak largely, though, from my recollection ; I don't think I have written myself, or dictated, to be published, any article, as an article for a newspaper, on any subject, since 1871 ; I don't believe I have, on any subject, since 1871. Q. And you have not consulted or advised with any editor of a paper in this vicinity upon an article, or the subject of an article, in regard to this matter ? A. Oh, well, I cannot say that ; I talked with men on the press, and they have talked with me, and we have talked differ- rent views of the scandal, and this view and that view Q. Well, has any proposed communication, or article, or statement been brought to your attention in regard to which you have given advice or made suggestions ? A. I recollect nothing of the kind ; you mean an article presented and embodied in the form of an article— Q. Oh, I don't know that it was written out in full. A. Well, your question is so indefinite that it is impossible for me to answer it, Mr. Beach. Q. The question is not indefinite. A. I have talked with a great many people, some of them editors, no doubt, on newspapers, as to different phases of this scan- dal, and they have undoubtedly asked my views on dif- ferent phases of it, and different features of it, but Q. Well, since the Bacon letter— perhaps this will cover it, Mr. Tracy— since the Bacon letter you have been an ardent advocate of Mr. Beecher ? A. I have. Sir. Q. I don't know but I asked the question yesterday, but I repeat it if I did— when did you first have any interview with Mr. Beecher in regard to this scandal ? A. As I said, my recollection of it is that it was within a week after the interview at Mr. Moulton's house. Q, Which interview— what date 1 A. Well, I cannot— it is the interview on Sunday. Q. The long interview ? A. The long interview on Sun- day ; I cannot fix the date of it. Q, Well, it was about November, 1872, in or about) A Yes, November or December, 1872. Q. And did you tell me yesterday how frequent your interviews were with Mr. Beecher on this subject aftei that? A. I think I did, Sir. Q. Very well, I had that impression that you did. I am requested to ask you. Sir, whether you have not solicited or spoken to a prominent editor of a leading journal, in this city or New York, for the purpose of procuring its friendly notice or advocacy of Mr. Beecher in relation to this scandal 1 A. I recall no such thing, Sir. Q. Well, is your recollection so definite that you would be willing to swear that you have not ? A. I am willing to swear that I never had an interview with any editor for that purpose. Q. Oh, well; please answer my question. A. I cannot. Q. Very well, then, say so. A. If you will repeat it again I will see how definitely 1 can answer it. Q. Why, I asked you whether your recollection was so definite upon the subject that you would swear posi- tively that you had not made such an application to a leading editor ? A. To a leading editor— for what pur- pose? Q. Why, for the purpose of enlisting it in favor of Mr. Beecher in relation to this scandal ? A. No, Sir ; no. Sir, I think not ; I have had conversations with editors on the subject of the scandal. Q. And did you not. Sir, labor to induce, or attempt to induce one or more of the editors with whom you con- versed to write favorably or publish favorably in their papers for Mr. Beecher 1 A. No, Sir ; I think T did with one editor on the subject of the course of his paper Q. Wait— yes. A. IcontinuingJ— But I did not try to in- fluence him. Q. Who was it? A. Who was the man? Q. Yes. A. That I refer to? Q. Yes, Sir. A. I refer to John Russell Young. Q. [Looking at a newspaper.] Did Mr. Moulton at any time, accompanied by Mr. Tilton, other than on occasions of which you have spoken, come to you and in an inter- view which followed was the story of this affair told to you, and, after that communication, did you express views to Mr. Moulton as to what he ought to do, to which Mr. TUton objected, and in which Mr. Movilton finally de- clined to act upon your judgment ? A. Read that again, will you, Mr. Beach? Mr. Beach— Well, I rather think I will depute somebody to read it. I don't think I could mj self. [Question read by The Tribune stenographer.] A. No, Sir ; I remember no interview after the Sunday interview where Mr. Moulton and Mr. Tilton came to me together and the subject of this story was gone over. Q. Well, at that interview did you express to Mr. Moul- ton what you thought he ought to do 1 A. I said on my direct examination Mr. Q. Oh, I don't care what you said on your direct exam- ination. A. Well, I said either at the close of that inter- view—and I think it was at that interview— or at a subso- TFSTl^rO^T OF BE. INJAMiy F. TliACY. 307 quent interview between myself and Mr. Moulton, 1 did Q Well, did Mr. Tilton object to wbat you suggested? A. Mr. TUton objected at the time to wliat I suggested— be was present wben I suggested about tlie destruction of the papers ; tbat be objected to. Q. Well, was tbat tbe suggestion wbicb you made ? A. That is one of the suggestions I made as to what ought to be done ; yes, Sir. Q. Well, then you suggested that the papers ought to be destroyed] A. I did. Q. And Mr. TUton objected to that ? A. Mr. Tilton ob- jected to that. GEN. TEACY EXPLAINS SOME OF HIS WORDS. Q. A sing-le other question, Sir. You stated upon your direct examination, as I can repeat it in sub- stance, that you said at one of those interviews to Mr. Tilton, that the publication of the paper which he read to you would ruin him and ruin his wife and ruin ]VIr. Beecher— if I recollect right 1 A. I made some remark of that substance ; yes, Sir. Q. IVIr. Tracy, if at that time you understood the charge against Mr. Beecher to be impure solicitations addressed to Mrs. TUton, which had been virtuously repelled by her, and which she immediately afterward communicated to her husband, how did you suppose that the disclosure of that circumstance would ruin Mrs. TUton 1 A. I sup- posed in this way, and in this mauner : As I understood it, ;Mrs. TUton had made an accusation against Mr. Beecher to her husband ; that after that she had retracted that accusation to Mr. Beecher ; I understood from the docimients then presented to me, and the talk, that she had renewed the accusation ; I always assumed that if the publication was made, it was to be made on the re- newed authority of Mrs. TUton ; I supposed that woiUd bring a coUision between Mr. Beecher on one side, sup- ported by her retraction and his denial, and Mr. TUton and Mrs. TUton on the other, supported by her first accu- sation, contradicted by her retraction, and then renewed; and I thought that such a scandal published, and such a conflict inaugurated, would be the ruin substantiaUy of aU of these parties. Q. WeU, you understood that at the time of these con- tradictory statements made by Mrs. Tilton she was iU 1 A. I did; I wUl not say about the letter; I don't think I got the exact details of that. Q. What letter do you speak of ? A. The letter that is referred to in the retraction ; I am not sui-e that the date or the time or the occasion of the giving of that letter, or the detaUs of how Mr. Tilton obtained tbat letter, were slated; I don't think they were Q. WeUt A. IContinuing,] But I understood that she was Ul when ]VIr. Beecher got the retraction from her. Q. And you understood that in that retraction she had expressed the fact that she was wearied into the state- ment which she made by the importunities of her hus- band 1 A. Yes. Q. And you thought that, under these circumstancee,^ the making of these statements — contradictory statements — woiUd operate as her ruin ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Y'ou did not suppose the communication The Witness [uiteri-uptingj— Of course I assumed that she wovUd adhere to her husband in the renewed charge. Q. You did not suppose that the fact — the mere fact of the communication— the mere fact of the solicitations of Ml-. Beecher, repelled by Mrs. TUton, being made pubUe^ would ruin her, did you ? A. No, I did not. Q. WeU, Sir, if Mi-. Beecher was innocent of that accu- sation, did you suppose the making of it pubUc would ruin him 1 A. I did. Sir ; I supposed that as the case then stood Mr. Beach finterrupting]— WiU you simply answer my questions ! The Witness [continuing]— And as it was presented to me Q. [Interrupting]— You supposed it wooUd ruin him^ even if he was innocent of the charge ? A. Substan- tially ruin him, if made and supported by the wife, and backed by the papers as then presented to me ; I thought there was great danger of its ruining Mr. Beecher. Q. Even although he was able to maintain his inno- cence 1 A. Even although he was able to assert his in- nocence, and even although he might in fact be innocent. Q. You therefore labored for the suppression of the scandal and of these documents ? A. I did, Sir ; the word "suppression" does not exactly express it ; I la- bored for their extinguishment ; I labored to have it killed outright, so that it could never be revived again. Q. And did those labors continue after the Investigat- ing Committee was called 1 A. Yes, Sir, I think they did^ in a sense. Q. WeU, did they in fact 1 A. Yes, in fact. Q. Then, after the Investigating Committee was called^ and after Mr. Beecher had determined to have a fuU and radical examination of this matter, you labored to ex- tinguish it ? A. I labored then Q. Did you labor then to extinguish it ? A. To extin- guish it— to kill it— yes, Sir ; to have such a result of tha^ proceedings as woiUd extinguish the scandal for aU times. Q. And the papers ? A. I did not say the papers; that is an addition. Q. No, it is not an addition ; it was in my question. A. Then I misunderstood your question. Q. "Very welL Then did you not, after the Investi- gating Committee was caUed, strive to have the papera destroyed 1 A. No, Sir, I think not. Q. Wbat 1 A. I think not, Sir. Q. Will you swear to that? I wiU. Q. That you never advised the destruction of the papers 1 A. I think I do so swear. Sir ; I never remem 808 TIW TILION-B her it; I don't recollect that T did; I knoAv that I did not. Q. Will you swear positively you did not ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Either to Mr. Moulton or to Mrs. Moulton? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Or in the presence of Mr. Butler 1 A. Yes, Sir. Mr. Beach. That is all. RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION OF GEN. TRACY. Mr. Evarts— Mr. Tracy, at this stage last spoken of did your efforts to extinguish the papers, as separate from destroyin.g the papers, what had occurred that made a distinction between that stage and that time and the previous time when you had desired to extinguish the scandal and destroy the papers ? A. The scandal had become public ; the Bacon letter had been written, and a part of the letters quoted— the public documents quoted; so that I understood perfectly that the extinction or de- struction of the papers then would add fuel to the flame ; and there was no object in extinguishing the papers after part of them had been published— made public. Q. Do you remember Its being a feeling of anxiety or solicitude on your part lest these papers should be de- stroyed 1 A. I do. Sir, very well ; and the subject of con versation also. Q. And did you direct efforts to find out whether they were still in existence? A. I did, Sir. Q. Now, Sir, you have spoken of a desire, and labors, at an earlier period, to extinguish the scandal, including then the extinguishing of the papers. In what stage, and what manner, did you so labor t A. That was in Novem- ber or December, 1872. What manner? I do not know that I exactly understand your question as to the manner. Q. In what manner did you labor to extinguish the pa- pers and the scandal ? A . In the manner I have stated, by a conversation with Mr. Tilton and Mr. Moulton. Q. As you have given it I A. Which I have given. Q. You have been asked about an opinion which you formed and expressed as to the scandal if made public, that it would be the ruin of Mr. Tilton and Mrs. Tilton and Mr. Beecher. Do you remember the precise phrase, as to whether you said it would be the ruin of these parties, or it would be ruinous to these parties ? A. I don't remember whether I said the ruin, or ruinous, or destructive; I used some phrase which conveyed my meaning that it would be exceedingly injurious and dam- aging to all of them. Q. You have been asked, toward the close of the cross- examinsition, within a few moments, something about an occasion of Mr. Moulton, in company with Mr. Tilton, coming to you and telling the story of this matter, and Moulton asking your advice, and you giving it, and Til- ton objecting, and Moulton declining to follow your advice. When was that occasion ? A. All of that occruTed at the interview in November, 1872, or Decem- ber, 1872 ; except as I stated in ray direct examination. rECHMB TEIAL. possibly the latter part of that statement occarrecl between myself and Moulton at a subsequent period. Q. That is as to his determination not to follow your advice ? A. Yes, Sir, not to follow it. Q. How do you remember that occurring between you and Mr. Moulton at any subsequent, or consequent, in- terview? A. My general recollection is that Mr. Moulton was silent on that subject at the interview in November or December, 1872 ; that afterward I talked with him, and he said he would not consent to the destruction of the papers, as Mr. Tilton opposed it ; but he may have in- dicated that there in that Interview ; I am not certain about that, Sir. Q. You have been asked about some meeting with Mr. Woodruff after you had spoken to Mr. Moulton about his (Woodruff's) informing you that money had been paid in jhis business ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. When was that interview with Mr. Woodruff? A. Well, it was a few days after my interview with Mr. Moulton ; Mr. Moulton, Mr. Woodruff said to ^e, had at- tacked him for having told me that ; and he came round and asked me why I did it. Q. How is that? A. Mr. Woodruff told me that Mr. Moulton had attacked him for having communicated the fact of the payment of the money to him. Q. What passed then between you ? A. I told him the circumstances ; I told him that I very much regretted the seeming necessity which compelled it, but I had deemed it my duty to warn Mr. Moulton of how I thought the disclosure of that money matter would injure him ; and that he thereupon attacked Mr. Beecher for having told me, and attacked him so violently that I felt con- strained to tell Mr. Moulton the truth that I did not get my information from Mr. Beecher about that, but that it was from Mr. Woodruff; that I regretted it, but under the cii'cumstances I thought I had done right and proper in so doing. Q. Did you inform him as to whether Mr. Moulton had pressed you, after you told him it was not Mr. Beecher, to inform him who it was ? A. Yes ; I told Mr. Woodruff that Mr. Moulton pressed me very hard before I con- sented to tell him. Q. And what did Mr. Woodruff say after you told hiin that? A. He said he thought I ought not to have tol-i him ; that he did not intend I should comraimicate the fact to Mr. Moulton. Q. Did he express any opinion that you ought to have left him under the impression that Mr. Beecher had told you? A. No, he did not say that; he said he thought 1 ought not to have told Mr. Moulton that he commuui- cated the fact to me. TESTIMONY OF Bh GEN. TRACY ADVISES MES. MOULTON ABOUT MR. TILTON. Q. You have been asked in regard to a con- Tersation with Mrs. Moulton, after the Bacon letter and prior to a principal conversation that had been previ- ously made the subject of inquiry from you and of an- swers, and you have been asked respecting that earlier interview, but after the Bacon letter, whether you ad- vised Mrs. Moulton to " kick Tilton out of the house, and destroy the papers, or they will destroy you ?" A. I did not understand the question so, Mr. Evarts ; I under- stood that it related to an interview on the night of the 10th of August. [Addressing Mr. Beach.] Am I mistaken about that % Mr. Beach— No ; you are right. The Witness— I think you are under a misapprehension, Mr. Evarts. Mr. Evarts— I made a memorandum of this. The Witness— I think it is a misapprehension, however, nevertheless. Mr. Evarts— It may be that the advice as to MoMng Tilton out was on the 10th of August. Judge Neilson— I suggest that you form your question with regard to the interview referred to, the date not being perhaps material. Mr. Evarts— Yes, but the date was not given, and it was earlier than the 10th of August, as I understood it. Q. Now, will you state whether there was any earlier Interview with Mrs. Moulton— earlier than the 10th of August, and after the Bacon letter t A. There were in- terviews with Mrs. Moulton. Q. Several that you have mentioned? A. Several; there is none which so impresses itself upon my memory that I have stated it separately from all others except this one on the night of the 10th of August. Q. Well, at those previous interviews with Mrs. Moul- ton, had anything been said by you about kicking TUton out of the house 1 A. No such language as that, Sir, or the substance ; not of kicking— no. Sir ; Mrs. Moulton expressed her opinion to me Mr. Beach— Wait a moment. The Witness [Continuing]— And perhaps I assented to it ; T do not know. Mr. Evarts— Now, what in that nature, or on that sub- ject, was said at any such Interview 1 Mr. Beach— That we object to, Sir. Judge NeUson— I think you must take it. If the word kicking " was not used, some expression akin to it may have been used, and it is right that the witness should state it. Mr. Evarts— Probably the word " kick " was used tu a moral sense. [Laughter.] Mr. Beach— My objection is that any inquiries which I address to the witness on that subject do not give them the right o* the other side to open the conversation. ']\JAMli< Jr. TnACY. S09 That, perhaps, would be proper if we put Mrs. Moulton on the stand to contradict the witness. Non constat, we may do that ; we may leave it as the witness has left it. Judge Neilson— Assuming that to be so, you put to the witness clear-cut, definite questions, embracing certain Inquiries as to expressions which he said he did not use ; it is possible that he may have used words which were in sense akin to those, and he has the right to give them. Mr. Evarts— No doubt the word " kick " was used in a metaphorical sense. It would not do to suggest to a lady that she should kick a gentleman out. Mr. Pryor— It might, where some one else was to do the kicking. Mr. Evarts— Did you ever know it to happen, Mr. Pryor 1 Judge Neilson— All your kicking has been intellectual. Mr. Evarts— I suppose, of course, the meaning of kick- ing out of the house was a metaphorical expression. [To the witness.] Well, Mr. Tracy, I understand you can answer. The Witness— Repeat your question, then, Mr. Evarts. Q. What was said by you of any such connection or im- port, if anything 1 A. Well, I don't recall any particular expression which would be " kicking," or the import of " kicking I only know that Mrs. Moulton Mr. Beach— Oh ! well ! wait, wait 1 The Witness— Ah 1 Mr. Evarts— Well, did anything occur between you and Mrs. Moulton as to the desirability of her being rid of Mr. Tilton in the house ? A. I t hink there has been a conversation on that subject. Mr. Beach— One moment. Mr. Evarts— There has been a conversation n s-ul> ject % A. Yes, Sir. Mr. Beach— Well, I object to it. Mr. Evarts— I think we have a right to that. Judge Neilson— I think that is as far as you can go. Mr. Beach— I put the question to the witness as to whether any such expression as that, or in substance that, was used. Now, I concede that the witness, upon the examination by the coimsel, can answer the question whether any phrase or remark of that substance or char- acter was used ; but to give the language that was em- l)loyed in that conversation, that is, to give the conversation itself, or any portion of it, I submit to your Honor, is not, in this stage of the examination, open. It may be, in case we shall choose to put Mrs. Moulton upon Viiq stand in opposition to the testimony of Mr. Tracy; and it seems to me that it is utterly useless to pursue that In- quiry and get a conversation as between Mrs. Moiilvon and this gentle:nan in evidence in this case, when Mrs. Moulton may not be produced as a witness to that trans- action. Mr. Evarts— Well, isn't it true, if my leanu 1 •. r ds wiU allow me to ask, that it is settledas a viiV ; ; i \ : : ■ ?e 310 THE TILTOF-BEECHEH TRIAL. that when a foujjdation Is laid for collatei al impeachment by the calling of another witness, that in advance of the determination of the counsel whether that witness will l>e called or not, and in consequence of the opening of the point, the witness, prior to the calling of any contradic- tory witness, is not only in his own right at liherty to state what did occur, hut it is the right of the party to draw from him what did occur. That, I helieve, is a mat- ter not new in the law of evidence, and I sup- pose it is to be well settled. And then, if after what he has said on his direct and what he has said on his cross, the other side call the witness to contradict him; then it is just to the witness so attacked. And if, after hearing both sides— that is, the direct and cross— the party conclude not to call the contradicting witness, why, that is very well. I believe that is settled. [To counsel.J Is not that so ? The point is, the reason that you are required to ask the first witness about the matter is that he shall have his opportunity to state what the thing is concerning which you propose to contradict. Judge Neilson— I recognize that, in assuming that inter- view, the witness thinks he did not use the very expres- sion put to him by the counsel ; yet if in a certain sense, however remote, he does remember to have used some expression which would amount to the advice to get rid of Mr. Tilton, or discourage his presence, I think the wit- ness is competent to state that. Ml'. Evarts— Yes, and that is already stated just now. Judge Neilson— Yes. Mr. Evarts— I asked him if anything had been said about the desirability of having him out of the house. Judge Neilson— Y^es, it seems to me that is proper, Sir. Mr. Evarts— Now, Mr. Tracy, I will ask you whether whatever you did say on that subject was said by you as a voluntary remark, or in answer— or was elicited by what Mrs. Moulton said 1 Mv. Beach— Well, I suppose that must be. Sir, by stating what was said, if we are to go into it. We certainly don't want to take the judgment or conclusion of the witness. Mr. Evarts— Well, Sir, merely whether it was voluntary or not? Judge Neilson— I think he can answer that. Mr. Evarts— Mr. Tracy, how is thati A, It was m an- swer to the suggestion and statement of Mrs. Moulton. Q. Now, as I understand, at this interview— not the 10th of August interview, but a prior one— yoii were asked whether you said anything about " destroying the papers or they will destroy you," meaning the Moultons, and " that the truth must not come out; consider the in- fluence on society ; Mr. Beecher must not be cut down," or something of that kind 1 Wasn't it so, Mr. Beach ? Mr. Beach— Y'es. Mr. Evarts— Very well ; now, did anything of that kind arise in conversation between you and Mrs. Moulton at these interviews, separate from the interview of the 10th of A\i«ust 1 A. No, Sir. Q. Now, what did pass between you and Mrs. Moulton at any of these prior interviews that ">eYe relation to this sul licet about the injury to society ana to Mr. Eeecher, or whatnot? A. I say nothing that I remember ; I recall nothing ; that is, at the prior interviews, prior to Q. Prior interviews— at the prior intervicAvs, prior to the 10th of August ; that is the whole su)3ject of my in- quiry. I will come to the 10th cf August afterward. A. If I correctly understand your question, I mean to say that I do not remember anything passing between lue and Mrs. Moulton in regard to the ruining of Mr. Beecher or the ruining Q. It was not the ruin Mr. Shearman—'* The injury to society" The Witness- Oh ! " the injury to society." Mr. Evarts— I read it to you : " The truth must come out ; consider the injury to society" A. Well, now, there was nothing said between Mrs. Moulton and I about the truth not coming out; there was a talk between Mrs. Moulton and I— more than one— as to the effect upon society of this scandal, after the Bacon letter, and when the scandal was going on, and how demoralizing it was,, and what great injury was flowing from it. There was that talk once or twice, perhaps more, between Mrs. Moulton and I. Q. Did you introduce the subject or dia Mrs. Moulton ? A. Oh, well, I can't hardly say ; when I was there I saw Mrs. Moulton, and we became acquainted, and we used to be conversing together ; I cannot undertake to say who introduced any particular subject of conversation. Q. Was there any dispute, or difference of opinion, be- tween you on these topics 1 A. No, Sir ; Mrs. Moulton and I always agreed. AN INJUNCTION TO PEEVENT THE DESTRUC- TION OF THE PAPERS. Q. Now, Mr. Tracy, do you remember a period and an occasion when you were considering, with others with whom you conferred, as to getting an injunction to prevent the destruction of these papers t A. I do. Q. When was that ? Mr. Beach— What 1 What? What is this. Sir? Mr. Evarts— T ask him if he remembers an occasion in which he considered, in consultation with others, as to the propriety of getting an injunction to prevent the de- struction of these papers % The Witness— You asked me when it was f Q. Yes. A. I thhak it was after Mrs. Tilton's swotb statement. Q. Was made public 1 A. Yes. Sir. Q. Do you remember whether or not it had any concur- rence with Mr. Moulton's return from the East? I think it has been in evidence that he went to the East. A. Wcllf Sir, I cannot remember whether it was his return or about the time he was going. It was on or about lliiit TLSn^JOXY OF BE. time ; it was alioiit tlie time that lie refused, or followed his refusal to deliver the papers to Mr. Beecher, or copies of ttem. THE CONVEESATION WITH MRS. MOULTOX ON AUG. 10. Q. jSTow, you liad a conversation with Mrs. Moulton on the 10th of August, I believe 1 A. I did. Q. Concerning which you have been inquired of. What occuiTcd at that conversation in reference to the subjeco^ which had been brought to your notice? A. Now, jMi*. Evarts, If you will excuse me, I desire to say again that I don't understand that the other side have caHed for the details of that conversation, or any part of it has been given. I regarded it as confidential ; it was a talk that I had with the lady in her own house. If that conversation Is to come out I prefer to leave it for the lady to bring out before saying anythiug on the subject. If that will suit you, it is my wish that it should take that course. Sir. Evarts— Provided an objection is not made on the other side as to the order of i>roof. Judge Neilson— I think it may be reserved in that form, Sir, on the suggestion of the witness. Mr. Beach— We make no objection to the witness stat- ing it now. Sir. Judge Neilson— I think the view the witness now has might as well be respected. Mr. Beiich— I have no objection to it. Sir; whatever course they choose. I will acquiesce in ; but if the gentle- man's views are coiTcct, Sir, I should suppose that the examinatitm should proceed now m regard to it. Judge 2seilson— If Mr. Beach is prepared to avow his intention to call Mrs. Moulton and have her testify as ti) the interview between them, then I think you may pro- <-eed with this witness, now. ]Mr. Beach— Certainly ; we intend to. Sir. Judge Xeilson— Th(-n I think we will proceed now, as we have the witness h-re. That absolves the witness from the sense of obligation. Mr. Evarts— Yes, Sir. The Witness— I would prefer otherwise. Judge Neilson— Well, I think we had better proceed, Su', with that view of the evidence. Mr. Evarts— My own impression, if your Honor please, is that aside from the question of a witness's respect for ^vhat he supposed was to be confidential on the part of this lady, it would be the regular course— the proper course for us to go on. The difficulty is that tae lady is not represented by counsel. She is not a party to this lit- igation, and her husliandis no party to this litigation, he is only a witness. Judge Xeilson— Well, the suggestion of respectable v'ounsel Mr. Evarts— Oh, I understand that. Sir, of course. Judge Nbi.;i*-wx [continuing] of their mtent to call XJAMiN F. TRACY. 311 and examine her, is sufficient. That ought to relieve a witness from any sense of restraint, I think, Mr. Evai'ts— Now, I wUl contme you to the subject which I vinderstand was referred to, and that is, about burning the papers i A. There was no talk that night about burning the papers then or at any future time. There was talk about the desirabUty of having biu-ned the papers at un earlier period. Mr, Beach— Mr. Evarts, it was the long statement I in- (luired about— burning the long statement, Mr. Evarts [after consulting with coimsel]— Well, I sup- posed it was the papers. Now, there was a conversation between Mrs. Moiilli .md yoiu'self as to the propriety or the desu-ability of the papers having been destroyed at a preceding time 1 A. There was. Q. Was there any difference of opinion between you and Mrs. Moulton about that 1 A. No. Q. Now, was there anything said about destroying or suppressing the long statement 1 A. Not a word ; that ia entirely new ; I never heard of that until to-day. Q. Well, Mr. Tracy, I understand you to have said— and you wUl consider it a question if you have not said so — that at this interview on the 10th of August, nothing was said about the destruction of the papers then or tafuturef A. No, Sir. Q. Nothing ? A. Nothing at all. THE TALK ABOUT THE SHORT STATEMENT. Q. Now, you have been asked something about this short paper— short statement, that has now been read by the learned counsel. What occurred be- tween you and Mr. Moulton, if anything, regarding that statement? A. At what interview. Mr. Evarts, do you ask? Q. At any interview concerning which you hare been inquired of and have spoken, in the cross? A. Well, I think the only interview I have been inquired of, or spoken in regard to that paper, as a paper, after its ex- istence, was the interview at Mr. Augnistus Storrs's house just before it was delivered. Mr. Evarts [To Mr. Beach]— That is it? Mr. Beach— Yes ; his answer was entii-ely satisfactory in regard to that. Mr. Evarts— Now, how did any conversation arise there ? A. I don't think I can add anything to it. Q. You have said the whole ? A. I think I have said the whole ; with the permission of counsel I will say that Mr. Moulton was expected before the Committee, and he was expected there with one or the other of these statements. Q. That is, the long or the short ? A. Or the short, and I didn't know positively which he was coming with until he came. When he came I went out into the front parlor, and saw him, and he announced to me what had been the conclusion in the council at his house in the forenoon of that day, what the result was about what sort of a state- ment he has going to make. TEE TILTON-BEEOHJEB TBIAL. I 813 Q. And that was the first knowledge you had of what conclusion he came to ? A. It was. Q. And you were gratified at it? A. I was gratified at it; highly so. GEN. TRACY'S ADVICE TO ME. EICHARDS. Q. Now, you have been asked about some talk you had with Mr. Richards; will you please state what was said at that talk ? A Mr. Richards had been summoned hefore the Committee, and I went to the Com- mittee rooms and foimd him in the front parlor, and I supposed it was my duty to examine him before the Com- mittee. Q. You mean openly examine him 1 A. Openly exam- ine him before the Committee. I went to have a prelimi- nary conversation with him preceding this examination, 80 as to know what his statement was to be, how to frame my questions. Mr. Evarts— Mr. Beach wishes to ask a question. Mr. Beach— I omitted to put you one question in regard to that interview, Mr. Tracy. I now give it, that your attention may be called to it. Did you, at that interview With Mr. Richards, when you applied to him for informa- tion as to what his knowledge was, or statement would he, and upon his answer to you that he came to appear hefore the Committee, and not to make a statement to you, did you say to him that you was the counsel for Mr. Beecher ? A. No ; I said I was the counsel for the Com- mittee. Q. No— Mr. Beecher, Is the question. A. No, no. Mr. Beach— That is all. Mr. Evarts— Now, Mr. Tracy, will you be good as to give what occurred ? A. Mr. Richards cam iiere, and I went to him, as I say. Q. Did you know him ? A. I did not knoT\ him. I said, ** Is this Mr. Richards %'* He said it was. I told him who I was, and I said, "You have come to appear before the Committee V* He said, " Yes, I have come and I said to him, " I shall conduct your examination," or something to that effect, *' and I would like to know what you have to state." He says, *' I am to state nothing ; I have come before the Committee, but T shall decline to answer any questions that the Committee put to me." " Well," I said, d6 you mean to say, Mr. Richards, that you are going to give the Committee no information at all 1 " "I do," he says ; " I am going to decline to answer any question that they put to me." " And yet you mean to appear," I said, " before them, as if you came for an examination 1 " " Yes," says he, " they summoned me, but I am going before them ; and when they ask me any question about my sister, or anything relating to my family affairs, I am going to say to them that I decline to answer the question, on the ground that this is a family matter, into which I have re- fused to be drawn hitherto, and I will not be drawn at all, and I will say nothing on the subject." And I said, " Mr. Richards, if that is your determination, why did you, come before the Committee?" "Well," he said, "1 came because they summoned me." " Well," I said, "if you have determined not to give them any information at all, it seems to me it was a useless ceremony for you to come. " Well," he says, " I supposed I ought to come, but I shall decline to answer any questions." " Well," I said, " Mr. Richards, you will be asked whether your sister has made any confession to- you, by the Committee, if you go before it ; and if you go. there and are asked that question, and decline to answer it, and that question is published, and with your declina- tion, it will place youi- sister in a very awkward position. '♦^ And I said to him : " I assume you do not wish to injme your sister?" He said, "No, certainly not; I do not."' Well, I asked him if the consequences of such action ha4 occurred to him. He said, no, it had not ; it had not oc- curred to him ; he said he supposed that was the way tO' do. Well, I pointed out to him the effect upon his sister of bis going before thfe Committee and having such ques- tions put to him, and saying, " I decline to answer that question." After talking with him a moment he realized the position, and thanked me for the suggestion, and said he would not go before the Committee and submit to any examination ; went out into the committee-room where they were in session, and said, "Gentlemen, you havt summoned me" — in substance I am repeating — "but I have come to say to you that I will not appear before you to submit to any examination whatever ; I will not be ex- amined by you." Q. And went off ? A. And went off. GEN. TRACY'S SUGGESTIONS TO HIS ASSOCI- ATES. Q. Mr. Tracy, you have been asked about an interview with Gen. Butler, had at your lodgings ; that was the 11th, wasn't it ? A. The 11th of July ; yes, Sir. Q. The 11th of July f A. Oh ! the 11th of August. Q. The 11th of August, so I supposed ; after the Fifth Avenue interview of the 10th of August ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. The 9th; was it the 9th 1 A. The 9th of August, »t the Fifth Avenue. Q. You were asked something about Mr. Beeoher's be- ing in the house ; was Mr. Beecher in any way a party to that interview? A. Not at all. Sir, Q. Either by himself or by you ? A. No, Sir. Mr. Beach— Well, that is calling. Sir, for the conelusicn of the witness. I don't think it competent. Mr. Evarts— Well, you did not represent Mr. Beeoher in that interview! A. No, Sir; I did not represent him Mr. Beach— That Is a question of argument, resulting from the proven facts in the case, Sir. Mr. Evarts— I inferred that the object of the inquiry whether Mr. Beeoher was not in the house was whether it was a matter of his participation. [To t he witness.] TESTIMONY OF BE. And in regard to the visit to tlie Flftli Avenue Hotel, did Mr. Beeclier before that know anything of it 1 A. No, Sir. Q. Or of any latent to have it % A. No, Sir. Q. Mr. Tracy, reference has heen made in the examiaa tion to the f a<}t of yonr having heen counsel for Messrs , Woodruff & Eohinson while Mi\ Moulton was a memher of that firm, ia some litigations of theirs. You were such counsel? A. I was counsel ia one litigation for them, and in the Government matter, which did not result in a litigation, technically speaking. Q. Well, Sir, you were their lawyer ? A. I was. Q. The usual professional relations? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Of client and counsel, and for compensation 1 A. Yes, Sir. {Sotto voce.} Very modest, too. Q, Now, Sir, you were asked whether you made any suggestions to the then cross-examining counsel, Mr. Porter, when Mr. Moulton was on the stand, concerning any of the matters in which you were counsel for them. Mr. Beach— Oh, no ! Mr. Evarts— Yes. Mr. Beach— Oh, no 1 ^ir. Evarts— Yes, he was. Mr. Beach— Oh, no ! Mr. Evarts— He was, about this specific thing. Mr. Beach — The question I put was whether, when !Mr. Porter was examining ia regard to that Government dif- ficulty, he ma4e any suggestion to Mr. Porter, and he said not upon that subject. 3Ir. Evarts— Well, I understand that to be the porat, when Mr. Porter was cross-examining' Mr. Moulton con- cerning the Government matters whether Mr. Tracy did not make him suggestions at that point of the examina- tion. Mr. Beach— Certainly I did ask him, and he said " no." Mr. Evarts— Very well ; he said no. [To the witness, j Now, Sir, at any time ia the conduct of this case have you ever made any suggestions or given any intimations con- cerning any examination or any introduction into this cause of those litigations ? A. I have not, Sir ; on the contrary, I have protested against it. THE DEFENSE RESTS. Mr. Beacli— Wait, wait. Judge NeUson— That answers it, Mr. Evarts— I think he has a right to say Judge Neilson— I think so. Mr. Beach— Well, a brother lawyer on the stand. I •han't object to it. Sir— simply the denial of the fact. I don't think it is competent. Mr. Evarts— That is aU the re-direct. [To Mr. Beach.] Do you wish to cross-examine 1 Mr. Beach— No, Sir. Mr. Evarts— We rest, if your Honor please. Judge Neilson— Gentlemen, will you get ready to retire! I^JAMIJS F. TRACY, 313 PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL CONSENT THAT MES. TLLTON MAY TESTIFY. Mr. Beacli— Wait one moment, if your Honor please. If your Honor please, in the course of this trial much allusion has been made to the fact that Mrs. TUton was an incompetent witness by the rules of evidence, and was excluded from taking the witness-stand la regard to a subject matter which so deeply affected her position and interest. We have deemed it due. Sir. to her, to our- selves, to the case which we represent, to announce to your Honor and to the counsel for the defense that we make no objection whatever to ^Irs. Tilt on being pro- duced by them as a witness, and that whatever objec- tions we might legally present against her competency as a witness we waive entirely, and shall raise no question if our friends upon the other side choose to produce her. And I may be permitted to say, perhaps, in addition, that Mrs. Tilton is an incompetent witness very much in the same sense with any other witness who is disquali- fied, or was disqualified before our recent laws upon the subject, by interest and by relationship, and that it is an objection which may be waived by the parties to the litigation. Your Honor will remember the phraseology of the statute relating to the competency of husband and wife as witnesses when either is a party, and de- claring that neither the one nor the other shall be com- petent or eompellible to testify ia ce'rtain cases and in regard to certain transactions. I suppose, Sir, from the language of the statute, and from the known practice under the common law declaring the disabilities of wit- nesses, that it is a matter which rests entirely in the dis- cretion of the parties to the litigation, except, possibly, so far as it may be esteemed the policy of the law to exclude the revelation of confidential communications ; and I suppose, and I understand it to be so intimated by the decisions, that even in regard to those matters, it is entirely within the pleasure of the parties, or the party, the husband or the wife, to object, or of the witness himself or herself, to object to the reve- lation of even those matters which are considered as sacred to the domestic relation. Ail we wish to say, Sir, is that we consent upon our part that our friends upon the other side can use Mrs. Tilton as a witness in this case if they choose. THE DEFENSE DECLINE TO CALL MRS. TIL- TON. Mr. Evarts — The question whether Mrs. TU- ton could be a witness in this case has never been an ac- tual question. The law prohibits it ; the policy of the law prohibits it ; the general sense of the wisdom of that policy prohibits it. There was a period during the prog- ress of this cause when the Legislature of the State was understood to be considering whether the interests of so- ciety, under the provocation of the importance of a par- ticular case, required that they should abrogate the rule 314 IHJ^ TILTON-BEECUMB TBIAL. ot law and abandon the policy of society, and open the discords of husband and wife swearing against one another in court ; and the Legislature by an unanimous judgment (as we must understand), and the concurrence of all the people of the State, said, our law wisely and firmly determines that question. Now, if Mrs. Tilton at any time could legally have been proposed and admitted as a witness, there would then have been two practical questions for us, as counsel, to determine— grave and important questions, which have never yet arisen for our determination, because the law hafi sealed her lips in any litigation in which her husband is a party. Those two grave questions would have been (first), in our sole relation of duty to our client. If we thought his case, as we had presented it, had any such defect in volume or force of evidence that any other were needed, then it would have been our duty to adduce such evidence, further, as the law opened to us. We have now no such opinion, and no such view, that our case needs any more testimony than we have given. If, however, we had come, ta the sole relation of duty to our client, to dispose of that practical question, and the wife were a witness that the law permitted to be introduced, then we should have the grave duty of determining whether some injury, even some weakness that we felt might need to be supplied in our client's case, should properly be sup- plied by this grave antagonism, tearing to pieces the last shred of respectability and hope in the future for this family. Fortunately we have not been brought by any doubt or hesitation as to the force and fullness of our defense, into that grave moral question. But your Honor sees that these are all hypothetical inquiries, and to which I should not have alluded tn the least, but for the introduction by our learned friend of this proposition. WHY PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL WITHDREW OBJECTION TO THE TESTIMONY. Mr. Beach— I did not suppose, Sir, that the suggestion which I made was to give occasion for a dis- cussion or an address of this character. I do not propose to follow it. Nor is it necessary for me to present the motives which iaduced me to withdraw any possible ob- jection which we might have to the competency of this lady as a witness. I shall not pursue the question whether the necessities of the defendant's case would properly lead them to the consideration of the propriety of examining this lady; nor shall I consider, Sir, the other question whether her presentation as a witness in this case would lead to an antagonism productive of the results anticipated by the learned counsel. "Very much might be said upon that subject. Sir, as to how much of the garment of respecta- bility is left in the present condition and attitude of this family, and as to the responsibility, rest where it may, for producing these sad results. Those are matters. Sir, which I do not care to albule to, rlioucrn T might possibly answer with some force, and perhaps emphasis, tfte sug- gestions of the learned counsel. I may say. Sir, that in my view of the policy of the law, the counsel is entirely mistaken in his construction, both of the legal intent of our legislation and of the public sense in regard to the propriety of a woman being permitted to defend herself, if she can, under the circumstances in which Mrs. Ulton is placed. Tn a former discussion. Sir, we alluded some- what, and somewhat extensively, to the policy of our legis- lation upon that subject, and I think it was very clearly demonstrated to your Honor that by the policy of the law it is now possible for husband and wife compulsorily to be placed, as witnesses in a cause in a court of justice, in positive and direct and humiliating antagonism to each other. It is not the policy of the law of our State to forbid that adverse position. But I do not propose, Sir, to discuss it. My only object was to announce to your Honor, and to give to our learned friends the ben- efit of the announcement, that if they chose to avail themselves of the testimony of this lady in this case, in a legitimate way, our objection being withdrawn, and to present her testimony in such a shape and before such a tribunal that it could be examined and tested by the ordi- nary rules of evidence, and not by indirection before an- other tribimal and in another shape, they were at perfect liberty to do so. JUDGE NEILSON APPROVES THE COURSE OF THE DEFENSE. Mr. Evarts— But a word, if your Honor please. I presented in full, as your Honor will remem- ber, my view of the law and the policy of the law on this question, as presented by the situation when Mr. TUton was offered as a witness, and I do not propose to repeat that. In conclusion— conclusion upon my part, I mean— I only need to say that we do not regard consent or stipa- lation between parties to the violation of a law which excludes, on grounds of public policy, a witness as making him or her a competent witness. Judge Neilson— The question here would be very differ- ent from that which was presented when the competency o*" the plaintiff was under consideration. Mr. Evarts— That I understand. Jud^«" Neilson— Because we have here a statute directed to the swlation of a husband or a wife, a party to the ac- tion in an action of this character. I have only to shy, that the luestion having been presented, and the offer having been made, and the learned counsel for the de- fense thinking it their duty to decline to accept the sug- gestion, 1 confess I feel gratified that the lady is not to be called. [To the jury.] Gentlemen, please prepare to retire. The Court here took the usual recess until 2 o'clock. TESTIJdOyY OF CR. REBUTTIXG TESTIMONY FOR THE PLAINTIFF. After recess, at 2:10 o'clock, the taking of tlie rebutting testimony in behaLf of tlie jlaintiff was trc- gun. Tlie first point taken up was, in wliat war r*Ir. Tilton took part in tlie procession in lionor of Eossel, tlie Communist. TESTIMONY OF CHAELES C. ST AXLE Y. CTiarles C. Stanley was called by plaintiff and sworn. Mr. Morris— :yir. Stanley, vrliere do you reside ? A. Xo. 77 Ralph-ave., Brooklyn. Q. In Brooklyn ? A. Brooklyn ; yes, Sir. Q. And wliat is your business '? A. I am a journeyman pocket-book maker. iLL\ Erarts— Mr. Stanley, won't you speak a linle louder, so tliat tuese gentlemen (tlie furthest on tlie jmy) can bear you. Mr. Morris— Are you acquainted witli :Mr. Tilton, tbe plaintiff ] A. I never spoke to tlie gentleman ujitii tliis morning. Q. You know Mm by sigbt ? A. Know Mm by sigbt. Q. In December, '71, did you know Gren. Eyan by sight or personally ? A. I am not positive that I could point the gentleman out. A Juror— Speak a little louder. Mr. Morris— Did you then know Mr. Tilton by sight ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Were you present at the procession called the Eossel procession, on the 17th of December— Sunday, the 17th of December, 1871 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. Did you see Mr. Tilton in the procession ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Where did that procession form 1 A. In the neigh- borhood of the Cooper Institute, on Third-ave. Q. At about what point (iid the different sections of the procession come together and the procession complete "was formed? A. The procession was completed at the comer of Great Jones-st. and the Bowery; the different sections joined ra the procession, passing into Great Jones-st. Q. Did you see Mr. Tilton in the procession 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. At what point did you first see Mm 1 A. In Great Jones-st., in the vicinity of Lafayette-place. Q. And that is the point that you designate where the procession fcrmed complete? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Where the procession was completed, completely ■formed ; was Mr. Tilton in company with any person ? A. Well, he was walking in the procession with one of the sub-divisions; I didn't notice particularly whom he ■walked -with ; he seemed beside a gentleman who was «ome inches shorter than MmseLf. Q. And in what, about what part of the procession was he walking? A. He was in a sub-division, which was led S)y some ladiee, in company -with a banner ; Mr. Tilton ELES C. STAXLI^Y. 315 was distantfrom them eight or ten paces in the rear, some thii^t}- or forty persons intervening between them. Q. Do you know who those ladies were, any of themi A. Well, they were— my attention was called to them, and I asked who they were, and I was told that it waa Mrs. Woodhull and her sister. Miss Claflin. Q. And was either of them carrying a banner or flag ? A. I didn't notice that they carried it ; there seemed to be a man between them; I can't say who carried the banner; there was a banner there and a man and two women. Q. Do you know who that gentleman was ? A. No, Sir. Q. It was not Mr. Tilton? A. It was not Mr. Tilton. Q. As to size, was it a tall man or medium size? A. That I can't say. Q. You don't recollect as to that ; did you accompany the procession ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. From there during the rest — during the route they took ? A. Xot tMough the entire route. Q. Did you see Mr. Tilton in the procession at any other point afterwardi A. Yes, Sir. Q. At what other point did you see Mm ? A. In the vicinity of the comer of Fourteenth-st. and University- place ; I think that was the street ; at any rate, it was on. the way up, in the vicinity of Fourteenth-st. Q. And at any other point ? A. On the return, in Four- teenth-st. before the breaMng up. Q. And can you state whether he and the gentleman who was with Mm maintained their relative positions in the procession? A. Whenever I noticed Mr. Tilton— I didn't go there especially to watch him— he maintained the same relative position. Q. Do you know whether he continued walking in com- pany with the same person ] A. That I can't remember. Mr. Evarts— What did he say just now? Mr. Morris— He could not say whether he continued walking ta company -with the same gentleman. [To the witness.] Did you at any time see him walking in com- pany with any lady? A. No, Sir. Q. And did you see him at any time in a carriage ? A. No, Sir. Q. Did you see carriages ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Can you state about how many carriages there were in the procession, according to your recollection ? A. Well, my recollec^tion is very poor ; the carriage — division of carriages formed on Houston-st.; if I remember cor- rectly there were four or five ; sometMng like that. Q. And what part of th« procession did they occupy ! A. That I don't remember. Q. In front or in the rear of Mr. Tilton ? A. I can't say. Q. Can't say as to that— how near were you to Mr. Til- ton at any time ? A. Well, within 15 feet. Q. So that you could not be mistaken as to the person ! A. No, Sir. Q. At the time the procession broke up how near were you to Mr. Tilton ? A. WeU, I did not accompany the 816 TRB TILTON-BEEVHEB lElAL. procession as far as the statue, se that I do not remember ieeing Mr. Tilton at any point above the last corner open- ing on the square. Q. And that was how near where it finally broke up— the place where it ? A. Well, I cannot say the dis- tance to the statue; probably 200 feet. Q. Did the proeession go above that point in its march t A. Above— I walked with the procession to some distance above Fourteenth-st., crossed over and met it on its re- turn on Sixth-ave., about Twenty-second-st. Mr. Beach— You did not accompany it up to its highest point 1 A. No, Sir. Mr. Evarts— I did not hear his last answer. Mr. Beach— He did not accompany the procession up to the highest point of its route. Mr. Morris— That is all. CROSS-EXAMINATION OF MR. STANLEY. Mr. Evarts— Were you one of the procession ? A. No, Sir. Q. Had you any interest in the occasion or subject that was celebrated there by them? A. No, Sir. Q. You were not drawn there, then, by any interest in the procession or its object 1 A. No, Sir ; no particular Interest. Q. You then lived in Brooklyn ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. What was the occasion of your being in New-York that day ? A. Curiosity. Q, Do you mean about this procession ? A. About the procession. Q. Well, you did feel that interest 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. You went over to see it % A. Yes, Sir. Q. But not interest enough to join in it 1 A. No, Sir. Q. Perhaps you didn't sympathize with its object ; how was that 1 A. Not— in the general object of the celebra- tion, but not with any of the " isms " represented in the procession. Q. Exactly; you sympathized with the general objects, but in none of the particular doctrines of the people that were celebrating ? A. No, Sir. Q. Now, were you alone, or did you take some com- panions with you 1 A. I was alone. Q. At what hour did you get in sight of this procession or its preliminary organization 1 A. I can't say exactly ; I think it was about 2 o'clock. Q. What hour did you leave Brooklyn 1 A. Well, after dinner. Q. What hour was that ? A. That I don't remember. Q. Well, you know what you A. We sometimes— I took my dinners at very irregular hours, according to my disposition about going out; sometimes at 1 o'olcck, sometimes later. Q. Yes, but not earlier ? A. Not enrlier. Q. And did you go straight over, with no other object ? A. Ko other object. Q. But as a spectator— after your dinner? A. As a spectator— curiosity. Q. Now, Sir, how far did you follow the procession, and did you take up any companions to talk with you on the way ? A. No, Sir. Q. Now, will you state the route that you followed from Cooper Institute ? A. I did not start with the head of the column from Cooper Institute ; I joined in and passed along on the sidewalk at the corner of Great Jones-st. and Bowery. Q. Yes, and kept up with the head? A. No, Sir; I lingered along; there was some halts; I kept moving along, and took general observations. Q. Well, when you started with your purpose of keep- ing abreast of the prooftssion, were you abreast of the head of it ? A. I saw the head of it pass ; I saw the head of the procession a number of times. Q. Well, my question was a very simple one. As I understand, you undertook to follow the procession a certain way, some ways, didn't you— foUow it along ? A. I had no fixed resolution to follow it. Q. No, I didn't say that; I said you undertook— you started ? A. Yes, Sir, I started. Q. Very well, now ; when you so started did you start abreast of the procession? A. Yes, Sir. Q. You did— well, did you keep abreast of the procession for any length of time ? A. Not abreast of the head of the procession or any other part— any Q. Any particular part ? A. Any particular part, any length of time that I could specify. Q. Very well, then, the procession was rather getting ahead of you aU the while, was it ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Now, at what point did you cease following that pro- cession A. I know that I passed Q. [Continuing] or keeping up with it ? A. I cannot recollect at what point I stopped. Q. On what avenue ? A. Well, I don't remember, but I think it was University-place ; I don't Q. Going up, then— it was going up further, the pro- cession was ? A. Going up, yes. Sir. Q. And you stopped there ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Then, as I understand you, whenever that procession crossed Fourteenth-st. for the first time, you ceased to pay attention to it ? Mr. Beach— He said above Fourteenth-st. The Witness— That is the last street that I remember crossmg. Q. Its crossing, yes— or your crossing A. Yes, Sir. Q. With it— was Fourteenth-st.? A. Yes, Sir. Q. And that was the first time that the procession crossed that street ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. And thereafter you paid no attention to it ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Well, what further ? A. I must have walked up tLat street some distance, because on the retm-n I was on tlie. TESTIMONI OF CHARLES C. .STANLEY. 317 eomer of Twenty-second-st. and Sixth-ave,— about the comer of Twenty-second-st. and Sixtli-ave. Q. How did you get over there 1 A. Crossed over. Q, From where? A. From the route — street, that the procession was moving to Sixth-ave. Q. Yes; you think you crossed from University-place to Sixth-ave. t A. Yes. Q. And in what street did you cross oTer— through what street 1 A. I cannot remember. Mr. Beach— I did not understand him to say that he crossed over from University-place. Mr. Evarts— What he now supposes. Mr. Beach— No ; Twenty-second-st. is al>ove University- place, as I understand. A. Yes, Sir. Mr. Evarts— Well, then, it would be Broadway, then. Mr. Beach— Yes, Sir. The Witness— I remember walking up Sixth-ave. a short distance after I crossed over. Q. After you crossed over ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. And what street you crossed on, then, you do not re- member ? A. No, Sir. Q. Now, did you cross through Fourteenth-st. 1 A. No, Sir. Q. WeU, did you cross through Fifteenth-st, ? A. I could not be positive. Q. Well, so far as you know. Can you name any other street ? A. No, Sir ; I cannot name any other street. Q. Yes; very well A. Nor can I designate that street. Q. What did you cross over to Sixth-ave. for 1 A. To see the procession, and the parts of it, on its return. Q. On its return— see whether it held out ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. As many on the return as there were on the ad- vance ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. That was your idea. Now, Sir, you have stated that you saw Mr. Tilton there that day 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. And, as I understood you, at the formation of the procession t A. Well, by the formation I don't exactly understand you ; I saw him in the procession after all of the sections started to join in at Great Jones-st. ; and you may say I saw him as the procession was forminjr. Q. Yes ; was being— was forming. Well, that I under- stood you. Now, how near the head of the procession was Mr. Tilton 1 A. I don't remember. Q. You haven't the least idea. Well, how near the tail of it was he ? A. That I don't remember. Q. How near the middle was hel A. I can't say. Q. Now, before you left the procession, to cross over toward Sixth-ave., how far had the procession— what pro- portioTs of the procession's length had passed you 1 A. T don't remember. Q. Don't know whether it was a third, or a quarter, or . No, Sir Q. Or any at all A. No, Sir; it was not a very large sectkai. Q. You were pretty near the headi A. That I cannot say— it was not a large procession. Mr. Beach— Not a large procession. Mr. Evarts— Oh, I beg pardon ; well, give us, if you can, any notion how near you were being abreast the head of the procession when j»au deserted it and crossed over to Sixth-ave. 1 A. Well, I cannot remember Q. Can't give us any idea? A. No, Sir. Q. Now, Sir, T imderstand you that you saw Mr. Tilton afterward ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. After the formation ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. After that point — where did you see him again ! A. At some point in Fourteenth-st., after turning out of Sixth-ave. Mr. Beach— That is, as the procession was coming down ? A. Coming down ; yes, Sir. Mr. Evarts— Coming back— returning upon its route; did you follow the procession after it got down to the Sixth-ave. where you were — did you follow it then to the end 1 A. As near as the crowd would permit. Q. Yes. A. I did not reach the , statue, which was the point for the breaking up ; there was much confusion at the close. Q. But you followed it substantially to the end of the route ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Now, in so following, on this return part of the route, were you abreast of the head or of the tail, or of the middle of the procession ? A. I met the head and loitered along. Q. With it ? A. And allowed it to pass me, and before we had reached Union-square I suppose I was near the end of the procession. Q. Well, this procession was not on a trot, was it ? A. No, Sir. Q. And you were walking down— you walked about as fast as the procession ? A. No, Sir. Q. WeU, you started, then, abreast of the head from Sixth-ave., about ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. And how much of the length of the procession had got ahead of you before you started ? A. W^eU, the route of the procession was on my way home, and, as I say, it had nearly passed me when I arrived at Union-square. Q, Yes ; on the Sixth-ave. you had gone so much slower than that ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. That it had passed you. Now, Sir, when you saw Mr. TUton the second time in the procession, what was his position as respects the head, the middle, or the tail f A. The same as when I saw him in Great Jones-st. Q. WeU, which was that ? A. A distance of some 30 or 40 feet intervening between him and this banner that was carried and accompanied by two women. Q. WeU, was there more than one banner ? A. There were several banners. Q. Well, which banner was it I A. The one acconi!> panied by two ladies, being carried by a man. Q. Very well, and who was in the rear— that is, after 318 TEE TILION-BBEOHEB TEIAL. tiiat ? A. He was in tlie rear of that particular subdi- vision of tlie precession. Q. Yes, and lie formed a part of that division? A. Well, lie seemed to : he was walking with them. Q. Now, did you know the man that was in this carriage with the two women 1 A. No, Sir. Q. Did you say that you knew Gen. Ryan 1 A. No, Sir ; he was pointed out to me on th/ 1 day, but it made no impression, Q. You don't know his appearance by sight? A. No, Sir. Q. Did not before ? A. No, Sir. Q. Did you say where you saw him? A. No, Sir. Q. Well, now, these women that were in this carriage- were there also women in other carriages ? A. I took no particular notice of the carriages with the exception of one in which there was a woman holding a red flag. Q. Yes ? A. That is aU that I remember of that part of it. Q. Was she alone in that carriage? A. I don't remem- ber ; I think not— likely not. Q. Who was with her ? A. I don't remember. Q. Who was she ? A. That I don't know. Q. Did you inquire ? A. Yes, Sir ; one of the passing crowd said that she was a late arrival from Paris. [Laughter, in which the witness loined.] Q. Well, did you laugh as much then as you do now ? A. Sir? Q. Did you laugh then as much as you do now ? A. Yes, Sir; T was amused. Q. And your friend also ? A. I was with no friend. Q. Well, I mean the gentleman who gave you this in- formation ? A. No, Sir ; he was walking along. Q, He didn't laugh 1 A. I don't remember. Mr. Beach— He ran away. Mr. Evarts— Well, Gen. Hyan was not in that carriage ? A. T don't remember, Sir. Q. Mr. Til ton was not? A. No, Sir. Q. You are sure of that— now this carriage which you say Miss Claflin was in ? A. I didn't say that Miss Claflin was in that. Q. Well, some one. A. Some one w^as in the carriage. Mr. Evarts— I thought he said so. Didn't you in the dii-ect? Oh, you saw somebody that was pointed out to you as Miss Claflin ? A. Only walking in the procession. Q. On foot ; yes, Sir ? A. On foot. Q. Now, whereabouts was this lady that was pointed out as Miss Claflin to you in the procession ? A. She was accompanying a flag and banner of some Mnd. Q. And who carried it ? A. A man. Q. A tall man ? A. I don't remember. Q. WeU, was there any other lady that accompanied It ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Was she also described to you— named to you ? A. In a general way ; I asked who they were ; I was told it yra& Victoria Woodhull and her sister. Q. And her sister— and were they carrying the taasela 1 A. I don't remember. Q. Well, see if you cannot bring that picture back now to your eye, that there was a man carrying the flag and Mrs. Woodhull and her sister with the tassels in their hands ? A. I don't remember ; it might have been ; I cannot say. Q. Now, can you describe that man in any way, so that we can get at it ? A. No, Sir. Q. Can't say ? A. No, Sir. Q. Whether he was tall, whether he had blue eyes— can you? A. No, Sir. Q. Long hair ? A. No, Sir ; I can't describe him. Q. Now, duruig the whole time that this procession was engaged on its route— from the time you left it in Univer- sity-place, or the extension of University-place, imtU you resumed your observation of it in the Sixth-ave.— you don't know what happened to it, do you? A. No, Sir. Q. You don't know whether they changed hands, got into the carriage and others walked, so they rode and tied as they went on about those banners or npt, do you ? A. I don't know what they did while they was out of my sight. Q. Now, when do you remember flrst seeing Mr. TUton in connection with that procession ? A. In Great Jones-st. Q. After the procession was formed ? A. Just as it had formed. Q. Well, after it was proceeding along ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. You did not see him while they were standing about ? A. No, Sir. Q. Organizing ? A. No, Sir. Q. But as it strimg along, when he was in it? A. Yes, Sir. Q. The first time you saw him he was in it ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Now, how many ranks were there between Mr. Tilton and this banner that some one was carrying, and Mrs. Woodhull and Miss Claflin attending? A. From six to ten; I cannot say exactly ; at some times they were nearer, as the procession became crowded— perhaps within 20 feet, and then again perhaps 40 or 50 feet. Q. But with the same number of ranks ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. And how many people walked abreast in these ranks t A. I think four— an average ot four. Q. You think Mr. Tilton was in sight of this banner ana its standard-bearers^ A. Yes; I should think so. Q. When did you flrst think of being a witness here? A. Perhaps three weeks since. Q. What directed youi- attention to it, or anybody's at- tention to you ? A. Well, the fact that I thought there was some misstatement, and I being a witness of it Q. You thought that this statement about Mr. Tilton was wrong, and you had seen something that would con- tradict it, and you made it known ? A. Yes. Mr. Evarts— Well, that is all. Mr. Morris— That is all, Sir. TJiSTlMONY OF GE0BGJ2 W. MADDOX. 319 TESTIMONY OF GEORGE W. MADDOX. Mr. Morris then called Lewis Payne, but Mr. Pearsall spoke to him as Mr. Payne was coming forward, and Mr. Morris called Mr. Maddox in place of the other. George W. Maddox, being duly sworn, testified as fol- lows : Mr. Morris— Mr. Maddox, where do you reside ? A. In New- York. Q. Are you acquainted with Mr. TUton, the plaintiff, hy sight, or personally ? A. I know him by sight. Q. And did you know him in December, 1871, by sight ? A. I have known him by sight from six to ten years. Q. Were you acquainted with Mrs. Woodhull at that time ? A. I was. Q. Did you see the procession on Sunday, the 17th of December, 1871, that has been spoken of? A. The Kossel procession ? Q. Yes, the Rossel procession 1 A. I was in it. Q. And what part of the procession were you in 1 A. My recollection is that I was near the head of the line. Q. Did you see Mr. Tilton in that procession ? A. I saw Mm once or twice. Q. In what part of the procession was he ? A. My rec- ollection is that it was near the center of the Une. Q. And at what points of the route did you see him 1 A. I cannot now designate any particular point. Q. Was he in company with any person % A. He was in company with gentlemen. Q. Did you know either of those he was marching with 1 A. I did not know anybody but Mr. Tilton as I noticed then. Q. And at the different points at which you— you can- not designate, you say, the points, but at the different points at which you did see him, did he occupy the same relative position with reference to the procussioni A. That is my recollection. Q. Did you see Mrs. Woodhull in that procession ? A. A great many times. Q. And Miss Claflini A. Both of them. Q. Now, state where you first saw them in the proces- sion, with reference to its formation 1 A. I saw them at the formation of the line; tudeed, before the line was formed. Q. Before the line was formed. Where did it form 1 A. My recollection is it was formed on Seventh-st. ; at all events, the section to which I belonged was formed on that street. Sections formed in different parts and places, and then came together at a general rendezvous. Q. And when was the procession completed— do you recollect 1 A. At about Cooper Union, or the square there. Q. Now, when did you first see Mrs. Woodhull and Miss Claflin 1 You say you saw them before the procession formed ; whereabouts ? A. In different parts of the route from the beginning to the end ; I have stated that I saw them before the formation and afterward; they be- longed to Section 12, and were in that section ; I cannot now designate the particular part of the line that that section occupied. Q. But you saw them at various points ; now what part of the procession did they occupy, as near as you can state 1 A. I have just stated that my recollection is that they occupied about the center of the line. Q. About the center 1 A. About the center of the line. I may be mistaken as to that, for I took no note of any- thing particular. Q. Did either of them carry a banner or flagi A. One did certainly, and perhaps both. Q. Did you observe whom they were marching with— any gentleman escort? A. When they came on to the ground, there was Col. Blood and Mr. West, and my recollection is that there were others, but I cannot recall their names. Q. What was Mr. West's first name? A. WUliam. Q. Do you know where he is now % A. I do not. Q. And when you saw Mrs. Woodhull at different parts of the procession, did you see Col. Blood ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Was he in company with her ? A. I should say so, but he would not impress me, on my recollection, as the ladies would, because it was a sort of daring adventure for the ladies to march in that procession, and conse- quently it impressed itself upon my attention. Q. How far were you from Mrs. Woodhull and Miss Claflla ia the procession ? A. Well, perhaps, 100 feet ; it might have been 200 ; I cannot recollect now how long the line was, or how many were in it. Q. Where you behind them or in front ? A. I think I was in front ; yet I may be mistaken as to that. Q. Now, where did you see Mr. Tilton ? A. In the line of march ? Q. Yes. A. And that you have asked me two or three times. Q. I mean with reference to the ladies, Mrs. Woodhull and Miss Claflin— how far from them ? A. WeU, not near them ; perhaps it might have been as far as across this room ; it might have been twice as far ; I can positively swear that they were not together when I saw them. Q. And did you march the whole entire length of the procession? A. I did. Q. Now, at any time during the march of that proces- sion, did you see Mi". Tilton m company either with Mrs. Woodhull or Miss Clafiin ? A. I did not see him in com- pany with any lady whatever. Q. Now, state the route that that procession took from Cooper Institute. A. My recollection is that we started from Cooper Institute, marched down Fourth-st. to Fifth-ave. or University-place, thence to Fifth-ave., thence up Fifth-ave. ; that is my recollection ; now, I do not say that that is true. Q. Give us the best of your recollection. A. We marched up as far as Thirty-second-st.— up to Stewart's— what place is that? 820 'CHE TIL TON -B. Mr. Morris— That is TMrty-f ourtli-st. The Witness— Well, Thirty-fourth-st. and returned; but we did not return the same route, so we must have gone, perhaps, ap Sixth-ave., and we were disbanded at Fom^- teenth-st. as we went round the Lincoln statue ; and waved the flags, and then were disbanded. Q. And did you see Miss Claflin and Mrs. Woodhuli at the time the procession disbanded at that point t A. Yes, Sir ; I did. Q. Were they in a carriage at any time in the proces- sion when you observed them 1 A. I should say no if you had not asked the question. Q. Well, you have no recollection of seeing them in a carriage at any time ? A. I have no recollection of seeing a carriage there, or them in a carriage. Q. Did you know Gen. Ryan at that time? A. I did not, nor never knew him. CEOSS-EXAMINATION OF MR. GEORGE W. MADDOX. Mr. Evarts— What is your employment or profession ? A. I am a real estate broker. Q. Where do you carry on your business ? A. No. 29 Broadway. Q. Have you been connected with the press heretofore at all ? A. Well, in scraps. Q. As a reporter ? A. Not as a reporter. Q. As a writer, do you mean I A. I published a paper myself— got out three whole numbers. [Laughter.] Q. Three ? A. Yes. Q. What paper was that t A. TTie International, Q. When was that ? A. Last year— a year ago. Q. It has passed into other hands now 1 A. It has passed into— defunct. [Laughter.] Mr. Evarts— It has left the undertaker's hands and gone into the hands of the undertaker. [Laughter.] Q. Well, you say you are acquainted with these ladies- Mrs. Woodhuli and Miss Claflin ? A. Yes. Q. Do you mean that you had personal acquaintance with them? A. Personal acquaintance with them. Q. And of how long duration 1 A. In the neighborhood of six years. Q. Have you been allied at any time with the political fortunes of Mrs. Woodhuli as a candidate for the Presi- dency? [Laughter.] A. Partially. Q. Did you nominate her ? A. No, I did not ; I was the temporary chairman of that convention. Q. That did nominate? A. That did nominate her. I Laughter.] Q. Well, now, Mr. Maddox, you were a member of this procession ? A. I was. Q. And sympathized with it 1 A. Helped to get it up. Q. Well, as you helped to get it up, perhaps you can teU us how the different parts of it were got up ; for instance, the corps or division in which Mrs. Woodhuli moved— where was that formed? A. We were organized in sec- iJtJCHEE TBIAL. tions; the Internationals were Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, and sa on; I belonged to Section 12. Q. Of the Internationals 1 A. Of the Internationals. Q. What other component parts of the procession were there beside the Internationals? A. Probably many; there were French and German sympathizers and actual oooperators and workers, of whom I knew but little. Q. But you knew there were such persons ? A. Yes. Q. And there were 12 International divisions? A. I do not say there were 12 International divisions in the pro- cession. Q. Ah ! A. I say they were organized in that way. Q. In the city ? A. In the city and in the country, and everywhere. Q. As an organization. And this paper of yours was the organ of that organization ? A. It was the organ of myself. Q. Ah ! as the head of the organization ? A. No, Sir ; as the head of the principles put forth by the luternar tionals. Q. I mean that. A. And I took on myself the respon- sibility ; it certainly represented myself, if it did not rep- resent them. Q. You took the name " International " in reference to this organized body of Internationals ? A. Yes ; to be sure. Q. That is all I intended. What is the organ of that or- ganization now, since your paper has been defunct ? A. It has no particular organ. Indeed, the whole organiza- tion, largely in this country and in Europe, has suspended for the time being. Q. Not defunct ? A. WeU, not as bad as my paper. [Laughter.! Q. No ? A. They are operating partially through secret organizations under different names. Q. Now, were you a member of the division of this pro- cession where Mrs. Woodhuli and her sister were ? A. No; I was not. Q. Do you know where the section in which these ladies were was formed— where it started from ? A. Its incipient formation ? Q. Yes. A. It grew out of Section No. 9. Q. But I am not connecting it with the divisions of the Internationals at all ; I mean this section of the proces- sion, where it formed itself— whereabouts did it form itself— at Cooper Institute or somewhere else 1 A. I do not know. Q. You don't know ? A. The Marshal of the Day would be able to tell you quite correctly. Q. Can you tell us who he is ? A. I think Theodore Banks. Mr. Morris— He will be here ; he is subpenaed. Q. Now, were you in the division of this procession where Mr. Tilton was ? A. No ; my recollection is that lie was not in Section No. 9. Q. You were in No. 9 1 A. Yes, I was in No. 9. TJiSTlMONY OF GE Q. And Mrs. Woodlmll was not in No. 9 1 A. No. Q. Was Mr. Tilton in the same division in which Mrs. Woodhull was '? A. Mr. Tilton 1 Q. Yes. A. Well, it would be very difficult tor me to say, for I do not know how large the divisions were ; No. 9 had in the neighhorhood of 100 persons ; I don't know that one half that number attended; I don't know how many belonged to Section 12 ; tliere may have been 100 there, for augM I know. Q. What number was Mr. Tilton in? A. I don't know. Q. That you do not know 1 A. No, I do not. Q. Well, it is natiu-al you should not. Now, in -what number was Mrs. Woodhull? A. In ber own part. Q. What part was that? A. No. 12. Q. How large that was you do not know? A. I do not. Q. Now, you say you saw Mr. Tilton twice % A. I do. Q. You saw Mr. Tilton twice ? A. My recollection is that I saw him twice. Q. You recollect that you saw him twice 1 A. Perbaps I saw bim more times tban that. Q. But you have said that you saw him twice. Now, how did you happen to see bim at all if you were not in the same division % A. At the turning of the street and as I looked around to see what was coming after me and to look at the flags, and he would be a prominent figure because be would be taller than almost anybody else ; and my recollection is, moreover, that somebody called my attention to the fact that Theodore Tilton was marching in the procession, and I was surprised. Q. You were ? A. But I am very glad. Q. You were surprised and delighted 1 A. Yes. Q. Oh ! Well, he was then in sight if you turned aroimd and looked back ? A. I presume so. Q. Was he between you and the Woodhull's carriage, or branch, wherever they were 1 A. No, I think he was in the rear of both. Q. You think he was behind them 1 A. I do. Q. So you think when you looked back you saw the Woodhulls and Mr. Tilton at the same glance % A. It would be naturally so. Q. Now, Sir, once you saw htm la that way by looking back, did you not 1 A. I suppose so, too. Q. I suppose so from your testimony. A. Yes, I should suppose so. Q. And once you think when the procession, turning on Itself, brought those who were in different parts of it in sight of one another 1 A. I don't know; but then I saw him at both times, and more times than twice when I turned the corners, or made an angle in the procession; it would be quite Impossible for me to designate the par- ticular points at which I saw him ; I can't do it. Q. Well. A. That is, I think I can't. However, peg %way ; I may be able to get at something. [Laughter.] Mr. Evarts— You know T am not trying to prove any- OBGE W. MADDOX. 331 thing by you ; I am only trying to prove that there was not anything to prove by you. It is not my business to help you to prove anything. Mr. Beach— He is trying to unprove what has been proved. The Witness— Oh, is that it 1 [Laughter.] Mr. Evarts— Now you can argue your cue. Now, can you say at what comer It was that you saw him, or at what point of the procession, some part of it being at an angle with the other 1 A. No, I cannot. Q. You cannot ? Can you say whether he was always behind you in the procession? A. I would not dare to say that either. I am not sure but that he was ahead of me when we were discharged or broken up, and I am not sure that I even saw him there. Q. Can you say whether Mrs. Woodhull and Miss Claflin were always behind you in the procession ? A. Yes ; I should be very safe to swear they were always behind us; yes, I think I would be very safe to do that. Q. On what ground would you be safe? A. On the ground of the position that they occupied ; now, I am not certain but they were ahead of Section No. 9. Q. Oh, you don't know. A. I am not sure of these things; I am sure of certain facts ; but I cannot outline them particularly. Q. I understand. You don't know, then, but IVIr. TU- ton, and Mrs. Woodhull, and IVIiss Claflin in this proces- sion were ahead of you instead of behind you? A. I am sure of one thing— if they were ahead of me, they were not together ; if they were behind me, both at the same time, they were not together. Q. Yes ; that you are sure of ? A. Yes ; no doubt about that. Q. You mean by that, that you are sure that you did not see them together ? A. I am sure I did not see them together. Q. Do you mean anything more than that ? A. No ; I don't mean anything more than that. Q. No ; I should think not. Now, did this procession go from Fitth-ave. to Sixth-ave., tlirough Thirty-fourth- st.? A. Well, that I can't recollect. Q. Well, what is jowv imyiression? A. My impression is that— and it is made up, too, from the naturalness of the story Q. That you are going to teU ? A. That I am going to tell ; that we went up Sixth-ave. Q. Went up Sixth-ave. instead of down 1 A. Yes ; and came down Fifth-ave. Q. Instead of up ? A. Now, it might be the reverse ; and I am not certain but we marched up Fifth-ave. and down Fifth-ave.; I can swear positively that we did march. [Laughter.] Mr. Evarts— Well, I suppose so. I guess that is alL [Laugbter.1 82^ THE TILTON-B. TESTIMONY OF JOHN SWINTON. John Swinton was called and sworn on be- half of the plaintiff. Mr. Morris— Mr. Swinton, where do you reside t A. In New-York. Q. Connected witli the press ? A. Semi-detached, Q. Are you acquainted with Mr. Theodore Tilton t A. Partially. Q. Were you acquainted with him in December, 1871 ? A. Slightly. Q. And were you acquainted with Mrs. Woodhull— Victoria C. Woodhull— at that time ! A. I had seen her. Q. Knew her by sight 1 A. Knew her with more or less definiteness by sight ; I had seen her in Broad-st. many times and oft. Q. And Miss Claflin % A. I had seen her in the same place and under the same circumstances. Q. You recollect the Bossel procession on the 17th of December, 1871? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Did you take part in the procession, or were you in the procession? A. As a processionist. Q. In company with any one ? A. In company with some one. Q. Who ? A. Mr. Theodore Tilton. Q. And did you march in company with him in the pro- cession ? A. Arm in arm. Q. Now, at what point, Mr. Swinton, did you and Mr. Tilton start with the procession ? A. Between Eighth— between Ninth and Fourteenth-sts. and Fifth-ave. Q. Did you start together there 1 A. He was in the pro- cession when I joined it. Q. You joined it at that point? A. I joined it at a pomt between these points. Q. And did you continue with htm then during the rest of the procession? A. The entire continuity of the pro- cession. Q. Did you see the procession approaching, and notice Mr. Tilton in what position he was ? A. I did. Q. Who was he marching with, if you know ? A. When I saw him he seemed to be with— he was with an elderly- looMng gentleman, a dignifled, respectable, over-age Citizen, who I did not know; I think I was introduced to him when saluting Mr. Tilton. Q. Was it Mr. Gregory ? A. I think Mr. Tilton said, "Allow me to introduce you to one of the pioneers of Land Reform." Q. The name does not occur to you ? A. I have thought since it was Gregory by looking over a sketch of the affair. Q. Sketches of the procession? A. Yes, some Inferential Idea of that kind ; I hardly can trace it. Q. Did you see Mrs. Woodhull in the procession t A. No, Sir. Q. Or Miss Claflin? A. No, Sir. Q. You didn't see either of them ? A. No, Sir. 'ECHEB TBIAL. Q. Now, from between Ninth and Fourteenth-sts,, when you joined the procession, will you describe the line of march after that that the procession took ? A. The line of march was up Fifth-ave. to Thirty-fourth-st., across Thirty-fourth-st. to Broadway and Sixth-ave., down Sixth-ave. to Fourteenth-st., and across there to the Lincoln Monument; there the disbanding took place by a salutation of the figure on the monument. Q. Now, was Mr. Tilton marching with you or by your side during the whole of the line of march after you joined it? A. The whole line of march; yes. Sir. Q. UntU the disbandment of the procession? A. Yes, Sir. Q. And walking arm-in-arm ? A. Arm-in-arm. Q. You say you didn't see Mrs. Woodhull or Miss Claflin at any time ? A. No, Sir. Q. Did Mr. Tilton, during any part of that procession while you were with him, march in company with either Mrs. Woodhull or 3Iiss ClaflLn ? A. Not from any point between what might be called the point of departure and the point of termination he was with nobody, and with neither of these ladies. Q. When the procession disbanded, did you and Mr. TUton separate ? A. I went with him to the comer of Fourteenth-st. and Union-square, and there parted to take the Fourth-ave. cars to my house; I was very sick, and it cost me six months' sickness and $5,000 or $10,000. Q. At the point where you separated from Mr. Tilton that day, did you see either Mrs. Woodhull or Miss Claflin ? A. No, Sir. Q. How long was it after the procession disbanded be- fore you parted with Mr. Tilton ? A. I should say five or ten minutes; we stopped to see the rather imposing ceremony at the conclusion — the colored regiment pre- sented arms ; and we were detained, perhaps, five or ten minutes ; I think Mr. Tilton said that he was hungry, or I said that I was hungry. Q. How long did that line of procession take? A. I think it was over an hour ; I should imagine so from the fact it was nearly dusk when I got home. CROSS-KXjyVIINATION OF JOHN SWINTON. Mr. Evarts— What was this procession in honor of? A. It was in honor of the martyrdom of Satory, Bourgeoise, Ferrier, and Rossel. Q. Not of Rossel alone ? A. No, Sir, it was in honor of the first execution under the military tribunal. Q. The first execution of the Commime ? A. The first execution ; there had been murders Innumerable, but no legal execution up to that time. Q. Of the Communists ? A. Yes, Sir, of the Com- mimists. Q. That was the first execution of the so-called Com- munists ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Now, was your joining that procession at the point you did a casual thing with you, or did you start with the TESTIMONY OF purpose of joining it 1 A. I started with the purpose of martyrdom. Q. Absolute 1 A. Absolute. Q. And that you missed ! A. Hardly ; I have been in that condition ever since. [Laughter.] Q. Yes— ready to start again ? A. Yes. Q. Any moment? A. Any moment. Q. But my point, Mr. Swinton, was simply this— whether you joined that procession at the point you did at the Fifth-ave. from a casual circumstance, or whether you had started to join the procession and reached it at that point by accident only ? A. Shall I tell you how I came to that point ? Q. Yes. A. In regard to the sympathetic emotions that led me there, thus and so— I reached the Cooper Institute about one o'clock ; the procession was to start at that time ; I saw the colored people, and I saw the Germans and Americans and others, and before I very weU knew, while looking around at the catafalque and various adornments, etc., the procession started; I, somewhat negligent, slight- ly alarmed, started across Eighth-st. to Broadway to head off the procession; when I got there I found that I had not headed it off, and that the head of the procession had crossed Broadway. In order to make another attempt to head them off I started up Broadway and took a cross street— I am not positive as to the street at which I crossed— and I did not there, either, succeed in heading them off. I struck what I supposed was about the middle of the procession, from the fact that I saw neither its head nor its tail, and there I saw Mr. Tilton. Q. Was this procession on a trot, that it got ahead of you so often 1 [Laughter.] A. Well, I am of an indolent habit, and probably was musing on the infinite as I went there. [Laughter.] Q. And you struck the infinite about the middle, so that you could see neither end of it 1 [Laughter.] Well, Mr. Swinton, when did you first think of your having been a companion of Mr. Tilton in this procession, after you parted with him that night 1 A. I habitually thought of it, from the apprehension— the alarm that I suffered on seeing him there. Q. Alarm for his martyrdom as weU as your own ! A. Alarm for his martyrdom ; yes, Sir. I had not known that he was a gentleman who had any sympathy with a thing with which I had such heartfelt sympathy. Q. You say you had it continually in mind % A. He has not occupied the entire mind that I claim to possess, for the whole time that the mind has been in existence, but whenever I have thought of it at all, I have thought of Tilton, for the reason mentioned. It was a very impres- blve incident, my seeing a man there whom I had so little expectation of seeing. I supposed I was going to a pro- cession that Mr. Tilton would not appear in, because I supposed he was a man who had some regard to his own ^tere6t!}> JOHN SWINTON. 323 Q. You don't respect such people ! A. Not the slight- est. I have an inexpressible contempt for them. [Laughter.] Q. And this meeting with Mr. Tilton rescued him from that 1 A. I hope so. Mr. Evarts— That is aU. [Laughter.] Mr. Beqch— It ifl suggested, your Honor, that it will be convenient for some of the gentlemen who are connect-ed with this trial, in one or another of its departments, if at this point we could take our usual adjournment. Judge Neilson— Gentlemen of the jviry, get ready to retire. The Court then adjourned until 11 a. m, Monday. SEVENTY-SEVENTH DAY'S PROCEEDINGS. REBUTTAL TESTIMONY —MES. TILTON WISHES TO BE HEARD. THE WIFE OF THE PLAXTIFF DESIRES A COMMUNI- CATION READ— JUDGE NEILSON TAKES THE MAT* TER INTO CONSIDERATION— STIR CAUSED BY MRS. TILTON'S ACnON— SE^T:N WITNESSES TESTIFY- ING CONCERNING THE ROSSEL PROCESSION— AL- BERT B. MARTIN AND FRANKLIN WOODRUFF CALLED TO REBUT A PART OF MR. TRACY'S TES- TIMONY—MR. TRACY'S IN^TERVIEW WITB. MISS TURNER— WHAT HIS KNOWLEDGE OF THE CHARGE AGAINST MR. BEECHER WAS. Monday, May 3, 1875. One of the most dramatic scenes of the trial, and the only one which has relieved the monotony of its lattor days, occurred at the opening of to-day's session, and was evidently a surprise to all except one or two of Mr. Beecher's lawyers. The court had no sooner been organized than Mrs. Tilton, rising like an apparition in her place, and facing His Honor cried out in her low voice, a little tremulous from embarrassment — " Judge Neilson." The Judge heard without distinguishing her, and looked around as if to discover whence the call had proceeded, when his attention was called to Mrs. Tilton by Mr. Tice, a spectator who sat near, and who repeated her call, at the same time pointing to- ward her. ;Mrs. Tilton, observing that she had the Judge's attention, again spoke up, saying : " Your Honor, I have a communication which I hope your Honor will read aloud." Judge Neilson asked Mr. Evarts to attend to the matter. The envelope held by Mrs. Tilton was given to him, and he, remarking that it was ad. dressed to the Judge, passed it to Judge Neilson, who, after reading the communication, said : 324 TEE TILTOJ^-BEECHER TBIAL. "Mrs. Tilton. this matter will be considered deliberately." The full contents of tbe communication were not made public, all parties to tbe suit declining to give a copy for publication. Judge Neilson said that tbe matter was one to wMch he felt he ought to give the utmost deliberation. Notwithstanding the request of Mrs. Tilton that it be read aloud he felt com- pelled, at least for the present, to consider it as a confidential communication, and even should Mrs. Tilton consent to its immediate publication by him he should decline to give a copy for publication at once. He said the matter would be considered to-day, and possibly, if both counsel for Mr. Tilton and Mr. Beecher consented and Mrs. Tilton insisted, it might be made public. CHARACTER OF THE TESTIMONY. The testimony produced by the plaintiff in re- buttal, was directed in the main toward proving that Mr. Tilton did not ride in the Rossel pro- cession in 1871 with Mrs. Woodhull or Miss Claflin. Seven witnesses were called to testify on this point, and were examined by Mr. Morris and cross-examined by Mr. Ev- arts. Their evidence was mainly corroborative, and went to show that Mr. Tilton had walked in the procession with John Swinton, and had not been in the company of any lady. The first of these wit- nesses was Albert Berghaus, an artist attached to Frank Leslies Illustrated Newspaper. A copy of that paper, containing a sketch which he had made of the procession was produced, and the witness pointed out the figures intended to represent Mrs. Woodhull, Miss Claflin and Col. Blood. Henry O. Fox, a printer; William Force, a candy manufacturer, Lawrence S. Kane, a newspaper reporter ; Theodore H. Banks, the marshal of the procession ; James W. Stillman, a lawyer, and Henry P. McManus, a printer, gave substantially similar accounts of the procession. A small carved head of Gen. Ryan, representing him as wearing a broad-brimmed military hat and long flowing hair, was shown to all of the witnesses who professed to have known Gen. Ryan, and was recognized by them as a good like- ness. The similarity to the outlines of the face and head of Mr. Tilton was striking, and tended to con- firm the theory of the prosecution that Gen. Ryan was mistaken in the procession for Mr. Tilton. Sev- eral of the witnesses swore that Gen. Ryan rode in a carriage with one or more ladies. Much laughter was caused by a remark of Mr. Force, one of the witnesses who saw the procession. He had said that two of his friends who had stood watching the procession with him had died since that time. Judge Neil son asked if they had died after the procession. " Yes," replied the witness in the most matter-of-fact manner, ** after that. Sir. Oh, it could not have been before." Several more witnesses were called by the defense in regard to this procession, but they were not present in court. Albert B. Martin, the Superintendent of the free reading-room of the Church of the Pilgrims, was called to testify in reference to the interview at Mrs, Ovington's house between Gen. Tracy and Bessie Turner just previous to her appearance before the Investigating Committee. The witness said that he had called at Mrs. Ovington's on that day to see Mrs. Tilton, and had found Bessie Turner and Gen. Tracy talking together in the parlor. Mrs. Tilton and himself sat for two or three hours on the back piazza, and Gen. Tracy remained with Miss Turner during all that time. The object of the plaintiff's lawyers in bringing this witness was to disprove the statements of both Bessie Turner and Mr. Tracy. Miss Turner testified that the interview lasted only ten minutes, while Mr. Tracy stated that it was about an hour in length. A few sharp words passed between Mr. Beach and Mr. Shearman during the examination of this witness. One asserted that the other's state- ments about Gen. Tracy's testimony were incorrect. "Well, Sir," said Mr. Beach, ** I have some mem- ory and intelligence, and there I diff er somewhat from the gentleman." The jurymen appeared to take a deep interest in Mr. Martin's testimony, and one of them asked him a question in reference to the time consumed by the interview. The plaintift's counsel recalled Franklin Wood- ruff with a view to impeach the testimony of Gen= Tracy. Mr. Beach's first question to him was in reference to an interview with Gen. Tracy in 1872. Mr. Evarts objected to the question, and long arguments between the senior counsel on both sides took place. Mr. Beach said that his object was to prove that Mr. Tracy knew that the charge against Mr. Beecher was adultery long be- fore 1874. Judge Neilson finally allowed the ques- tion to be asked. The witness then said that in 1872 he told Mr. Tracy that the charge was adultery. He called Mr. Tracy's evidence in question in several other particulars relating to the interviews between them in 1872. Mr. TESTIMOXI OF AL Evarts objected to nearly every question put to this ^tness on the ground that the previous rulings of the Court wouir not allow them. Judge NeiLson instructed Mr. Beach to make his questions the same in substance as those vrhich had been asked of ]Mr. Tracy, and all new matter was excluded. The Judge wished to have the examination of Mr. Woodruff finished be- fore the close of the session, but, as it was nearly 4 o'clock, the counsel for the defense said they could not finish their cross-examination if it were begun. The Court accordingly adjourned. THE PEOCEEDIXGS— W .:!)ATTM. MES. TILTOX PEESEXTS AX OPEN STATE- MENT TO THE JUDGE. The comt met at 11 a. m., pursuant to ad- journment. After the Clevis, liad called tlie jury, Mrs. Tilton rose from her seat and said : Mrs. Tilton— I liave a communication wliich I liope yom* Honor will read aloud. The communication, 'being contained in an unsealed envelope, was handed to Mr. Evarts, who said : " It is ad- dressed to yom- Honor," and it was then handed to Judge Iseilson. After reading it. Judge Neilson said : Judge Xeilson— This matter will he considered delib- erately. Mr. Morris will you proceed 1 Mr. Morris— Albert Berghaus. TESTBIONY OF ALBEET BEEGHAUS. Albert Berghaus "was called and sworn on behalf of the plaintiff, and testified as follows : Mr. Morris— Where do you reside. Mr. Berghaus ? A. In Hohoken, State of Jersey. Q. What is your business 1 A. I follow the profession of what is commonly called artist. Q. In what line— what branch ? A. I am engaged in illustrating newspapers. Q. How long have you been engaged In that business ? A. Fov nearly 20 years. Q. In 1871 were you connected with Frank Leslie's Illustrated Xeusspaper ? A. I was, Sir. Q. Did you see the procession the 19th of December— the 17th of December— 1871, the Rossel or Communist procession ? A. I did. Q. Where was it that you first saw that procession ? A. I saw iK)rtions of the procession for the time of an hour's duration before it started as such, and afterward, after the procession formed, after they were in rank and line, I saw them pass by me. Mr. Beach— Did yoa see the different deputations ^ther i BERT BER^EArS. 335 Mr. Morris— The different sections of it — delegations t A. I did ; I saw them all together. Q. ^Tiere was that — what point? A. From a point which I oecupied in Great Jones-st. Q, Did you make a sketch of the procession 1 A. I did. Q. Will you look at that and say whether that is the sketch that you made 1 [handing witness a copy of Frank Leslie's Illustrated Xeicspa2:!er.] A. This is a picture which represents what I saw. Judge Xeilson— Taken from your drawing 1 A. Taken from my sketches, and also engraved from a drawing which I executed on wood, from mv own sketches. Q, And imder your supervision 1 A. Under my super- vision. ]Mr. Morris— Will you state who that is carrying the banner there— that lady ? A. This lady is, as I under- stand to be, Miss Tennie Claflin. Q. And who is that intended to represent ? A. Mrs. Victoria Woodhull. Q. And that gentleman there, between? A. Col. Blood, as I ascertained to be. Q. How many women were there— ladies— in the proces- sion there ? A. To judge from this drawing, which I have no hesitancy in pronoimcing pretty nearly correct, from six to ten. Ml". Evarts — From six to ten women ? The Witness— From six to ten women. Mi\ Morris— [To 3Ir. Evarts.] ■ Shall the jury see this f Mr. Evarts— If it is put in evidence. I have no objec- tion to their seeing it as a matter of curiosity. If it is to be offered in evidence, of course the jury are to see it. Mr. Beach— Where were Woodhull and Claflin, with reference to the head of the procession ? A. The two ladies were in the immediate rear of a colored band of soldiers. Mr. Morris— And what was their position with ref- erence to the head of the procession ? A. The band of soldiers 1 Mr. Beach— Yes. A. At the head altogether, fol- lowing, if I am not mistaken, two or tiu-ee marshals. Mr. Morris— That is, the soldiers, y*u speak of ? A. That is a company of colored soldiers. Q. And they were Immediately in the rear 1 A. In the rear. Ml-. Beach— Does he mean the colored soldiers were in the rear I The Witness— The women were in the immediate reai of the soldiers— following the soldiers. Mr. Morris — All the women 1 A. All the women. Q. And who was in company, if any person, with Miss Claflin 1 A. A gentleman whom I ascertained to be, at a later period, Mr. Stephen Pearl Andrews and Col. Blood. Q. And who were immediately behind the ladies! A. Several women whose names I don't kno-w 326 TEE TILION-Bj Q.. But behind tlie ladies ; they were in one section to- gether, were they not ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Who were immediately behind 1 A. A crowd of about from 40 to 50 foreigners— apparently foreigners— car- rying banners of different denominations, French, Cuban, and, I believe, Italian ; and I am quite sure that there was a Swiss flag carried by one of them. Q. This sketch is intended. Is it not, to represent the main feature of the procession? A. That represented the center of attraction. Q. Now, Mr. Tilton, did you see him in the section represented in this drawing ? A. I did not. Q. This drawing does not represent the whole line of the procession 1 A. Only a portion of it. Q. Only a section? A. A section; the center point, as it is generally called. Mr. Beach— By that does he mean the center of the procession 1 Mr. Morris — Do you mean the center of the procession, or the center point of attraction ? A. The center point of attraction. Generally there is in such processions one point of attraction. Q. And about what length did that occupy— that sec- tion, which is represented 1 A. Which is represented here— about a block and a half of our streets. Q. And how long was the procession altogether, do you think ? A. I should judge it to be about half a mUe. Q. You say that after the procession was formed, and you made your sketch, the whole procession passed you 1 A. I beg your pardon 1 Q. The whole procession, after it was formed, passed you— you saw the whole procession t A. It passed the position which I occupied. Q. Did you observe Mr. Tilton at all ? A. I did not. Q. Do you know him ? A. I do. Q. Did you then— did you at that time t A. I am not positive. Q. By sight ? A. I am not positive ; I may have known him from pictures, but I am not positive whether I knew him by sight. Q. But you since have become acquainted with him ? A. Oh, yes. Q. And was he in the vicinity of the ladies at all ? A. I believe not. • Q. If he was you did not see him ? A. I did not see him. Q. At all events, he was not in company with Mrs. Woodhull and Miss Claflin ? A. Positively not. Mr. Evarts— Now, Mr. Morris, do you offer it in evi- dence ? Mr. Morris — Yes. Mr. Evarts— Your Honor will remember that we offered in evidence the written description of the locality of rLiese people, and it was disputed. I am not aware that a graphic one is any better. EFAJHER TEIAL. Mr. Morris— It is more graphic ; we bring the proces- sion here — a portion of it. Mr. Evarts— At any rate I will cross-examine about i\ before it is offered—before it is admissible. Mr. Morris— WeU, we offer it. Mr. Evarts— Are you through ? Mr. Morris— No. Mr. Evarts— I will cross-examine about it. CROSS-EXAMINATION OF ALBERT BEEG- HAUS. Mr. Evarts— Mr. Berghaus, this paper is dated January, 1872. When did it pass through the press? when was that picture printed? [Handing the paper to witness.] A. This picture was printed the week following the event. Q. FoUowing the 17th day of December % A. The leth. Q. The 16th? Mr. Morris— The 17th. Mr. Evarts— The 17th 1 The Witness— Was it the 17th % Mr. Evarts— So we say— we two. The Witness— Yes, Sir. Q. What day of the week was the 17th t A. On a Sunr day. Q. Oh, yes, I remember now. Now, during the follow- ing week that picture was printed, was it? A. It was drawn and engraved, but whether it was published in that same week I am incapable of saying ; or whether it was published the week after, that I could not say. Q. Well, besides being drawn an^ engraved, when was it, as distinct from publishing? A. As far as I believe, tt was published as soon as the facilities of the establish^ ment afforded, after the event. Q. Well, that is interesting information to me ; I dont know anything about that. Do you know anything aboat it ? A. I know that a certain time is required before a paper, in order to engrave— to draw, engrave, and set the type— a certain time is required for the issuing of a num- ber of these papers. Q. I dare say. Now, what is that certain time ? A That certain time varies ; it may require, aecording to circumstances, so many days, and perhaps less or more. Q. WeU, that is your definition of " a certain time I" A. There is certainly a certain time required. Q. Well, what is that certain time that is required 1 Mr. Morris— It is an imcertain time. The Witness— Mr. Evarts, that is not within my ability to tell you exactly. Q. Very well. Then by " a certain time" you mean that some time must necessarily be taken in the preparation of such a picture as that for the paess ? That is about it 1 A. Exactly, Sir. Q. Now, as matter of fact, do you know anything as to how long it was before that picture of this procession was IBSllMONT OF Aa In condition to be put on tlie printing press 1 A. I could not say, Sir. Q. Now, wliat share did you have la the production of that picture 1 A. I made sketches on paper on the Sun_ day on which the procession took place ; then from my own sketches I made a drawing on wood. Q. As an engraver, yourself ? A. No, Sir ; as what is commonly called artist on wood— draughtsman on wood. Q. Draughtsman on wood ; for the use of the engraver 1 A. For the use of the engraver. Q. And from that the engraver made the engraving? A. The engraver engraved my drawing. Q. Did your drawing as you thus prepared it for the engraver's hurm— did it contaia that whole procession, as it now looks 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. When did you compose that procession 1 A. I did not compose the procession. Q. Who did 1 A. That I don't know. Q. I mean this picture. A. Ah ! This pictui-e I com- posed on Monday. Q. You composed that on Monday. Now, when you began to compose that on Monday, what had you already In the shape of a picture? A. Nothing, save my sketches. Q. What were they 1 A. They were sketches made on paper. Q. WeU, I know ; but what were they sketches of % A. Of different features of this procession. Q. Which features ? A. Those features that I have rep- resented m this picture ; such as the band of soldiers -a company of soldiers : ladies, women, representatives of different nationalities; a band of drummers, a catafalque on wheels drawn by six horses, and a crowd of different people following that. etc. Q. How many pieces of paper was all that on 1 A. I could not tell you, Q. About how many 1 A. I do not recollect whether I had a sketch-book— a bound sketch-book— with me, or fly- ing leaves. Q. Well, how many pages of a sketch-book and how many flying leaves— take it either way— was all this on ? A. I could not tell you. Q. How long were you in making all those pictures that you had in your possession before you composed this engraving of the procession 1 A. You mean those sketches! Q. Yes ; how long la actually makmg those pictures f A. I believe it took me about an hour or an hour and a half to collect the material for this picture. Q. You mean on the spot? A. On the spot. Q. Now, after you had done that, on the spot, how long did it take you to make the sketches and reduce them to the shape in which you used them for the composition of j this entire picture 1 Mr. Beach— He made the sketches, I understand, on the •pot! Mr. Evarts— Yes, certainly. A. If I understand you BEET BEBGEAUS. 327 rightly, Mr. Evarts, the question is, how long it took me to make the drawing on wood ? Q. No ; my question is this : You say you spent an hour and a half on the spot ? A. I think so. Q. Making certain sketches. Now how long— how much work did you do on those sketches before you commenced the actual composition of this entire picture t A. Noth- ing further but what I took there on the spot, in the street. Q. Very well. Now, where did you stand that hour and a half! A. I stood in different positions, in different streets. Q. Could you draw while you were moving from place to place ? A. Well, these sketches were made when I was walking from one street to another, looking at the differ- ent portions of the intended procession; they were in Seventh and Eighth-sts., and, rf I am not mistaken, ui Fourth-st. The prinoinal portions of what I sketched I found in Seventh-st., in front of the Armory of the La- fayette Guards. Q. Now, where are those original sketches 1 A. I have been trying to And them but have not been successful. Q. Well, don't you — did you preserve, as a habit, the sketches ? A. That would accumulate an immense amount. Q. So you cannot give us your original drafts ! I could not. Q. No part of that was furnished to you by a photo- graph ? A. Not a single portion. Q. How much was there of detail or finish in your sketches— anything but mere hints for you when you came to the principal work ? A. No, Sir. Q. Nothing but mere hints ? A. No, Sir ; positive drawings. Q. WeU, I asked you. A. (Continuing.) So as to enable me to be correct in outline and even in color. Q. Well, how much of detail or finish was there on these sketches % A. Sufficient for me to produce the picture as it is represented here. Q. Was it more than hints to you, and the grouping and arrangement of the procession made by yourself after- ward when you composed this picture ? A. It was what I would call _pro memoria sketches. Q. Well, that is what I caU hints. A. I would not call it a hint. Q. What would you caU it, in common English 1 A. I would call it the outline of a future drawing. Q. To fix in your memory to have you compose 1 A. It would be utterly impossible to compose a picture of a procession on flying leaves. Q. I should think so. Now, how many of these people did you know personally 1 A. Very few. Q. Did you know any of this group of ladies, I wUl caU them {showing paper to witness], and gentlemen thai accompany them t A. I did. 328 "LHE T1LT()N-B Q. Which of them 1 A. I did know the lady represent- ed there as carrying the flag. Q. Yes ? A. And the one in her immediate rear ; I knew them then. Q That is Miss Claflin and Mrs. Woodhull ? A. Mrs. WoodhuU. Q. Yes. Well, these other ladies A. I did not know any of them. Q. Well, are you quite sure that they are all real ladies that you saw ? A, Real ladies ] Q. Well, I mean real persons 1 A. Oh, certainly. Q. Or were they put in to enliven the scene? A. No such a thing. Q. No ; is the exact number of women here that were in that procession? A. I believe that at the time the exact number was sketched by me. Q. And put iu here ? A. Put in here. Q. And you are quite sure that there were no women In any other part ? A. I am quite sure that there were no women in any other part of the procession that I saw. Q. Oh ; now, what did you mean by this picture being composed to show the center of attraction? A. The cen- ter of attraction for myself or for the general public— which answer would you prefer ? Q. Oh, I would take either. What do you mean by the center of attraction, and who determines that ? A. Well, I did ; I took leave to determine in this case the center of attraction— the mourning car, with the catafalque on the top of it, and the immediate neighborhood of that, in front and behind, which I have tried to represent there. Q. Well, now, do you think that you put the catafalque and the preceding procession and the immediately fol- lowing so as to present the line as you saw it formed, or did you group it as you thought it would make an ef- fective and attractive picture % A. I represented it so as it represented itself to me when passing that point of view which I occupied. Q. Yes ; but you went, you say, to various points of view to make your sketches ? A. I beg your pardon ; I told you I had collected the material for this picture be- fore the procession started, and then I took a position in Great Jones-st. in order to see that procession for the representation of which I had collected the necessary material, and I saw it pass by, and I was eualtled to place every sketchy or every object I had sketched, in its proper position according to the way it passed by. Q. And all your sketches that you had made before- hand came into that order that they are here? A. Whether they were all in or not I could not tell you. Q. But these certainly were? A. Those featm*es that you see represented there were certainly drawn from the sketches I made. Q. Well, in regard to the sketches in these paj>ers, are not a good many of them made without an absolute in- ipection of the scene 1 A. Yes, Sir- EECEEE TEIAL. Q. And sometimes made before the thing takes place I A. I think not. Q. You don't remember any instance of that kind ? A I may remember if I search in my memory. Q. Yes, Sir, weU A. But I could not give you a positive fact now. Q. But stiU such a thing might have happened? A. Perhaps in former years, at the time when illustrated newspapers were started, and not a sufficient number of artists on hand to furnish the necessary material, such a thing might have taken place. Q. Yes ; now did you write the letter-press that accouj. panics this picture ? A. No, Sir. Q. Did you ever read it ? A. I happened to read it ? Q. You did happen to ? A. A portion of it. Q. I observe a statement here, "In the mid.lle <:f the line appeared Theodore Tilton and John Swiuto ii . ' ' No^f , this picture was of the middle of the line, wasn't it ? A. No, Sir, thn*^ would not be the middle of the line regard- ing the extent of it; this procession was a pretty long one, so to speak, and the feature represented in my pic- ture was the head of the procession. Q. The head ? A. The head ; the beginning of the pro- cession. Q. So the center of attraction in this case was at one end ? A. The center of attraction was nearer the com- mencement of it. Q. Now, Sir, were you personally acquainted with the gentleman that is represented there ? A. Not then. Q. Not then— well, he is a pretty tall man, isn't he ? A, A pretty tall man. Q. And had long haii-, flowing locks '! A. Long hair, ap- parently. Q. Flowing locks ? A. Could not say that. Q. And a broad-brimmed, clei'ical hat— like? A. Cler- ical ? Q. Well, that is what I call them— clerical ? A. Well, they call them very often Communist hats. Q. Well, I don't care about the name of it, a broad- brimmed, round top hat ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. And that is all you knew of that man at the time ? A. T beg your pardon ; he also wore a long beard, a brownish beard, flowing beard, as I well recollect. Q. Now, who is this gentleman here, with the specta- . cles on 1 A. I don't know. Q. And who is this lady— has she got a baby in her arms ? A. She carries a baby in her arms. Q. Well, who is the baby? A. That I could not tell. Mr. Beach— Did you ask whose it was ? Mr. Evarts- No ; I ask who it was. [To the witness.] One of the jtirors asks a question— I think you have been asked it— you did not see Mr. Tilton at all, you have stated t A. I did not, Q. In the procession? Now, I was not attending tc your answer to the question which I believe was n skrd TE^T1210yY OF EESBY OTIS FOX. 329 Tou, wliefber you at tliat time knew Mr. Tllton hy sight ? A. I am not positive. Q. You have no knorrledge tliat you did know him ? A. I could not say, Sir. Mr. Morris— Were you acquainted witli Gen. Ryan at that time 1 A. I miaj have heen so. Q. Look at that [showing witness a small plaster cast of the head of Gen. Ryan] and see if you can say ? A. I recollect having made a drawing of a face like that. TESTBIOXY OF HEXEY OTIS FOX. Heniy Otis Fox was then called on behalf of the plaiatiff, sworn, and examined as follows : Mr. Morris— "Where do you reside? A. In Brooklyn, Sir. Q. What is your business? A. I am a printer. Q. Connected with what paper? A. Xew-Yorh Inde- pendent. Q. How long have you been upon that paper 1 A. I have been there eight years, Sir. Q. Are you acquaiated with Theodore Tilton? A. I have a business acquaintance with him only. Sir. Q. How long have you known him ? A. I have known Mm eight years in that capacity, simply a business capacity. Q. Did you know Gen. Ryan ? A. I did. Sir, by Q. Sight? A. Sight. Q. WUl you state whether that is a representation of him? [Showing witness a small plaster cast of Gen. Ryan.] A. I should say that was a good representation of Ges. Ryan. Q. How tall a man was Gen. Ryan ? A. Well, Sir, I covdd ii')t say ; perhaps— he was not so tall a gentleman as Mr. Tilton, but a somewhat tall man and of slight build. Q. Did you see this procession that has been spoken of on the 17th of December ? A. I did, Sir. Q. At what point did you first see it? A. My Impres- Pion is that I first saw that procession during its forma- tion near Cooper Institute ; and from that time I saw it at different points, and perhaps continuously until it broke up in Union-square. Q. You saw it at different points, you say 1 A. Yes Sir. Q. Did you see the procession — did you see the whole of the procession ? A.I did, Sir. Q. Did you see the head of tbe procession when it started? A. I saw the whole procession, whatever there was of it. Q. Did you observe the colored troops ? A. I did. Sir. Q. And by whom were they followed immediately in the rear, ladies or gentlemen ? A. My impression is, at this time, that they were followed by, if not immediately quite directly followed by, a lady and a red banner, the banner of the Commune, I presume it would be called. Q. Did you ascertain who that lady was ? A. I did not, Sir. I have no knowledge who she was. Q. Accompanied by any gentleman ? A. There were gentlemen in and ar>)unLl : I could not say, perhaps, that she was accompanied by them. Q. How near to her were the other ladies who were in the procession ? A. Well, my remembrance is that other ladies whom I saw in the procession were in a carriage ; those are the only ones I remember of at this time, Sir. Q. Did you know Col. Blood at that time ? A. I did not. Sir. Q. Mrs. WoodhuU? A. Xo, Sir. Q, Did you at any part of that procession see Mr. Til* ton? A. I did. Sir, several times duriug that procession. Q. In company with any ladies? A. With no lady at all, Sir ; accompanied by a gentleman. Q. ^Tiat? A. Accompanied by gentlemen, at all times when I saw him. Q. Walking arm in arm? A. Arm in arm, Sir, I saw him. Q. Xow, can you state the difierent points of the pro- cession at which you saw Mr. Tilton? A. I should not be able to state that, Sir. Q. Would you recognize Mr. Swinton— turn roimd and see if you would? A. [After looking toward Mr. Swinton.] I think the gentleman with the gray hair is the gentle- man that I saw by the side of Mr. Tilton ; that is the gentleman, I think, I saw. Q. And was he in company with Mr. Tilton at the difi"erent points that you saw Mr. Tilton ? A. He was, Sir ; whenever I saw Mr. Tilton. Q. Did you see Mr. Tilr:)U when the procession broke up? A. I saw Mr. Tilton in Union-square, near the Lincoln Monument. Q. Did you see where he went ? A. I did not follow him. Sir; I simply saw him as the procession came there and dispersed ; I dispersed with the spectators. Q. Do you recollect of seeing Gen. RyaJi in the pro- ces.sion? A. T saw Gen. Ryan riding in a carriage in the procession. Q. Riding in a carriage ; and at about what part of the procession was that ? A. I should not be able to iden- tify it, Sir; perhaps it was not far in rear of the body of colored troops : if I remember it correctly the colored troops led the procession ; I may be mistaken, however. Q. Do you know who was with him in the carriage f A. I do not. Sir. Q. Was he accompanied by any person? A. There were persons in the carriage with him. Q. Male or female ? A. I think there were two ladies in the carriage with him. Q. Did 3-0U know who they were ? A. I did not. Sir. Mr. Beach— Did you see Mr. Tilton at any time in a carriage ? A. I did not, Sii". Mr. Morris— Either before, during, or after the proces- sion broke up, did you see him ? A. At no time during the day did I see ilr. Tilton in a carriage. Q. And when you did see him, he was in company with 330 THE TILTON-BFjECHEB IBIAL. Mr. Swinton, you say 1 A. I thint that is tlie gentleman there ; I am not able at this Q. At all events, some gentleman I A. Gentlemen on each side of him there were. Mr. Morris— That is alL CROSS-EXAMINATION OF MR. FOX. Mr. Evarts— Mr. Fox, what acquaintance had you with Gen. Eyan 1 A. I had no general acquaint- ance with him at all. Sir. Q. How, and to what extent, had you been in the habit of seeing Mmf A. I have seen him several times on pub- lic occasions ; he had been pointed out to me. Q. Yes ; well, was he a gentleman that you would think of comparing iu hight with Mr. Tilton 1 A. I should not in hight, Sir. Q. Is he a gentleman that you would think of compar- ing with Mr. Tilton in build or frame ? A. I think that from a general description a person never having seen either of the gentlemen might be confused as to identity, on reading a description of them. Q. Oh, yes ; you think a man that never had seen either of them could not tell them apart 1 A. Well, no. Sir; I didn't say that ; not at all. Q. Now, Sir, the question is of a man that had seen either or both of them and knew theirpersons— was there any danger of confusing them ! A. I should think not, Sir. Q. Was not Gen. Ryan a very dark-haired man t A. His hair was dark ; he was a dark-haired man. Q. Yes; well, quite dark? A. Well Q. Black ? A. I should think not decidedly black. Sir. Q. How many shades this side of black ? A. Well, Sir, I could not enter into an analysis of that sort. Sir. Q. WeU, wasn't it as dark as your own ? A. Perhaps it was as dark as mine. Q. Now, did he wear his hair flowing 1 A. He did, Sir- wore it combed behtad his ears, and it was in general appearance not altogether dissimilar to Mr. Tllton's— Q. Now, don't you know that his hair was very straight and stiff, and not flowing and curly ? A. I don't know any such thing. Q. Well, what is your view on that subject 1 A. Why, T told you. Q. Well, was it flowing and curling? A. It was not particularly curly ; it was long hair— perhaps you might say it flowed— it was flowing. Q. Well, I leave that for you to say whether it flowed or not ? A. Well, that would depend on the construction which one puts on the term flowing. Q. Now, if you know that a man's hair is merely stiff and straight, it would not flow from being long ? A. Well, I don't know. Sir. Mr. Beach- He means it would not run ; it certainly oould not flow, in one sense of the word. Mr. Evarts— Now, how was Gen. Ryan in respect to a beard or mustache ? A. I think he wore no beard or mustache. Q. Well, are you quite positive about that ? A. I feel quite positive of it. Sir ; he might have had a slight mus- tache ; I am not positive ; I will not swear to that ; he wore no other beard. Q. Than a mustache ? A. Than a mustache, but I will not swear that he wore the mustache or that he did not wear a mustache. Q. You won't swear that he did wear a mustache ? A. No, Sir ; not at that time. Q. Isn't it your impression that, being a military man, he did wear at least a mustache, if not a beard? A. My impression is that he had no beard at aU, Sir. Q. Not even a mustache? A. Not even a mustache. Q. At that time— now about this eflBgy— (showing wit- ness the plaster cast] — do you know where that came from ? A. No, Sir ; I do not ; I never saw it until the gentlemen passed it up to me. Mr. Morris— Do you want to show it to the jury f Mr. Evarts— Oh, no ; not yet ; not yet. Q. And, of course, you don't know when it was made or . A. I know nothing of it, Sir, at aU. Q. Now, where did you stand when you saw women at this procession carrying a banner ? A. WeU, Sir, that would be a hard question to answer, because I stood all over the lot, so to speak ; I was there as a spectator, and a part of the time I stood on the sidewalk and a part of the time in the street; I was there to see the procession, and I saw it. Q. Well, I mean was it at the point of formation ? A. I could not be definite in that respect. Sir. Q. Did you see Mr. Tilton at the time or point of the formation of the procession ? A. A. I would not swear that I did see him at the initial point of that proces- sion. Q. What is your best recollection ? A. My best recoUeo- J tion is that I went and saw the formation of the proces- '| sion, the formation of the body, or whatever it might be t rmed. Q. The line 1 A. The line coming together ; a gradual | formation of it in the vicinity of Cooper Institute ; I will not be positive as to where I stood, or exactly where fche [i procession itself formed. Q. Well, did you then see Mr. Tilton ? A. I saw him . about there. Sir. Q. At that time ? A. At that time, yes, Sir. Q. And Mr. Swinton in his company ? A. I will not swear at that— at the time I speak of, Mr. Swinton was not in company at the moment I speak of— Mr. Swinton at the formation— after the procession was formed and under way, Mr. Swinton was in his company. Q. That is when they started from that square? A Yes, Sir. Q. That you are sure of ? A. I feel very positive of it, Sir, Ti:ST1210yi OF HESBI OTIS FOX. Q. Well, wai I vrvong in imderstandmg you to say that, at all the times you saw Mr. Tilton, Mr, Swintou was waiting with Mm? A. ZVIr. Swinton— I will not swear that :Mr. Svrinton was with Mr. Tilton every time. Q. I ask you the particular question Mr. Beach— Well, he was giving an answer. Mr. Evarts— Well, have I not understood you to say that at all times that you saw 3Ir. Tilton in that proces- eion, ilr. Swinton was walking with him i A. After the procession was formed and ander way Q. At all times that you saw him in the procession 1 A. Yes, Sir ; Mr. Swinton, that gentleman Q. Was with him ? A. I think so, Sir. Q. Yes; that you have already answered, as I under- stand you? A. Yes, Sir. Q. And did you see Mr. Tilton in the procession as it drew itself into line and went off from that spot 1 A. I did, Sir. Q. Yes. ^^Tow, Sir, at what other point did you stand and observe this procession while it was on the march"? A.. Well, Sir, at various points. Q. Well, just give them all. A. I couldn't do it, Sir. Q. Well, give me two of them. A. I don't know that I ean identify a single point. Q. Will you give me one — oh, well, not even one ? A. Wherever the procession— wherever It was, whatever street It was from which the procession turned from nfth-ave. across into Sixth-ave.— at the comer where it turned into Sixth-ave.— I saw, and held a position on the curh-stone, directly by the sidewalk, and saw, I think, every face in the procession. Q. Ye. - well ; that is one point ? A. That is one point, and that is the only point that I can positively identify. Q. How did you get up there ? A. I walked up there. Q. Abreast of the procession 1 A. Abreast of it ? Q. Yea ? A. Well, I walked there as spectators would naturally walk. Q. Well, off its line ? A. Seeing the procession march- ing along. Q. Eiact^y— you followed ? A. I walked on the curb- stone sometimes, if not obstructed by the crowd ; at other times I walked in the street. Q. Yes, abreast of the procession— took its route and kept it in view ? A. I did, Sir. Q. Very well ? A. Except on one or two occasions, I think, I crossed corners in order to see it pass by; I am not sure. Q. Head it off? A. Head it off, Sir; I am not sure about it ; I think that is it. Q. Now, Sir, what part of the procession as you thus followed it in its march, were you abreast of? A. Well, at times I might be said to be abreast of the whole of it. Q. Wsll, you might and might not ; I mean while you vrere marching along— while you were walking along ? A. I was abreast a*: dLfterent times; abreast of the -whole of it Q. Did you start abreast of the heaa of tti A. I c-ouiosL-ly. Q. And to see the whole of it ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Had you any special interest in the objects or en- thusiasm of tliat occasion? A. Well, I had; because I heard that they had killed a priest in the Old Country, and I wanted to see the parties Q. To see what kind of people they were that were cel- ebrating the occasion? A. Yes, Sir; that is what I wanted to see. I felt a little prejudice against them at that time ; but since I have not. Q. You have changed your views ? A. I have changed. Q. From seeing that procession ? A. Well, from what I have read. Q. Not from the impression that the procession made on f ou ? A. No, Sir. Q. Where did you take up your point of observation ? i. In Great Jones-st. Q. Were you there before the procession was formed ? k. Yes, Sir; before it came through. Q. Did you stand still imtil it passed by you ? A. Yes, Sir. There were two gentlemen with me and we stood still. There were two gentlemen with me at the time, that were sick, and they scolded me for standing there, and I told them it would be all right. Q. Who were those two gentlemen ? A. Mr. Martin and Mr. McDermott ; they are both dead- Q. Both dead ? A. Yes, Sir, b«th dead. Q. Did you regret it afterward that you had kept them standing there ? [Laughter.] A. It was not the Mr. Morris— One moment. Mr. Beach— Oh, let him ask it. The Witness— It was not the cloudy day that made them sick ; they were sick before that for years. Q. And so they told you they did not want to stand ? A. They did not want to stand, but I was determined to see it. Q. Yes ; and they both died ? A. Not from that. Judge Neilson-^After that 1 WILLIAM FOBCB. 333 The Witness— Yes; after that. Sir. Oh, it could not have been before. [Laughter.] Mr." Evarts— Well, Mr. Force, the whole procession did pass by you ? A. Yes, the whole procession, Mr. Evarts,. passed through Great Jones-st. Q. And after it got by you, what did you do then? A. I walked down Broadway. Q. You left and went about your business! A. Yes, Sir. Q. Were those two gentlemen with you ! A. Yes, Sir ; I took them into a hotel and treated them. Q. Treated them? A. Yes, Sir; because they were cold — they were very «old. Q. Had that anything to do with their death, do you think ? [Laughter.] A. Oh, not at all. You know, we take a little wine once in a while when we go out to sup- pers. Q. Very well. So that was your sole point of observa- tion? A. Y''es, Sir. Q. Now, as Mr. Tilton passed you, along through Great Jones-st., was he alone ? A. No, Sir. Q. Who was with him ? A. A gentleman. Q. Who was he ? A. I could not say. Q. Was he Mr. Swinton— that gray-haired gentleman who is hiding himself over there ? A. [Looking at Mr. Swinton.] Well, if he was dressed as he was dressed at that time, probably I could recognize him. Q. He did not have his hat off, I suppose ? A. No, Sir ; he did not— the gentleman that was with him. I can teU a man, if I have once seen him, 20 years afterward. I have seen you (Mr. Evarts) thousands and thousands of times. Q. Well, I hope you will be able to recognize me 20 years hence. A. I will recognise you. Sir ; I have seen you when I was a boy. [Laughter.] Mr. Beach— I hope you will see him a thousand years hence. [Laughter.] The Witness— I hope so. Q. You did not follow the procession throughout Its route ? A. No ; on account of those two gentlemen being sick. Q, Now, about this group of women; were all the women that were in the procession at the same point in the pro- cession ? A. I saw a number of women— ladies, walking together close to those, Tennie Claflin and Mrs. Wood- hull Q. You knew them by sight, did you ? A. Yes, Sir; by seeing them aroimd town. Q. And the other ladies, did you know any of them ? A. No, Sir. Q. Now, aside from that group, did you see any ladies in the procession? A. I saw ladies in a carriage. Q. How many? A. Well, I think not over two. Q. Was anybody •arriage with them? A. There was a gentleman. Q. Did you know either of those ladies ? A. No, Sir. 834 TEE IILTOJS-BBEOHBE lElAL, Q. Neither of them was Miss Claflln? A. Oh, no. Mr. Evarts— That is all. Mr. Morris [calling a new witness]— Mr. Kane 1 Mr. Kane [from the reporters' table]— I have not been Bubpenaed. Judge Neilson— Mr. Kane 1 Is that your name * Mr. Kane— Yes, Sir. Judge Neilson— WeU, come forward; you don't need to l»e subpenaed ; you are here. [Laughter. I TESTIMONY OF LAWRENCE S. KANE. Lawrence S. Kane, called on behalf of tlie lAaintiff, sworn, and examined : Mr. Morris— I will just ask a question or two, Mr. Kane ; you are a reporter attached to the press 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. Did you see the procession on Sunday, the 17th of December, 1871 1 A. I did, Sir. Q. At what point did you see it 1 A. Well, I saw it all along, I believe ; I was sent by The Sun to report it, and my recollection is that I followed it all through ; I am not sure, though. Q. You were there in the capacity of a reporter 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. Did you know Miss Claflin and Mrs. Woodhull at that time, by sight ? A. Yes, Sir ; I did. Q. Did you see them in the procession 1 A. I did. Sir. Q. At what point ? A. I believe they were right after the colored troops, the Skidmore Guards Company. Q. Was either of them carrying a banner ? A. Yes, Sir ; Miss Claflin was carrying a banner. Q. Was there any gentleman with them? A. There were one or two gentlemen with them. One of them was pointed out to me as Col. Blood (I did not know him), and another one as an old gentleman that swept out Mrs. Woodhull's office. [Laughter.] I don't know whether there were any others or not. Q. And you knew Mr. Tilton at the time ? A. No, Sir ; I did not. Q. You have seen him since, and know him since ? A. I have seen htm since. Q. Did you see him in the procession 1 A. I did not Bee him. Q. You did not notice him 1 A. No, Sir ; he might have been there. Q. Were you acquainted with Gen. Byan at that time 1 A. I was very well acquainted with him. Q. [showing witness the plaster cast of Gen. Eyan] Will you state whether that is a fair representation of his head % A. It looks something like him. Q. He wore his hair long f A. He wore his hair long. Q. And behind his ears 1 A. And behind his ears. Q. And such a hat as is there represented i A. Yes, 6ir ; the brim a little broader than that. Q. Any beard ? A. He had no beard. Q. Any mustache 1 A. No moustache ; I never recol- lect him weariag any mustache, and I have known him a long time. Q. How taU was he 1 A. He was about 5 feet 8 or 9 , I don't think he was much taller than that. Q. How tall, with reference to your higho. V. He was not as tall as me. Q. You think he was not as tall as you are % A. No, Sir. Q. Did you see him that day ? A. I did, Sir. Q. Where was he ? A He was in a carriage. Q. Any one in company with him ? A. He was with O'Donovan Eossa, and, I believe, a Cuban, whose name I did not know, or don't recollect. Q. And did you see how many ladles were there in the procession— do you recollect ? A. Well, there were quite a number of them walking after Tenuie Claflin ; I think I counted them and gave the number in my report; I do not recollect what it was, but I think it was 23. Q. Twenty-three ? A. Yes, Sir ; or 23 in the whole pro- cession ; I am not sure which ; I do not recollect. Q. But there was a number, at all events ? A. There were a number. Q. How were they situated with reference to the col- ored troops? A. They were right behind Tennle Claflin; Mrs. Woodhull walked right after Tennle laflln. Q. How did Miss Claflin walk with reference to the col- ored troops? A. She walked, I believe, right behind them ; she walked in front as a kind of commander of these women. Q. Was she carrying a banner? A. She carried a red flag with a red border, and a white circle in the middle, with an inscription on it— a white center. Q. Did you follow the procession during its entire route ? A. 1 1 el' eve I did. Q. And did tliosy ladles maintain that relative position during the entire route of the procession? A. So far as I recollect, they did. Sir. Q. And during any part of the march did you see Mr. Tilton ? A. No, Sir, I did not ; I didn't know him ; I didn't take notice of him ; I do not recollect seeing him at all. CROSS-EXAMINATION OF MR. KANE. Mr. Evarts— You are a reporter, now coa- nected with the press ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. And have been in attendance on the trial here % A. For the past two weeks, Sir. Q. You noted these ladies, and there were 23 of them? A. I think so ; I don't recollect the exact number. Q. At any rate, you counted them 1 A. Yes, Sir, and gave the number m my report. Q. And it was a considerable number i A. It was a con* siderable number. Q. Did either of them have a baby ! A. Yes, Sir ; one of them carried a baby. Q. One of them had a baby 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. Did yon see any ladies or females in any other pari TUSTIUOM' OF THEODORE H. BANKS. 381 of tlie procession 1 A. Yes, Sir ; I tMnk there were some iB a carriage. Q. How many 1 A. I don't recollect; I think there ■was— I think ttere was two carriages full of them. Q. And how many ladies in each ? A. I think there were four in each ; I am not sure, though. Q. Four ladies in each t A. Perhaps so ; I don't recol- lect. Q. Did you know, or at the time were they made known to you in any way— those ladies in the carriage ? A. I helieve I asked who they were— yes. Sir ; but I don't think I foimd out. Q. They were not known to you ? A. They were not known to me. Q. And were Mrs. Woodhull and Miss Claflin known to you by sight ? A. Yes ; I had seen them before. Q. Did you know any of the other 23 ladies that were in the principal group ? A. No, Sir, I did not. Q. Jfow, you say you saw the whole procession, as I un- derstand; did you stand at a point and see it all pass by, or did you go after it ? A. Well, I believe I went after it the most of the way, because I recollect being at the start and at the finish; I think I went around all the way with rt , 1 don't recollect, though ; I guess Q. Now, do you tliii.k that you were abreast of this group of ladies all the wayl A. No,, Sir; I do not. Q. Were you, any part of the way, abreast of them 1 A. I think so; yes. Sir. Q. How much of the way 1 A. I could not say. Q. Now, what was the extent of your personal ac- (luaintance with Gen. Eyan? A. Oh, I had known Gen. Eyan for a long time. I had been with him— talked with Mm, and had conversations with him in regard to their Cuban business, and he was also associated in a news- paper on which I was employed part of the time, Q. What paper was thati A. Our Society, a fashionable paper in New-York. Q. So tiiat you knew him very well ! A. So that I knew him very well. Q. You have often stood up together in talking, haven't youl A. Yes, Sir. Q. Do you know whether he was as tall as you, or not i A. He was not as tail as me. Q. You put him at about five feet eight? A. I should judge so. Q. Now, in regawi to his hair, was it not black ! A. No, Sir. it was not black Q. As dark as yours % A. Yes, Sir ; about as dark as mine ; dark brown. Q. Was it of a curly temper or tendency ! A. Yes, Sir, It was at the end ; and he wore it long. Q. It curled 1 A. Well, yes ; it was wavy. Q. Wavy 1 Did he wear it down his shoulders t A. No, not quite as long as that. He wore it down to here [lay- ing his hand on hla neck.] Q. Well, didn't he wear a military hat ! A. Yes, Sir ; he did. Q. Abroad-brimmed military hat, with a cord and tas- sel on it 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. And some gUding about it ! A. 1 don't think there was any gilding about it. Q. Not about the cord and tassel t A- Not about the cord. Q. Nothing ? A. No, Sir. Q. In this procession he was with O 'Donovan Eossa and some other gentleman I A. Yes ; 1 think a Cuban gentleman ; I got his name, I believe, at the time ; he waa sitting on the rear seat, Q. That is, he was fronting the horses ? A. Fronting the horses. Q. And there was no lady in the carriage ! A. No lady in the carriage— no. Sir, not that I recollect. Q. Well, if you had seen a lady riding on the front seat, and three gentlemen, wouldn't you be apt to recollect it ! A. Well, I don't recollect all the details of a thing that happened so long ago. Q. Well, you made a sort of record of it, didn't youl A. Yes, Sir, but I have not seen that since— have not looked at it. Q. Well, do you remember whether your record make* any mention of Mr. Tilton being in the procession! A. No, Sir, I don't remember. Q. You have not examined it to see ? A. No, Sir, I have not examined. Q. But whatever record there is in Tht Sun of the next day is yours ? A. Is mine. Sir. TESTIMONY OF THEODOEE H. BA^TvS. Theodore H. Baiiks was called on behalf of the plaintiff, and being duly sworn, testifle^i : Mr. Morris— Where do you reside 1 A. In New-York, Q. Are you acquainted with Theodore Tilton 1 A. Yea, Sir. Q. And were you acquainted with Gen. Ryan ? A* Yes, Sir. Q. Do you recollect the procession which marched on the 17th of December, 1871 1 A. Yes, Sir ; very well. Q. You were marshal of that procession, I believe ! A. Yes, Sir. Q. Now, Mr. Banks, will you state where that proces* sion formed, and the manner in which it came together— the different parts of it 1 A. Yes, Sir, as near as I can recollect. The right of the procession formed, or was to form, in Eighth-st. ; in Seventh-st. the Cubans were to form ; in Sixth-st. there were some trades-unions— I think the printers' or the painters' ; in Fifth-st. there were some other organizations — I think they were the Swiss ; in Fourth-st. were the Internationals, the catafalque, and the citizens ; below Fourth-st. I think there were some other organizations— I don't know exactly. I think the Bricklayers ; in Fifth-st.— I mean in Third-st, 536 THE TILION-B and in Second-st. there was some — I don't know exactly wlio was there — I cannot remember who formed there ; hut the right of the procession formed in Eighth-st.— the Skidmore Guards and the band formed in Eighth-st. and started from Eighth-st. and marched down the Bowery to Great Jones-st., each of the different sections falling in. As the left of the division formed on each street marched down, the right of each division formed on the left of the other, and so on, until they had formed a con- tinuous line. The march was through Great Jones-st. to Broadway, up Broadway a small piece, and through Wa- verley-place to Fif th-ave. ; up Fifth-ave. to Thirty-fourth; across Thirty-fourth-st. to Sixth-ave. ; down Sixth-ave. to Fourteenth-st. ; along Fourteenth-st. to the Lincoln Monument ; around the monument, and then they dis- persed. Q. Now, did you kn^w Miss Tennie Claflin at that time ? A. Yes. Sir, T Avas acquainted with her. Q. And Mrs. Woout you went over for the purpose of joining? A. Tes, Sir. Q. How happened It that you did not join at the forma- tion of the procession ? A. Well, I have to work all night on a morning newspaper, and I was late getting up. You did not get there as Boon as you m.-aut to ? A. jr», Sir; not as soon as I wished to. Q. You found the procession iu motion? A. It was, Or. Q. Now, what route did y«u take to get to the procea- ■ion so as to join it? A. WeM I took the Grand-st. cars to the Bowery and alighted there and walked up the Bowery to the Cooper Institute, and found the proces- ilon had moved. Q. Was it all out of sight 1 A. Sir 1 Q. The whole of it out of sight \ A. Oh ! Yes, Sir. Q, There was not a sign of iti A. Not at that time, no; and I walked up Fourth-ave. to Thirteenrh-st. , through Broadway to Fourteenth-st., through Fourteenth-st. to Fifth-ave., where I ioiued the procession. Q. Did you run i A. Xo, I did not run ; well, I can't say that I was slow in walking ; I had an anxiety to join the procession. Q. Well, you did not run fast ? A. No, Sir. Q. Did you belong to any one of the organizations or divisions so that you waited for that to come on and unite yourself with it ? A. No, Sir, I did not at that time. Q. So you went ia as soon as you got to it, you think ? A. I went. Sir, about as soon as I saw an opening. Q. Yes, and it was ia this division ttiat Mr. Tilton was fcal A. No, Sir, Q. Well, what division was it that you went in ! A. It was in the division known as the Typogi-aphical Section Ko. 1." Q. What was the title of the division that Mi\ Tilton wasiul A. Well, T should think from the congi-ess — or rather the manner in vdiich the section was formed— the division was formed, that it was among the citizens gen- erally ; there appeared to be no regular lormatlou. Among the unaflaiiated portion ? A. Well, the un- atfiiiated would not have been there, probably. <^ WeU, you were ia a different division fi'om him ? i A. Yes, Sir. noons, have n't you ? A. I think I have. Q. Well, don't you know that from half-past 2 or 3 o'clock in th* afternoon the sun is blazing on taat piazz \, and it is the hottest place in the house ? A. I don't think so. Sir; I don't know Q. Don't you know that that piazza is exposed to the sun in the afternoon, and that that is the time the sun is shining on it? A. I think I know it is, but there is a protection there from the sun. Q. What is the answer ? A. I think it is, but tli>re is a protection from the sun. Q. What is the protection ? A. Well, the covering of the piazza. Q. Just the covering that is always there— the top of the piazza, you mean? A. The toi) of the piazza; and there is some, I think, from the building, the next house ; I think the next house is a protection. Q. Is that house a protection at half-past 2 or 3 o'clock in the afternoon? A. Well, I should think it was, Sir, because I have been on the piazza, I should think, from 10 o'clock in the morning until evening, and we never went away because of the heat. Q. Not even on the hottest days ? A. Well, it was very hot at that time. Sir. Q. Yes, no doubt it was ; well, do you remember how hot it was 1 A. Don't remember anything about it, ex- cept Q. Whether it was a peculiarly hot day? A. Well, I don't remember that it was. Q. Well, don't you know, as a matter of fact, that that piazza is especially hot about 3 o'clock, and that it is only about 5 o'clock that that piazza is cooler than other parts of the house ? A. I don't remember that. Sir. Q. But you do know that the piazza is exposed to the sun ; that it is on the sunny side in the afternoon ? A. Well, Sir, I have told you that the house next door ie a protection ; that is the only— — Q. The house next door? A. Yes, Sir. Q. How does that serve as a protection when th« sun. strikes directly square on the piazza? A. It is a three- story brick house, and running back, and the other house does not. Q. Don't you know that the sun does not shine on the other side— from the other side of that house? A. I don't know Q. Don't you know that the sun comes square in that piazza; that that piazza faces the setting sun; can't you recollect that ? A. I have told you that I remember be- ing there mornings and afternoons, and I never remem- ber a time when I had to go away from the piazza be* cause of the heat. Q. You have sat there morning and afternoon t A. I have been there mornings and afternoons. Q. How did you come to go there so much, and to sit there so long ? A. On the piazza, Sir ? TESLIMOyj OF FRA Q. Yes ; liad you nuthing else to do ? A. Xo, Sir ; it tliat is satisfactory. Q. Xotliing tliLit you could do, satisfactory— vrell, don't youkno-w? A. If that answer is satisfactory to you I ■wOl leave it. Q. What is that ? A. If that answer, " Xo, Sir," is satis- factory to you I will leare it. Q. ^Tiat I want is the truth, whether it is satisfactory to me or not ; I want to know whether you had any occu- pation than to come to that piazza and sit ? A. If you are asking about occupation, I did not have any occupation during that day ; that is, the greater part of it ; and out of sympathy for 3Irs. Tilton, and at her invitation, I went every morning. Q. Now, Sir, on that day that Miss Turner testified, can you recollect what day of the month it was \ A. Xo, Sir, I don't. Q. "VMiere did you come from on that day when you went around to that houst; ? A. From my room, Sir, in Court-st. Q. Well, how are you able to fix the time of day ? A. I can only fix it, Sir. by this— that for a number of days, indeed, I may say weeks, I had been in tlie habit, after lunch, of going around to my rooms and seeing that they were open and properly ventilated, and my man there, and then, after reading the papers, of going aroimd to see Mrs. Xaton. Q. And that is the only mode by which you can fix the time now 1 A. Yes, Sir, I have not— I did not pay any attention to the time, except Q. Did you look at your wr.tch while you were out on the piazza ? A. Xo, Sir ; I don't remember that I did. Q. Then how do you know that you spent two hours there, Sir 1 A. I know that I was there all the afternoon, i Sir ; more than two hoiu's. Q. AftCT you got there ? A. After I got there. Q. Did you look at your watch when you entered the house? A. No, Sir; but I know that I went directly trom my rooms to the house. Q. Did you look at your watch while you were in the roomi A. No, Su-; I don't remember. Q. Fow do you know, then ? A. Because they have a clock there; I may have looked at that; I do not re- member. Q. You don't recollect whether you looked at the clock or not ? A. I don't remember. Q. Then how do you recollect what time of day it was 1 A. "Well, my own idea of time is the only thing I can go by, Sir. Q. Well, are you able to do it without a watch or clock ? A. WeU, I am able to judge of the time between lunch time and tea time. C. What time did you have tea, Mr. Martin t A. Ire- member, Sir, that Bessie Turner said to Mrs. Oviugton that Gipn. Tracy's desire was SKLIX WO ODR UFF. 347 Q. I don't care about that ; I waut to know what time. A. Well, we had tea early ; I think about 6 o'clock. Q. Well, how do you fix the time that Gen. Tracy left ? A. Well, I can fix the time, Sir, from Gen. Tracy's having gone and Bessie— Miss Tomer having come back— come out, and we together having had conversation for quite a long time, maybe more than one hour Q. Y'es, there was quite a long time elapsed after Gen. Tracy left before you had tea ? A. XeU, I should think about an hour. Q. Didn't you say more than an hour just now? A. Well, it might possibly have been an hour or less Q. But you think it might have been more than an hour ? A. My best impression is it was about an hour, Sir. A Juror -Is 3Irs. Oviagton's house on the west side of the street ? Mr. Shearman— Yes, Sir, Mrs. Ovingron's house is on the west side of Hicks-st. [To the witness, j One mo- ment; a juror asks wliat time rou had your lunch. A. AYe lunched. Sir, about 12 o'clock always at Mr. Tilton's. Q. Did you have your lunch there \ A. I lunched there that same day. FRANKLIX WOODEUFF EE CALLED. Franklin Woodruff was recalled by plaintiff. :Mr. Beach -Mr. Woodruff, on your former examina- tion you testified as to a conversation between yourself, 3Ir. Moulton, Mrs. TUton and Tracy, at Mr. Moulton'a study ? A. I did. Q. Previous to that I understand that you had an inter- view or two with Mr. Tracy alone ? A. I had; one alone. Q. One alone? A. One with 3Ir. Moulton. Q. In the conversation— in either of those two conver- sations before the maia one at the study, did you give Mr. Tracy any iuformation iu regard to the charge or ac- cusation which Ml'. Tilton made agiiinst Mr. Beecher. and if so, what did you state ? MP.. ^YOODE^FF"s TESTIMOXY OBJECTED TO Mr. Evarts— One moment, Mr. Vroodniff. On what point in Mr. Tracy's evidence is this offered l ]NIr. Beach— Well, I cannot refer to the page. I ex- amined Mr. Tracy as to that. ivlr. Morris— He said that 3Ir. Woodruff' did not inform him that the charge was adultery. Mr. Beach— He did not ioiorm him of the money he offered. Mr. Morris— Oh, the $500 % Mr. Evarts— Well, I am asking him to look for the passage. Mr. Beach— WeU, Sir, I wUl wait. [Book handed to Mr. Beach, who reads] : Well, Mr. Tracy, passing that, did you, in the conver- sation which you had with Mr. Woodruff' preceding the one at ^Nlr. Moulton's study, of which you have spoken— 348 THE TILTON-^BBECHEB IBIAL, did you discuss witli him any wf the incidents ot this Bcandal, as it is called? A. Which interview do you refer to Mr. Beach ? Q. Either of them. A. Yes, Sir. Q. Which one was it— the one immediately preceding, etc. * » * Q. In those interviews— preceding interviews — of which I speak, did Mr. Woodruff relate to you the circumstances of the confession or statement of Mrs. Tilton, and her re- traction and reassertion- those preliminaries 1 A. No, Sir ; not in detail. Q. Well, did he allude to them— state them? A. I have the impression that at the second interview with Mr. Woodruff he stated to me that Mr. Moulton had Q. Oh, I do n't want to go into that ; I only want to know, Sir, if those things were stated hy him, in general terms ? A. I have an impression that he referred to the papers which Mr. Moulton had in his possession, and which I would want to see. Q. Now, Sir, in those interviews did Mr. Woodruff, in sub- stance, tell you that Mr. Tilton charged Beecher with adultery with his (Tilton's) wife ? A. No, Sir ; he did not. In those words. Mr. Evarts— No, Sir. f Reading. "j I said in substance, Sir. A. I cannot say that he did in substance. Q. Will you swear that he did not, in substance, tell you that ? A. I think I will. Q. Well, make up your mind, and let us know whether you will. Now, the next answer is— [Reading.] A. Well, I will state how I can state it, and the only way I can state it ; he did not say that in substance, in my judgment, according to my recollection ; but Mr. Woodruff, by his gestures, and what he omitted to say in answering some of my questions, and his insinuations left an impression upon my mind that he believed Mr. Beecher had been guilty of something that was very wrong in Mr. Tilton's family: what it was he did not state, and he did not leave me to infer. Q. Then he is asked, " Will you swear positively that in the interviews of which we are now speaking, or one of them, Mr. Woodruff did not in terms tell you that Mr. Tilton's charge against Mr. Beecher was adultery with his (Tilton's) wife ? A. I will. Q. Positively 1 A. Yes. Sir. Q. That he did not use the term " adultery ?" A. I will. Q. And that he did not in any more direct form than you have stated convey an implication of that charge ? A. Yes; I have intended to state, and think I have stated. Now, these are the two interviews, as I understand, or one or the other of two interviews that preceded the Sunday interview of which you inquired, Mr. Beach. Mr. Beach— Yes, Sir. Mr. Evarts— All this in presence of Mr. Tracy preceded the interview at which Mr. Moulton waa Introduced. The Witness— Yes, Sir. ARGUMENT OF MR. EVARTS. Mr. Evarts— Now, your Honor will perceive that there is no basis, in the rules of evidence, for this inquiry. If an inquiry had been made, what Mr. Tracy bad said to the witness, to wit, Mr. Woodruff, and Mr. Tracy had denied it, then, to prove what Mr. Tracy said, is a contradiction of Mr. Tracy, and would be in the sense of a collateral impeachment, for which a foundation must be laid in that way. But here is an interview between Mr. Tracy and Mr. Woodruff, neither of them parties to the suit, and Mr. Woodruff's statements are never evidence in that sense in any way. Gen. Tracy is asked whether Mr. Woodruff told him so and so ; and Gen. Tracy, giving the answer that he has given, says, " He did not tell me so ; he threw out intimations, insinuations, or observations, or gestures, leaving a certain implication in my mind." Now, it is not an impeachment of Gen, Tracy, having made extra-judicial statements himself, inconsistent with his testimony under oath ; that is, the form of collateral impeachment on extra-judicial statements. Now, the counsel himself calls out from Mr. Tracy on cross-exam- ination to this point of inquiry: whether Franklin Woodruff did not tell beforehand, before this interview of Sunday, so and so, in order that that may have some bearing on something or other. What passed between Mr. Woodruff and Mr. Tracv is not evidence against anybody, at any interview; there is no pretense of that. That does not bind Mr. Beecher, nor does it bind Mr. Tilton. Now, hav- ing asked that question of Mr. Tracy, which is not of extra-judicial'statements of Mr. Tracy, but of whether he had certain information before he went into an inter- view, the counsel now calls this witness to contradict Gen. Tracy. As matter of evidence in chief it can- not be introduced, because it is outside of rebuttal. All the interviews between this gentleman and Mr. Tracy were brought in as matter of direct evidence on the i»ai t of the plaintiff, and if they omitted to prove any part of the conversation at that time that they had any right to prove, why then it would not be admissible as evidence in chief, for it is not in rebuttal; it is in accumulation if it be anything. Then, if it is not an extra-judicial state- ment of Gen. Tracy, contrary to something that he has given on the stand, it does not seem to me that it i* within any of the rules of impeachment. Mr. Beach— Your Honor may perhaps— Mr. Evarts— One moment, Mr. Beach. This "is con- fined to what witness has himself said or done, and does not allow impeachment by proving that statement* have been made in his presence as to a material fact which he has testified he had no knowledge of." | Gan- dolfo agt. Appleton, Court of Appeals, 40 N. Y., p. 553.] Judge Neilson— That touches this point, of course, as I understand. I have a general impression, from Mr. Tracy's testimony, that, according to his recollection, it was later than that that he learned the character of this charge as put in the strongest terms ; that he up to that time, and subsequently, only knew it in its subordinate form and character, and this evidence would seem to be with the view to show that he had some kind of notice on that subject. Mr. Evarts— Well, your Honor, the point, as I under- stand it, was not that nobody ever sa*d anything against TESTIMONY OF FB. Mr. Beeclier, but that Mr. Tilton did not charge it to Gen. Tracy ; lie never heard from Mr. Tilton any charge of a larger dimension. Whether Mr. Moulton, Mr. Franklin Woodruff, or anybody else in Brooklyn talked around and said what Mr. Tilton thought, or what he said, or in- sinuated, or winked, or nodded— that is not tiie point ; but this authority to which I advert seems to cover this caeet ARGUMENT OF ME. BEACH. Mr. Beach— If the gentleman will have the authority in Court here, that will show, of course, very clear; we cannot tell from marginal notes. But your Honor has struck the point, Sir, of what is material in this evidence. I suppose it will be pretty clearly remem- bered by your Honor, that Mr. Tracy, in his examination- in-chief, substantially declared th»t he had no knowl- edge of the charge of adultery being made on behalf of Mr. Tnton until some time in the year 1874— in July, I think, or August, of 1874— and presented that as an ex- cuse for his changing his relations and forfeiting his pledge to Mr. Tilton. Now, we propose to show, Sir, that in the interview with the gentleman upon the stand, subsequently followed by a confidential interview between the same gentleman and Mr. Tilton and Mr. Moulton, Mr. Tracy was then at an early day explicitly Informed of the charge made by Mr* TUton against Mr. Beecher, and that after that his nego- tiations, his conferences, his advice, and his cooperation were given to and united with the exertions of Mr. Tilton and Mr. Moulton in reference to the subsequent events of this scandal, and that thus knowing, from an authentic source, to wit, the witness upon the stan«d, from a source which afterward received the approbation and adoption of Mr. Tilton, to whom Mr. Tracy made his pledge— that after receiving this informa- tion he continued his relations with Mr. Tilton and re- deemed the pledge for a long period of time which he had given to Mr. Tilton in regard to his relation to him. Now I cannot go through, Sir, the details of all this evidence, to show your Honor the position which Mr. Tracy took in his examination in regard to the knowledge of the precise charge made against Mr. Beecher. We pro- pose to give this, with other evidence, to show that Mr. Ti-acy, prior to the Summer of 1874, at which he locates his discovery which released him from his professional obligations, as he supposes, well knew and under- stood that the charge of Mr. Tilton against Mr. Beecher, when, in the language of Beecher, "you came to the bottom facts" of that charge, when it was not attempted to be concealed for the purposes known to the different parties interested in it— that Tracy well understood what was the extreme "Old criminal character of the accusation ; and this, Sir, as one of the circumstances in the history of his negotia- tions with Tilton and his friends, we propose to give, in NKLIN WOOBBUFF. 849 contradiction of Mr. Tracy, to show that at the time of these interviews in the Fall of 1872 he well understood what was the nature of this accusation ; and it was the same then as it was in the Summer of 1874, and as it is to-day. We have certainly, so far as inquiry of Mr. Tracy is concerned— we have certainly laid the foundation for this proof, because we have drawn his attention spe- cifically to the conversation, to the subject, and to the language. THE JUDGE WILLING TO EECEIVE THE TES- TIMONY. Mr. Evarts — Well, if your Honor please, yon see the wlicle situation in this Fall of 1872 was that there had been a publication in a New-York paper in de- tail, professing to be founded upon ^Ir. Tilton's evi- dence—information to the writer of that article, that the charge against Mr. Beecher was of adultery with Mrs. Tilton, and that the whole occasion for this witness be- ing brought into relation ^viTll Mr. Tracy was from the exigencies arising on the demands of the friends of the firm of Woodruff & Robinson that that gross charge should not be left uncontradicted in so far as it rested upon the responsibility of Mr. Moulton ; and these pre- liminary conversations with Mr. Tracy on the part of Mr. Fi'anklin Woodruff were to see whether he would come into consultation for friendly advice to Moulton and the firm in respect to the duty of Moulton in the prem- ises, of disclaiming and contradicting; and whatever passed before in the way of ^Ir. Woodruff or Mrs. Wood- hull or anybody else saying that Mr. Tilton charged Mr. Beecher with adultery, had nothing to do with the ques- tion of whether Mr. Tilton did charge. That is the ques- tion, and this solemn interview of Sunday night brought the thing to a point, that he did not charge adiiltery, and never had. And then Gen. Tracy is put to the mark: " From that time forward did Mr. Tilton ever charge adultery ? No, not until 1874." That is the situation. Now, how is that line of Gen. Tracy, or that position, contradicted by showing that this man, having no knowledge of his own, not having as much knowledge or as much intercourse with the party from whom the information is alleged to have come, as INIrs. Woodhull had had, and had published it— how does that bear on the question of whether Mr, Tilton's charge as made to Gen. Tracy was always limited to the less of- fense, or the imputation, qualified and contradicted, too, at that, and never enlarged itself to this charge until 1874. That is all that could possibly be material. Judge Neilson— If I receive this it is not because I re- gard Mr. Tracy is on trial, or feel any present interest in any such question ; but it comes in merely as notice through this witness to him. I think sufficient founda- tion has been laid for it. Mr. Evarts— Your Honor will be so good as to note our exception. 350 TtlE TILTON-B Judge Neil son— Yes, Sir. Mr. Beach — Mv. "Woodruff, "will you please state what passed between yourself and Mr. Tracy ; what informa- tion you gave him in the interview to which I have asked your attention, with reference to the charge made by Mr. Tilton against Mr. Beecher. [To defendant's counsel]— I may as well in the same question ask with reference— [to the witness]— and a^so in reference to any commimi- ^ation you made to him with regard to money for Mrs. Tilton. Mr. Evarts— The first question, about what he said to liim, must be limited to the words that are put to Mr. Tracy. ]Mr. Beach — Not to the words, to the substance. Mr. Evarts— Well, to the substance of the words. The Witness— I went to Gen. Tracy's office Mr. Evarts— The question, as I understand your Honor to rule— we submitted to it ; it is no doubt a proper Tilling, as well as the ruling that governs the case— that they are putting to him : "Did you say to Mr. Tracy at that Interview that the charge was adultery 1" Mr. Beach— Well, I have put it. Mr. Evarts— Did you put it to Mr. Tracy 1 Mr, Beach— Do you wish me to repeat it, Sir ? [To the witness.] Did you in that interview say to Mr. Ti'acy in words or substance, that Mr. Tilton's charge against Mr. Beecher was of adultery with his, Tilton's, wife, and if so, give the words as near as you can recollect them, or the substance of them? Mr. Evarts— Oh, no ; answer the first question. Mr. Beach— You will answer my question as I put it, unless it is ruled out. Mr. Evarts— Not unless the Court allows it. Mr. Beach— No, certainly not. Mr. Evarts — That has been negative!^; we were not al- lowed even to ask the witness what hi»*.aid. Mr. Beach— I am asking whether he said that in sub- stance, and that was the question that I put to Gen, Tracy. Judge Neilson— I think he can answer that. A, I told him. Mr, Evarts— No, no ; did you tell him that % Mr, Beach— Wait, wait ; do n't pay much attention to that gentleman just now, THE FIGHT TO EXCLUDE THE TESTIMONY EEOPENED. Mr. Evarts — Well, I must have, if your Honor please, the same ruling on the part of my learned friends that we have been so submissive to making heretofore, and the ruling has been express against us to which we have conformed, that tlie auestion should be : " Did you tell him 1" Judge Neilson— Yes." Mr. Evarts— The same question that was asked of Mr. Triicy, and he is to answer yes or no. WEOHEB TRIAL, Judge Neilson— Yes. The Witness— May I tell who I had the evidence from! Judge Neilson— No. Mr. Evarts— No. Mr. Beach— Don't say anything about it. Just say what you said. Judge Neilson— Cannot you put the question in the terms that it was put to Mr. Tracy ? Mr. Beach— I did. Sir, " Did you tell him that it was ad\iltery, or iu substance that," It may not be in that precise language. Sir, Judge Neilson— Say yes or no, Mr, Woodruff. The Witness— Do you want to know if I had that from Mr. Tilton. Mr. Beach— No, no, I don't ask that. The Witness— That is what the other side said. Q, I told you not to pay much attention to Mr. Evarts, just now. [Laughter, | Mr, Evarts— He can't help it you know. Mr. Beach— I know we can't help it. It is the seductive character of the man ; but I want you to try, .Judge NeUson— Stenographer, read that question, please. The Tribune stenographer read the question as fol- lows : " Did you in that interview say to Mr. Tracy, in words or substance, that Mr. Tilton's charge against Mr. Beecher was of adiiltery with his, Tilton's, wife, and if so give the words as near as you recollect them, or the sub- stance of them." The Witness— I did say so to Gen. Tracy in that inter- view. Q. Did you say to Gen. Tracv in that interview that Mr, Beecher had advanced the sum of $500 for the use of Mr. Tilton's f amUy, or in substance that 1 Mr, Evarts— Don't answer that, because that don't come within any rule excepting of e(mtradicting G«n. Tracy as to whether Mr. Woodruff had told him so and so That don't come on to this question of knowledge of the heinousness of the charge. Judge Neilson— No, Mr, Evarts— That ruling that I have called your Honor's attention to would govern this; it is not the extra-judicial statement of Mr, Tracy. Mr. Beach— Yes, it is. Mr. Evarts— No, it is not, YiV. Beach— Well, we will get to it, Mr, Evarts— When we get to it we will be there. Mr, Beach— We are getting to it, Mr. Evarts— Then take your stages if you are going there. Mr, Beach — Well, we must take stages or we can't get there. Mr, Evarts— That has been ruled ; you can't put any such question. Mr. Beach— I think we will. Judge Neilson— What did Mr. Tracy say about that $5001 TESimoyj OF FRA :\KLF\ WOODBCFF. Mr. Beacli— Mr. Tracy denied it, and said that jMt. Woodruff did not make to Mm tbat communication, and «aid that, in referring to tliat communication, lie did not say to "Woodruff wlien they -went from the meeting on Simday night that that was the worst feature in Beeeher's case. Mr. Evarts— "Well, but you are not asMng him ahout Sunday evening. Mr. Beach— But you won't let me ; that is just the trouble. I am going to ask him. I have to prove in the first place that there was some communication about money before I can get the reflection which Mr. Tracy made upon it. Mr. Evarts— No, the question to Gen. Tracy was this— this same interview as I understand it ; the preliminary interview, not the Simday night interview ; it was one of these preliminary interviews before Moulton was intro- duced to Gen. Tracy. The question put to Gen. Tracy was: Q. Now, didn't he tell you that Beecher had given Moul- ton, for the support or the benefit of Mrs. Tilton and Til- ton's family, $.500 1 A. Xo, Sir. Q. Do you swear positively to that ? A. I do, most em- phatically. Mr. Beach— The subiect is alluded to again. Mr. Evarts— "Well, I understand you are not on the Sunday night interview 1 Mr. Beach— That has nothing to do with the suggestion that I make to you that the subject is alluded to again. Mr. Evarts — ^Well", you agree that it is not the Sunday night interview that you are inquiring about, don't you I Mr. Beach— I most certainly do, if that is important to be known. Mr. Evarts— Yes, it is very important to me. Mr. Beach— Well, then, I grant it. Mr. Evarts— Now, where was it alluded to agam ? Now, the question is this, whether he can ask this wit- ness, "Did you not tell Mr. Tracy, at that interview, that Beecher had given to Moulton, for the support or the benefit of Mi^s. Tilton and Tilton's family, $500 ]" Now, what this witness said to Gen. Tracy, as evidence in chief, is of no importance. Judge Neilson— No. Mr. Evarts— "What Gen. Tracy said to the witness in coEtradiction of anything that he has said— that is, what Gen. Tracy said on the stand, can be made the subject of collateral impeachment by producing extra-judicial state- ments of Gen. Tracy, if the foundation has been laid. But this is not any extra-judicial statement of Gen. Tracy ; It is correcting or contradicting Gen. Tracy as to a state- ment supposed to have been made by this witness and denied by Gen. Tracy, of this fact to Gen. Tracy. Now, it is not material, it is not in issue and it is not a col- lateral impeachment. Here is the authority in court now. Judge Neilson— "What statement did Gen. Tracy make in respect to that money, :Mr. Beach ? Mr. Beech— Mr. Tracy made this statement, that Mr. "V\'oodruff made to him no commimication of that kind about $500, and denied that he— this commimication hav- ing been made a day or two preceding the Sunday— that when he and Mr. "Woodruff left the place of the interview that Sunday he did not in relation to that thing say that that was the worst feature of Mr. Beecher's case. Now Mr. Tracy comes to this interview on Sunday and again.st the testimony of Moulton and of "^*oodrufi" and of Tilton, swears that the only revelation made to him at that in- terview of iniquity upon the part of ]\Ir. Beecher was im- proper solicitations. In the face of the direct oath of these three men, he denies that he was then informed that the charge was sexual intercourse between Beecher and ^Irs. Tilton. Now, as a circumstance altogether in- dependent of the question of contradiction, we ofi'er to prove that at the preliminary interview, when he was solicited to this main and most important consulta- tion, he was then told that the charge was adultery ; he was then told of circumstances which led his mind to the conclusion — of acts on the part of Mr. Beecher— which led his mind to the conclusion that there was something more serious in this matter than he testified as to what occurred on Sunday of the main in- terview. Now, Sir, the surroimdings of this interview, the intercourse as between Mr. Tracy and these persons who then were in consultation with him, are all-important and admissible to determine the question of veracity as between Tracy on the one hand and "^'oodruff and Moul- ton and Tilton on the other. If before Mr. Tracy went to that interview— if almost on the way to that interview, lie was told by one of the parties to it that the charge of Tilton was adultery as against Beecher, is it not a cir- cumstance, Sir, to be considered by the jury whether, when they get together, his story as to the nature of the charge made by Tilton is true or not 1 Judge Neilson— "Well, with that view I allowed him to answer, so as to show, whether Gen. Tracy remembers it or not, he gave him notice of the character of the char^. MR. TRACY INFORMED OF THE MONEY CONTRIBUTIONS. Mr. Beach— Yes, Sir, and can "we not prove the other circumstance that he gave him notice that this man, Beecher, without any obligation or debt to induce him to do it, was making contributions of $500 for the purpose of supporting Mrs. Tilton and her family without the knowledge of the husband, and that when Tracy heard that he pronoimcecl it as the most damaging cir- cumstance in the whole history of the transaction ? Judge Neilson— "Well, now, as to the money. First, we have that proved in various ways. Mr. Beach— Not in regard to the $500. Judge Neilson— Not the $500— the other money. Mr. Beach— I am not talking about the other money, Sir. THE TILTON-BEEGEEU TRIAL. Mr. Evarts— It is a part of It. Mr. Beach— It is no part of it. Mr. Evarts— Why, yes, it is. Mr. Beach— You can say it is. I say It ain't. It is a part of the $2,000, hut not of the $5,000. Judge Neilson— We have a large amount of evidence as to money advanced by Mr. Beeoher, some of which, it ai>- pearSf went to the benefit of Mrs. Tilton herself, and some of it went to other uses, including Bessie Turner's school- ing, so that that Is very clearly before us, and has a cer- tain amount of indorsement by Mr. Beecher himself. Mr. Beach— Yes ; but there is nothing before us to show that Mr. Tracy received knowledge— had knowledge of the contributions of money at the time of the interview on Sunday, Nov. 10. Judge Neilson— I do not see how it is material that he knew it or did not know it ; and the other branch of your inquiry is simply calling for Mr. Tracy's opinion, to wit, that it was the worst feature. Well, now, we do not want his opinion— mere opinion. He said it was the worst fea- ture of the case. Suppose he said so. Mr. Beach— He said, if your Honor please, that all he knew or suspected then was improper solicitations ; that he never heard of anything else. That is what he says. Judge Neilson— Well, we have taken the answer on the vital point. Mr. Beach— I know we have upon that. It is a very vital and material question, too, whether a stranger to the household of Mr. Tilton shall make these contribu- tions of $500, and when they are communicated to his counsel, Mr. Tracy, and he pronounces it as the most damaging circumstance, does it not reflect. Sir, upon the question of the integrity of Tracy when he swears that he had no suspicion or knowledge of any other charge than improper solicitations ? Judge Neilson— I do not see that his opiniou about its "being an unfavorable circumstance, or not, is at all ma- terial—a mere opinion. Mr. Beach— It is just his opinion, Sir, if your Honor please, that we are after; it is the very thing we are seek- ing for. On Nov. 10 what was the opinion of Tracy as to the guilt of Beecher, and as to the charge which Tilton made against Beecher? So far as Mr. I'racy is concerned, and his credibility is concerned with the jviry, that is the essential and main inquiry. Judge Neilson — You may ask him whether or not he gave notice to Mr. Tracy— turn to your question to him— of the advance of $500 by Mr. Beecher for the benefit of Mrs. Tilton or family, but not go beyond that, not take Tracy's opinion that that was the worst feature of the case, because it is a mere opinion. Mr. Beach fto the witness]— WeU, Sir, did you give that Information to him » A. I did. Mr. Evarts— Well, it is understood to be in those terms. I do not object to the question in those terms— that is to say, the direct question : Did you tell Mr. Tracy on that occasion?" [To Mr. Shearman.] Where 1« this evidence ? Judge Neilson— That Mr. Beecher advanced $500. Mr. Evarts— That Mr. Beecher had given to Moulton* for the support or the benefit of Mrs. Tilton and Mrg. Tilton's family, $500. Mr. Beach— Or substantially that. The Witness— I told him that. Judge Neilson— You told him that 1 A. Yes, Sir. Judge Neilson— Very weU, that covers that. Now then, this remaining question, which I think not at aU. material, is as to Mr. Tracy's opinion saying it was the worst feature. MR. TILTON'S CHAEACTERIZATION OF HIS WIFE'S OFFENSE. Mr. Beacli — Very weU, Sir, I will not press it, if your Honor is disinclined. [To the witness]- In that conversation on Simday, did Mr. Tilton say to Mr. Tracy that he did not make the charge of adultery against Mr. Beecher ? Mr. Evarts— Well, now, this, I suppose, is some question put to Mr. Tracy. Judge Neilson— The learned coimsel puts his question from general recollection, it seems, of Mr. Tracy's evi- dence. Mr. Beach— Certainly I do. Sir. Judge Neilson— I have not a good recollection. Have you got the question? Mr. Evarts— No ; I have not. Mr. Beach— WeU, I suppose we all remember that Mr. Tracy testified in that conversation that Tilton expressly told him that his charge was not adultery. Mr. Evarts— Well, where do you get a right to put a leading question to your witness except on the ground of a direct contradiction ? Judge Neilson— Yes, of course. Mr. Evarts— If you want to prove what was said in thit interview, then we wUl see whether you can bring it in in rebuttal— whether you have not exhausted the inter- view with this witness on your direct examination. Mr. Beach— Well, when I offer to bring it in as afflrma^ tive evidence it will be time enough to reason the question then. Mr. Evarts— Then I shall reason the question. Mr. Beach— No, you won't, for I shan't do it. Mr. Evarts— Very well, then, you are out of the way. Now you are here to contradict. Judge Neilson— Do you find the direct question that was put to Mr. Tracy ? Mr. Beach— No, I cannot refer to the direct question. Here we have got a version of this interview by three witnesses, and Mr. Tracy comes and adds to it— makes additional declaration. Cannot I contradict it by the same witness ? Mr. Evarts— In the terms of his statement, yes. TTJSTimyY OF FF. Mr. Beach— I am not bound to take the terms ot liis statement. Juds:e Xeilson— In siihsTanee. Mr. Beach— Yes, in substance. When he swears to an additional fact as occurring at an interview in which we say it did not occur, may we not contradict it by our wit- ness? Mr. Evarts — There my friend is rirrht back where he said he would never be. Mr. Beach— No, I ain't right back. You are quite mis- taken. You won't get me back. Judge Xeilson— He has a ri#it to contradict the wit- ness. Mr. Evarts— He has a right to rebut provided he is within the rules of rebuttal, but he said he would never do it. Mr. Beach— No, I did not. Mr. Evarts— You offer it as contradicting Mr. Tracy ? air. Beach— We offer it as rebuttal and contradictory evidence. Mr. Evarts — Very well; now we will take it on rebuttal. This interview was given in evidence by the plaintiff as a part of their original case and the whole of it ; and this witness was examined on it and gave his evidence, and we have contradicted those witnesses as to that in- terview. Now, they cannot recall those witnesses to re- Instate and rebut theii* former statements. Jud^e Neilson— No ; I think the learaed counsel would not do itj because it would be a waste of time. Mr. Evarts— Well, but the laws of evidence, besides that, would not permit it to be done— a graver reason than the general waste of time. Judge Neilson— I am not so sure. Mr. Evarts— They. tell their story ; they are obliged to exhaust their story, and we contradict them. Now, when we introduce substantially new matter, not any point of the interview concerning which they tell their story, but new facts of Mr. Beecher going to PeeksMll, or this, that, or the other thing, then rebuttal comes in. Judge Neilson — Well, that I understand it to be. Mr. Evarts— Not at all ; it is the same conversation, the eame mterview, and they have given their story about it, and there was talk about adultery, and this, that, and the other. Mr. Tracy has come forward and given his story as to what occurred there, and that there was a disclaimer of adultery. Now, this witness was examined before; if he had not been that would not make any dif- ference, and it is nothing but a reinstatement of his case. Judge Neilson— No ; he is only called to speak to any new matter on this point that Mr. Tracy may have in- troduced. Ml-. Beach— That is aU, Sir. Judge Neilson — Frame youi* question with that view. Mr. Evarts— Let us see if he was not asked this very question before. iSKLlN WOODEUFF.. 353 I Judge NeUson— If he was, then he need not be asked it now. Mr. Evarts— The rule is thus laid down in Bex vs. Hil- ditch et al. [English Common Law Report*, pace ."7.".1 Whatever is a conffrmation of the original case cannot be given as evidence in reply; and the only evidence which can be given as evidence in reply, is that which goes to cut down the case on the part of the defense, without being any confirmation of the case on the part of the prosecution. Now, iVIr. Woodruff is asked, as a part of their direct case before that goes in evidence [consulting with Mr. Abbott] — well, it was in his evidence on the opening case. Mr. Beach— That was on your cross-examination. Mr. Evarts [reading] : You say he charged Mr. Beecher with being an aditl- terer that day in my presence 1 A. He said he had been gmilty of adultery. Q. Didn't I— [Gen. Tracy was conducting the examira- tionj— " Didn't I turr. to him then and say, 'Do you moan with your wife V and was not his reply to me, * No, Sir; with another woman V " The answer is : No, Sir ; I don't recollect that you said that. Q. You don't remember that 1 A. No, Sir. Q. Do you remember any allusion to any other woman that day in that conversation 1 A. I don't recollect any allusion to any woman, only that Mr. Beecher had been guilty of adultery, he didn't say with whom. Now, that is the whole point of the inquiry ? Gen. Tracy says that Mr. Tilton got excited and said that 'Mi: Beecher had been guilty of adultery. " Then I asked him : ' Weil, was it with your wife V ' No ; not with my wife, but with another woman.' " Well, however heinous that may be, it is not a part of the issue here; so that this whole thing has been gone through, this witness has been examined and cross-examined, and now we have given :Mr. Tracy's statement concerning it. :Mr. Beach— If the gentleman had looked a little further back in the testimony of Mr. Woodruff, he would have found that in his direct examination he swore even more than the counsel has read. He testified that Mr. Moiilton, at the commencement of the interview, related to Mr. Tracy the circtmastances Mr. Shearman— Not in the presence of :Mr. Tilton. Mr. Beach— That don't make any odds, whether it was in the presence of Mr. Tilton or not, Sir. He then told Mr. Tracy that Beecher had been guilty of sexual inter- course with ]ilrs. Tilton. Mr. Evarts— Mr. Woodruff swore to it ; we asked :Mi'. Tracy about it and contradicted him ; he says he did not. Mr. Beach— I know that. When the gentleman will give me an opportunity to drop in a word here once in a while, perhaps we will find where I stand, at any rate what my point is. Now I admit, Sir, that Mr. 3roulton and Mr. Woodruff, upon their former testimony, related that interview with Mr. Tracy, and gave their version of it — that they communicated to Mr. Tracy the fact of sex- ual intercourse, or adultery, or what not, wJiatcver you ma}- call it. 354 TRE IILTON-B Judge Neilson— "VVTiich you do not propose now to rebut. Ml-. Beacli— NotMng at all, Sir ; nothing to do with it. Mr. Tracy comes upon the stand and denies that. He says no such communication was made to him ; and then he goes further and says that On the contrary from thai, Mr. Tilton, in express tel-ms, said to me that he made no accusation of adultery against Mr. Beecher with his wife; that his wife was as white as snow. Mr. Evarts— Oh, no. Mr. Beach— Yes, he does. Judge Neilson— That is according to your present in- quiry. Mr. Tracy— That she was a pure woman. Mr. Beach— Pure as snow. Mr. Tracy— Snow is not in my evidence. Mr. Btach— So much the better for the snow. [Laugh- ter.] That is pure now, at least. Now, all we want is to contradict the declarations. Mr. Evarts— Well, now, what is the question ? Mr. Beach— Well, it is so far back I shall have to repeat it, I guess. [To the witness.] In that interview on Sunday, which has been spoken of, in the Autumn of 1872, did Mr. Tilton, in words or substance, say to Mr. Tracy in you.r hearing that his wife had not been guilty of adul- tery with Mr. Beecher ; that she was a pure woman ? Mr. Evarts— No ; that is not the form of the statement. The question was put to Mr. Tilton : " Do you mean with your wife ?" Mr. Tracy's statement is, that in excite- ment Mr. Tilton said that Mr. Beecher was an adulterer, or something of that kind. After he had got through disclaiming it from his wife, that is, after he had given a lesser statement, then Mr. Tracy says to him : ''Do you mean with your wife ?" and he answers, " No ; not with my wife ; my wife is as pure as— is a pure woman. Judge Neilson— Well, now, that is a point about which the witness did not speak on the former examination, and about which he can speak now. Mr. Evarts— Then let it be limited to that question : " Did he say," &c. Mr. Beach— Well, if the gentleman will be good enough to frame my questions for me I will be very much obliged ; if I do not get them right he can correct me. Mr. Evarts— It is as much labor as I can bear to keep you from asking wrong ones. Mr. Beach— I understood you to make a suggestion as to the form of my question ; and if you will repeat it I ■will consider it. Mr. Evarts— I repeat that you must frame your ques- tion as the law requires. Mr. Beach— Now, I ask him whether, in words or sub- stance, upon that occasion Mr. Tilton Mr. Evarts [referring to the record)— Ah, this is the statement of Mr. Tracy: Alter he had flnished the reading of the paper, 1 said to him in substance (I don't remember the phraseology) : ** Y(r,:r statement, Mr. Tilton, settles one thing— that you EEC HE B TRIAL. did not charge Mr. Beecher with adultery." He said, "No, my wife is a pure woman." I remember that phras- and that sentence occurring. Then there was a subsequent outbreak, where, having passed over the actual circumstances of the charge against Mr. Beecher in respect of his wife, he got intonn excitement and said that Mr. Beecher was an adulterer, anyhow. Then came the question : " Do you mean with your wife 1" *' No " There is the place. [Indicating to Mr. Beach.l Mr. Beach— Is that on the direct examination ? It must be, I think. Mr. Evarts— Oh, yes ; it is part of his narrative of the interview. Judge Neilson— Suppose 3''outake Mr. Evarts's book, Mr. Beach ; that will be the best way. Mr. Beach— I will find it in a minute. Judge Neilson— There seems to be ground for two ques- tions, if you conSne it to the terms of the question to Mr, Tracy. Mr. Beach— WeU, Sir, Mr. Tracy says he does not re- member the phraseologj-, and if he does not, I cannot. Judge Neilson — Still, you want the exact substance. Mr. Beach— Yes, Sir ; I want the exact substa nee. Mr. Evarts [to Mr. Beach]— Don't you find that pas- sage 1 Mr. Beach— No. Mr. Evarts— Well, use my book. Here it is. [Indicating in the book.] Mr. Beach— That is not the whole of it ; there is more than that. Mr. Evarts— No, that is subsequent. Mr. Beach [to the witness]— Well, Sir, did this occur [To the Court]— Well, I cannot ask this question without committing the witness to a statement which has been denied. This was a question put by the other side, and they say : " After he had finished the reading of this paper"— that is, what they call the " True Statement." Now, our witnesses have denied that any such paper was read upon that oc- casion, and I cannot put it in the precise language of this declaration. Judge Neilson— Well, say, " After any reading that was had on that occasion." Mr. Beach— Sm-ely I can put it at any time during that conversation. Mr. Evarts— Oh, I think so. Mr. Beach— Very well. [To the witness.] During that conversation, at any time, did this occui-, in words or substance : Mr. Tracy saying to Mr. Tilton, " Your state- ment, Mr. Tilton, settles one thiiiLC, that you did not charge Mr. Beecher with adultery;" and Mr. Tiltou say- ing, " No ; my wife is a pure woman ?" A. I do not think it occurred. Q. You have no recollection of any such thibg 1 A. No, Sir. [A pjiuse.] TESTTJdOXY OF FEAXKLI^ WOODErFF. 355 JOKES BY THE JUDGE. C . lUXSEL, AXD JUEY, ^klr. Beach — I cannot put my eye upon tlie rest of it, Sir. Judge Xeilson— We have taken so mucli evidence tliat I am not surprised tliat you cannot tind it. 3Ir. Beacli— Yes, Sir; I can rememlter it better tlian I can find it. 3Ir. Evarts— Tlie difficulty is to remember it correctly. :Mr. Beach— That is a difficulty that has not yet oc- cm-red, Sir. The Witness [In an undertone, to the Court]— Judge, I hope you will let them get through "with me to-daj'. Mr. Beach— Did anything like this, in language or sub- stance, occur in your hearing : 3Ir. Tilton saying that 'Mi. Beecher -was an adulterer, and he could prove it; and 3Ir. Tracy asMng, "With your Tvife V and 3[r. Tilton replying, "No, but Tvith another "^oman," or "women," or "other women;".did anything like that occur i A. Nothing that I recollect, stated as that is. Some part of it might have occurred. :Mr. Beach— Well, I guess that covers the two branches. [After consulting with the other counsel.] Oui- recollec- tions differ. Sir, in regard to the fact whether or not Mr. Woodruff, upon his former evidence, spoke in regard to the " True Story"— that statement. Jam certain that he did. The Witness— I did. Mr. Beach— Then that is all we care to ask, Mr. Wood- ruff. Mr. Evarts— He spoke about it. Mr. Shearman— We will cross-examine in the morning. Judge Nellson— Better do it to-night ; we were late in coming in at recess. Mr. Shearman— If your Honor will give us about an hour and a half. Judge [Jseilson- We were late in coming in, and I think it will save time to finish this examination to-night. Mr. Shearman— The jury have already been suggesting adjournment. Mr. Evarts— It is a question for the jury ; we can go on. Judge Neilson— The jury are content. They are pleas- ant lookmg men. The Foreman of the Jury — The jury would like to ad- journ astisual, Sir. Judge Neilson [to the jmy]— Ai-e you willing to remain, gentlemen ? The Foreman— We are willing to go. [Laughter.] Judge Xeilson- No doubt. We are all willing to go. We lost some time at the intermission, and I think we had better close the examination and relieve this witness. Mr. Evarts— The jury say that they did not lose that time. Judge Nellson— Oh. tJiey did not lose any time. Mr. Evarts — We expect a considerable cross^xamina- tion. If it were a question of ten or fifti-en minutes, we would not care. :Mr. Beach— Well, I suggest that we compromise thiB matter by your Honor ordering Mr. Evarts to " shut up" for half an hour, the time that he kept us waiting here. [Laughter.] Judge Neilson— I never make an order that won't be carried out. [Laughter.] [To the witness.] If you can- not come in the murulng, then we will fix another time. The Witness— Oh, I can come. The court then adjourned until Tuesday at 11 o'clock. SEVENTY-EIGHTH CAY'S PROCEEDIXGS. MES. TILTOX DENIED A HEAEDs'G. .JUDGE ^T:ILS0X'S AXS^HR to MES. TILTOX'S AP- peal—the lan'ouage of hepv ppvotest and declapvatiox of lnrxocexce — the judge poixts out the differexce between ^ir. and mrs. tiltox as witxesses— further re- buttal testi:\ioxt for the plaixtiff— mr. woodruff's cross-exa:^itnatiox — te stimoxy of mrs. axxa m. :>nddlebrook, .joseph h. RICHARDS, AND JOHX' BREMER. TUESDAT, May 4, 1875. 3Irs. Tilton's letter, wliicli she desii'ed Judge Xeil- son to read aloud in court ou Monday, was as fol- lows : May 3, 1875. Judge Xeilsox : I ask the privilege from yon for a few words in my own hehalf. I feel very deeply the injustice of my position in the law and before the court now sitting ; and while I have understood and respected from the beginning 2^Ir. Evarts's principle in the matter, yet since your last session I have been so sensible of the power of my duemies, that my soul cries out before yon, and the gentle- men of the jnry, that they beware how, by a divided verdict, they consign to my children a false and, irrevocable stain upon their mother ! For five years past I have been the victim of circum- stances, most cruel and unfortunate ; struggling from time to time only for a place to live honorably and truthfully. Eeleased for some months from the iviU by whose power unconsciously I crim- inated myself again and again, I declare solemnly before you, without fear of man and by faith m God, that I am innocent of the crimes charged against me. I would like to tell my ivliole sad story tridJi- fiijjy—to acknowledge the frequent falsehoods wrung from me by compulsion — though at the same time unwilling to reveal the secrets of my married life, which only the vital importance of my position makes necessary. I assume the entire re- sponsibility of this request, unknown to friend or counsel of either side, and await youi- Honor's hon- orable decision. With great respect, Elizabeth R. Tiltox. 356 TEB T1L10N-BWF.CUMB TBIAL, The appended reply of Judge Neilson sent to Mrs. Tiiton was written by the clerk of the court. : Chambers of the City Court of Brooklyn, N. Y. ? Brooklyn, May 4, 1875. 5 Mrs. Tilton : I am directed by Chief -Justice Neil- son to return your letter, as it cannot be read in €ourt. Also to state that in civil cases counsel have the right to refrain from calling any particular wit- ness, however competent, and that neither the Court nor the client can interfere with tlie exercise of that right. The Judge also instructs me to say that the ques- tion whether you could be a witness stands on quite other ground from that considered when your hus- band was called and sworn. He was a competent witness to testify in his own behalf against a third person, defendant, and while the policy of the law was to some extent involved, there was no express statute in the way. But the statute of May 10, 1867, expressly declares the wife to be incompetent as a witness for or against the husband. Yours respectfully, Geo. W. Knaebel, Clerk City Court, &c. Neither the counsel for the defendant, nor the counsel for the plaintitf were at all communicative on the subject of Mrs. Tilton's request to be heard. Mr. Beach said that he knew nothing about it, and had not seen Judge Neilson's reply. The matter was entirely beyond the province of the counsel for the plaintiff, and they had not been consulted in refer- ence to it. Mr. Evarts repeated what he had said on Monday to the effect that it was entirely a matter between Mrs. Tilton and Judge Neilson, which did not call for any action or opinion on the part of counsel. The cross-examination of Franklin Woodruff by Mr- Shearman was long and uninteresting. Gen. Tracy sat near Mr. Shearman, and prompted him frequently while he was questioning the witness. The inquiries were directed principally to the inter- views which had taken place in 1872 between the witness and Gen. Tracy, in which the money paid for Bessie Tunier's schooling, and other pecuniary transactions connected with the scandal were spoken of. Little that was new, and nothing that the audience manifested much interest in, was de- veloped. Even the jurymen exhibited unmistakable signs of weariness as the dull repetition of questions and answers dragged slowly on through most of the morning session. On several points the witness, with a cautious manner, and in a qualifyiug way, contradicted the evidence produced by the def end- tints. On the re-direct examination of Mr. Woodruff Mr. Beach produced the Bowen check for $7,000, and the yellow sUp of paper which was alleged to have accompanied it. The witness said that he remem- bered the check, but did not think the paper ac- companied it. At the opening of the afternoon session Mr. Morris said that Dr. Skiles had been subpenaed as a wit- ness, but his statement had been heard by Mr. Evarts and himself on the only point which they wished to determine by him, which was that he had made his last professional call on Mrs. Tilton on Dec. 30, 1870. Mrs. Anna M. Middlebrook of Trumbull County,, Conn., was the first new witness called for the plain- tiff. Her examination was conducted by Mr. Fuller- ton. She was a lady of middle age, very intelligent in appearance, and she gave her testimony in a clear strong voice, and an unembarrassed manner. The principal points of her evidence were in reference to a conversation at Mrs. Woodhull's house in 1871, iu which Mrs. Woodhull, Mr. Tilton, Charles Cowley, and some other persons had taken part, and in refer- ence to a speech of Mrs. Woodhull's in Boston in 1872. The witness denied that in the couversatiou at Mrs. Woodhull's the subject of the scandal hud been discussed, as Mr. Cowley had asserted in bis evidence. There was a stir of interest in the court-room when the plaintili's counsel recalled Joseph H. Richards, Mrs. Tilton's brother. He was examined by Mr. Morris about his appearance before the In- vestigating Committee. Mr. Evarts strenuously ob- jected to his replying to the questions put, on the ground that no foundation had been laid for them. The point was argued at length by Mr. Evarts aiul Mr. Beach. Finally Judge Neilson put an end to tlic dispute by saying, "Now, Mr. Richards, you'll be so good as to state what occurred." On hearing these words Mr. Beach shut the boo) from which he had been reading, and triumphantly repeated them in a manner that caused the audience and counsel to laugh. Mr. Richards's account of what occurred between himself and Mr. Tracy, when he went before the Committee, was eagerly listened to. The witness said that he told Gen. Tracy— who represented himself as Mr. Beecher's counsel— that for years past it had been his custom to say nothin«? on the subject of the scandal. Gen. Tracy told him that that was what he must say to the Committee when he went before them, and that was what he did say. Mr. Richards was asked if Bessie Tui'ner had told him, in December, 1870— as she had testified that she did— that she and Mrs. Tilton had suffered ill- TESTIMONY OF FKA UBage at the hands oi Mr. Tilton. The witness did not remember that Miss Turner said this, and thought that he could not have forgotten it if she had. Mr. Richards's manner on the stand Avas very <'alm, but his face was somewhat flushed, and he appeared to be glad when he was finally told that he could step down. John Bremer, a Oerman, and keeper of a United States store in NeAv York, was brought for^^ ard on behalf of the plaintiff, to give evidence as to the po- sition of Mr. Tilton in the Rossel proce^siion. His stumbling pronunciation of English, and the general confusion of his ideas when he fell into Mr. Evarts's hands on the cross-examination, caused much mer- riment among the spectators. Just before the close of the afternoon session Stephen Pearl Andrews was called and sworn for the plamtiff. He was examined by Mr. Fullerton, and gave an account of his peculiar career as an author, a philanthropist, and a speculative thinker. His examination concerning the scandal itself had not been reached when the hour for adjournment ar- rived. THE PROCEEDINGS— VERBATIM. FRANKLIN WOODRUFFS EXAMINATION CON- TINUED. The Court met at 11 a. m., pursuant to ad- joiunment. Coimsel for botiii plaintiff and defendant were some- wliat late. Judge Neilson [to Mr. Fullerton]— "Was It the ice. or was it the fog ? Mr. Fullerton [smiling]— Neither, Sir. Mr. Beach— Shall I proceed, your Honor! Judge Neilson— Yes. PranMin Woodruff was then recalled, and his direct examination continued. Mr. Beach— I have to state, Sir, on behalf of Mr. "Wood- ruff, that at 10:35 this morning we received a subpena from the other side to produce the books of "Woodruff & Ptolnnson for some two years, 1872 and 1873. Mr. Tracy- 1871 and 1872. Mr. Beach— 1871 and 1872. It was while he was here, -Sir, in attendance in court, and it was utterly im- possible that he could get them here by 11 o'clock. He will procure them, I suppose, when he can get an opportunity. [To the witness.] Mr. "Woodruff, in th<^ interview to which your attention has been directed, at Mr. Moulton's study, at the time Mr. Tracy, Moulton and Tilton were present, did Mr. Tilton in words or sub- stance— I beg pardon, Sir; I am i speaking of the fichultz interview. At the interview with Mr. Schultz, SKLfy WOODRUFF. 857 at his house, where the starting of a paper was spoken of, did Mr. Tilton, in words or substance, say to Mr. Schultz that he could not accept any aid for Mr. Beecher ? Mr. Evarts— Mr. Beach, have you got that open before you? >Ir. Beach— Yes ; No. VIII., page 344. Judge Neilson — From Mr. Beecher. Mr. Beach— Did Mr, Tilton, in words or substance, say to Mr. Schultz that he could not accept any aid from Mr. Beecher in connection with the subject of starting a paper, or did he put it in the form, in words or substance, that he could not put himself imder any obligations to Mr. Beecher t Mr, Evarts— One moment, Mr, Woodruff. Mr. Beach, will you tell me what column it is on ? Mr. Beach— It is there. Sir [pointing to the column] . Mr. Evarts [after examining the testimony]— "Well, I shall not oppose that. Mr. Beach— Answer, please. A. He put it in tlie form that he could not accept aid fi-om Mr. Beecher tliat wovild place him imder obligations to Mr. Beecher. Q. That was in connection with the subject of starting a paper? A. It was. Q. The Golden Afje, T believe ? A. T7u' Golden Age. Q. Mr. Schultz states, I believe, that you came to that interview in company of Mr. TUton, and that you did not remain over ten, twelve, or fifteen minutes; will you please state I A. I went with Mr. Tilton to Mr. Schultz'a house, and remained there from half an hour to three- quarters of an hour, in conversation with Mr. Schultz and Mr. Tilton, and we went away together down tow^n. Q. Mr. Schultz is mistaken, then, in his statement that you did not remain over 10 or 1.5 minutes ? A. I think he is mistaken. Q. You were there present during the whole time of the conversation ? A. The whole interview. Q. Between Tilton and Schultz ? A. I was. Q. Mr. Tracy states, Sir, that in tlie conver-saLion on the Sunday at Moulton's study, as to which both you and he have testified, that on the presentation oi: a paper which is known as the Letter of Apology or Letter of Contrition, Mr. Tilton said in connection with its presentation, " It is a memoi-andum or notes of a conversation I had with Mr. Beecher." Was any such expression, in form or substance, used by Mr. Tilton at that conversation ? A. Not in my hearing. Q. "Well, you was there during the whole conversarion 1 A. I was there; there was no such thing; the Letter of Apologj^ was treated as a genuine Mr. Evarts— Oh, well, no matter how it was treated; the question is, what was said. I ask that that be struck out. The "Witness— I was only going to state how Mr. Moul- ton presented it. Mr. Evarts— No matter. Mr. Beach [to the witness]— "What was it you saidt 358 IILE TILTON-Bl Mr. Eyarts— No I At least, allow me. Mr. Beaoli— Of course you liave a right to say " No." I want to Imow what he was goin^ to say. Mr. Evarts— I aslr to have what the witness just stated, after answering the question, struclr out. Mr. Beach— He only got so far, " It was treated;" that may be struck out, as of no consequence. Mr. Evarts— Well, no further than that. Now, if any other question is asked him, he has answered that ques- tion, that nothing of that kind was said in his hearing. Mr. Beach— Well, Sir, that is all I care about; that is all. Judge Neilson— Mr. Shearman, do you wish to cross- examine? CROSS-EXAMINATION OF MR. WOODRUFF. Q. How long have you been acquainted with Gen. Tracy ? A. Five or six years, I think. Q. And on what terms of acquaintance have you been with him f A. Well, I have known him and seen bim quite often, and met him pretty often during those years. Q. On friendly terms ? A. Friendly terms. Q. Associated together in politics somewhat? A. Well, I have been a little in politics; not very much. Q. Any other association with Mr. Tracy ? What has been the nature of your intercourse with Gen. Tiacy during that period; has it been intimate, or to what ex- tent ? A. Not very intimate. Q. You say you saw him frequently ; did you call at his office often ? A. I have been to his oflSce a good many times. Q. Did you meet him often in the street? A. I have met him a good many times in the street. He has been counsel for me. Q. Talked with him often ? A. Talked with him ; I don't know what you mean by often. Q. I mean literally, often ; have you often, during that five or six years, talked with him socially, felt free to speak to him at any time when you saw him 1 A. Yes, Sir ; and in the course of our acquaintance I have very likely spoken with him once a day, or once a week, and then again I think there have been times in our acquaint- ance when I have not seen him for three months. Q. Up to what time did that relation last between you and Gen. Tracy? A. I don't know that it ever ceased. Q. Did you see him frequently during the Summer of 1874 on the street or at his office 1 A. No, not very fre- quently in 1874. Q. About how often did you see him ? A. I don't think I saw him very often ; I recollect one interview I had with him. Q. When was that? A. That was in the Summer of 1874, July or August ; I went to see him at his house. Q. You talked with Mr. Tracy on a variety Of subjects, I suppose ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. The relations were not merely business relations f A. No. '^1 ECU EE '/RIAL. Q. He was not the regular counsel of your firm 1 A He has been counsel for our firm some, and others have been counsel. Q. He was counsel for your firm in two cases, I think you mentioned, or some one mentioned? A. Two or three cases, I think ; I don't know. Q,. On what we call special retainers ? He was retained for those special cases ? A. I presume that is so. Q. During all this period your relation continued friendly, so far as you know, down to this time ? A. So far as I know ; on my part they have. MR. WOODRUFF TALKS WITH HIS FRIENDS ABOUT THE CASE. Now, Mr. Woodruff, will you be kind enough to name a few gentlemen in Brooklyn, or New- York, whom you consider your most intimate friends, those to whom you talk most freely, outside of your liim 1 A. Talk most freely ? Q. Yes, those with whom you ar inost intimate, out- side of yoiu* firm ? Mr. Beach— Well, what is the importance, Sir, of that inquiry ? Judge Neilaon— It must be preliminary to something else. Mr. Shearman— It is preliminary, and important. Judge Neilson— We will take the answer. The Witness— Well, I know a good many. Q. Will you name four or five 1 A. Yes, Sir. I am pretty intimate with Mr. Nichols— George L. Nichols, and Mr. McClean. Q. Which McLean ? A. Samuel McLean. Q. Any others 1 A. Well, I know most everybody around here on the Heights ; I don't know that I am especially intimate^ — Q. Those that yon are intimate with, i .. j. e ibat you are in the habit of talking to more or less confidentially 1 A.. Very lew ; I very seldom talk confidentially witii any- body. Q. We want those few; those are the very ones we want. A. I don't know that there are any. Q. But you talked to Mr. Nichols sometimes conflden- tially. A. I have about some things. Q. Don't you talk to Mr. Southwick sometimes oonfi- dentially ? A. I used to ; I have not in a year or two. Q. You used to ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. You did in 1872 and 1873, did you not ? A. About some matters I did, Q. And in 1871 about some things ? A. Very likely in 1871. Q. Now, can you name two or three more of your fi'iends who stand on about the same footing with Mr. Southwick, Mr. McLean, and Mr. Nichols? A. Well, I don't know that I can. Q. Well, Sir. then I may assume that those are your most confidential fiiends, outside of your firm, may I TIJSTIMONY OF FBANKLIN WOOBEUFF. 359 not? A. I don't know that they are specially my confi- dential friends— they are friends that I talk with, and there are others, I believe, that I talked with, but I don't recollect exactly. Q. Those are all that yon recall 1 A. I can't give you the condition of my social relations to everybody. Q. Well, did you ever talk with those gentlemen, Mr. Southwick, Mr. McLean, and Mr. Nichols, about this scandal ? A. I have, imquestionably. Q. And have you talked with them about some matters that were not made matter of public notoriety at the time? A. Well, I don't know; I have talked with them about the case. Q. Well, have you not talked with them. Sir, or some of them, about things which you knew about the scandal, and which the public did not at the time ? A. Very likely ; I may have ; I could not swear that I have or have not; I don't know how much the public knew. Q. Did you talk with any of those gentlemen about coimsel before you consulted with Gen. Tracy in regard to this matter 1 A. I think very likely T may have. Q. Well, Sir, which of these gentlemen ? A. I think I spoke with Mr. McLean once about counsel. Q. Yes ? A. I think I spoke with Mr. McLean, and said that I thought that Mr. Beach— Wait a moment. Mr. Sheai-man— No matter ; that was before you con- Bulted Gen. Tracy, I understand. The Witness— I think it was. Q. Yes, Sir ; did you talk to any of these gentlemen about the subject of your consultation afterward? A.I don't recollect; I may have done so. Q. Don't you think you did ? A. Well, I would not swear ; I do not recollect. Q. Isn't it your best recollection that you did talk to one of them or more ? A. I have no recollection that I tolked with them about the engagement of Mr. Tracy, or Of what occurred between Mr. Tracy and me ; I may have done so, but I don't recollect that I did. Q. Now, down to this day, do you mean to say, or not, that you don't recollect talking to any one of these gen- tlemen about what occurred between you and Gen. Tracy 1 A. Well, I have within the last year— you say down to this day— within the last year I have. Q. WeU, Sir, to which of these gentlemen have you talked about that matter! A. I think likely I have talked to alL Q. How recently have you talked to any of them about It ! A. Well, I think within two or three days. Q. To which of them have you talked to within that •hort period 1 A. I think I have stated in the presence of Mr. McLean and Mr. Nichols, both, what transpired— my relations to Gten. Itacy, and how I came to— Q. I only want to know generally that you talked with Mr. MeLean and Mr. NichoLi on that subject ; where did you hold that conversation ? A. I think at Mr. McLean's house the other night. Q. Anybodj^ present besides Mr. McLean and Mr. Nichols % A. 1 think Mr. Buckingham was. Q. In the year 1874, Mr. Woodiuff, were you in the habit of reading The Brooklyn TInion more or less ! A. I don't think I read The TInion much in 1874 ; I think I had stopped it. Q. Do you remember whether you read any part of The Brooklyn Union of June 26, 1874 1 A. I do not remember. Q. You can't identify it that way, i)erhap8l A. No, Sir. GEN. TRACY'S INTERVIEW IN " THE UNION." Q. Can you recollect reading an interview reported in The Brooklyn Union on June 26, 1874, be- tween a reporter and Gen. Tracy ? A. No, I don't ree^?l- lect. Q. Have you not made the subject of that interview a subject of conversation between some of your friends and yourself ? A. I don't recollect ; I may have done so. Q. Did you never hear the substance of that interview as reported ? A. I think I have heard, or at least very likely at the time I saw some interview reported of a reporter with Gen. Tracy ; I may have seen it at that time and I may have talked about it ; I presume I did ; I do not recollect. Q. Didn't you see it in any other papers 1 A. I may have done so, but I do not recollect. [Union of June 26 showu, and interview pointed out to witness, j I think likely I have seen that interview. Q. And at about the time it appeared! A. I have no doubt I saw it ; yes, Sir, I think I did. Q. Did you have any conversation with Mr. Southwlolc concerning that reported interview! A. I don't thuil: I ever did ; I have no recollection of it. Q. Did you ever have any conversation with Mr. Nichols upon the subject of that interview ! A. I don*t recollect any. Q. Did you have any with Buckingham on the subject of that interview ! A. Don't think I ever did. Q. Did you ever have any conversation with Mr. Sam- uel McLean ! A. Possibly I may have. Q. Well, Sir, don't you know that you did! A. No, Sir ; I would not swear that ; I think I did ; I think I talked with him about that ; I think very likely I did. Q. Well, was that about the time it was published, or later ! A. I think likely about the time. Q. About the time ! A. If I had any. Q. Well, Sir, did Mr. McLean call your attention to that interview! A. I don't recollect; He may hare done 80. Q. Didn't he call your attention to Its statements here! A. I say I don't recollect ; he may have done so. Q. Didn't he call your attention to this statemcliit» Sir, which is part of this interview ! Mr. Beach— I object to that (Question, fllsii THE TILTON-BEEGHEB TRIAL, Mr. Shearman— WeU, if your Honor please, this is my question : Didn't Mr. McLean call your attention to this part of that reported interview 1 [Reading.] Reporter— Do you mean to say that Mr. Tilton never charged Mr. Beecher with criminality with Mrs. Tilton % Gen- Tracy— Most certainly I do; no such charge was ever made or believed by Mr. Tilton. The publication to which I refer negatives such a charge in the most con- clusive form ; and it is well known by aU who know any- thing of the facts that Mr. Tilton never beUeved it and never alleged it. Reporter^If there is no criminality alleged or pre- tended, what then is the charge 1 Gen. Tracy— Some four years ago Mr. Tilton claims to have received information which led him to charge Mr. Beecher with having made a dishonorable suggestion to his wife; this is the extent of the charge, and the only charge Mr. Tilton has ever made against Mr. Beecher. Reporter Mr. FuUerton— I object to the reading of that. Judge Neilson— I think you have read sufficient ; that inilicates what your topic is. Mr. Shearman— I have only one short paragraph— a little more to read to make sense of it. Mr. Fullerton— Well, I obiect to that one short para- graph. Mr. Shearman— We want to bring out all that we sup- pose Mr. McLean may have called this gentleman's at- tention to Mr. Fullerton— There is not any difficulty in ascertain- ing what the gentleman wants : he need not announce that ; that is very evidopt. But, Sir, I say that he has no right to read as he has read from the interview between a reporter and Mr. Tracy, for the purpose of laying the foundation for a question, because the witness has al- ready answered the question in regard to it, which ought to be satisfactory. Judge Neilson— He does not remember to have- Mr. Fullerton— He thinks he did call his attention to it ; he thinks his attention was called to it. The Witness— I think Ukely he did; I do not recollect, though ; I think Ukely I talked with him about it. Mr. Evarts- What is the objection to our question ? Judge Neilson— Well, it is reading a discussion which perhaps ought not to be read to the jury ; that is the idea. Mr. Shearman, put the remaining paragraph in the form of a question, and ask him. Mr. Evarts— That is what he was doing. Judge Neilson-No ; ask him more expressly. Mr. Beach— I expressly object to this question, upon the ground that it asserts that what the counsel reads is a part ot au int erview between a reporter and Mr. Tracy. There is no evidence of that. Sir; there is no proof of it, and it is surreptitiously getting before the jury an as- 8crt(;d declaration of Mr. Tracy, of which there is not the slightest proof in this case. Judge Neilson The point itands precisely as if the ftr.nii- . ; I'sked the witness whether in his conversa- tion with Mr. McLean certain expressions were not re- ferred to, or repeated, or made. Mr. Beach— That would be correct. Judge Neilson— And I meant to suggest to Mr. Shear* man to put this last paragraph that he refers to in. tha form of a question. Mr. Evarts— But is not my learned friend wrong in say* ing there is no evidence on this subject ? Mr. Tracy has testified that he published this interview in this paper, and it has been introduced and marked for identification —that is, by its date ; it was not necessary to mark its volume ; your Honor remembers that. And we offered to read it in evidence, and your Honor excluded it. But the paper is identified. Mr. Beach— Then, Sir, it is true— the remark I made— that there is not a particle of proof, legitimate proof, of that interview or that Judge Neilson— It had been excluded. Mr. Beach [continuing]— Or of what Mr. Shearman reads being any part of the interview. Mr. Shearman— The fact of the interview was proved, and Gen. Tracy proved that he said aU that he is reported here to have said. That was to lay the basis for subse- quent action, and now we take the subsequent action by showing that the witness's attention was called to what Gen. Tracy Mr. Beach— Gen. Tracy proved no such thing, Sir, that he said what was In that interview ; and it is, T repeat. Sir, a sm-reptitious attempt to get before the jury an alleged declaration that Mr. Tracy made to a reporter. Mr. Evarts— How can a public attempt, ia the face of the Court and the jury, be called a surreptitious onel Mr. Beach — Well, I think it may properly and justly. Judge Neilson— Well, this is very clear upon principle, that if a witness testified yesterday to a certain state of facts, you cannot in any form show that the month before he made the same statement, by way of fortifying what he says yesterday. Ml". Shearman- As a general rule that is so. Judge Neilson— As a general rule; and if that is the ol> ject of this, of course it is improper. But I think now you may put that remauiing paragraph in the form of a question, and see whether those words, or the substance of those words, passed between this witness and this gentleman referred to ; and then you have it all. Mr. Shearman— Did Mr. McLean at that interview refer to the fact that a question was reported to be addressed to Gen. Tracy in this language by the reporter : " Do you mean to say that this is all the f oimdation there is for the Tilton-Beecher scandal 1" and that Gen. Tracy was reported to have answered, " That is all ; it has not even that much to rest on ; it is well known to members of Mr. Beecher's church and others, that Mrs. Tilton has repeat< dly and emphatically denied itl" A. No, I do not recollect that. Q. Or any part of it, Sir, being referred to f A. Not TESmiOXI OF FRAXKLjy WOODFUFF. 351 fhat VOX! tare read there 3^. OAv; I ha.Te no doubt that I had a .ffeneral tallr about that interview ; verv likely we (lid ; hut if we did, I have forgotten it. Q. Well. Sir. when was this ? A. I do not know | Mr. Beach— He says he has forgotten any such talk. | The witness doe.s not say he had a talk. Mr. Shearman— He says he had a talk. Mr. Beach— He does not say that. Mr. Shearman— He said that long ago. Mr. Beach— He has not ever said it ; he said it was quite likely he had a talk, but he had no recollection of it- said so from the beginning. | Mr. Shearman— He said "it was quite likely" he had; and then to a further question he said " no doubt he bad." The Witness— I said I presumed I had ; I have no doubt of it ; but I do not recollect it if I did. Judge Neilson— Well, that covers that. The Witness— I have talked so many times with him and others that I do not know ; I cannot tlx it. Mr. Shearman— Did n't Mr. McLean at that interview say to you in substanc-e or effect that that interview— that reported interview — showed what Gen. Tracy's under- standing of the case was? A. He may have said so ; I do not recollect that he did. Q. Have you had any conversation since with any of those three gentlemen named, !Mr. Southwick, Mr, Mc^ Lean, or Mr. Xichols, on that same subject — .•dnc-e that time — any more recent conversation 1 A. I had ; I think I was at Mr. McLean's last night. Q. Did you talk with him on that subject then 1 A. I talked with him last night; I stated to him just what ti'an spired Q, No, no ; did you talk with him on the subject of this interview last night ? A. Did T suggest that subject— I say no. Q. I mean this reported interview. A. If you want to know what I said last night I will tell you. it you want me to. Mr. Evarts— Well, we don't ; when we do, we will ask you. The Witness— Well, I am glad you don't. Mr. Beach— All they want is to get in what Jlr. Tracy said, or what they assume he said. Mr. Shearman- Did you ever have a conversation with Gen. Tracy on the subject of that reported interview ? A. I don't think T did ; I have no recolK?otlon of it. Q. Did you see Gen. Tracy shortly after the publica- tion of that interview ? A. How long after that was his statement to the public made ? Then I can fix it. Q. Gen. Tracy's statement A. Gen. Traoy made a statement that was published in the papers last Summer. Mr. Shearman — This is the very one. The Witness— That is an interview by a report€r. Mr. Shearman— That is the one that is commonly called the statement— June 26 ; that is the only statement Gen. Tracj made. Oh, there was one in September. The Witness— Well, it i5 one of the statement.s Mr. Beach— Mr. Traerson that told him about that money transaction; I supposed that Gen. Tracy— I supposed that meant me, and I went to Gen. Tracy's house and I asked Gen. Tracy if that meant me, and he said it did ; I recalled to him the circumstances tmder which I told him that transaction and the sacred promise he made me never to repeat it, and that I thought he had betrayed my confidence and had done wrong in telling that ; Gen. Tracy says, " What money transaction did you tell me about!" I told him, about the transaction at the first in- terview, when I engaged him to act as counsel for Mr. Moulton ; G^n. Tracy said, " That was not the money transaction at all ; the money transaction you told me about was the $5,000 one— some time after;" I told G^n. Ti'acy that that could not be so, that I never knew who that $5,000 came from ; that Mr. Moulton declined, posi- tive declined, always to tell me, and that I never knew whom it came from until this last Summer, when the statements were nu de, and T told him that Mr. Shearman— That is all. Mr. Beach— "Walt, wait ! The Witness— And I told him that f&e money transac- tion that I had told him about was the one that Mr. Moul- t/3n told me just a few days previous to my engaging Mm for counsel, and when, after these interviews, Mr. Moulton had not told him of that circumstance, I again cautioned Gen. Tracy never to allude to it, or never to speak of it, and he promised me he would not. Gen. Tracy said at that interview— he admitted that— he said he had done wrong ; that he ought not to have told Mr, Moulton who it was, and was sorry he had. I said further : " Gen. Tracy, I imderstood that you were Mr. Moulton's counsel ; T don't see how you are on this otlier side." (Jen. Tracy replied that they had not taken his advice, and he had not consulted with them for two years ; they did not take his advice two years ago. That is about--that is the pui-port— that is the substance of that Interview. Q. Now, Sir, did you make that visit to Gen. Tracy in consequence of any published statement; or did you not make it in consequence of Mr. Moulton having paid you a visit, or having spoken to you on the subject and com- plained of yo«r having told Gen. Tracy? A. Will you please state that question again? Mr. FuUerton— He can't. Mr. Shearman— Did not this interview between you and Gen. Tracy arise in consequence of Mr. Moulton having personally complained to you of your telling Gen. Tracy about that money? A. WeU, partly; I went to see Gen. Q. Now, did it not arise from that ? Mr. Beach— Let him answer the question. The Witness— There were— I went to see Gen. Tracy about two things ; one was the card that was published by some George Beecher, reflecting on the firm, and about the money transaction in which he had told Mr. Moulton, or I supposed he had told Mr. Moulton, and he admitted he had, that I told him. Q. Did not Mr. Moulton complain to you that you had told Gen. Tracy himself ? A. I don't think he did ; I have no recollection that he did. Q. Never spoke to you on that subject — Mr. Moulton never spoke to you? A. What? this last Summer? I think not. Q. Never at any time during last Summer 1 A. I think not ; he may have done so. Q. Nor during the Fall ? A. I think not ; I think I may have repeated to— Q. Do you mean to swear that Mr. Moulton never did make any complaint to you about your having told Gen. Tracy of this money matter ? A. T don't mean to swear that he did not ; I don't recollect that he made any complaint ; T have very likely talked to Mr. Moulton about it, and explained how I came to tell Mr. Tracy. Q. You talked with Mr. Moulton ; don't you recollect that Mr. Moulton spoke in the first instance to you ? A. I would not swear that he did ; no, I would not. Q. What did you mean by saying a moment or two ago that you were led to go to Gen. Tracy partly on account of what Mr. Moulton had said to you about it ? A I don't think I said that; I don't think I said that. Q. We so understood you? A. Well, I did not mean to say so. Q. You said partly on account of the interview and partly A. I gave the two reasons that T went to see Gen. Tracy that morning about. Mr. Beach — You were interrupted in your answer, and you were not permitted to conclude it. Mr. Evarts— We will have it read, f To the Tribune stenographer.] Can you go back to that answer begia- ning " partly ? " The Tribune stenographer read as follows : Q. Did not this interview between you and Gen. Tracy arise in consequence of Mr. Moulton having personally complained to you of your telling Gen. Traoy about that money? A. Well, partly ; I went to see Gen. Q. Now, did it not arise from that 1 Mr. Beach— Let him answer the question. The Witness— There were— I went to see Gen. Tracy about two things; one was the card that was pub- lished by some George Beecher, reflecting on the firm, and about the money transaction in which he had told Mr. Moulton, or I supposed he had told Mr. Moulton, and he admitted he had, that I told him. Mr. Beach— You have got far enough— far enough to show that the witness wan right, and the counsel wa» wrong. l£SJi:wyY OF FEAyRLlX WOODRUFF. 363 rnE $5,000 LOXG A m'STEEY TO ME. WOODRUFF. Mr. Shearman— At this interview with G-en. Tracy, did 70U tell him that you did Dot know where that $5,000 came from ? A. I did— well, I told him that I did not know at the time; I may have known this last Sum- mer ; at the time of tliat interview whether— at tke time the money was put to the credit of Mi. Moulton in the firm-hooks of Woodruff & Eohinson I did not know where it came from, nor I didn't know for a long time after. Q. And you so told Gen. Tracy 1 A. I did, last Summer. Q. And didn't you tell him that you supposed it came from Mr. Bee Cher 1 A. Oh, I very likely said I inferred that it came from Mr. Beecher. Q. And didn'E you tell him at the time ! A. At what time? Q. You so inferred at the time it was paid in? A. Well, I inferred that it lid ; hut I didn't know anything that it did. Q. Didn't you tell Gen. Tracy the reasons why you be- lieved that it came from Mr. E.'echer? A. Not that I recollect of. Q. Didn't you tell him that you knew I^rank Moulton had no means outside of the firm; and that when he de- posited so large an amount in hills you thought it must come from Mr. Beecher ? A. I don't think I did. Q. Xothing of that kind I A. I thiak Mr. Moulton had some means outside of the business. The question is only what you said to G^n. Tracy? A. Well, I don't recollpot saying that to him. and I think Mr. Moulton had means outside, and that is the reason. Mr. Evarts— I move to strike that out, your Honor. Judge NeUson— Ye5. Mr. Shearman— Did not Mr. Tracy, ia that inter- view, tell you that you were entirely mistaken as to the time at vrhich you told him about this money ? A. He did; he told me that I was thinking about the $500 ; and he told me it was about the $5,000 that I told him. Q. And he insisted at that time that it wa-s about the $5,000! A. Why, yes. Sir; he insisted that I was mis- taken; and I said I knew he was— and I knew so, too. Q. And he told you that it was not at the time that you ealled on hlna first to speak with him in this case ? A. Certainly he did. Q. Did he tell you what time it was ? A. No ; he told me that it was about the $5,000; that was in May, '73, that I told him. Q. And he referred to that time— he knew that time ? A. That is the money transaction that he said I told him about. Q. Did not Gen. Tracy say to you at that interview, in substance, tnat you had told him when you first spoke about that money matter that :Mr. Beecher had been to the bank and drawn the money that very day, and paid It over to Mr. Mon^^on 1 A. I don't think I did Q. No, no ; didn't Gen. Tracy tell you in this interview what I have said 1 A. That I said so ? Q. What is that ? A. I don't think he did. Q. Nothing of that kind ? A. I don't recollect that he did. Q. Don't you recollect that Gen. Tracy told you, at this interview, that you had mentioned the fact of the money to him — the money payment — on the very day that it oc- curred? A. No, I don't ; I recollect positively that Gen. Tracy said the money transaction I told him about was the $5,000 one ; that I knew nothing about. Q. Did n't he tell you that no amoimt of money waa specified by you, and that he did not know whether it was $5,000 or not, and only recollected about the time and circumstances 1 A. I do n't think he did ; he told me the $5,000 transaction was mentioned. Q. Did not Gen. Tracy, in that interview, tell you that he knew it was the time of the $5,000 ; did n't he t lished June 26, 1874. and inform us whether there is one word on that subject of money in the whole of that re- ported interview ? [Showing newspaper to witness.] The Witness— Which is the one ? Mr. Fullerton— That is out of order, Sir. Mr. Shearman — Oh, no, Sir ; this is for the purpose of fixing the time. Mr. Beach— Fixing tlie time ! 364 IHE TJLTON-BEEOHfJE TEiAL. Mi'.Evarts — For the purpose of sliowing tliat this is not the publication from which he drew his information. Mr. Shearman— And not the one concerning which he complained to Gen. Tracy. Mr. Evarts— He has stated in substance that in some published statement of Gen. Tracy's he saw something about money. The Witness— What do you want me to look at t Mr. Shearman — There is nothing now ; I simply want to know your opinion whether there is a word about money payments in that interview 1 A, No, I don't think there is. Mr. Evarts— He has stated that he saw a publication, coming from Mr. Tracy, in which mention was made of the money. Thereupon he went to Mr. Tracy and com- plained. Now, this publication says not a word about money. The Witness— No, I do not see anything there about money. Mr. Shearman— Then that was not the publication con- cerning which you complained to Gen. Tracy, was it 1 A, No, I don't think it was. Q. Then you have no recollection of ever complaining to Mr. Tracy of untruthfulness in regard to his statements in that reported interview! A. No. Mr. Fullerton— How are you going to identify that re- ported interview ? Mr. Shearman— That reported interview of June 26, 1874 ; that is the one. Mr. Fullerton— By the date 1 Mr.. Evarts— Well, the date is on the record. Mr. Fullerton— No ; you tried to get it in, and did not. Mr. Evarts— I got in the date of the paper as a suffi- cient identification of it, instead of having the book marked. MR. BEECHER'S GIFT OF $500 TO MR. TIL- TON'S FAMILY. Mr. Shearman — Well, what was this amount, Mr. Woodruff, concerning which you say you did speak to Gen. Tracy 1 A. Well, I said that Mr. Moul- ton had told me that Mr. Beecher had given him $500 ; I do not remember whether it was given all at one time or at various times ; I know that Moulton had told me that Beecher had given him $500 to help Mr. Tilton's family ; I told Gen. Tracy that. Q. You do not know whether you told him it was paid in one sum 1 A. No, I do not. Q. Do you think you did tell him it was paid in one sum ? A. I think I told him in just that way. Q. Now, Sir, have you never said since that time, to any other person, that that was paid in one sum, and that you so told Gen. Tracy 1 Mr. B«ach— That question is too general. Walt one moment Mr. .Shearman— We have a right to ask it, though w© have not a right to contradict it. The Witness— My imderstanding was that it was in on© sum, or at least I supposed so. Q. Well, have you not told some of your friends— some one or more of your friends— that you told Gen. Tracy it was paid in one sum 1 A. I don't tMnk I have in thosa words ; 1 have told Q. State what you have told on that point ! A. I have told that I have told Gen. Tracy that Mr, Moulton had told me that Mr. Beecher had given him (Moulton) $500 for the benefit of Tilton's family. Q. Who did you tell this to 1 A. Well, I think I have stated it three or four times since Gen. Tracy denied the other day, on the stand, that I told him any such thing. Q. Who did you state it to 1 A. Well, I think I have stated it to Mr. McLean, to Mr. Nichols, and, I don't know, perhaps two or three others. THE $500 TRANSACTION DESCRIBED TO MR. SOUTHWICK. Q. Well, did you mention the fact of tiie payment of that money, $500, to any one else besides Gen. Tracy 1 A. When, at that time t Q. Oh, well, anywheie along about that time? A. Well, I might have done so ; I don't know whether I did or not. Q. Did you not speak to Mr. Southwick about the pay- ment oi that money 1 A. No, Sir ; not the $500 money; T never did ; not that I recollect. Q. Did you speak to him about the payment of any money 1 A. I did. Q. Which money was that? A. It was the $5,000 money. Q. When did you speak to Mr. Southwick on that sub- ject? A. Some time after— very shortly after it waa deposited to Moulton's credit. Q. Didn't you tell him about it the very day it waa deposited? A. No, I don't think it was the very day that it was deposited ; it might have been, but I don't think it was. Q, Didn't you tell him the evening of the very day it was deposited ? A. I cannot swear that It was that day or not, but it was very soon; whether it was that evening or the next evening or a week after I don't Icnow. Q. Where were you when yon told this to Mr. South- wick? A. I think I was at hie house. Q. What did you tell Mr. Southwick about it? A. Well, I told him that Moulton had placed to his credit there, shortly before, $5,300, and that I had seen pay- ments thereafter paid— charged to Moulton as paid to T T " Q. You told him you had seen payments made there- after? A. I think I did. TESTIMONY OF FB. Q. Charged to "T. T.I" A. I think I did; I presume I did ; I don't know. Q, Did you not tell him that Moiilton had deposited that money that very day, and that lie said it was to he drawn out, or the $5,000 was to be drawn out for Theo- dore Tilton ! A. No, Sir ; I never told him that in that ■way. Q. Will you swear to that 1 A. Yes, Sir ; I swear that I never told him that in that way. I didn't. Didn't you tell him that, or anything to that effect ? A. I told him that that amount of money was placed to Moulton's credit on the cash hook, and I thought it had come from :Mr, Beecher ; and he thought his uncle, H. B. Claflin, might have paid it, Q. Did you ask Mr. Southwick on that occasion whether he didn't think it was his uncle who had paid it ? A. Very likely I did ; I think we had a general talk about it, and he said, " I wouldn't be sm-prised; it would be just like Uncle Horace." Q. Didu't he say — on the contrary, didn't he laugh at the idea of Mr. Claflin paying it, and say, " You know that Mr. Claflin would not pay anytliuig for The Golden Af^e, and he would not pay anything for that ?" A. Xo ; I knew he wouldn't pay anything for The Golden Age. Q. That is not the point. Did not Mr. Southwick say that, Mr. Woodruff \ A. I don't think he did. Q. Didn't he say that or anything of that kind— that in substance ? A. I don't recollect that he said anything of tlie kind in substance. Q. Will you swear positively that he did not 1 A. I will swear according to the best of my recollection that he did not. Q, That is as positively as you care to swear ? A, Yes, Sir. Q. Do I understand, then, that you never told ilr. Tracy of the $5,000 ? A. I have no recollection of telling him about it. Q. Nor about the money transaction which occurred at the time the $5,000 was received ? A. I have no recollec- tion about it, Q. Yon don't recollect mentioning it— whether you men- tioned the sum or not I You don't recollect mentioning the circumstance ? A. I have no recollection of telling Gen. Tracy, on or about that time, anything about money matters in the business. Q. Did you communicate to Gen. Tracy at any time the fact of any moneys being paid after that interview on Sunday in the Fall of 1872 1 A. After when— after the interview of 1872 ? Q. After the interview in the Fall of 1872. to which you have referred already ? A. I have no recollection that I did. You knew the money was paid at the time, didn't you, to Moultoni A. I knew from MouJton Q. Well, did you know that Moulton was receiving money, or were you informed by Moulton that he was re- XKLIN WOODBUFF, 3^ oeiving money ! A, Well, lie told me two or three time* that he had received money to pay Bessie Turner's school- ing. That is alL Q. You knew about Bessie^Tumer's bills then! A. I knew that Moulton said that he received money from Mr, Beecher to pay Bessie Turner's school bills ; that is alL Q. How early did you know that t A. What 1 Q. How early did you know that ; when did you first learn that? A. Well, I should think Moulton— I think it was along at the time he was receiving it — doing it. Q. "^lien was that, what year! A. I don't know ; 1872 or 1873. 1 guess, or 1871 or 1872. perhaps. Q. Was it not in the year 1871 1 A. It might have been j I don't recollect the year. Q. When did you first learn about Bessie Turner being sent away ? A. I don't know when I first learned It Q. Did you leam it about the time the first paymenta were made ? A. I don't know whether they were the first, or where they were. I only know from Moulton— what Moulton told me about Bessie Turner. If you want to know it I will tell you. ^^'HAT THE $500 WAS FOR. Q. Have voii stated all that you told Geru Ti"acy about money, at the time of the interview in the Fall of 1S72 ? A. Stated what ? Q. Have you stated all that you told Gen. Tracy about money in the Fall of 1872 ? A. No, Sir, I have not. Q. At that Interview, I mean that particular interview ? A. At that first interview, I think I have— all that I recol- lect. Q. Yes, at the first interview ; now, when were you in- formed that this $500 was paid ? A. Well, I think it was a few days before I engaged Gen. Tracy. Q. At what time were you then informed that it had been paid 1 A. I was not informed as to the time. Q. No time specified 1 A. No time specified. Q. Well, were you informed that it was for Mr. Tilton's family ? A. I understood from Mr. Moulton that it was for Mr. Triton's family. Q. Did he say anything about its being for the benefit also of Bessie Turner ? A. No. Q. Not in whole nor in part ? A. No, not that. Q. He had previously mentioned to you about the pay« ments for Bessie Turner 1 A. I don't know whether it was previous or after ; I can tell you all I know. Q. What is your best recollection on that point ! A. I have not got any recollection of dates in regard to Bessie Turner. I have in my mind very clearly what has been said to me about Bessie Turner, and I can tell it to you in a very few words. Q. No ; I want to know what information you had when you were informed that money was paid for Bessie Turner! A. I cannot tell you. Q. You cannot tell whether it was before or after this interview! A. No. 366 THE TI ETON- BE Q. Nor wlaether it was before or after Noveml>er or De- eember, 1872 ? A. I am under the impression tliat it was before ; I am under tbe impression tliat Moulton told me at two or three different times, and the times may have been a year apart, or it may have been over a year, or longer. Q. Then didn't you know that more money had been paid than $500 ? A, No, T did not ; Moulton may have said to me before that he had money for Bessie Turner's schooling, or something like that. Q. Did you understand that this $500 was for Bessie Turner's schooling t A. No ; for the benefit of Tilton's family. Q,. Then you did understand that more money had been paid than this $500? A. Certainly; during these two or three years, I understood, in addition, that money was paid for Bessie Turner's schooling. Q. And at the time of the interview you understood that ? A. I would not swear whether it was before or after. Q. Will you say whether you understood, or not, that more money had been paid than $500 ? A. No, I won't. I will tell you just what I know, or what was told me ; I have told it to you and I will tell it again if you want it. Q. Did you know or not, at that time; that is the point ? A. I say I cannot fix the date of Bessie Turner's schooling. HOW MUCH MR. WOODRUFF INTENDED TO TELL GEN. TRaCY. Q. Did you tell Mr. Tracy about all the money of which you knew at that time? A. I don't know whether I did or not. Q. Did you intend to tell him all that you knew ? A. I intended to tell him about that one transaction— what Moulton told me. Q. That $500 ? A. Yes, Sir ; that is what I intended to tell him. Q. Do you know whether you meant to tell Gen. Tracy all about the money transactions or not? A. I know that I meant to tell him about that, and I don't recollect whether I knew about any other time or not. Q. I ask you what was your purpose. Did you mean to disclose to Gen. Tracy all the facts ;ibout the money mat- ters or not ? A. I meant to disclose to him about that. Q. And not about the rest ? A. I do n't know as there was any "rest" whatever. Q. Did you intend to disclose all you knew, or only part? A. I intended to disclose just what I did disclose. Q. Did you intend to disclose all that you knew, or did you intend to conceal a part ? A. I did not intend to con- ceal; I didn't intend to toll him anything but the truth, as I had it from Moulton. Q. Did you mean to tell him all the truth about the money matters ? A. So far as I went I did, of course. Q. I don't care how far you went ; I want to know 'ECHER TBIAL. whether you intended to tell him all the truth al out th* money or not at that time ? A. I meant to tell him about the case. Q. Be kind enough to answer my question, yes or no. Did you mean to tell him all you knew of the money matters, or did you not ? A. Well, I don't recollect that I had any intention about it, only to tell bini about that one money transaction. Q. Did you intend to tell the truth to Gen. Tracy about the money ? A. I didn't intend to tell Mm anything else. [Laughter.] Q. Did you intend to conceal part of the truth about the matter? A. I don't recollect that I did. I don't recollect what my intention was. Q. Then, did you not tell him all that you knew at that time about it, if you didn't intend to conceal anything! A. I may have told him all. If I knew about the money transaction before then I did not tell him all. If I didn't know about that then I think I did tell him all. Q. But you are certain that you did not tell him any* thing about the Bessie Turner matter. A. I am very cer- tain of it. THE CHECKS FOR BESSIE TURNER'S SCHOOL BILLS. Q. Now, were you in the habit of looking over the firm checks previous to that time? A. How? Q. When they were returned from the bank? A. No, Sir ; not very often ; sometimes I did. Q. Did you know anything about those checks that had been paid for Bessie Turner's schooling? A. No— well, I don't know but I did. Q. Well, don't you know that the checks that were paid for Bessie Turner's school bills were firm checks of Woodruff & Robinson? A. I think one or two were. Q. You don't know of any that were not? A. No; I don't know that I ever saw any of them. Q. Did Moulton keep any private bank account ? A. Not that I know of ; I don't think he did. Q. Didn't he draw checks for his own personal affairs through the llrm ? A. Yes. Q. These checks are in evidence, and they are all the firm checks. Did you not know anything about these checks ? A. Well, I have a vague impression that there were checks of Woodruff & Robinson, charged to Moulton, to send to somebody West, That is my impression. Q. Did Moulton give you to understand that he had re- ceived this $500 shortly before you saw Gen. Tracy. A. Well, I think it was shortly before. It was shortly before that he told me. Q. Did you understand that that money was received in cheek or in currency? A. Well, I am under the im- pression that I understood that he got it in bills; I don'^ know. Q. Did he say anything about it 1 A. I think he said that Mr. Beecher gave liim $500 in bills ; I think so. TESTIMONY OF FBANIZLIN WOODRUFF. Q. Did 70U tell Gen. Tracy that 1 A. I may liave done 867 Q. You don't know wlietiier you did or not? A. I would not swear positively. Q. That is youi- best recollection i A. Yes. Q. What is your best recollection on that point 1 A. On what point I Q. Whether you told Gen. Tracy that that money was paid in bills % A. My best impression is that I did tell him it wa« paid in bills ; I presume I did. Q. Didn't you tell him that Mr. Beecher went to the bank himself, and di-ew it out and gave it to Mr. Moni- tion 1 A. I don't know whether I told him that or not ; I don't think I did. Q, You don't think you did ? A. I don't think I did ; I may have done so. Q. Did you know, or were you informed, what was uoQB with that $500 ? A. iSTo, I did n't know anything a-bout it. Q. Did you know whether it was deposited with your firm or not 1 A. I don't know ; I don't think it was ; I don't know, though. Mr. Shearman— He says he does not know. We move to strike out the other part of the answer, " I don't think it was." Judge Neilson— Yes. •* I don't know " is his answer. Q. Now, did you ever learn of any check of $500 being paid by Mr. Beecher to Mr. Moulton ? A. I have no recollection of any. A MORTGAGE ON MR. TILTON'S HOUSE. Q. Do you recollect, in November, 1872, col- lecting interest on a certain bond and mortgage held by you on Mr. Tilton's hoiise ? Mr. Fuller ton— If the Court please Mr. Shearman— Oh, this is to identify the time ; to fix the date. A. Well, I think I collected the interest. Q. Yes, interest on the bond and mortgage. Now, was not that shortly before you saw Gen. Tracy on this sub- ject? A. I don't know. Q. Was it not the 8th of November, 1872 1 A. That I collected the interest % Q. Yes. A. It might have been, or it might not have been, the 10th. Q. Well, didn't the interest fall due the first of May and the first of November ? A. Yes. Q. And didn't you collect, early in November, 1872, the interest due on that bond and mortgage ? A. I think so. Q. Can't you recollect whether or not it was on the same day that you collected that interest that Moulton told you of this $5G0 from Mr. Beecher 1 A. No, I don't think it was. Q. Was it not just about that time? A. I don't reool- iect that it was just about that time. No; it might have been about that time, or it might have been a little ear- lier. I recollect the way that I collected the interest— at least I think I recollect. Q. Was not that shortly before you had the interview with Gen. Tracy, that you collected that interest 1 A. It might have been. Q. What is your recollection about it? A. WeU, the two things have no connection whatever, and I don't know as I have any recollection. Q. Well, you appear to have collected that interest on the 8th of November, by the accounts of your firm that are in evidence. A. Well ? Q. Now, I want to know whether that date was not shortly before this interview ? A. I don't know whether it was before or after. Mr. I'ullerton- That is the fourth time that question has been put and answered. Judge Neilson — It Is answered now. Mr. Fullerton— Jt was answered before. Sir. Q. Can you recollect whether it was a very short time before you had this interview with Gen. Tracy that Moulton told you about this money ? A. No, Sir ; I can- not. Mr. Fullerton— T7iaf has been asked half a dozen times, and answered. Mr. Shearman— I want to get these dates together. Mr. FuUerton— WeU, Sir, I think the subject is sitffl- ciently confused for all the pm-poses of the other side ; it is time that this should stop. THE ACCOUNTS W^TH WOODRUFF & ROBIN- INSOK Q. I will call your attention to an accounfc of your firm, and ask you if you can explain it. Look at that account [handing book to witness], and tell me whether, on the 8th of November, 1872, Mr. Tilton is not charged by your firm with the sum of $500 ? jVIr. Beach— What page do you refer to i Ml'. Shearman— Page 167. A. TUton— there ts no charge here to Tilton. Q. That Mr. Tilton's account, ts not Mr. Tilton debited on the 8th of November, 1872, with $500 ? A. The 8tli of November— where is the debit of $500 ? Q. There. [Indicating in the book.] A. Yes. Q. Now, will you look at the credit account and tell me whether he is charged at any time in 1872 with a sum o£ $500 i A. I don't see any. Q. There is none % Mr. Beach— No ; he says he does not see any, Q. What is that? [Indicating an item.] A. That la 1871. I don't see any in 1872. Q. Is there any there in 1872 ? A. No, there is not. Mr. Fullerton— Not there. Mr. Shearman— Well, this is the acooxmt of Theodor* Tilton with Woodruft' & Robinson, put in evidence- marked " Exhibit D, 109." I will show you the original if you care for it. [To the witness.] Have you any ex;- 868 THE TILTOj^-BEECHEB TRIAL, planation fco offer of this fact, that Mr, Tilton is debited at about tlie time at which you now say this money was received for his benelit from Mr. Beecher, with the sum of $500, and is not credited with any euch sum re- ceived t Mr. Fullerton— I object to that. Q. Have you any explanation to offer! A. No ; I have not any. Judge Neileon— He says he has none. Mr. Fullerton— Well, Sir, I move to strike that out, be- cause the question is predicated on a fact not in the case —as something not in the case. The question is based upon the assertion, or the idea, that that money, $500, was received about that time. Judge Neilson— At the time or before % Mr. Fullerton— Yes. Well, the witness does not pre- tend to know when it was received. Judge Neilson— I think we will let the answer stand. Mr. Beach— On that Nov. 5 he is credited by a balance of interest in his favor, Mr. Shearman— $71. Mr. Beach— $71. He had a balance on deposit with the Arm at that time. Mr. Sheannan— Yes. [To the Witness.] Look at this ac- count, and say whether at any time, on the credit side of that account of Mr. Tilton, the sum of $500 is put to his credit, and, if so, when 1 A. In 1872? Q. No ; at any time. Mr. Beach— In 1871. The Witness— He is so credited Nov. 13, 1871 ; there is cash at one time in 1871, $4,000 Q. Never mind that. A. [readingl " Nov. 13, by cash, $400." Q. That is November 13, 1871, is it not 1 A. Yes ; then there is cash, January, 1872, $1,000 ; April, $7,000 ; May, $100 Q. Well, that in April was Bowen's money, was it not 1 A. I don*t know ; I presume it was ; $7,000 and odd. Q, Well, as there seems to be some question as to how near this was to the interview with Gen. Tracy, state now what is your opinion as to the time when that inter- view with Gen. Tracy about this money matter did oc- ciir % A. Well, the interview occurred with Gen. Tracy ghor tly after the WoodhuU publication. Q. That publication was on the 28th of October. 1872, was it not ! A. Very well, I think it was very shortly after that. Perhaps it might have been a week or ten days ; I think about a week after. Q. A.bout a week afterward % A. I think so. Q. Was Mr. Tilton in town when it occurred 1 A. When what occurred! Q. The interview with Gen. Tracy about the money matter. A. I don't know whether he was or not. Q. Didn't you see him next day ! A. I don't think I 4id No, I did not see him. Q- What day of the week did this interview occur ! A. No, I didn't see Mr. Tilton, T am very positive, fi-om the time of my first interview with Mr. Tracy vmtU he came to Moulton's house on Sunday night when we v/ere there. Q. Was not that the next Simday night! A. Yes, I think it was. Q. Then it was the Simday night following the week in which you had this interview with Gen. Tracy! A. Sunday night of the same week. Q. Not the same week. Simday begins the week. A The following week. Q- Now, don't you know that Tilton was not at homo until the 5th of November, 1872 1 A. I don't know. Q. Now, Sir, don't you know that Mr. Tilton was not at home until the 5th of November, 1872! A. I dont know. Q. What day of the week did you have this intervlev with Gen. Tracy, when you spoke about the money! A. I don't know. Q. Where was it ! A. At his office in Montague-st. Q. What time of day! A. About half -past four o'clock. Q. Any one else there ! A. No, Sir, not while we were having the interview. It was started between he and I. Q. The clerks were in the outer office, I suppose? A- They might have been. Q. You passed through persons in the outer office ! A. I don't know whether we went in the outer office or in the back way. Q. How long was it after that interview that the other interview between Mr. Moulton, Mr. Tilton, Gen. Tracy^ and yourself occurred at Mr. Moulton's house ? A. It was on Sunday night, either the first or second Sunday night thereafter, I don't know which. Q. You don't know whether it was the first or second ! I think you stated just now that it was, as you thought,. Sunday night ? A. I stated I thought it was. Q. Was it the very next morning after this half-past- four-o'clock interview in which you brought in Mr. Moul- ton ? A. Certainly ; I went to Gen. Tracy's at 4:J10 o'clock in the afternoon, and I stayed there until after dark— over an hour— and I talked with him about tW* case, and stated what I wanted ; then I went the next; morning, and Mr. Moulton with me — or Mr. Moulton after- ward ; I went ahead of Mr. Moulton, Q. You went ahead of Mr. Moulton ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. How long were you there before Mr. Moulton camel A. I guess I was there five or ten minutes ; ten minutes, perhaps. , Q. What time of day did you go to Gen, Tracy's office next morning? A. A little after 8 o'clock, I think ; per- haps It may have been half-past 8, Q. Do you recollect whether in that first examination you stated the fact that you went alone to Gen. Tracy's office ? A. I don't know whether I did or not, Q, Don't you remember you stated you took Mr. Moul- ton into the office 1 A. Well, I recollect I introduced Mr. Moulton, TESTIMONY OF FBANKLIN WOODRUFF. 360 ISv. Moms— What page do you refer to % Mr. Beach— He ain't referring to any page. Mr. MoiTis— That is what I think. Mr. Shearman— Page 344. [To the witnegs.] Did yon not in your direct examination for the plaintiff, previous to this examination, as part of the plaintiff's opening case, use this language : " I called at Mr. Tracy's office with Mr. Moulton ; I think it was about half past 8 o'clock in the momiag 1" A. I may have said so. Q. " For the purpose of Mr. Moultou relating to Mr. Tracy the history of this scandal case." Did you so tes- tify I A. I may have said so. Q. Why do you say now that you called 10 minutes in advance 1 A. I said I think so. THE INQTIIRY DECLABED UNPROFITABLE. Mr. Fullerton— I think this is an unprofitable Inquiry. Mr. Shearman— I don't know about that. Mr. Fullerton— I don't suppose you do. That is your misfortune aad not mine ; at least it will not be if the Ciourt rules it out. Judge Neilson- 1 thiuk the counsel is nearly through with it. Mr. Fullerton— I think he was through some time ago, but he did'nt know it. How far will your Honor permit them to go into the examination of matters to which the attention of the witness was not called by us 1 I suppose they have a right to cross-examine only in regard to the matters t» which we directed the attention of the wit- ness. Judge Neilson— That is the general rule. Mr. Fullerton— That is the general rule, and it is the particular rule, unless your Honor permits them to de- part from it. If this whole case is to be retried in this way it will consume a grs^at deal of time. It rests en- tirely with your Honor. I don't wish to circimiscribe the otlier side, or to limit them in their inquiries at all, if tliey are going to develop any facts that may throw light upon this case ; but to spend time here in re-examining a witness hi regard to a matter that he has already been examined abour on his cross-examination when called by us, would seem to be an unnecessary waste of time. ' Now, our inquiries we directed to a very few topics, and \ with regard to theso topics they have a right to cross- [ examine. I think they cannot give, tmless your Honor j throws open the door for an examination of any length, and in regard to any subject to which they may see fit to call the attention of the witness. Mr. Evarts— I think my learned fiiend is rii^lit in his general proposition, but I don't think he is accurate in his memory in regard to the previous examination of this Witness. All that was said about these previous inter- t views on the first examination of Mr. Franklin Woodruff was as introduction to get at the interview at the house, and they did not go into, nor did we ; we didn't thinlv there was any right on their part to give an interview between Mr. Franklin Woodruff and GTen. Tracy. Mr. Beach— Do you mean on the first examination f Mr. Evarts— On the first examination. Mr. Beach— Undoubtedly we did go into it. Mr. Evarts— Let me go on, and you wiU find that I am right. But, after this, then the question was to get Mr. Beecher in some way affected by what occiu-red in that principal Interview, and then a conversation be- tween Mr. Moulton and Mr, Beecher was introduced in which Mr. Moulton said: "This consultation we are having is at the instance of so and so, and it may be necessary to tell the truth about your affairs and to ask you about them," and he assented. Now, thereupon, the introduction of what occurred between Mr. Moulton, Mr. Tilton Gen. Tracy, and Mr. Woodruff being present (I don't know that he took much part in it) on the Sunday night, was introduced upon the proposition that Mr. Tracy was there to represent Mr. Beecher, and thus authorize the conversation, but there had not been any pretense that there had been any such authorisation of Gen. Tracy to represent Mr. Beecher at these preliminary talks with him, concerning which evidences of introductory import was given. But Mr. Tracy was examined and cross-ex- amined as to these preliminary interviews, aad therefore tiiey called this witness with the view of contradicting Mr. Tracy, so that all our inquii'les concerning those pre- liminary interviews, as we understand it, are introduced by their rebutting evidenoe of this witness on their right to contradict Gen. Tracy. Mr. Beach— I refer you to page 344, in relation to your statement that this first interview between this witness and Gen. Tracy was not given when Mr. Moulton was there. Mr. Evarts— It was stated as a fact. Mr. Beach— The whole relation of the interview wa« given in terms by Mr. Woodruff and repeated ; I mean the interview between Mr. Moulton and yourself and Mr. Woodruff at your office. Ml'. Shearman— But the ten minutes' Interview before Mr. Moulton came was never brought out until this new examination. Mr. Beach— And that is brought out on your re-cross examination. It was not anything we examined about. We didn't refer to that interview. Mr. Shearman— It goes to this interview. Mr. Fullerton— They called it out ; we did not. It was a man of straw, set up by Mr. Shearman to fight, and it seems the man of straw has got the best of it. Mr. Shearman— Do you refer to yourself ? Mr. Fullerton— No, I was referring to another matter. I think it is a very great waste of time. Mr. Skeai man— Make these bricks ^Yithout straw if you call. Mr. Fullerton— You have got neither brick nor straw as 370 TRE TILTON-B] the result of your examination, because I take it makes no difference at all whether Mr. Moulton went in the office with Mr. Woodruff, or whether he succeeded him hj ten minutes. Now, It Is an inquiry that should not be permitted. I think, technically speaking, the witness is right in saying that he went there with Mr. Moulton, or that he took Mr. Moulton there, if Mr. Moulton went in pursuance of an arrangement made with him, although ten minutes intervened between their respective arrivals. H© met htm there by appointment. Judge Neilson— And the witness introduced him. Mr. Fullerton— And the witness introduced him, yes, Sii'. That is all there was of the interview. Judge Neilson— Are you through, Mr. Shearman t Mr. Shearman— No, Sir. [To the witness.] Did you have any more than one interview with Gen. Tracy in which the subject of this scandal was in any way dis- cussed, prior to the time when Mr. Moulton came into the office 1 A. I think likely I met him on the street, and perhaps casually talked with him al»out it a little, as I had with others I had met. I am under the impression I had. Q. When do you think you met him in the street 1 A. I think I met him perhaps a day or two after this thing- was out. Q. A day or two after the publication 1 A. I think I may have met him. Q. In this interview between Mr. Moulton and Gen. Tracy nothing was said about the money, was there 1 A. No, Sir. Q. Nothing was said about Bessie Turner 1 A. No, Sir; you mean flhe morning interview ? Q. I mean the morning Interview ? A. No, Sir. Q, Was anything said in any subsequent interview at which you were present between Mr. Moulton and Mr. Tracy about money? A. I think not. Q. Nor about Bessie Turner ? A. I think not. Q. Did you on your reexamination testify in this man ner : " Mr. Moulton proceeded to tell Mr. Tracy all about the case ?" A. T said that Mr. Moulton told him. Q. Will you state whether you so testified or not. I will show you the passage if you desire. A. I think I may have testified so. Mr. Beach— Then follows the question : " What did he tell him ; just repeat it now," and he goes on and re- peats it. Mr. Shearman— It stows he didn't. Mr. Beach— It just shows what he did tell him. By Mr. Shearman— Did you speak to Gen. Tracy about this money as any evidence of guilt on Mr. Beecher's part? Mr, Beach— That is objected to. .Judge Neilson— I think we won't take that, Mr. Shear- man. Mr. Shearman— You say you knew about the $5,000 which was then paid ! A. I say I knew of $5,300 that ECRBR TBIAL. was placed to P. D. Moulton's credit on the cash book of Woodruff & Robinson. I say I knew it from the fact o* seeing it on the cash book. Q. And you remember to have said it was money de rived from Mr. Beecher ? A. I presumed it was, j Mr. Fullerton— Is there any necessity lor going otop that ground again ? Mr. Shearman— Yes, there is. Mr. Fullerton— Well, I was asking the Court. Mr. Shearman— The point I wish to get at is that you knew of three classes of payments. You knew of the pay- i ment on account of Bessie Turner ; you knew of the pay- ment of $500, and you knew of the payment of thle , $5,000. A. I knew of the credit to F. D. Moulton $5,300. Q. Did you ever object to any of this transaction 1 A. No, Sii\ I Q. Did you ever complain to Mr. Moulton of his having || made use of tlv firm as a channel for such payments? A. Not that I recollect of. MR. WOODRUFF DENIES A CONVERSATION WITH MR. SOUTHWICK. Q. Do you recollect an interview between yourself and John C. Southwick, shortly after the puDli- cation of the so-called Woodhull scandal, in November, 1872 ? Do you recollect an intdtview with him in wliirtt there was a conversation between you and Mr. Beecher on the subject of the scandal, at Mr. Southwick's house! | A. I had some talk with Mr. Southwick about the scandal, r Q. I simply want to know if you recollect the occasion. A. Yes, Sir. Q. Do you recollect on that occasion saying to Mr Southwick, " Is it best for us to drive Mr. Beecher out of Brooklyn, or not V* Mr. Fullerton— I object to it. Mr. Shearman— Shall I give the whole conversation f I think the objection would be entirely obviated by the waole conversation. Judge Neilson— I think we will take the answer, if you [Mr. Shearman] will be content with the answer. The Witness— I don't recollect saying so. Q. Nor anything of that sort ? A. I don't recollect it, Q. Will you swear you did not ? A. I will swear I dont recollect I did. Q. But not anything more positive than that ! A. No, Sir. Q. Did not Mr. Southwick, In answer to that, say to you that yon bad a head of sufficient level to drive the salt and fish business, but that when you undertpok to drive Henry Ward Beecher out of Brooklyn he thought you had taken a contrast you coiild not carry through. A. No, I don't think I said that. Judge Neilson— The question is whether Mr. Southwick said it. A. No, Sir. TUSTIMONF OF FRANKLIN WOODRUFF. 371 Mr. Shearman— Nor anytliing like tliat ? A. I do n«t. Q. Anytliing in substance like that ? A. I d©n't recollect of saying anytliing like it. Q. Will you swear positively you didn't say it 1 A. I swear I don't recollect that I did. Mr. Fullerton— I won't interrupt with any other obiec- tion. If it is to be understood they are to retry their case, I wni submit to it. Judge Neilson— No, that is not to be understood at all, and the rule will be strictly applied hereafter. In this instance we drifted into this long minute examination be- fore you called attention to the rule, and I was hoping it would be— Mr. Fullerton— I make the objection now before we drift entirely out to sea and get lost. Mr. Shearman— If yovir Honor pleas©— Mr. Fullerton— No, one moment. Mr. Sherman— Allow me. Mr. Fullerton— No, you will allow we, please. If they want to introduce Mr. Southwick to contradict the wit- ness on the stand in regard to this matter, your Honor will perceive it is a little out of the proper order of the case, because this inquiry now ought to have been put when the witness was on the stand before. It don't make any difference whether the subject was referred to on my former examination, or whether they omitted to refer to it ; the rule is precisely the same. They ought now to be limited in their inquiries to a cross-examination in regard to matters to which we directed the attention of the witness. Mr. Evarts— That we agree to. Judge Neilson— We have not applied the rule in this examination, and we will get through without the rule. Mr. Evarts— Perhaps counsel wiU differ with each other. If your Honor please, and the Court may not accord with the views of counsel, and we wiU assume your Honor is right in this view. But this is the point we are now at. It is always permissible at any time that an adverse witness, that is, a witness of an adverse party, is on the stajid, in reference to any testimony that he has given to Indicate his bias Judge Neilson— Therefore I allowed the last answers to etand. Mr. Evarts— That is our present inquiry, and we want to pursue it a little further. That is the only ground. It does not follow we must exhaust our testimony as to bias on the original examination, because it may no* become at all important until after the rebutting examination. Mr. Shearman— Did not you then say to Mr. Southwick, "I will show you a letter which, if published, or shown generally, would drive him out of Brooklyn 1" The Witness— What date is this ! Mr. Shearman— About the time of the Woodhull pub- ication. The Witne8»~I don't think I did : I never had any suoh letter in my possession. I could not show him any such letter. Q. Are you positive you did not say so ? A. I don't think— no, I don't recollect saying so. I may have said so ; that I had seen an apology, or something of that kind, that was very damaging to Mr. Beecher. Q. And " which, if shown generally, would drive him out of Brooklyn 1" A. Very possibly I may have said so ; but I don't recollect that I did. Q. Didn't Mr. Southwick then ask you if the charge against Mr. Beecher was adultery, and did n't you say no ? A. No ; I don't recollect ever anything of that kind. Q. Nothing of that sort ? A. No, Sir. Q, Nothing in substance to that effect ? A. No, Sir. Q. Will you swear that you did not ? A. I will swear to the best of my recollection that I do not think I did. Q. That is as positive as you will be ? A. I have no idea I said so. Q. Will you swear positively, or will you not, that you { did not say that to Mr. Southwick 1 A. I will swear to the best of my recollection I never said any such thing, and I cannot believe I did. Q. Did Mr. Soutlir iek in that conversation ask you if you believed that Mr. Beecher had committed adultery, and didn't you answer " No 1 " A. No, Sir ; I don't think • that any such question was asked, and if there was, I don't believe I said " No." Q, You think nothing of that kind occurred ? A. I don't recollect that anything of that kind occurred. Q. Are you positive nothing of that kind occurred? A. I am sure I didn't say " No " to any such question as that. Q. Did nothing of this kind occur at any conversation between you and Mr. Southwick ? A. I don't think there did in that positive form. Q. In that positive form. But did it, in substance 1 A.. I don't think anything ever occui'red in which Mr. South- wick asked me if I believed Mr. Beecher guilty of adultery, and I said " No." I have no recollection of any- thing of the kind ever occurring. Q. Did he ever ask you if you, or any one else, charged him with adultery, and did yon say " No ?" A. I don't know whether he asked me, or not. I Q. And you don't know whether you answered so or not i A. No, I don't think I ever answered so. i Q. Did you never to Mr. Southwick charge Mr. Beecher i with adultery ! A. I never charged him with adultery. ! Q. Did you ever tell Mr. Southwick that Mr. Beecher ! had committed adultery with Mrs. Tiltoni A. No, I I don't think I ever did. Q. Did you ever tell Mr. Southwick that Mr. Tilton charged adultery 1 A. I may have within the past year. Q. But not before this past year f A. I don't think I ever did before. 872 THE TILTON-BJ MR. SOUTHWICK CENSURED FOR GIVING GEN. TRACY POINTS. Q. How often did you talk with Mr. South- wick about this subject of the scandal? A. I don't know. Q. Didn't you begin to talk witli him from a very early day— from 1871 ? A. I think about the first I talked was after the WoodhuU scandal was published ; I think along there. Q. From that time on, haven't you talked with him frequently f A. Oh, I talked with him from time to time ; yes, Sir. Q. Haven't you talked about what the charge was against Mr. Beecher with Mr. South wick? A. I don't think I have, except it may have been within the past year— after it came out. Q. I don't mean the past year ; I don't mean since Mr. Tilton made the public charge of adultery. Before that didn't you oftein talk with him 4)n the subject 1 A. I have talked with him ; yes. Sir. Q. Have you not since you were on the stand before complained to Mr. Southwick of his having given Mr. Tracy points in this case? A. I did; no, I don't know about points : I had a talk with Southwick the other day. Q. Well, didn't you complain of his conduct in telling Gen. Tracy anything 1 A. I complained of his— yes, I did; no, I complained of this: he swore about something that I had told him in confidence, and I thought it was rather stating things that he ought not to. Judge Neilson— That was about The Golden Age f A. I think so ; no, something about Mr. Tilton. Mr. Shearman— That was about the accusation made by Mr. Tilton. Mr. Fullerton— One moment. Let him tell his own story. Judge Neilson— What was it about ? A. Something about the accusation, something that Mr. Tilton said. I told him chat I thought he had told Gen. Tracy, for I didn't see how he could have known anything about it without. Q. Haven't you told that to other persons besides Mr. Southwick 1 A. Very likely. Q. Are you still a member of the firm of Woodruff & Kobinson ? A. No, Sir. Q. When did you leave the firm ? A. The firm dissolved on the 1st of March ; partially on the 1st of January, and fully on the 1st (rf March. Q. Was not the dissolution resolved on before the 1st of January, Sir ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Did you have an interview with Mr. Soutjiwick a few weeks ago at your office, where this subject of the scandal was discussed to some extent ? A. Very likely. Q. Did you on that occasion tell Mr. Southwick that he h'cul known all about- the case from you ? A. No, Sli; ; I don't recollect telling liim any such thing, (4. Didn't you tell him anytMng of that kind in sub- stance 1 A. No, Sir; I don't think he had ever known about this case from me. UFAJaER TRIAL. Q. Did you not tell him in substance that you had told him all you knew about the case ? A. No, Sir ; I did not. Q. Did joa not tell him that you had told him all that you knew about the case in confidence 1 A. No ; I did not tell him any such thing. Q. And didn't you tell him that if he told what you had told him you would never have any more confidence in human nature ? A. I don't think I did. Q. Nothing of that sort 1 A. I don't think I did. Q. And didn't you assign as a reason for it that you had told him aU that you knew about it, and expected him to keep it in confidence % A. No ; I told him that he oughi. not to tell of it, matters confidential ; I think he threat- ened to tell some things that I told him in confidence, and I said that would be Q. That is all. Mr. Beach— No, finish it. Mr. Shearman— No. Mr. Beach— Certainly, you will finish it. Mr. Shearman— Well, Sir, you may finish it. The Witness— I think I met Southwick, or he was dowa at our office, and he got talking about this thing, and I merely cautioned him about matters that I had talked with him in confidence, and he spoke about telling some of them. I told him those I had given him in confidence and should not be repeated under any circumstances, something of that conversation. Judge Neilson— Well, is that all with this witness 1 Mr. Shearman— That is all. Judge Neilson [to Mr. Beachl— Do you wish to ask him f The Witness— About these books that they wanted— they are out of my possession. Mr. Evarts— Don't talk any more, Mr. Witness. Judge Neilson— He is speaking to me about the books. Mr. Evarts— Oh, I beg pardon, I apologize to Mr. Wood- ruff; I thought he was proceeding. Mr. Shearman— Are they herel Mr. Beach— No. Judge Neilson— Now, I ask you, Mr. Evarts, why do we want the books? We have the accounts here. Mr. Beach— They are not in his possession or under his control. Judge Neilson— Every check has been read. Mr. Evarts— We have used the account in the book; that answers our purpose, I am told. The Witness— You don't want the books, then ? RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION OF MR. WOOD- RUFF. Mr. Beacn— I dou't know whether that chet^k, Sir, for $7,000, of Bowen's has ever been sliowii ye 1 [Handing witness check.] Do you recollect of that being deposited with your firm? A. Well, I have a recollection tijal it was ; it must have been deposited there. Well, there is the indorsement of your firm upon It, TESTIMOIiY OF FEA thflf; slio-ws It. A. Til at is George C. Robinson's haud- •writlng. Q. Did you ever see that yellow paper? A. I have no recollection of ever seeing it until I saw it here the other day. Mr. Evarta— We don't hear, Mr. Beach. Mr. Beach— He has no recollection of ever having seen It until he saw it here the other day. Mr. Evarts— The yellow paper % The Witness— The yellow paper. Mr. Beach— Well, this yellow paper— it Is marked as Exhibit D, 134." Mr. Shearman— What was said about the check, Mr, Beach? We could not hear. Mr. Beach— He says simply that he recollects the check and the indorsement of his Arm upon it, and it passed through his firm. Mr. Evai'ts— It is not his own indorsement. Mr. Beach— Made by George C. Robinson. [To the wit- ness.] Have j ou any recollection of passing that check to Mr. Partridge, the cashier at that time of your firm? A. I think I did ; I won't swear positively, but I think I ,ejivo the check to Mr. Partridge. Q. Do you recollect from whom you received the check? A. Well. I think I received it from Mr. Tilton. Q. Was that yellow paper in connection with the check handed to you ? A. I have no recollection of ever seeing that paper until to-day. Mr. Beach— That is alL Mr. Evarts [to Mr. BeaohJ— Will you allow me to exam- ine him about this ? Mr. Beach— Certainly. RE-CROSS EXAMINATION OF MR. WOODRUFF. By Mr. Evarts— Now, Mr. Woodruff, what recollection have you in regard to this check having gone through your hands [handing check to witnessl ? A. Well, I say I think it came to me, and that I handed it in to the cashier. I think Mr. Tilton gave it to me ; I don't •wear positively ; I think that was so ; that is all I know about it. Q. Well, can you say anything more than that you im- agine that it must have been so ? A. I say I think it must have been so ; I don't imagine it ; I say I think it is so ; whether it was or was not, I don't know ; I think it "Was so. Q. Now do you remember whether these two papers eame inside of an envelope together ? A. No ; I don't re- member that at all ; no. Sir. Q. Do you remember whether these two papers were pinned together, or not ? A. I don't recollect anything of I the kind ; I have no recollection of ever seeing that paper I until I saw it here the other day. ■ Q. That I understand you to say. Have you any recol- lection as to whether this paper came — these two papers j eame in an envelope, or not? A, No. I have not. NKLIN WOODED FF. 378 Q. Not the slightest A. No, Sir. Q. Have you any recollection of reading the check at the time that it came ? A. I think I saw the check. Q. And that is all you can say about it ? A. Yes ; it was placed to Mr. Tilton's credit. Q. Now, you say that Mr. Tilton handed you the check ! A. 1 have that impression ; I could not swear to it posi- tively, but I am under that impression. Q. Well, do you know where you were when he haiidird you the check, if he did hand it to you? A. Well, I don't know whether he handed it to me at Moulton's liouse or at the ofiiee. Q. It was either one or the other ? A. It must have been — I think so. Q. Then you don't recollect probably what day he handed it to you ? A. No, I do not. Q. And the amount of it is, that you don't recollect anything about the yellow paper, and you don't recollect anything about the check except that you think you saw it as it passed through your firm for deposit 1 A. Yes, Sir. Mr. Beach— You stated, Mr. Woodrufi", that you have no recollection of having seen this yellow paper. I ask your attention to the terfns of the writing upon it? Mr. Evarts— The what? Mr. Beach— The writing upon it, and ask you whether you have any recollecticm of reading any such sentiment or writing in connection with any check ; " Spoils from new friends tor the enrichment of old?" A. I haven't any recollection of ever seeing it. Mr. Davis (a juror) here spoke to Mr. Beach in regard to the handwriting on the yellow paper. Mr. Beach— This is Mr. Tilton's handwriting. Mr. Evarts— It is Mr. Tilton's handwriting ; that is con- ceded. Mr. Beach— That is all. The Witness— Now, yon don't want me to bring the books i Mr. Evarts— No. Judge NeUson— Gentlemen, get ready to retire. The Court then took a recess until 2 o'clock. TESTIMONY INTRODUCED BY PROXY. The Court met at 2 p. m., pursuant to ad- journment. Judge Neilson— Call your next witness. Mr. Morris— If your Honor please, Dr. Skiles has been subpenaed as a witness, and Mr. Evarts and myself have heard his statement, and we have agreed upon the single point to which we desired to call him, and that is, that he made his last professional visit ui)on Mrs. Tilton on the 30th of December, 1870. Judge Neilson— That will be taken down. Mr. Evarts— That will be put in the record with the same effect as if Dr. Skiles had sworn to it. Mr. Beach— And that he left her convalesoent t 874 TUB TlLTOiV-BEhJr'HhJR TRLAlu ^Iv. Evarts— That lie made a professional visit on Fri- day, the 30th, and that that was his last visit. Mr. Beach— We don't accept that. Mr, Morris— We want to prove that fact by him, that she was convalescent. Mr. Evarts— That she did get well. Mr. Beach— That she was then convalescent, and that she needed no more medical treatment. Mr. Evarts— I agree to that ; that is implied by the fact that he made no other visit. Judge Neilson— That is, if they called no other physi- cian. Mr. Pullerton— The gentleman don't mean to say that she got well because the doctor did not call on her any more. [Laughter.] Mr. Evarts— The fact is, no doubt, as my friend states, that a competent physician attending on a patient made a professional call that day, and that was his last. Mr. Beach— Dr. Skiles was her attendant physician, and that day was the last call he made ; he then consid- ered her convalescent, and not needing medical atten- tion. That is what we want. Judge Neilson— If that is the ffiot, then that is taken down. TESTIMONY OF HANNAH M. MmDLEBROOK. Hannah M. Middlebrook, a witness called and sworn on behalf of the plaintiff, testified as follows : Mr. Fullerton— Mrs. Middlebrook, where do you reside ? A. In the town of Trumbull, State of Connecticut. Q. How long have you resided there 1 A. For 16 years. Q. You are a married lady ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Your husband engaged in business there 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. Are you acquainted with Theodore Tilton? A. I have met him — well, a few times, before the present. Q. When did you meet him the first time ? A.I think the first time I met him in the oflSce of Mrs. Woodhull on Broad-st. Q. When was that 1 A. Well, it must have been in the year 1871, 1 think; only a moment— a few moments— was introduced to him there. Q. Do you recoUect the season of the year ? A. I think it was in the Summer of Q. Of 1871 ? A. res, Sir. Q. How often did you meet him after that 1 A. I only met him once more in the office. I met him again in the Autumn of that year, in Mrs. Woodhull's house. Q. And where did she reside then ? A. At I think it was No. 15 East Thirty-eiglith-st. Q. Then you were acquainted also with Mrs. Woodhull, I take it 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. And when did you make her acquaintance I A. At a convention held— I do n't recollect whether it was Apollo Hall or Steinway Hall ; I thiak it was Apollo HtOL Q. What was the character of the convention ! A It was a Woman's Suffrage CouA'^ention. Q. You have spoken of the Autumn of 1871 ; did you visit Mrs. Woodhull's house in that Autumn % A. Yea, Sir. Q. Did you visit that house more than once 1 A. No, Sir. Q. Only once? A. Only once; or rather — excuse me; I was there more than once, but I passed but one evening there ; T called there two or three times on matters of business. Q. And at what time in the day did you caU ? A. WelU I called once in the morning ; I was about to take the train to my home, and I think Mrs. Woodhull went up with me to Hartford, where she was going to lecture. Q. These were calls that you speak of % A. These were mere calls. Q. And you went there, you say, upon business mat- ters ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. If there is no objection, please state what the busi- ness matters were. A. Well, I was connected with the American Association of Spiritualists, one of the Trustees and oue of the Executive Board, and she was President of the Spiritualists' Association; then, further, I was a correspondent sometimes of her paper; I wrote several articles that were published in her paper, and I called on those matters. Q. Now, do you recollect what time in the Autumn of 1871 it was that you called at her house ? A. Well, if you will allow me to refer to a diary I can tell you the day. Q. You can refresh your recollection by it ? A. [Eefer- ring to diary.] It was October 25, 1871, as I then noted down. That is an entry that you made at the time ? A. At the time ; yes, Sli\ A GATHERING OF SPIRITUALISTS AT MRS. WOODHULL'S. Q. Mr. Charles Cowley, who has been intro- duced as a witness in this case, mentioned the fact that he met you at Mrs. Woodhull's in the Autunm of 1871 ; do you recollect him ? A. Well, I recollect being intro- duced to two strange gentlemen, one of them fi-oni Lowell. I should not have remembered the name but as it was recalled to me. Q. One of them was from Lowell 1 A. Yes, Sir ; I re- member that. Q. You remember it now that it is reealled t A. Well, I would not have remembered the name, for I think it was very indistinct when it was given to me, and I did not remember it. Q. That was the only occasion in which you met a gen- tleman from Lowell! A. Yes, Sir, that was the only evening that I spent at Mrs. Woodhull's. Q. And the only evening that you spent at that house t A. Yes, Sir. TESTURMY OF EAl^NAH M. MIDDLEBllOOK. 375 Q. Wlioin el»e did yoxi meet there that evening, if you recellect, Mrs. Middlehrook ? A. Well, there ■was a gentleuiHU with this Mr. Cowley, this gentleman from Lowell, whose name I don't re- member; I met Mr. Tilton, Mr. George Bacon of Boston, Mr. A. E. Wheelock, of what place I could not Bay now, and Mr. Edward Wheeler, besides Mi-s. Wood- hull, Miss ClafliD, and CoL Blood and Mr. Andrews- Stephen Pearl Andrews. Q. And Mr. Tilton ? A. I named Mr. Tilton. Q. Ah ! I beg pardon. Now, Mrs. Middlebrook, I want to ask' you this question, whether duiingthat interview, at any time, the so-called Beecher scandal was the subject of conversation ? A. No, Sir; not to my recollection. Q. Well, how positive are you able to speak upon that suljject? A. Well, I know that no convei'sation could have taken place that evening that I did not hear, and I am positive that that was not spoken of at all that even- ing. _ iHE WITNESS COWLEY CONTRADICTED. Q. Mr. Cowley, in Ms testimony, in speaking of the subjects which were there discussed, says this : Mr. Evarts— What page % Mr. Fullerton— 267 of Volume 7. [Reading.] " One"— subject, that is J—" I recall is, that there was some doubt whether Mr. Beecher or Mr. Tilton was the father of one of the children." Was there anything of that kind dis- cussed or mentioned there that evening 1 A. No, Sir; there was not. Q. Was th€;re anything said or discussed upon the sub- ject of Mrs. Tilton's regxet as to the deception which she had practiced upon her husband, or that she had written a letter stating what her relations with Mr. Beecher had keen % A. No, Sir ; I am positive no such thing occurred. Mr. Evarts— What page is that ? Mr. Fullerton— The same page r267), a little more than half the way down, on the extreme right-hand column. [To the ^vitness.] Anything to the eftect that Mr. Beecher had got hold of that letter, and that a friend of Mr. Tilton's had made him give it up— had extorted it at the point of a pistol 1 A. No, Sir. Q. Anything to this effect, that if she, Mrs. Tilton, had written one confession she cotdd write another I A. No, Sir. Q. Well, I understand you, Mrs. Middlebrook, tiiat tJie subject of that scandal was not introduced there that evening at all. A. No, Sir, it was not. Q. How long a time did you spend there that evening 1 A. Well, it was after dark when I arrived there. I could I not say just the hour now in that season of the year that j it was dark ; it was dark when I left Mrs. Woodhull's I office ; I went from her office up there, and I reanaine* there until between 10 and 11 ; I think it must have been i Pear 11. j j Q. And where did you spend the time ! A. In Mrs, Woodhull's parlor. Q. And did the rest of the company spend their time there also ? A. Not all of them. I think Col. Blood went out and in ; I think Miss Claflin only came in a short time at the early part of the evening, and then excused herself and left ; and, if I am not mistaken, Mr. Andrews, I think, went out and in, occasionally leaving for a short time, and coming in again. Q. How about Mrs. Woodhulll A. Mrs. Woodhull— well, she might have passed out of the room once or twice, but she was there most of the evening. Q. Do you recollect of her going out of the room at all! A. I don't recollect of her going out of the room at all. Q. Now, as to this stranger from Lowell ; did he go out of the room, or did he remain there ? A. I don't think he went out of the room ; I cannot swear positively, but I think he remained there the whole evening, or as long— until he left. Q. Which parlor were they in? A. It was one long parlor. Q. Extending A. Extending from the front back to afcmall room that adjoined it. We were in the long par- lor. Q. It was not a house, then, with double parlors, but of only one ? A. No, as I recollect— I don't recollect any folding doors ; if there were folding docjrs tliey were wide open, making one room. I don't recollect tha* there was any folding doors. MRS. WOODHULL PUBLICLY DISCUSSES THE SCANDAL IN BOSTON. Q. Do you recollect of being present in Bos- ton when Mrs. Woodhull addressed an audience there in the Fall of 1872 1 A. Yes, Su'. Q. Do you recollect what month that was in 1 A. It was in September, the 11th ; well, the Convention was held the 10th, 11th, and 12th, I think, of September. Q. And what was the character of the Coaventi»n 1 A. It was the annual m;^eting of the American Association of Spiritualists. Q. Do you recollect whether the scandal was the sub- ject of talk there 1 Mr. Evaits— Well, is that in reference to any of our te*- timony 1 Ml'. Fullerton— Yes, Sir ; it is. Mr. Evarts— Whom do you contradict! Mr. Fullerton— I don't contradict anybody by proving that, but I will lay a foimdation. The Witness— Mrs. Woodhull spoke of the Boandal at that time. Mr. Evarts— Wait 1 Mr. Fullerton— Wait a moment. [To the Court.] I shall connect it properly, Sii-. Judgie Neilson— I think I see what you refer to ; wa« an interview on the cars. 370 THE TILTON-BBEOHEE lElAL. Mr. Fullerton— Yes, Sir ; that ia it exactly. Judge Neilson— A gentleman saw Mr. Tilton, and had a conversation. Mr. Fullerton— Yes, Sir ; I want to show that the scan- dal was developed publicly prior to that time. Judge Neilson— And tlie inference is that that might have been the subject to which Mr. Tilton referred. Mr. Fullerton— Yes, Sir. fTo the witness.] Now you may answer the question, Mrs. Middlehrook. A. Mrs. Woodhull referred to the subject of the scandal. Q. And with what degree of particularity? A. Well, she had been sorely pressed by her opptsers— those that were opposed to her re-election— and seemingly quite iu- dig-nant she rushed upon the platform and spoke of a number of pei-sons that were living in criminal inter- course, and among others she spoke of Mr. Beecher and his relations with Mrs. Tilton, and with the women of his church. Q. What was the size or extent of the au^ence present at that time ! A. Well, I should judge they might have numbered 400 persons. Q. And in the' evening or in the day time ? A. I think it was in the day time ; I think in the afternoon. Q. It was a meeting with open doors ? A. Yes. Sir. Q. The public attended if they pleased ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Now, if you will s^ate tfi© month. Mrs. Middlebrook ? A. September, 1872. Q. How long did it precede the publication of the scan- dal by Mrs. Woodhull in her paper, if you recoUect? A. The issue of her paper, I think, was Nov. 2. Q. That corresponds with your recollection, does it? A. Yes, Sir. Mr. Fullerton— You may cross-examine, gentlemen. CROSS-EXAMINATION OF MRS. MIDDLE- BROOK. Mr. Evarts — Mrs. Mid(fiebrook, were you at this meeting at which this public speech was made ? A. In Boston ? Q. Yes. A. Yes, Sir. Q. How large a number of delegates to this Convention were present 1 A. Well, I cannot say how large a num- ber ; I should judge, however, probably 75. Q. Seventy-flve ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. The object of the Convention 1 A. It was the annual meeting of the American Association of Spiritualists. Q. A Spiritualist Convention 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. Well, was this topic within the range of the subjects for which that Convention was held ? A. No, Sir. Q. And this was an episode, wasn't it I A. Yes, Sir. Q. And an unexpected one t A. Yes, Sir ; quite so. Q. Rather a sudden and rash accusing I A. Yes, Sir. Q. And so regarded t A. It was so regarded. Q. Was it ever published, that you know ? A. Well, I think brief notices were given of it in the Spiritualist papers, and I do not think it was noticed at large at all in the secular papers. Q. Was n't it passed overt A. It was. Q. Entirely, in sectdar papers! A. I hare a refloUee- tion, I think, of one or two of the Boston payors naming it, and only naming it. Q. Won't you be so good as to give us the names of those papers 1 A. I don't know that I can ; I think The Boston Globe mentioned it, but I am not certain ; I don't know that I can naxie the papers. Q. You cannot name any papers? A. I don't know that I can. Q. And you have not any serious opinion, have you, i^Sbt any of the ordinary public papers in Boston did mention this episode 1 A. No, Sir ; I don't think it was mentioned, excepting brief notices. Q. Aren't you quite sure that no Boston paper men- tioned Mrs. Tilton's name ? A. I am not quite sure ; no, Sir. Q. What is youi- best impression? A. Well, I think, as I said, that there was only one or two papers that men- tioned the affair that took placo in the Convention- nothing more. Q. And the names were not given ? A. I don't know, I could not say. Q. Now, what Spiritualist papers contained an account of this effusion? A. Well, The BeUgio-PhilosoplticalJonr- nal named it particularly ; that is published in Chicago ; and T cannot tell whether The Banner of Light mentionetl it or not. It reported the Convention. Q. Are they understood to be organs of that A. They are ; yes. Sir. Q. [Continmng]— of that opinion— Spiritualist ; and tho principal organs ? A. Yes, Sir ; I think so. Q. Where is The Banner of Light published? A. In Boston. Q. And how soon after this demonstration before the Convention did you see or know of any publication in any substantial expression of what occurred? A. WeU, publication? Q. Yes, how soon ? A. This was in September, the 11th I think, and the publication, the first that I knew of, wa« the issue of The Woodhull dk Clafiin's Weekly, contain- ing the published account of the scandal, Nov. 2— dated Nov. 2. Q. Then you did not see in any newspaper before that time any publication of this Boston afiair ? A. I think not, excepting as I have mentioned. The Religio-Phil^y sophical Journal noticed it. Q. WeU, that is what I want; how soon had you seen it in The Beligio-Philoso2)hical Journal ? A. WeU, I thick either the next week or the week following ; I cannot say. Q. Stm, that is rather a matter of impression thano definite recollection as to the time ! A. No, that ie not a matter of impression ; I recoUect it particularly owing to one circumstance. TESTIMOJ^Y OF EAlSlS Q. Well, we don't care wliat the circumstance is 1 A. Very well, then. Q. It is enough if it impressed itself upon you. A. Yes, Sir. Q. Now, about this acquaintance of yovirs with Mrs. Woodhull— when did it begin ? A. I think in the Spring of 1871 ; I am not quite certain, however. Q. It might have been earlier ? A. It might have been the year preceding ; I am not able to fix the date. It was at a Convention, and I attended a Convention in New- York both of those years, or for two or three years, and I am not able now— I find by referring to m.y diary that I speak of a Convention, but not of my introduction to her. Q. Now, for aught you know, then, you may have be- come acquainted with her in the Spring of 1870 1 A. It is possible ; I don't want to be positive about it. Q. Well, at any rate, did you, after your introduction to her, form the habit, of visiting her at her ofiice ? A. I often went into her office when I was in New- York. I live away. Q. And was it a part of your life to be in New-York oc- casionally 1 A. Occasionally, Yes, Sir. Q. Through the year ? A. Yes, Sir. . Q. As might happen ; and when here, you rather made it a point, I take it, to go to her ofiice 1 A. I did ; yes, Sir. Q. So that if your acquaintance was from the Spring of 1870, that habit of yours of visiting her ofiice wont through that year ? A. It did, if I was acquainted with her ; I am not certain. Q. And you searched in your diary in vam, I under- stand you, to fix the question whether it was in 1870 or 1871 1 A. I find the date of the Convention that I at- tended, but not thinking of it, and referring to other diaries, I could not say now. I could tell by referring to other diaries at home, but I only have this one. Q. Perhaps you have, then, only the diary of 1871 1 A. That is all I have here. Q, And there you find no entry of the date of your in- troduction to her? A. No, Sir. Q. Did you meet Mr. Tilton— you met him first in the office of Mrs. Woodhull 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. And in what way were you brought into mtroduc- tion with him, or did you know hlTn before 1 A. No, Sir ; I did not know him before. Q- Who introduced you to himl A. Mrs. Woodhull, I think. Q. In her office 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. How soon was that after you first made the acquaintance of Mrs. WoodhuU? A. I could not teU you. Q. Well, was n't it within a few weeks 1 A. I cannot tell you, Sir. Q. It might have been ! A. It might have been. Q. So far as you have any knowledge it is as likely to have been within a few weeks after your first acqualxit- M. MinVLEBBOOK, 377 ance with Mrs. WoodhuU as at any other time ? A. It is possible. Q. Now, you apparently were a somewhat active or in* terested advocate of tliis Spiritualist movement 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. And made the Clafiin & Woodhull newspaper to some extent, at least, the organ of your publication 1 A. Well, I published very little ; I wrote a few letters to the paper. Q. Well, but you did write for that ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Did you write for any other paper ? A.. Yes, Sir. Q. And to the same extent about as for this 1 A. About the same ; yes, Sir. Q. When you visited Mrs. Woodhull's nousein the even- ing was it for a public gathering of any kind 1 A. Well, it was a mere accident that took me there ; I attended a meeting of the Executive Board of the Association of which I was a member. Q. Of the Spiritualists ? A. Yes, Sir ; at the office of Mrs. Woodhull. Q. On that day ? A. On that day, toward evening, ex- pecting after I left to come over to Brooklyn and meet a sister of mine at the house of our friends. It was dark, raining, and Mi's. Woodhull proposed that I go home with her, and Col. Blood would take me over the ferry to the house that I was expecting to go to. That is why I came to be at Mrs. WoodhuU's house. Q. That is to say that, as it was a rainy night, instead of going over early in the evening to Brooklyn, you would go over late 1 A. No, Sir ; not at all ; I was alone, with- out an umbrella, or means of conveyance, and it was raining ; there were no ears or omnibuses runniag from Mrs. Woodli nil's office, and she was going to ride to her house in a carriage, and told me that Col. Blood— it was already dark, it would be no worse later— she told me that Col. Blood should be my company to Brooklyn. Q. Well, didn't you understand that there was to he some sort of a gathering there that night? A. I didn't know it until I got to her house. Q. Until you got there ? A. No, Sir. Q. And when you got there did you find, or did you find while you were there, that there was a considerable colloction of people? A. I think when I arrived there tlijit Mr. Wieelock, Mr. Bacon, and Mr. WTieeler were there, and Mr. Tilton was there, and Mr. Andrews, and others, and I foimd immediately that I could not take Col. Blood away from the company ; that is why I spent the evening there. Q. Now, were there other ladies there ? A. Mrs. Wood' hull was there, and Miss Clafiin, early in the evening. Q. Well, of course, Mrs. Woodhull and Miss Ciaflln I ad- sxune. A. Yes. Q. Were there other ladies there i A. I don't recollect any other ladies there at all. 378 THE TILTON-BKECIRBR J RIAL, THE MEDIUMISTIO SPEECH. Q. Now, do you remember an occurrence of a mediumieitio or spiritJialistio speech % A. Yes, Six. Q. Who was the author of that! A. I think Mr. Wheeler— Edward Wheeler. Q. Mr. Edward Wheeler ! A. Yea, Sir. Q. And do you remember Mr. Tilton's reporting it f A. I don't remember his reporting it ; no, Sir. Q. You don't remember that 1 A. No, Sir. Q. Do you remember any discussion about that speech after it was made, in which Mr. Cowley took part t A, I don't understand you. Q. Do you remember any discussion arising about that spiritualistic speech, after it was made, in which Mr. Cowley took part 1 A. Well, I don't know that I can re- peat the exact conversation ; I remember Q. Well, do you remember there was such 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. And who took part in that conversation* A. Well, the company generally, I think. Q. Including Mr. Tilton? A. Yes, Sir. Q. And Mrs. Woodhulll A. Yes, Sir. Q. And perhaps yourself ? A. Yes ; yes. Sir ; I think I joiued in the conversation. Q. Do you remember a conversation arising that even- ing about Lowell operatives, and the restriction of female freedom that had been imdertaken 1 A. I do remember a conversation of that kind. Q. You think that occiu-red 9 A. I think that occurred in the latter part of the evening. Q. Well, have you any doubt about it ! A. No, Sir. Q. And who took part in that? A. Well, Mr. Cowley and Mrs. Woodhull, mostly. I think I made a few remarks myself, and I think Mr. Tilton said something about it. Q. Now, you got through about 7 o'clock or so 1 A. I cannot tell the hour ; it was after dark. Q. And when did you leave ? A. I left between 10 and 11 ; I think near 11, perhaps 15 minutes before 11. Q. Did Col. Blood accompany you to Brooklyn ? A. No, Sir. Q. Did you come over to Brooklyn, or did you A. I did ; yes. Sir. Q. Or did you spend the night in New- York ? Now, Mrs. Middlebrook, what led you to think that, if Mr. Cowley and Mr. Tilton had conversation there about Mrs. Tilton and Mr. Beecher, that you would have known of it ? A. There was no conversation of a private nature that took place there that evening, unless it was as a person might turn to another and make a comment or remark or some- thing, not with any intention of making it private ; there was nothing more than that that passed there that even- ing. Q. Do you mean to say that every subject that was telked about by anybody was participated in by every- ))ody there ? A. Yes, Sir ; generally. Q. Well, the whole matter was rot in the shape of for- mal speeches and addressees made by one to another, was it 1 A. No, Sir ; they were comments. Q. Do you think that everything that was said that evening was said as of a matter to be participated in by everybody 1 A. Unless it was, as I say, some slight re- mark that might have been made oy a person sitting near another. Q. Well, but you were there some three or four hours 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. And people were coming and going? A. No, Sir; not very much. Q. Well, passing in and out 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. Were not there some coming and going 1 A. I don't think that we were interrupted by any new-comers t hat evening. Q. Now, your acquaintance, as I understand, continued with Mrs. Woodhull; and perhaps does nowl A. Yes Sir. Q. And you were at her house several times, and this same house, I suppose 1 A. I was there twa or three times ; I cannot say just how many. Q. All of them after this 1 A. No, Sir ; I do not kno-v? whether they were all after or before. Q. When was your last communication to this news- paper of Miss Claflin's 1 A. Well, I think it must be two or three years ago. Q. Was it since the publication of the Woodhull scan- dal 1 A. Yes, I think it has been. Q. Had it any relation to that subject 1 A. No, Sir. Q. Mrs. Middlebrook, have your opinions on Spiritual- ism carried you so far as to make you a disbeliever in tlie Christian faith, entirely' A. Well, Sir, the Christian faith has a great many points ; I disbelieve some points of the Christian faith, and some points I believe in. Q. Do you believe in the existence of Godi A. Yes, Sir. Q. And in a system of future rewards and punish- ments ? A. Yes, Sir. Mr. Evarts (in an undertone)— That is pretty substan tial. Q. What was the subject of this Spiritualistic speech at Mrs. Woodhull's 1 A. It was not a Spiritualistic speech, Sir. Q. Well, describe it. I understood that it was ;» mediumistic effusion? A. It was simply a sort of vituperative speech that she made. Q. 1 am not talking of Mrs. Woodhull; I am talking of this Mr. Wheeler? A. Oh, that was a sort of an im- provisation, in the form of poetry, on spiritual matters- matters connected with the communication betwceu dis- embodied spirits and our world. Q. Can you give us more precisely the drift of it f A No, Sir ; I cannot. Q. Or the information that it communicated on those subjects? A. No, Sir ; I cannot. TE8TIM01SY OF JOt'EFE E. RICHARDS. 379 EE-DIRECT EXAMINATION OF MRS. MID- DLEBROOK. Mr. FuUertion— Do you recoUect whether Mr. Tilton criticised that speech, or vrhatever it was— that production? A. Yes, Sir, I remember his criticism. Q. What was his criticism? A. Well, I know he asked the question whether— why it was that, if literary per- sons came back here and communicated with the inhab- itants of this earth— why they were not equal to their former selves in their utterances 1 Q. Yes ; why they had lost their education I [Laughter.] A, Yes, Sir. (A pause.] Mr. Evarts [to Mr. FuUerton]— You are not going to leave it there without telling us why ? [Laughter.] Mr. FuUerton— Oh, T don't suppose they can get it all hack again from the other world by anything I can do. Mr. Evarts— Ask her why. Mr. FuUerton— I wiU ask Mrs. Palmer that when you produce her again. [Laughter.! % You have been asked if you did not spend some portion of your time in New- York. I wiU ask you in con- nection with what object you have spent that time in New-York I A. At the time I visited Mrs. WoodhuU's oflBce I was passing through here to other places, in the capacity of a pubUc speaker. Within the last two years I have been in New-York as a medical student in the New- York Free Medical College for Women. Q. And in connection with any other institution? A. No, Sir. Q. Have you had any connection with the Strangers' Hospital ? A. Well, by the kindness of Mr. John H. Key- »er of New-York I occupy rooms In a building that was formerly known as the Strangers' Hospital. Q. What connection has Mr. Keyser with it ? A. He owns the building, and he very kindly gave me the rent of rooms in it. It is a vacated hospital. EE-CROSS EXAMINATION OF MRS. MIDDLE- BROOK. Mr. Evarts— What was the answer to Mr. Tilton' s question why the spirits did not equal their for- mer efforts when in the flesh ? A. WeU, there were vari- ous answers, I think, and various opinions upon the sub- ject. Some maintained, I think, that they were fuUy equal to the past, and some that they were not. Q. It passed off in a doubt as to the fact rather than by any accounting for it? A. WeU, I thought that Mr. TUton rather doubted the fact. Mr. FuUerton— Wondered why none of them had Im- proved by absence 1 [Laughter.] Mr. Evarts— But the debate did not end in the giving of any reason why that happened, but rather in a doubt ■whether it was so or not? A. Yes, Sir. Do you remember who the Uterary character that this Mr. Wheeler translated was? A. No Sir, I do not ; I don't think there was any name given. Q. Was there any trouble in Mr. Wheeler's literature— in his language or grammar, that raised this question i A. WeU, as far as my opmion is concerned, Sir, I thought it was a poor effort and was not equal to many I had heard ; I know it was pronounced by some to be a mere jingle— I think Mr. Tilton so pronounced it. Q. Which did you think in fault— Mr. Wheeler or the spirit! [Laughter.] A. I cannot say, Sir ; I do not know. JOSEPH H. RICHARDS RECALLED. Joseph H. Richards was then recalled on the part of the plaintiff, and further examined : Mr. Morris— Mr. Eichards, you recollect going before the Investigating Committee last Summer, at Dr. Storrs's house ? A. Not at Dr. Storrs's. Q I mean at Augustus Storrs's ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Did you see Gen. Tracy there? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Was Mr. Tracy there when you arrived, or did he come after you? A. He was not there when I arrived. Sir. Q. Had you any conversation with any of the members of the Committee before his arrival ? A. Yes. Q. Were you introduced to Mr. Tracy after he arrived ? A. Yes. Q. What time in the evening was that ? A. I should think a little after eight ; I am not sure. Q. And what occurred after you were introduced to Mr. Tracy ? Mr. Shearman— That won't do. We must have the pre- cise questions put that were put to Mr. Tracy. Mr. Morris— Oh, this is preliminary. Mr. Beach— That rule cannot be applied, Sir, in this in stance, because when Mr. Tracy denied the particular question, or answered the particular question which was presented to liina, he then went on, somewhat against my protest, to give a narrative of what did pass between himself and Mr. Eichards Mr. Morris— And detailed the conversation. Mr. Beach- And detaUed the conversation ; and we must, therefore, I suppose, get the conversation from this witness. Mr. Shearman — That did not occur on cross-examina- tion, and I don't see that.it occurs anywhere. Mr. Morris— I had it here a minute ago. Mr. Evarts— WeU, if your Honor please, this is not evidence In chief, and what took place there is of no con- sequence. Mr. Beach— It is a contradiction of Mr. Tracy. Mr. Evarts— A contradiction 1 Judge Neilson— The counsel's view seems to be that a detailed conversation can be corrected if any specific question could have been ; so that I think the examina- tion ought to be predicated on what Mr. Tracy said. 380 ^ THE Tir/rON-R Mr. Evarts— It Is merely a matter of impeachment of Mr. Tracy. Mr. Fullerton— Well, isn't that important 1 Judge Neilson— The question is, did you have a con- versation, «&c. Go on Mr. Morris. Mr. Morris— State what occurred after you were intro- duced to Mr. Tracy. Mr. Evarts— Well Mr. Morris fto the witness]— As between you and Tracy. Mr. Evarts— You are to ask further what Mr. Tracy said occurred. Judge Neilson— No ; this question is, did ycu have a conversation with Mr. Tracy? The Witness— Yes, Sir. Mr. Morris— State where thar was; whether in the presence of the Committee or not ? A. I was seated with the Committee, talking with them, and Mr. Tracy came in, and I was introduced to him ; he then beckoned me to come into the front parlor ; T went with him into the front parlor, and he made some remark about my appear- ing before the Committee ? Q. Go on and give what occurred between you and Mr. Tracy? A CONTEST TO EXCLUDE THE TESTIMONY. Mr. Shearman— That is just what we object to. Mr. Morris— But I understand the Court permits it. Judge Neilson— No. [To Mr. Morris.] Can you turn. Judge, to Mr. Tracy's statement on this subject i Mr. Beach— Yes, Sir ; this was his examination [rerd- ing]: Q. Did you see Mr. Richards when he was before the Committee ? A. I did. Q. Did you have a conversation with him at the place where the Committee met, before he presented himself to the Committee ? A. I did. Q. Did you ask him any questions in regard to what he knew ? A. I did. Q. Did you ask him whether his sister had ever con- fessed to him to adultery with Mr. Beecher ? A. I did ; I did in substance, I think. Q. In substance ? A. No, I did not ; that is not the form cf t' (• ((uestion. Q. \Ve3 i, in substance that 1 A. No ; I asked him if his tlster had ever Q. One moment. A. Excuse me. Q. I do not ask what you asked him. Did you not, in substance, inquire of him whether his sister, Mrs. Tilton, had ever admitted to Mm adultery with Mr. Beecher t A. I don't think I did, Sir. Q. Did not, in answer to your question, Mr. Richards say to you that ho declined to answer it, or in substance that? A. Mr. Richards declined to answer Q. Oh, I don't ask what It was— I ask you ff he did not say that, in substance ? A. Well, I say I don't remember putting such a question to Mr. Richards. U^riHER TRIAL. Q. Then you do not lemeinber his declining to answer! A. Oh, yt^s, Sir; I remember his declining to hold any conversation witl iiie, or communicating to me anything of what he knew in regard to this cftse. Q. Whati A. I know that Mr. Richards said that he would communicate nothing to me of wlat he knew or did not know in regard to t?iat matter ; t?iat it was a fam- ily matter, into which he had refused to be drawn, and would not be drawn. Q Well, I did not ask you about that. Sir ; my question has altogether a different significance. Did you not in that interview put a question to Mr. Richards calling upop. him to state whether or not his sister, Mrs. Tilton, had confessed or admitted to him (Mr. Richards) or to Mrs. Richards, his wife, the fact of illicit connection, or adultery, or sexual intercourse, with Mr. Beecher 1 A. No, Sir— not as specifically as you put it, nor in sub8tanc€f that. Q. I asked you whether you, in substance, put any in- quiry of that character? A.I answered you, not in sub- stance. Q. Very well. Now, did not,, In answer to such an in- quiry upon your part, Mr. Richards decline to answer any such interrogatory ? A. Mr. Richards declined to answer any interrogatory, and gave me notice that he would not answer any interrogatory concerning his family relations. Q. Well, we have got that before 1 A. Well. Q. Now, was not such am inquiry, in substance, put him, and did not Mr. Richards then decline to answer it : and did you not, in substance, reply : " That won't do ; that in substance affirms the truth of it 1" A. No ; I can tell you what did transpire, Mr. Beach, if you wish to know exactly. Q. Well, you have very often addressed that to me. <&c. Now, whether Mr. Tracy mentioned that topic again I don't recollect. Judge Neilson— He afterward said he explained to Mr. Richards why it would be safe for him to attend before the Committee and have the question put and decline to answer, because there would be an implication against his sister by his declining. I think the counsel might in- terrogate him on each feature of that as he passes over it. Mr. Evarts— If your Honor please, as evidence in chief, the subject is not admissible. Judge Neilson— No, of course. It is merely to explain or contradict Mr. Tracy's statement, or to show bias, or whatever it may be. Mr. Evarts— Not to show bias— to contradict him. Judge Neiison— Well, whatever it is. T dont like to xum the word " contvadiot " myself when I can avoid It. Mr. Evixrts— Now, f he general rule is that when c; purely collateral topic is introduced, and the first witness, with a view to disparage his character, or how it came to me, but it came to me varloii^ly. I rliir.k. Q. Had you any interview either before orimroedintely at the tune of writing that paper witn Theodore Tilton in regard to it ! A. None. Q. As far as you know, was he Ignorant or the fact that you prepared the article. Mr. Evarts— That we object to, if your Honor please. Judge N '1 -on— Well, so far as you know, was he aware that the article was in preparation 1 Mr. Fullerton— Well, Sir, I will adopt that question. Mr. Evarts— That is no subject of evidence ever. Mr. Fullerton — It certainly is a subject of evideuc-e. Mr. Evarts— What this witness knew concerning Mr. THton. If he is able to state anything that he does know afl5rmatively — but his ignorance concfrnlng Mr. TUton is not a matter of evidence — to state that Mr. Til- ton did not confer with him. It is evidence of no special import, but then there is no limit to asking people. Mr. Fullerton— I desire to cover the whole ground and close up every avenue of suspicion that Theodore Tilton had any knowledge whatever that this article was in process of preparation by the witness on the stand. Mr. Evarts— That is not admissible on direct examina- tion. Mr. Fullerton— I think it is, in view of the testimony of Woodley, Judge Neilson— You may ask him whether, according to his knowledge, Mr. Tilton knew anything about it. Mr. Fullerton — Now, Sir, so far as your knowledge is concerned, did Mr. Tilton know an^-thing about the prep- aration of this article by yourself 1 A. Nothing whatso- ever ; I think it was an entire surprise when he learned it sin CO the commencement of this trial. Mr. Evarts— One moment. Sir. Mr. Beach— Oh, well. Mr. Fullerton— Mr. .Andrews, did you know this man Woodley ? A. I did. Where did you become acquainted with him, or first see him ? A. I saw him simply as a servant at the house, and at the publication office. Q. Now, during what period was he a servant at the house or office ? A. From some period of the year 1871. Q. When did he cease to be an attach^ of the office or house ! A. That I cannot tell. Q. WeU, did he cease to be an attach^ at either or both of those places ! A. I don't know with regard to the de- tail of that, Sir. Q. Up to the time of the composition of that article or its preparation, had you seen any of the articles referred to in it— any of the papers or documents 1 A. No, Sir, I had not ; I had known with regard to a purpose on the part of ]Mrp. Wnodhull at a"n earlier rJat€. THE TILTON'BEECBEB TRIAL, Tim COWLEY INTERVIEW AT MRS. WOOD- HULL'S. Q. Do 3^011 know this gentleman called Charles Cowley, who lias been a witness in this case? A. Mv. Cow^ley called on me at the time he gave his evidence here, or about that time, and I then remembered having seen him at Mrs. Woodhull's house one evening. Q. Were you present during his visit there— the whole of it ? A. I was present that evening. Q. Do you recolleot that Mrs. Middlebrook was present? A. I do. Q. Now, I want to ask you this question : whether, during the conversation that evening, this scandal was the topic of discussion ? A. No, Sir. Q. Or remark 1 A. No, Sir, not within my hearing, but I am not at all certain that I was there during the whole evening. Q. Well, while you were there ? A. While I was there there was not anything of the kind. Q. Nothing of the kind ? A. No, Sir. Q. You don't recollect of Mr. Cowley's being there but once, do you ? A. No, Sir. Q. Were you present when any conversation or discus- sion was had with reference to the operatives at Lowell, that evening ? A. I seem to have a vague remembrance of something of that kind, Sir, but it is not clear. Q. Now, Mr. Andrews, I will recur again to the office of Mrs. Woodhull. When, with reference to the publica- tion of the Woodhull scandal, so called, was the office changed from 44 to 48 Broad-st. ? A. My recollection is that it was when the publication of the paper was re- sumed, and at the time of the publication of the scandal article. Q- These interviews that you have spoken of between yourself and different persons were in the parlor of Mrs. Woodhull in Thirty-eighth><3t., were they not? A. Usually in one or the other of the parlors. Q. Did you become familiar with the furniture in those parlors ? A. I did ; yes. Sir. Q. Was there ever at any time a sofa bedstead in either of those parlors ? A. Never, not to my knowledge, and I believe there was never. Q. There was none while you were in the habit of vis- iting the house or being an inmate of the house, was there 1 A. I should say not, Sir. Q. In reference to Mr. Tilton's habit while at that house, do you know whether he stayed aU night at any time ? A. I tliinV he did, at any rate on one occasion. Q Do you recollect of more than one occasion? A. Not with any distinctness ; do. Sir. Q. Do you recollect where he remained that night when he did stay? A. I do not; I don't know how he was ac- commodated. Q, Do you recollect the occasion when he did stay there? A. I think it was on the occasion of his prepara- tion of the Life of Victoria Woodhull.'* Q. Were you aware of the fact at the time that he was prepanng that " Life ?" A. I was. Q. Ho w long was he occupied in doing it ? A. T shonlrl think it was struck off at a white heat I rJon't know that it lasted very long; T don't remember distinctly. THE FIRST WHISPERINGS OF THE SCANDAL. Q. When did you first hear of this scandal ? A. I lirst heard of it from Mrs. Henry B. Stanton. Mr. Ev arts— Well, never mind. The Witness— Ah! Mr. Fiillerton— When did you first hear— first ? A. In the beginning of the month of May, 1871. Q. Where were you when you first heard it ? A. 1q Mrs. Woodhull's parlor. Q. From whom did you hear that ? Mr. Evarts— Well, I object to all that. •Judge Neilson— I don't think you can give that, Mr. Evarts— It is not important when Mr. Andrews first knew it. Mr. Fullerton— It is important to know when Mrs. Woodhull became acquainted with it. Mr. Evai ts— This don't prove that. Mr. Fullerton— Yes, it does ; I shall prove that the com- munication wa« made in the presence of the witness to Mrs. Woodhull. Mr. Evarts— A communication 1 Mr. Fullerton— Yes, Sir. Mr. Evarts— The difficulty is that that don't show it. Mr. Fullerton— I can't show two things at a time ; I will show one. Mr. Evarts— I object to this evidence as not admissible in the cause, and not evidence in rebuttal* Mr. Fullerton— Well, Sir, it will be contended on tlie other side that this scandal was communicated to Mrs. Woodhull by Mr. Tilton. They think that they have Lii-l the foundation for such a charge as that, and it certainly is competent for us to meet it by showing how Mi>. Woodhull became possessed of any knowledge upon that subject, and from whom that knowledge was derive and to show that it was in point of time anterior to the introduction of Mrs. Woodhiill to Mr. Tilton. Mr. Evarts— Well, this witness cannot prove that. Mr. Fullerton— He can prove part of it. Mr. Beach— He can prove just that. Mr. Evarts— He cannot prove it. Mr. Beach— He can prove it; he can prove that tb^ subject was mentioned to Mrs. Woodhull before he intro- duced Tilton to her. Mr. Evarts— At a certain date he can prove that tht^ subject was mentioned by somebody else; that dou > prove that Mr. Tilton had not mentioned it, noi does it prove that that wa-i Mrs. Woodhull's first -.n wledge of It. Mr. FuUerton— I believe I have your Ho or»ii p»rni»^ sion to go on with the proof. TESTIMONI OF STEFH Judge Xeilsou— Yes, keep ^Yitllin the bounds. Mr. Evarts— If youi- Honor please, ^e object to this evi- dence as not being -within the cause, and not evidence in rebuttal. Note onr exception. Of course it is hearsay; it is mere tali between Mrs. Woodhull Judge Keilson— The objection to taking the conversa- tion or declarations of third persons remains. You can- not give her conversation, but you can prove the fact that at a certain time Mr. FuUerton— That is what I attempt to do. Judge Neilson— Ascertain whether that was prior to the publication— that at a certain time this subject was communicated, if you can. Mr. Evarts— Well, the difficulty, if your Honor please, is that the whole of it is conversation. It does not cease to be conversation from your giving the result of it. Mr. FuUerton— That is the way we prove what one per son said to another— by the conversation. Judge Neilson— That is the way you prove that notice is given of a esrtain thing. Mr. Evarts— There are, of course, special cases, in which the fact of certain knowledge in a person is ma- terial ; that is permitted to be given ; but this is not that case at all. This is undertaking to prove by con- versation between this gentleman and Mrs. Woodhull, or between persons of whom they constituted two, that at a certain date there was a conversation about this scandal at Mi-8. WoDdhull's office. Now, it is admitted that that in itself Is not matter of evidence at any stage of the c^se, unless Mr, Tilton or Mr. Beecher were connected with it ; that is plain. Now, how does it become evidence here— by what circumstance ? The rules are stricter now than they are in the introduction of evidence in chief. Mr. FuUerton— It certainly is proper for us to show that Mrs. WoodhuU had knowledge of this scandal prior to the pubUcation of her card in May, 1871. It is proper for us to show when and by whom the communication was made. Judge Neilson— If she weie on the stand yon could put her the question, of course ; and in a certain limited de- gree you can ask this witness. Mr. FuUerton— And it is certainly extraordinary that counsel hold that that is no evidence — that that was the first time she ever heard of it. If counsel alleges that she knew it before I will admit it. Mr. Evarts— Y'our Honor notes our objection and ex- ception. We suppose it is very objectionable. Judge Neilson— Of coarse you think it is, or you. would tot make the objection at all. Mr. Evarts— WeU, I mean that the natui e o1 it is inad- missible, and that it is especially so ui regard to this j Btage of the case. \ uudei sraud yuar Honor excludes the conversation. Judge Neilson— Yea. Btr. FullertoD— I sdoold tiiink it was audersiood by this '-uuH. if u «v«r will bd. Eli PEAllL AJSBUBWS. m Judge Neilson— Go on. Mr. FuUerton— Will you be kind enough tt state whether at any time, and if so by whom, the facts con nected with this scandal were communicated to Mis, WoodhuU 1 Mr. Evarts— I object to that question ; it is wholly ob- jectionable. Judge Neilson— We will take it. Mr. Evarts— The question is objectionaWe ; it assumea that they ever were. They certainly may ask the ques- tion whether this scandal was brought to the notice of Mrs. Woodhull. Judge Neilson— Put your question in that form. Ml'. Evarts— To ask the witness whether the facts of this scandal— who has ever found out what tho facts of this scandal were ? Judge Neilson— Put youi' question in that form. Mr. FuUerton— If your Honor rules that my question Is improper, I wiU put it in that form. Judge Neilson— There is a shade of impropriety in it, undoubtedly. Put it in that form : " Was the subject of this scandal article ever communicated to Mrs. Woodhull in your presence 1" Mr. FuUerton— That question you may answer now. Mr. Evarts— That we object to, and except. Your Honor will note our exception. The Witness— It was communicated to her by Mrs. H. B. Stanton, in my presence. Q. Wheni A. I should think the 3d or 4th of May, 1871. Q. Where? A. In Mrs. WoodhuU's parlor. Q. Was it before or after your Introduction of Mrs» Woodhull to Mr. Tilton ? A. I should think it was a we«k or 10 days prior to that. THE EOSSEL PROCESSION. Q. Mr. Andrews, do you recollect the Com- mune procession m the city of New-York % A. I do. Q. Did you participate in it ? A. I did. Q. At what time— when did you leave it? A. I began with it and ended with it. Q. Did you see Theodore TUton in that procession ? A. I saw him as the procession broke up ; Mrs. WoodhuU directed my attention to him. Q. Where did it break up 1 A. At Union-square, near the Lincoln monument. Q. Where was Mr. TUton when your attention wa» caUedtohimI A. He was coming through the opening made by the black guards, from the rear portion ot the procession. Q. Had you seen him in the procession be. ore that J a. I had not -I hadn't noticed him. Q. V/ith whom did you walk in the procession, If you remember. A. I walked with Mrs. WooMJiuU, Col. Blood, and an old gentleman by the name of West. I think there wei-e four abreast. 898 THE TUjION-B. Q. And where did Mrs. Woodliull join ttie procession ? A. At tlie commencement of it ; at the formation of the particular section that she was in, wliich, I think, took place in Fourth-st. Q. Where did Mr. Blood join it I A. At the same point. Q. And this gentleman. West, of whom you spealr, where did he ioin it ? A. I don't know whether he be2;an with the procession ; I saw him in the course of the pro- cession. Q. Did you see Miss Claflin in that procession 1 Yes, Sir; she was in front of us, walking alone and carrying a flag. Q. 'Nov/, from the commemjement to the end of that procession were Mrs. Woodhull and Miss Claflin out of your view! A. No, Sir; hardly out of my reach. I was <5lo8e by them. Q. And during the whole course of that procession was Mr. Til ton in their company? A. He was not. Q. Are you positive upon that subject 1 A. Quite so ; yes. Sir. Q. Diiring the whole course of that procession, from its commencement to its end, was either Mrs. Woodhull or Miss Claflin in a carriage 1 A. Not until the procession broke up. I assisted in getting them into a carriage at the close of the procession. Q. And who got into the carriage with them ? A. Col. Blood and Theodore Banks. I intended to get into the carriage myself, but there was a little jostling of the crowd, and I was fearful of its being necessary to hurry, and I left and went away. Q. I will put the question a little broader. From the commencement of that procession, when you entered it with Mrs. Woodhull and Miss Claflin, up to the time that It broke up, when Mrs. Woodhull and Miss Claflin got into a carriage, were either of those ladies in a carriage ? A. They were not. Q. You speak of your positive knowledge on that sub- ject! A. I do. Sir. Q. From the commencement to the end of that pro- cession was Theodore Tilton in company with either of those ladies ! A. He was not ; no, Sir. Q. Were you at the Steinway Hall meeting when Mrs. Woodhull delivered Iter lecture ! A. I was. Q. When did that take place ! A. Was it the 17th of October ! I have heard the date mentioned since I have been here ; I don't remember otherwise. Q. Is your recollection In harmony with the date as it has been mentioned! A. It is. Q. The 20th of November, 1871, I believe it was. Do you know where Mrs. Woodhull went immeoiately after that lecture ! A. I think she left the very next morning ivr a lecturing tour in the West. Q. How long was she absent i A. My recollection is vague w i tli regard to that ; I should think some weeks. Q. l>u you recollect whether she corresponded with her paper after that ? A. I don't think she did, Sir. She sel- dom did when away. ECHER TEIAL. MR. CLAFLIN'S CALL AT MRS. WOODHULUS. Q. Do you recollect an occasion when Mr. Claflin was at Mi-8. Woodhull's 1 A. Which Mr. Claflin ! Q. Horace B. Claflin, I think the name is. Mr. Evarts— How is that material % Mr. Fullerton— Mr. Claflin has given evidence on that subject. Mr. Evarts— On cross-examination. Mr. Fullerton— That does not prevent us from giving this evidence. Mr. Evarts— It does. It is not rebuttal. Whether tK© interview of Mr. Claflin at Mrs. Woodhull's was material evidence in the case is not a question that has ever arisen. We did not introduce it as part of our afiBrmative evi- dence, you know, aud on cross-examination you get in, under a variety of motives, within the law, a good many things ; but that does not give the right to make them matters of evidence in chief, as we all know. Mr. Claflin's visit to Mrs. Woodhull's olBce was made the subject Mr. Fullerton— I will state, if you will allow me, what my object is, and if your Honor does not approve of it the matter is easUy settled. Judge N»)iison— Your inquiry is to an interview at the oflfice 1 Mr. Fullerton— Yes. Judge Neilson— They have in mind an interview at th(. house, when Mr. Bo wen was present. Mr. Evarts— No ; it is the oflBce they are speaking of. Mr. Fullerton— Yes ; I call attention to the interview at the oflSce. Mr. Evarts— The subject is introduced to Mr. Clafliu simply in this way on cross-examination : Q. Do you know Victoria Woodhull! A. I know her a little. Q. How little or how much 1 A. I have seen her en two or three occasions; she has called at my oflice once or twice. Q. Did you return the call ! A. Yes, Sir, I did, onoe at her otHce in Broad-st., soon after she came. Q. Was it soon after she established herself in Broad- st. 1 A. Pretty soon alter that, I know, because it Wfis rather a novelty, lady banker.s. Then the object is asked, and he goes on to say : " She had been to my house," &c. He was proceeding to state what Mrs. Claflin said, aud he wais asked, "You were not present when Mrs. Claflin said this !" and he answered, No, Sir ;" so he was not allowed to state. Judge Neilson— What is the object of this, Mr. Fuller- ton; what is the purpose! Mr. Evarts [continuingj— Mr. Claflin says further: "I did not say anything else there except about subscribing for the paper." Ho is asked, "Did you pay for it«" and Judge Neilson— Yes; he said he had an advertisemenk in the paper and discontinued it. Mr. Evarts— He wjis asked whether he paid lor lUe paper, and he said he did not know whether *be -ver at- u; lES112I0yj OF STEP REX FEAEL AS DREWS. 399 tlie bill. 'So'w, that is altogether in the way of collateral > inauiry, and has nothing to do -with this case. They mnst taie Ms answer, and they cannot contradict it. Mj. FuHerton— Well, if I cannot, it Is because the law won't allow it; not heeause I am not able to do it, Mr. Evarts— "Well, I say the law won't allow it. ilr. Fullerton— Well, Sir, I don't regard it as Terr im- IKjitant, and I won't press it ; though I would like to I show that the iateiTiew was a private one. [To the wit- ness.] That is alL CFOSS-EXAilTNATION OF MR. ANDREW?*. Mr. Evarts— Mr. Andrews, how are yon able TO fix the 3d or 4th of May in your mind as an occasion on which you heard a conrersation between Mrs. H. B. Stanton ;and Mrs. Woodhull? A. I do not fix tlfe date with entire certainty; but Mrs. H. B. Stanton was Q. Don't fiive the conversation. A. ^To, Sir ; Mrs. EL B. Stanton was waiting in the city to be present at the May Conventions, and I called upon her and took her to Mrs. Woodhull't house; that is one of the circumstances which enables me to fis the time ; another is, that I re- member that it was prior to the death of my wife, which occurred on the 6th of May. Q. Well, that would account for its being prior; but how do you know but it was much earlier in the season I A. The first circumstanc-e settles that, that Mrs. H. B. Stanton was then remaining for a few days, or for the next day, perhaps, to be present at a convention which occurs at the 1st of May or near it, Q. Yes. Well, do you mean to say that in your memory yon connect the date of that visit with the date of this Convention? A. I do; yes. Sir. Q. That seems to be the point ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. JTow, you have said something about its being a week or ten days before yon introduced Mr. Tilt on to :^Irs. Woodhull; that would make your inti'oduction about tlie 10th or 13th of May 1 A. Probably. Q. T* that about the time you think you Introduced him } A. It is. Sir. Ql. Now, what circumstance is there that enables you to fix the date of this introduction of Mr. Tilton to Mi-s. WoodhTill as late as that week in May ? A. My remem- brance is that I was at the time residing at Mrs. Wood- hull's house, and that I only went there on the 6th of May. Q. But this introduction of Mr. TUton was at the office ? A Yes, Sir ; but I say that I have in my memory that my introduction of Mr. TUton was while I was— was after I was already residing at Mrs. Woodhull's house. Q. What connection is there between the two facts i A. Simply a connection in my memory ; I remember that the lacts were so. Q. Your Luemory connects them, not the facts, in any : celaUon of their o'P.'n l A. >'o. Sir ; not otherwise than ! "ttiat lUapp^ to remembtr tuat that was the fact. i Q. There is nut-hing in the fact-? that assists your mem- ory ? A. Xot particularly, Sir. Q. ZSTow. who was present when you introduced Mr. Tilton to Mrs. Woodhull i A. The usual attaches of the office were probably there, but I have no remembrance of other persons than Mrs. Woodhull, Mr. Tilton, and my- self. Q. You don't remember anything^ — A. iN^ot distinctly. Q. About it. And did you then leave Mr. Tilton with Mrs. Woodhull ? A. Xo, Sir ; I remained until he left. The interview was a very short one. It did not seem to make any very special impression on either side. Mr. Evarts— That we will have struck out, if your Honor please. Judge 2^eilson— Yes. Q. 2fow, Mr. Andrews, yon have spoken of certain pe- riods at which you were an inmate of Mrs. Woodhiill'3 house ; can you give us, with definiteness, those pe- riods i A. The first period was in the Summer of 1S70. Q. Beginning when ? A. As I mentioned in the di- rect, I can fix the beginning of that residence only by re- curring to the beginning of IMrs. WoodliuU's residenc-o at the house : I do not remember thf- date. Q, You went there whea she began I A. I went there when she began at that place. Q. Mrs. Andrews was then living ! A. She was then living. Q, Were your whole family inmates there ? A. I have no family remaining with me except 1 have none, and had none then, but my wife. Q. I mean at that time. '^Irs. Andrews was living : wex« you and she inmates of that house ? A. When she re- turned from the country she came to me there, and we remained, she and I, at the house of 3Irs. Woodhull a week or ten days, and then removed to our own resi- dence, Q. Your own house ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. When did you so remove ? A. I cannot teH Q. Then you do not know how long yon were at Mrs. Woodhull's house in 1870 i A. ZS'o, I do not. ]SIr. Beach— He said about three months. The Witness— About three months, I think. Mr. Evarts— When did you resnme your residence at that house ? A. The 6th of May, 1871. Q. How long did you continue? A. Until the 6th of January, IS 72. Q. WMle yon were there can you give us the names of the servants at that house? A. I know this servant, Lucy, the colored girl. Q. Was she there at both times 1 A. No, I think not; I think it was the last of these two occasions, Q. Are you siire about that ? A. I am not. Q. She was there the last, you are snre ! A. Yes, Sir. Q. During the whole of it? A. I could not say that; during some portion of the Time. Q, Have you any idea that she was not there during tin 400 lin^ TILTON-B whole ? A. Yes ; I tliink slie left belore I left tlie house. Q. Before you did '{ A. Yes, Sir. Q. How loii;^- before 1 A. I eannot tell you. Q. That is one ; now the other ? A. This man whose name has been given as Woodley— is that the name t Mr. Morris — Woodley. The Witness— Woodley ; and the other Grey; I met them all there as servants— knew of their being present, and also saw the two men often at the office. Q. Very well. Now, through what periods of time did yon see Woodley and Grey as being at the house occa- sionally or permanently, or at the office occasionally or permanently 1 A. During the period of my second resi- dence at Mrs. WoodhuU's ; but whether covering— what part of that residence, I do not think I could fix. Q. Didn't that cover the whole ? A. With regard to Lucy, I think not. Q. Well, I have got through with Lucy ! A. Yes. With regard to the others it may have been so, or it may not ; I am not able to say. Q. You cannot say about them ? A. No, Sir. Q. Now, Sir, were not Grey and Woodley servants or attaches at the office during the Summer of 1870 or the Fall of 1871? A. Certainly during the Summei>— dming a portion of the Summer of that year, and I think it likely extending into the Fall. Q. During the preceding year, the Fall of 1870 and the Winter of 1870-71, were not these two colored men, or one of them, attaches of the office, as you understand 1 A. That may have been so, but I do not remember. Q. You do not remember whether it was so 1 A. No. MR. ANDREWS'S RELATION TO THE WOOD- HULL PAPER. ' Q. Now, Sir, had you any proprietorship in this newspaper f A. I had not. Q. Nor any editorship of the newspaper! A. A partial editorship, yes ; at times I was almost the editor in charge— for short periods. Q. Will you give us the times that you were almost ed- itor in charge 1 A. I eannot say that ; they were mere casual supplies for the absence of the— of other parties. Q. And you can give us no idea at all ? A. Not defi- nitely with regard to the periods. Q, Nor the years ? A. Yes, Sir ; during the year 1871, »nd perhaps somewhat during the year 1870. Q. Are you sure of that— that in 1871 you were almost the editor in charge 1 Mr. Beach— Do you meaai during the whole year f Mt. Evarts— During the year. The Witness— No ; within that year, for short periods. Q, What weeks were those 1 A. I don't know. Q. What do you mean by being almost the editor in charge 1 A. Well, I mean that I performed the labor that belongs to uu editor; ulihough ioimaliy, the position EECllEB TEIAL. was not yielded to me, or I was not inaugurated m an/ formal way into that office. Q. Did you have a salary or compensation ? A. I never had any. Q. None whatever? A. None whatever. Q. Did you have any avowed or public responsibility of editorship for that paper ? A. I wrote a great many ai'- ticles. Q. Under you own name ? A. Over my own name ; aiid at one period, think during the Summer of 1871, 1 had a. department assigned to me in that paper which I edited as my own. Q. What department was that? A. It was called ike Bureau of the Pantarchy— " Pantarchy " was the head line of my department. Q. The Pantarchy? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Was that a distinct branch of the paper, separate from any interest in everyday affairs ? A. It was, Sir. Q. Now, in what sense or connection was this title of " Pantarchy" adopted for a oohimn or department of that newspaper ? A. Pantarchy is a name which I havt' adopted to express the practical purposes of my reform- atory movements. Q. That is enough. I imderstand it perfectly. [Xaugh- ter.J A. Yes, Sir. Q. Are youi reformatory movement and "pentarohy" convertible terms ? A. On the practical side of my re- formatory movement— yes, Sir. Q. They are ? A. Yes, Sir. THE MEDIUMISTIC EXHIBITION AT ME. TILTON'S. Q. We understand that. Now, Mr. Andrewe» you have said that at this visit at which you and yonr wife were present, of which Miss Moore spoke, there was nothing but some action or behavior of your wife in tl)« capacity of spiritual medium, or acting from impression, or something of that kind ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Of course I don't wish to misrepresent you ; I call your attention to it. Did you mean to say that what Bhe did or said to or toward Mrs. TOton was in a mediumietie state on her part ! A. I presume it to have been so. My recollection, as I have said, is very distinct. Q. And the nature of that is, that though the observer saw and heard what she said and did, she herself was not conscious. Is not that it ? A. That is the state in what is called complete trance. There are, then, all sorts of approximations to that state, in which mediumistic pt r sons live, as it were, in a double world— a dreamy kind of existence. Q. A sliding scale, then ! A. Exactly. Q. Now, what stage of this sliding scale was your wife in at the time of this affair ? [Laughter.J A. I dou1 know. Sir. Q. Well, from your observniion ? A, I have said that TESTIMOSY OF STEPS my recolleetirr.. is very indLstmct in reprard to tlie scene ' at Q. Have yon any i-PcoUeetion at all? A. I liaTe, Sir, the recollection j Q. Is it not a matter of nixed rea soning, between nat- ural reason and the mediumistic state ? A, I have not 6ix)ken of any mediumistic -tare on my part. Sii-. Q. No, no ; still yon ar-^ >o mucli with Thes^- pr-nple— ho-«- is that now, have you any particular rememhranee of that affair 1 A. I rememhsr, as I stated, my vrife leav- ing her seat in another part of the : oom, and going and fieating herself by the side of Mr. Tilton in a manner which I recognized, knowing her as T did. as somewhat \ characteristic of her partial trance states. | Q. Now, what stage ? That is what T want to get at. A. I don't know that I have any gauge. Q. Whether she passed, the Rubicon between th.- nat- ural condition and an entire trance state, you cannot say ? A. I should think not. Q. You think not ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Wa-s not this medlumistic treatment or condition, as «ihibited toward. Mr. Tilton— didn't itinyolve this manip- ulation of his face au'l head, and reference to this spirit- ual insight into him ? A. Not to riy recollection. Q. You don't remember how that was ? A. Xo, Sir. Q. But that is the ordinary form ? A. It might happen, tout I don't remember. Q. Do you remember whether what was said >^y your wife to Mr. Tilton. and received by him, was what ordi- nary people consider sensible or foolish ? A. I never ] heard anythin2r that to me was not sensible through that j lady. Q. Well, I don't mean to say that it was not sensible. I only speak of the estimate of ordinary people, who are not affected with Spii'itualistic ideas. A. I tMnkthat would depend upon how ordinary they are. [Lausrhter.l Q. Now, you have spoken of Mi'S. "VToodhull's house and the company assembled there as coming nearer to the celebrated salon of Madame Eoland than anything of our times, haven't you? A. I did make that comparison. Q. That is your view ? A, Y'es, Sir. Q. Xow, did you assi m i l ate Mrs. Woodhull to Madam Roland I or didn't you assig-n the different parts suffi- <:iently to determine tliat ? A. I h;jd not that particularly in mind, but I tliink her quite as distinguished a person- age — of a different type. Q. Yea : but the quesMon is more whether they resem- bled one another, thiin whe-ther they ave etiually distin guisbed. A. I don't know th.at I had that ia view. Mr. Beach — Of a different type; you saj- ! The Witness— Yes, Sir, of a different type. -Ii-. Evarts— But an equally large impression ? A. Yes, Su. Q. And this company that attended There, you com- plied with the company that frequented Madame Ro- land's salon 1 A. I do. FEARL AXBEEWS. 401 Q. Do you give the preference to this company over th-^- company at Madame Roland's? Does the preference ex- tend to the visitors? A. I think this century is ia ad- vance of the last. Q. And these people move with the century \ A. I think so. Q. And they are in the van, are they ! A. I think so. That is a matter of judgment. TERMS OF FA^IILL\RITY USED BY MR. TILTOX AXD MRS. WOODHULL. Q. Now, Toii have said sonietliiiig about Mrs. Woodhull and Mr. Tilton's manner toward each other when you saw them together, and their address. Do you think you never heard Mr. Tilton address Mrs. Woodhull as ViL-toria ?" A. I don't remember having heard it. Very many people did. Q. How can you account for it that Mr. Tilton did not ? A, WeU, I should say that his manner was courtly and reser^'ed, in the presence of others, and I don't remember his ever falling down to that degree of familiarity. Q. With Mrs. WoodhuU 1 A. With Mrs. WoodhuH Q. Was his manner especially cold toward her 1 A. No. Sir; it was, on the contrary, very friendly, manifesting, I should say, a great deal of interest ; but I speak of any discoiu^tesy Q. Oh, not discourtesy ? A. Or any vulgar familiarity, or anything Q. Yes, I was only asking— I have only asked Mr. Beach— Let him finish Ms answer. Q. 1 have only asked you about his calling her Victoria Mr. Beach — Let him finish his answer. Mr. Evarts — This is cross-examination. Mr. Beacli— I know that, but that does not afford you an opportunity of interrupting the witness. Mr. Evarts— Certainly it does, when he is answering beyond the question. Mr. Beach- He was not answering beyond the question. Mr. Evarts— Certainly he was. :Mr. Beach— WeU, a reference to the question would show that he was not. However, the gentleman has suc- ceeded in stopping the mouth of the witnessb efore he had finished his answer. Mr. Evarts— I could not have done it without the aid of tLe law. Mr. Beach— I don't know; I think you do a great many things without the aid of the law, and in defiance of it. Q. Now, you say a great many persons did address her in that salon as " Vickey." That was not disrespectful^ was it? A. It was not so regarded. Q. How ? A. It was not so regarded by those who used the term, no doubt I liave sometimes felt a little shocked at the familiarity that many persons took. Sometimea she was even called " Vic" and "Victoria" and " Vickey," and I never saw her when that familiarity— I felt a little shocked by it sometimes myself. I did not peraeiv«5 402 THE TILTON-Bk that character in Mr. Tilton. That is all I meant to say. Q. '* Vic " you considered familiar ? A. Rather too much 80. Q. Was that common 1 A. Well, it was too common. Q. Did you observe that Mr. Tilton refrained from that familiarity that others used? A. That is my remem- brance of his dejKjrtment. Q. You are quite sure 1 A. I am, MORE ABOUT THE WRITING OF THE SCANDAL. Q. So impressed on your mind. Now, Sir, during the Summer of 1872, and between the Spring and the publication of what is called the scandal number of Mrs. Woodhull's paper, was there any such paper in existence, or on foot at all, or was it all gone, this Wood- hull (& Glaflin paper I A. It was a complete interruption of the publication of the paper, but never was an aban- donment of the intention of continued publication. Q. That is, no public announcement of its termination f A. It was announced simply as an interruption— as a postponement. Q. Well, this scandal number was the beginning of its new life 1 A. That is my recollection; I believe so; yes. Sir. Q. Was not this interval occupied in preparing for a great sensation on the reopening of this paper ? A. Not to my knowledge, nor according to my belief. Q. You don't think that the article was in the course of consideration and preparation by its authors in that period, either in an incomplete or in-^ — A. Do you wish me Mr. Evarts— I wish your knowledge. The Witness— Well, I Q. You don't know anything about It 1 A. I know very little about that, Sir. Q. Now, are you quite sure that you never saw any Blips of the subject matter of this scandal article as dis- tinct from its complete literary, philosophical comple- tion? A. I am quite sure of that. Sir. Q. You never saw that? A. I never did. Q. If there were any such, you didn't see themi A. I did not. Q. And how early before the matter was brought to your attention — or, lather, the material was brought to your hands for your editorship— how long before that material was brought to your hands had you heard that anything of this kind was brewing? A. Your present question refreshes my memory, and I would wish to cor- rect a prior statement. I did hear somewhat earlier with regard to the purpose of such a publication. I was con- sulted by Mrs. Woodhull ; it may have been one month or two months earlier than the publication with regard to her ethical rights, as I may say, in the matter. Q. Well, Sir, that is enough ; I don't care about the con- versation, N(> ,v, you say that this introduction of the ^UKOHEE TRIAL. subject of her ethical rights was as early as the Spring of 1872 ? A. No, it was not, although I have reason to be- lieve Q. I have not asked you your reason. You are certain it was not t A. I am certain it was not. I was going to add something I thought you woiild like to know. Mr. Evarts— No ; I have no curiosity except what the law allows. The Witness— That is right. Sir. Mr. Evarts— Now, how early are you able to say that this introduction of the ethical rights question did not arise? You say it didn't in the Spring? A. Yes, Sir. Not more than two months prior to the publication. Q. Not more than two months prior to its being brought to you? A. That is what I mean. Mr. Beach— Its publication, he says. Mr. Evarts— No, being brought to him. Mr. Evarts— Now, how early in October do you think the material was brought to you for your finishing handf A. I should think about the 25th. Q. And it was published on the 28th ? A. It was pub- lished on the 28th. Q. And when did your article go in the printer's hands? A. Immediately as it was prepared ; I think part of it was going before the remaining parts wei-e finished. Q. Now, upon looking at this article, can you tell us what is wholly your own composition, and what is the composition of other people ? A. I presume I could by merely looking at the article ; yes, sir. Q. Be so good as to designate upon this article the parts you composed, and the parts that were the composition of others than yourself. [Handing paper to witness.] Mr. Shearman— Be kind enough to mark your own pas- sages ; that is all. Mr. Evarts— You have two kinds of crayons ; mark with the one which is your own. The Witness— Well, Sir, one of the reds ; I have put a red line around those which I either wrote or recast ; the middle portion, which is not so encircled, went as it was brought to me, with the exception of the fact that I may have run my pen through a single line to correct literary style, or something of that kind. Q. And the parts not marked in red, as I understand you, are substantially as the material came to your hands, with nothing but verbal emendations, possibly ♦ A. That is it. Sir. Mr. Evarts— I ask that this may be marked for identifi- cation. I offer it in evidence as part of this witness's tes- timony. Mr. Beach— I object to it ; you cannot bring the article in by any means, because he wrote it. Judge Neilson— It is m::rked for identification at present. Mr. Evarts— I offer it in evidence. Judge Neilson— Let the offer be noted. Mr. Evarts— As part of this w itness's cross-examlna TESTIMONY OF STEFl tlon as to wliat he did of tliis, and what the others did. Mr, Beach— I hope your Honor will consider that ques- tion. Judge Neilson— Oh, yes; I will hear you hereafter, Mark it at present for identification. [Paper marked " For identification, Ex. D, 141. "J MR. TILTON'S SYMPATHY WITH MRS. WOOD- HULL'S REFORMS. Q. Mr. Andrews, where was your lodging- room while you were an tamate of this house of Mrs. Woodhull ? A. It was up two pairs of stairs— two flights of stairs, front room. Q. What we call the third 1 A. There is some confusion here with regard to third and first. Q. Two flights of stairs ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. And the front room 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. That led you to pass up and down the stairways and through the halls up to that story ? A. Very often. Q Up to that story and hack ? A. Very often ; yes, Sir. Q. Now, Sir, in what parts of that house have you seen Mr. Tilton ? A. I have seen him in the parlors— front and back parlors, and in Col. Blood's and Mrs. WoodhuU's room, which is at the head of the first stairs. Q. How often have you seen him on that floor where Col. Blood's room, as last mentioned, is spoken of— Mrs. "WoodhuU's room ? A. Well, with some frequency ; several times at any rate. Q. Was it not an ordinary thing to see him there ? A. I should think, through a certain period of time, while he was engaged in writing for Mrs. Woodhull a good deal, that he was several times , perhaps frequently, in that room. Q. It was nothing strange for you to see him there ? A. At that period it was not ; no, Sir. Q. At that period ? A. No, Sir. Q. Now, Sir, when was that period ? A. The center of attraction, to quote a phrase that has been used here, was the month of August ; I think his visits were more frequent there, and his labor in behalf of Mrs. Woodhull and her ideas was concentrated more in the month of August than in any other month of that season. Q. That was 1871 ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. When this fervor of August you noticed as a fact f A. T did ; yes. Sir. Q. And how much was he there during the month that you describe as August % A. Well, I should say with great frequency. Q. Often at meals ? A. No, Sir; very rarely. Q. How often did you see him there at breakfast during that month of August? A. I think I never saw him at breakfast but once— the morning after the occasion which t speak of. Q. Did you breakfast usually A. With the family! Q. With the family ? A. I did ; yes. Sir. Q. Now, can you not remember seeing Mr. Tilton at EN PEARL AM)UEWS. 403 breakfast more than once during that month of August t A. I really do not remember. Q. StUl it may have been ? A. It may possibly ; well, I think I should have remembered it if it was true— if It were so. Q. Why ! What should impress you about that ! You noticed he was there very much. Why should you notice his being there at breakfast 1 A. Well, it was rather a rare circumstance for parties to be invited to the meals in that house ; the house was more like a club-house for public purposes, as it were, and the privacy of the family was very seldom invaded by visitors, and it was an ex- ceptional thing that Mr. Tilton was occasionally invited. Q. Well, now, during the whole of the time that you were aware of his being a visitor at that house, how often did you see him at breakfast there 1 A. OnJy once that I remember. Q. Dming the whole of the Summer 1 A. At breakfast only once. Q. Only once. How many times at dinner ? A. I should think two or three times. Q. And how many times were you aware of his passing the night there? A. Only the once that I have men- tioned. Q. How did you come to be aware of that ? A. From the fact that I was there in his company untn very late at night, perhaps 2 or 3 o'clock, and that I found him there in the morning, and that he breakfasted with us, and that I understood he had remained there dtiring the night. Q. Did you understand that Mr. Tilton, in the fre- quency of his visits and the attention that he paid to IMrs. Woodhull, was enlisted in her opinions and Interested in her ideas ? Mr. Beach— That is objected to. Sir— what he under- stood. Mri Evarts— WeU, on the cross-examination I think it ie admissible. Mr. Beach— No, that is not admissible on cross-exami- nation. Judge Neilson— I think we will take it. It tends to show the relation, whatever it was. Mr. Beach— Is that to be shown, if your Honor please, by the mere understanding of the witness and not by the acts and declarations ? Mr. Evarts— It is on the cross-examination of the wit- ness, and is admissible. Judge Neilson— The question includes observation a well as understanding. Mr. Evarts — It is cross-examination. Mr. Beach— It don't make any difference. If you will aUow me to get a word from the Court instead of you, Mr. Evarts, I wiU be obliged to you. Mr. Evarts— I don't mean to prevent you. Mr. Beach— I never knew you to. I submit that the 404 IHE TILION-BEEOHEB TEIAL. imdei standing of. tftis witness is not admissible as against Ml*. Tiltoii. Judge Neilson— That wovild be so as to any witness. Tlie only idea is to whether this word " understand- ing" don't really import observation, which I ^hink is a better word. Mr. Evarts— On cross-examination I can ask all sorts of questions as to the interior movements of his mind and show him up. Judge Neilson— There is a good deal of license allowed on cross-examinatiou Mr. Beach— There is no objection to this examiner showing up this gentleman to the extent of his ability ; and the more he tries it the better we will be satisfied. Mr. Evarts— I don't mean any particular witness ; I am speaking of the right to cross-examine as not being limited (as is well understood) to evidence in chief in the case.. Mr. Beach — He did, Sir, mean this particular witness when he said he wanted to flud out, or show up, this witness. Mr. Evarts— That is speaking of my interior move- ments. Mr. Beach— Your interior movements are just as inuna- terial and incompetent as the witness's when they are di- rected toward our case. Mr. Evarts— I did not bring them in. Mr. Beach— You are trying to bring them in, and you 4id bring them in. Judge Neilson— Almost any question can be asked on cross-examination. Mr. Beach— I submit not, if your Honor please. Judge Nei - jii— That has any bearing on the relation of the parties. Mr. Beach— Your Honor certainly does not mean to an- nounce such as a decision of the law, that almost any question is admissible to a witness on cross-exammation ? Judge Neilson— That has any relation. Mr. Beach— That has any relation. I submit, Sir, that you cannot ask a witness upon cross-examinati(m as to his understanding of a fact relating to either of the par- ties, for the purpose of establishing a conclusion of facts attributable to either of the parties. You may ask a witness upon cross-examination 'his understanding and 1 eason in regard to his own action, or facts relating to his own conduct. That is admissible. But you cannot ask him his understanding of the purpose, views, or sen- timents of a party to an action whose conduct and views, position and condition are to be determined by words or acts. Judge Neilson— Therefore the word "observation" is better than the word "understanding," which the coun- sel put. Mr. Beach— Yes, Sir ; that is what 1 was endeavoring to satisfy your Honoi' about. J udge Neilson- 1 was rr commending the substitution of that word. Mr. Beacti— Very well. Then I will be content. Mr. Evarls [to the witness]- Well, please answer the question with that modification— o&seriiai/o>t, iuvstead of understanding. The Witness— My observation was that Mr. Tilton was a great deal interested in the ideas, perhaps, that he heard agitated at that house, but always with a vein ot strong dissent on his part, which led to a great deal of discussion. Q. And which tended, I suppose, to bring out the riglit of the matter more distinctly ? A. Perhaps. Q. Did he convince, or was lie convinced 1 A. Perhaiw neither. MR. ANDREWS'S LABORS FOR SOCIAL RE- FORM. Q. Yom- opinions and views, as I under- stand it, Mr. Andrews, accorded with Mrs. Woodhull's— or perhaps I should say hers accorded with yours— on this matter of social reform? A. Yes, Sir. Q. You had been longer an advocate of these opinions than she, had you not ? A. Very much. Q. How far back do you date your advocacy of them t A. My first published statement on the subject, from which these ideas have been mostly disseminated, was, perhaps, I think, in 1851. Q. Did you at any time establish a hall or school for public discussion of these social doctrines? A. I have been doing that kind of thing, off and on, all along, Sir. Q. All along 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. And in the City of New-York, I infer 1 A. In the City of Ne w-York, mainly. Q. During what period was any such establishment maintained ? A. There has hardly been any period at which there was not something of the kind. Q. Going on all the time 1 A, All these years. Q. All the time, more or less permanently, I suppose! A. Yes, Sir. Mr. Evarts— That is all. RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION OF MR. A.NDREW8. Mr. Beach — Wliat social views do you refer to when you say they were in conformity, to any ext-ect; with those of Mrs. Woodh.ull ? A. I refer to the whole statement, which has been made by myself and by others, of the doctrine which we call the " Sovereignty of rho Individual," which is an attempt at a scientific defluitioa of the legitimate sovereignty of the individual in society, and of the sphere of the community as such. Q. Well, how far do those views relate to the subject of marriage and divorce ? A. They cover that whole ground incidentally, and as a branch of the larger doctrine of tho sovereignty of the individual. Q. Well, Sir, in those views of wliiob .you have spoken TESTIMONY OF ISTEPHEN PEARL ANDBEWS. 405 to Ml. Evarts do you include any idea of promiscuous in- tercourse of the sexes t A. Yes, and no ; I must adopt that. Q. Well, Sir, I want to know. You have spoken to the counsel of those views ; I want to know what they are. What is the view to which you referred in that relation, with reference to the intercoiu'se of the sexes? A. The view is, that the relation of the sexes is a department of human life which should be relegated to the jmisdiction of the individuals immediately concerned. If they, then, are promiscuous in their nature and character, it is tor them to manifest that. If they are Mormons, or if they are Shakers, or whatsoever be their individual con- science and view and character, that will manifest itself under this doctrine. Q, Well, do you understand by the doctrines which you maintain that the law should, to no extent, interfere with the relation of husband and wife, or parent and child? A. That is our view, with certain minor niodilica- tions. Q. Well, Sir, those modifications I want to uet 'i! A. Well, Sir, it would lead us into a very broad field of definition. Q. Make it as brief as you can ; for instance, we can il- lustrate all I desire to know. In case two persons who have lived in the marital character are inclined to separatibhj what is your view, or doctriu% in regard to the care or maintenance of the children of the inter- course? ' A. The doctrine contemplates -'hands olf" with regard to the State— the interference of the State in the aftalrs of the individual in so far as their aflfectional rela- tions are concerned. The economical relations, those that relate to property, care of children, &c., are perfectly legitimate for the State. Q. For the State to govern ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. And your doctrine, therefore, is that in case two persons in the position in which I assumed, the xmion dissolved by voluntary consent, that the State, by law, should regulate the terms upon which that separation should be allowed with reference to the children, or the economical relations ? A. Or the inheritance of property. Q. That is, that people who have been married should be allowed to separate at theu* will, the State mjilciiig proper regulations in regard to the disposition of the property and the children ? A. That Is it. MRS. WOODHULL'S FIRST ALLUSION TO THE SCANDAL. Q. You speak, Sir, of Mrs. WoodhuU having consulted you some two months before the publication of this article in regard to her ethical rights connected with this publication. That was at the first suggestion, to your knowledge, of the propriety of publishing the •rtiole 1 A. No, Sir ; it was not. Q. Well, what was iti A. Do you mean to ask what " Mir. flrnt surpestion f Mr. Beach— Yes. Mr. Evarts— Well, let us see. The Witness— What was the occasion of the first sug- gestion ? Mr. Beach [To the witnessj— Mr. Evarts inquired of you as to a consultation of Mrs. WoodhuU with you, occurring some two months prior to the publication of this article. I don't care for a detail of the whole con- versation, but I want to get the subject matter of that consultation. Mr. Evarts— I only got it in respect to date. Mr. Beach— You got it in respect to facts— in respect to the conversation. Mr. Evarts — I don't ask the conversation. Ml', iieach— You certainly got the fact that he was con- sulted by Mrs. Woodhull upou the subject of her ethical rights com^erning the publication, or connected with it. Mr. Evarts— The witness stated that. Mr. Beach— You took it as part of the answer, and it Is in evidence. Mr. Evarts— It was in answer to my question showing the date that it was brought to his mind. Mr. Beach— Yes, and it shows something more than the date. Mr. Evarts— What do you ask him that for ? Mr. Beach— That is my business now. [To the witnessj I want to know what ethical rights were the subject of conversation as between you and Mis. Woodhull on that occasion. Mr. Evarts— Well, I object to going into that con- versation. Judge Neilson [To the witness.] Did it relate to this article 1 A. Yes, Sir ; it did. Mr. Evarts— There I left it. There was an earlier date at which the matter was brought to his notice. Mr. Beach— And there was the subject talked of, and where the gentleman left it, I took it ui). Mr. Evarts— Well, of course, his Honor has ruled over aijd over again, and we have abided by it, the subject indicating his notice and attention, being brought to the subject, but it does not authorize the conversation. Judge Neilson— We could not take tlie conversation, of course. Mr. Beach— I want to know what ethical rights he re- ferred to in his answer to Mr. Evarts. Judge Neilson — I think he may answer that. Mr. Evarts— That I object to. Judge NeUson [To the Witness]— What ethical rights did you refer to ? The Witness— The question which she wished my advice upon was whether she had a right, as social agitator, to interfere with the deportment of individuals, or whether she should confine herself entirely to the disouasion of principles. Mr. Beach— That is all, Sir. 406 THE TILTON-BEEGHER TBIAL. RE-CROSS-EXAMINATION OF MR. ANDREWS. Mr. Evarts— Mr. Andrews, when yon speak of those topics as in the opinions that you embrace and advocate as falling within Individual sovereignty, or being relegated to the region of individual sovereignty, does that mean in your mind or expression anything more than the Scriptural statement that a man is to do what is right in his own eyes 1 A. If you will explain the Scriptural statement to me I can answer the question. Q. It is much more conunon than relegated to indi- vidual sovereignty, and I didn't ask you to explain that. A. I think it means substantially the same thing. Q. A man's doing what is right in his own eyes I A. Yes, Sii-. Mr. Evarts— That is all. The Witness— Allow me to add to the answer that what we familiarly caU the " sovereignty of the individual " is In the larger statement of limitation— the scientific limita- tion upon that freedom, which I could show if it were required, but it is probably beyond your question. Mr. Beach— When you apply this Scriptural phrase to your theories, that a man should do what is right in his own eyes, you refer to the aftectional relations of the sexes ? A. I do. Q. And not to what you call the economical relations % A. No, Sir. Mr. Beach— That is aU. Judge Neilson— Get ready to retire, gentlemen. Be- turn at 2 o'clock. The court then took a recess until 2 o'clock. MRS. BRADSHAW RECALLED. After recess Mrs. Martha A. Bradshaw was recalled by plaintiff, and testified as foUows : Mr. Fullerton— Mrs. Bradshaw has already been sworn. Judge Neilson— Yes. Mr. FuUerton— Mrs. Bradshaw, are you acquainted with Elizabeth A. Turner, known as Bessie Turner ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. And when did you first become acqiiainted with her? A. Well, I have been in the habit of seeing her ever since she was with Mrs. Tilton. A Juror— A little bit louder. Mr. Fullerton [repeating]—" 1 have been in the habit of seeing her since she lived with Mrs. Tilton." Q. Did you see her frequently or otherwise? A. Yes, Sir, quite frequently. Q. Do you recollect having seen her in the month of December, 1870 ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Where did you see her in that month ? A. I saw her at Mr. Tilton's and at my own house. Q. Where did you first see her during that month ? A. I don't recollect that. Sir. Q. How, Madame? A. I don't recollect that. Sir; I have the record of two visits to me that she made to me* Q. Do you mean at your own house ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. When was the first visit that yon have a record of that she made at your own house ? A. On the 9th of De- cember. Q. 9th of December % A. Yes, Sir. Q. 1870 ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Did you send for her, or did she come voluntarily t A. No, Sir ; she came voluntarily. Q. Did you make a record of the day on which she visited you ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. In a diary ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Were you in the habit at that time of keeping a diary ? A. Yes, Sir; I always have. Q. State whether or not it was an unusual thing for you to make an entry in your diary of visits of other per- sons to you at your house ? A. No, Sir ; it was very com- mon. Q. I wish to ask you whether at that visit you had a conversation with Miss Turner ? A. Yes, Sir ; she did with me. Q. How ? A. She did with me, rather. Q. Yes ; in that conversation did she state to you that Theodore Tilton had charged his wife with the oommia- sion of adultery with Henry Ward Beecher f Mr. Evarts— One moment. The Witness— [answering the question]— Yes, Sir. Al^ EFFORT TO EXCLUDE THE TESTIMONT. Mr. Fullerton— Just wait a moment. Judge NeUson— Was there any statement of that kind by Miss Tui ner ? Mr. FuRerton— No, Sir; she stated that she did not do it. Judge Neilson— Well, I mean in reference to that. Mr. Evarts— Can you refer us to the page ? Mr. Fullerton— Yes, Sir ; on page 510 you wiU find It. Judge Neilson— That is of the pamphlet— have you got the pamphlet ? Mr. Fullerton— Yes ; volume TX. Mr. Evarts-^Is this the cross-examination. Mr. Fullerton— Yes, Sir After Bessie Turner had sworn to the charges that Mr. Tilton had made against his wife after her return in the month of December, 1870, she was asked whether she ever communicated to any person the fact that such a charge had been made ; she says that she communicated the fact that Mr. Tilton had ill-used his wife, and had attempted her virtue, but denied that she ever communicated to Mrs. Bradshaw or any other person the charge of adultery that Mr. Tilton made against his wife. This question was put to her [reading] : "Now, what" Mr. Evarts— One moment! That is the only point at present ? Mr. Fullerton— That is the only point at present ; that is the only thing Involved in my question. TESTIMONY OF MBS. MAETEA A. BRADS flAW. 407 Mr. Evarts— The case, if your Honor please, does not seem to arise upon this. The conversation between Miss Turner and this lady, Mrs. Bradshaw, is of course evi- dence, of itself not admissible, not bearing— not of the quality— hearsay evidence, whatever passed between them. And it has no tendency to prove the fact that is stated between them, if any such fact was stated. That we will start with. Now, Miss Turner was asked this question— she seems to have fixed a visit of the 14th of December, the only date I see here, Mr. FuUerton. Mr. Fullerton— Yes, Sir ; she don't positively fix it on that day. Mr, Evarts— Well, that is the only date that is named. Where is this first question to Mrs. Bradshaw 1 Your question there starts oft, " Now, what did you tell Mrs. Bradshaw, if anything, as to the charge which Mr. Tilton had made against Mrs. Tilton and Mr. Beecher 1" IMr. Shearman— Look on page 509. Mr. Evarts— This is page 509 ; what part of it 1 Mr. Shearman— The second coliunn. Mr. Evarts [reading]— "Now, Miss Turner, will you be kind enough to tell us what you told Mrs. Bradshaw." That is the second column of the 509th page. Mr. Eullerton- Yes, Sii'. Mr. Evarts Lreading]— " A. I will as near as I can recol lect." The witness says : " I told Mrs. I will as near as I can recollect, Sir ; I told Mrs. Bradshaw, I think, about his having knocked me down and saying that I tripped and tell, and how he had acted, and that he was yery imkind to Mrs. Tilton ; that Mrs. Tilton was crying all the time, and then I told him about myself "—it should be " her," I suppose. " That is as near as I can recollect." Q. Tell us what you told her! A. I told her that he had offered to ruin me, and that is all I said about it, as I re- member. Q. You did not tell her the details then 1 A. Qhl no Sir. ' Q. Did you tell any one of these persons, on the 14th of December, if that be the date, the details of what oc- curred in your room between Mr. Tilton and yourself as you have related it here substantiaUy » A. No, Sir; I fhlnk not. Every date is fixed as the 14th of December conoeming which Miss Turner was inquired about. Mr. Fullerton— No, I beg your pardon. Mr. Evarts— Well, it is the only date claimed—" Or prior to the 14th of December, if that were the date, had you told any person this story ? A. I had told Mrs. Put- nam at Marietta." Miss Turner starts with the 14th of December, as being the date concerning which she was speaking as to what she had told here, and as far as I can see, the only date. There is another date named, but left out. Then we come to the bottom of the 510th page, ap- parently renewing this inquiry. [Readingj : Q. Now, what did you tell Mrs. Bradshaw, if any- *liing, a« to the charge which Mr. Tilton had made against Mrs. TUcon and Mr. Beecher t A. I never said a word to Mrs. Bradshaw or a living soul about the charge Mr. Til- ton had made as to Mr. Beecher, I suppose. Q, Waa the subject alluded to in your conversation with Mrs. Bradshaw 1 A. No, Sir ; I never said a word about it. Q. Do you confine that answer now to the 14th of De- cember when you visited her, or do you mean to be un- derstood as saying that you never at any time told Mrs. Bradshaw anything whatever in regard to the charge which Mr. Tilton brought against Mr. Beecher and Mrs. Tilton in respect to criminality 1 A. I mean to say that I never told Mrs. Bradshaw or anybody else about this charge that Mr. Tilton had made about Mrs. Tilton's criminality with Mr. Beecher. Mr. Fullerton— Now, you get rid of the 14th. Mr. Evarts— Now, Miss Turner's declaration that Mr. Tilton had charged Mr. Beecher or his wife, or both, would not be evidence in itself, and cannot be made evi- dence (that is what they now propose to show, I suppose, from their introduction of the subject) cannot be made evidence by reason of anything that has passed in this examination of her. When a witness has spoken within the merits and has given evidence that is good in chief, then extra-judicial, or outside declarations not under oath to the contrary, if there is a proper foundation laid, may be brought in. But when the crose-examination in- troduces a subject that is not evidence, cannot be evi- dence per se, it is not made evidence by its being introduced by cross-examination so far as to be the subject of contradiction. You take the witness's answer concerning: anything by which your cross-examination seeks to impeach them, and there is the end of it. If, on the merits of the issue, and in respect to evidence that is itself admissible, you ask the witness whether she has not made contrary statements out of court, and follow the requirements of the law, then you contradict on the issue ; but when, passing from the issue, you strive to make the witness say whether or not she has not said so and so, with a view of affecting her credibility or otherwise, you take her answer, and you do not make it evidence in chief for the purpose of contradicting her by any such transac- tion; that is, you do not make it evidence in chief, so that you have a right to show statements out of court to the contrary of her testimony. Mr. Fullerton— It certainly became important upon the examination of the witness Bessie Turner, to ascertain what she said to these four different persons whom she named, and with whom she communicated, as she sup- posed, on the 14th of December, although she does not fix that date with any degree of certainty in her own mind. Your Honor will recollect that she said she started out on the morning of the day— whatever day it was— for the purpose of conununicatiDg with these four individuals, and did communicate with them all on that day, with reference to the matter then in hand. She was asked particularly, upon the direct, whether in hep com- munication ^th Mr. Beecher she stated to Mm that 408 THE TILTON-PEE(JfI Mr. Tilton had made t"he open clinTge in lier presence against his wife of adultery with him (Mr. Beecher), and she said that she did not. She was aslced, then, whether 8he commnnicat«d that fact to Mrs. Bradshaw and to the other witnesses— they were all named in the question ad- dressed to the witness and designed to call out that answer— and she denied it ; she stated that she never communicated to any one of them the fact that Mr. Tilton had made this charge against his wife. Now, it becomes important for us to show that she did communi- cate that fact— that she communicated it to the witness on the stand, and, by inference, if she told the same story to the other three witnesses, that she communicated the same fact to them, Mr. Beecher being among the number. Now, your Honor will perceive that this bears strongly upon the issue in this case. We do not pretend that we prove the truth of what Bessie Turner told by proving that she uttered these words; but we do prove that Bessie Turner denied the truth and told a folsehood when she denied having made these statements to these wit- nesses. It is for the purpose of impeaching that witness and impairing her credibility ; that is the only object we have in view. Now, your Honor will perceive thnt while she does not limit the time to the 14th of November, she stated that she did visit these people all on the same day, and went on and nariated what she told them severally, but denied in each instance that she ever communicated the fact that the charge of adultery was included among the charges which Mr. Tilton made against his wife. Mr. Evarts— If your Honor please Mr. Beach— On page 485 of the direct examination, Sir, this occurs : [Reading.] *• Mr. Porter— Had you before that—" I will precede that by a question, Sir. " Q. When was it that you visited Mr. Beecher ? A. De- cember 14, 1870. "Q. Had you before that communicated to him any- thing about these visits to your room? * * " Mr. Porter— Had you before that communicated to Mr. Beecher the fact of Mr. Tilton visiting your bed— your bed-room ? A. Had I before that time ? "Q. Before the 14th of December? A. No, Sir; that was why I visited Mr. Beecher on the 14th of December. " Q. Did you on that occasion communicate to him any- thing about the charges which he had made against him 1 A. That he had made against her, you mean ? " Q. That Mr. Tilton had made against Mr. Beecher and his wife? A. Did I communicate that to Mr. Beecher ? " To Mr. Beecher? A. No, Sir ; not to any one. " Q. Had you, prior to y our leaving for Marietta, com- municated to any other than Mrs. Tilton the charges which Tilton made against her in respect to Mr. Beecher —to Steubenville, I should say ? A. Before going ? "Q. Had you ever communicated to any one other than Mrs. Tilton before you went to Steubenville ? A. Yes, Sir. " Q. The charges which had been made by Mrs. TUton against Mr. Beecher, and I corrected Mr. Porter, and Ml'. Porter said : * Made by Mr. Tilton against Mr. E TBIAL. A. No, Sir ; I never comniunic ated that to acy Beecher V one." That was upon their direct examination. Judge Neilson— Then upon the cross they call attention to it? Mr. Beach— Then upon the cross we caUed attention to Mrs. Bradshaw; she denied that, and we propose now to contradict her. Judge Neilson— That ought to be admitted, I think. Mr. Evarts— Well, I think not, if your Honor please. You cannot bring into a controversy the truth or false- hood of every statement that a witness has made. That is not the law. The witness has testified as to certain charges having been made by Mr. TUton, in her presence, about his wife committing adultery with four persons- something of that kind. Now, they do not lay any foundation for saying that she made a statement to some- body else contradictory to that statement. All they seek is to find out from her whether she has stated anything about it. Now, corroborative evidence of what she had stated would not have been admissible on our part. They can- not ask her whether she has made corroborative state- ments, and then, on her not remembering or saying that she has not, prove the falsehood or error in her memory or her statement as to whether she had or had not made the corroborative statements. There is not the least foundation laid in any inquiries put to her in respect of an interview with Mrs. Bradshaw, to show that she had made contradictory statements to her. If they had de- sired to bring Mrs. Bradshaw to show that she had made contradictory statements to her' present statements mider oath on the merits, they should have asked her: " Did you not say to Mrs. Bradshaw, on the 14th," or, if you please, the 9th, " so and so ?" Mr. Beach— You are assuming a proposition that we do do not make. We propose no proof of that kind. Ml'. Evarts— I know you don't. A I»OUND OF ARGUMENT TO GET A GRAIN OF TESTIMONY. Mr. Beach — Veiy well ; why are you arguing: on it, then ? Mr. Evarts— Then I bring it right back to whether you are contradicting her memory as to whether she had made corroborative statements outside of the case. Now, corroborative statements are not evidence ; and if you ask a witness whether he has made corroborative state- ments, and he says " No," you must take his answer, be- cause that is collateral ; you cannot ti-y the cause between the witnesses Judge Neilson— No — - Mr. Evarts (continuing)— Mrs. Bradshaw and Bessie Turner, as to which is mistaken as to the fact of the cor- roborative statements being made or not being madt^. You would have a right to call other witnesses, if you had them, as to what :\:rs. Bradshaw said, and if yon TElS112l()yY OF MRS. MAL'Ti/A A. BRADSrlAW. had two or three witnesses present, why you would have a conflict of trying that case. Judge Neilson— But you interrogated Bessie Turner on that subject— opened the door. Mr. Evarts— We did as to showing whether what she then told Mr. Beecher was the first statement that she made concerning it. That is all. Judge Neilson— She proceeded to say that she had told no one. Mr. Evarts— Whether she told Mr. Beecher before was the principal point of inquiry, so far as INIr. Beecher was concerned. Now, whether she told these other people was immaterial in any point. Judge Neilson— I helieve we wiU take the answer. Mr. Evarts— Your Honor will be so good as to note our objection and exception. Mr. FuUerton— Can you turn to the question, Mr. Re- porter 1 The Tribune stenographer read the question as follows : " In that conversation did she state to you that Theodore Tilton had charged his wife with the commission of adul- tery with Henry Ward Beecher ? " The Witness— Yes, Sir ; she did. Mr. Fullerton— Speak a little louder ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. How long did that conversation last, Mrs. Brad- shaw ? A. At least two hours. Q. Now, what did she say upon that subject 1 Mr. Evarts— That I object to, Judge Neilson— I think you have sufiicient conflict upon that one point. IMr. Beacb— Well, Sir, we only want to get the language Miss Turner used. Judge Neilson— The subject is embraced in the question. Mr. Beach— I know it is. Sir, but not the language ; we want to get the facts. Mr. Evarts— That is all that Miss Turner's attention was called to. Judge NeUson— Yes; I think that is as far as you can go. Mr. FuUerton— WeD, whether she told that story Mr. Evarts— No— whether she told about the charge having been made. Judge Neilson— Mr. Stenographer, can you refer to that last question and answer ? Mr. Beach [readingl— *' Had you, prior to leaving Mari- etta, communicated to any other person but Mrs. Putnam the charges that Mr. Tilton made against Mr, Beecher?" She says she did. Judge Neilson— Well, now. a question embodying that substance is put, and Mrs. Bradshaw says she did; and there is your contradiction, I think. Mr. Beach— Certainly, Sir ; but we have a right to have the language which constitutes the contradiction. Mr. Evarts — This is not a new question in this case. Your Honor has limited them over and over again. Judge Neilson — I think we wou't go any fmiuer tlian this; I think this answer covers it. Mr. FuUerton [to the witness]- Did you make any request of Bessie Turner diuing that conversation, or after she communicated this fact to you? Mr. Evarts — That is objected to. Judge Neilson— It may be introductory to something; we may as well take it. The Witness— I told her not to repeat the charges. Mr. Fullerton— No ; did you make any request ? Mr. Evarts— That is objected to ; it is no matter what occurred in that conversation, as I view it ; and your Honor has excluded tne conversation. Mr. Fullerton— Well, we have n't got to the point where the objection is applicable, as yet. Judge Neilson— This is a mere preliminary question— "Did you make any request—" to be answered *' Yes" or "No." Mr. Fullerton— Did you make any request to her ? A. Yes, Sir. Mr. Fullerton— Now you need not answer the qtiestlon, although I put it, untU we determine whether it is proper or not : What request did you make of her at that ime in regard to repeating it 1 Mr. Evarts— I object. Judge Neilson— I do not recall anything in Bessie Turner's evidence that would justify that. Mr. Fullerton— Yoiu: Honor will perceive that there is something upon the subject here. Judge Neilson— Well. Mr. Fullerton — fEeading] : When you told Mrs. Bradshaw. did she say anything, about keeping silent in regard to that story, to you! A. I don't remember what Mrs. Bradshaw said. Sir. Q. Didn't you state in substance anything ? Then the witness went on to answer. Except— no ; I don't think she said anything ; I think that every one I told it to remained very silent, except Mr. Richards, axid what he said to me was, " Whom God hath joined together let no man or woman put asimder." Now, I want to contradict her in that respect ; I want to show that Mrs. Bradshaw did make a request to her, and show what that request was. Mr. Evarts— That brings us right to the proposal. Judge Neilson— I think you have gone as far as you can go. Mr. Beacb—It brings up the same question that your Honor has decided. In admitting the other portion of what we have proved. Judge Neilson— Well, this other is specific, and is a si)e- cific contradiction ; I don't think that this is. Mr. Beach— Yes, Sir ; but we want the si>ecific contra- diction u. on that pomt also. Mr. Evarts— You should have asked Miss Turner. Mr. Beach— We did a.sk Miss Tinner, specifically, whether Mrs. Bradshaw did not request her to keep si 410 TEE T1L10:N'-BEEGHER IBIAL. .ence in regard to this matter. Now, Sir, it is an attack upon tLie credibility and tlie memory of Miss Turner. Judge Neilson— I understand that. Mr. Evarts— Well, that is the very point ; the law does not allow it to be made, except within the issue. Mr. Beach— It does not! Mr. Evarts— We wiU be trying aU sorts of questions with all the witnesses if, on collateral inquiries, you are gomg to bring in testimony. Judge Neilson— On collateral questions the answer is to be taken; and that stands, of course. Mr. Beach— Yes, Sir ; but, is this a collateral question 1 Judge Neilson— I have not said so ; if I thought it was I would have excluded the last question. Mr. Beach— Well, I suppose so. If it is not a collateral question, we have a right to contradict this witness. Judge Neilson— What is the question that was put to Bessie Turner on this subject 1 Mr. FuUerton— [Reading] : When you told Mrs. Bradshaw, did she say anything about keeping silent in regard to this story to you 1 A. I do not remember what Mrs. Bradshaw said. Judge Neilson— Well, that is a mere impression of the witness ; it would not amount to a contradiction. Mr. Beach— Oh, yes, Sir ; if the witness says she don't remember, you can prove it. Judge Neilson— Well, that goes to the memory. Mr. Beach— Yes, Sir ; but she says, in addition to that, that she does not think Mrs. Bradshaw said anything. Mr. Evarts — Then, if there was anything special that you wanted to prove that she said, you should have asked her, " Didn't Mrs. Bradshaw say so and so?" Mr. Beach— We have read it three times to the counsel, and if he cannot apprehend it on three readings, we will make no further effort to reach his imderstanding. Mr. Evarts— All that you read is this [reading] : ** When you told Mrs. Bradshaw, did she say anything about keeping silent in regard to this story to you 9" Mr. Beach— Very well. Mr. Evarts— And she says : " I do not remember what Mrs. Bradshaw said "—that is the whole answer to that question. " Q. Did you state in substance " and then they leave that question incomplete, because the witness apparently resumes her answer. Except— no; I don't think she said anything; I don't think she said an> thing. Now, if you wanted to contradict her by Mrs. Brad- shaw, by proving that Mrs. Bradshaw said certain words— to wit, a request— then you should have put the question. Mr. Beach— Well, didn't we put it to her when we asked if Mrs. Bradshaw said auji^hing to her about keeping silent in regard to this f Mr. Evarts— You didn't ask her. Mr. Beach— Yes, Sir: " anything." Judge Neilson— The suggestion is that if you had put to Bessie Turner the very words which you can, perhaps, prove by Mrs. Bradshaw, that would have helped her recollection. Mr. Beach— No, Sir ; " anything respecting her keeptag silence" — " that draws her attention to the specific sub- ject"—" or anything in substance"— that we can show in our question. We put now the question to Mrs. Brad- shaw : " In that conversation did you say anything to Miss -Turner in regard to keeping silence about this story 1" Mr. Fullerton— I put the question in another form, Sir [Beading] : " Did you not tell Mrs. Bradshaw that Theodore Tilton had charged his wife with adultery; and did not Mrs. Bradshaw then say to you, * You must not teU anybody of it'? A. No, Sir; I don't remember any such thing about it." Mr. Evarts— Where is that. Mr. FuUerton— That is on page 512, about midway. Mr. Evarts— Well, that is what we were on before. Mr. Fullerton— No ; that is what we are on now. Judge Neilson— Well, in view of that last (that is a qualification somewhat of the position), you may put the question in the terms of that last answer that you have read there. Mr. Evarts— Your Honor will be good enough to note our objection and exception. Judge Neilson— Yes, Sir. Mr. Fullerton [to the witness]— When Miss Turner told you that Theodore Tilton had charged his wife with adul- tery, did you say to her, ia substance, " You must not tell anybody of it ?" A. Yes, Sir. Q. Your answer was, " Yes, Sir V A. Yes, Sir, Mr. Fullerton— That is all. Mr. Evarts— That is aU, madam. Judge Neilson— That is all, Mxs. Bradshaw. TESTmONY OF JOHN WOOD. John Wood was next called on behalf of plaintiff, and, being duly sworn, testified as follows : Mr. Fullerton— What is your occupation? A. Printer. Q. How long have you been engaged in that business t A. In business for myself, do you mean t Q. Yes, Sir. A. Since August, 1872. Q. And before that, how were you in business? A. I had charge of an incorporation for about four years. Q. Printmg? A. Prmtlng; yes, Sir. Q. WeU, what was the character of your business, printing newspapers, or pamphlets, or books, or what! A. All kinds of printing— newspapers, books, and job work. Q. Everything? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Did you know Victoria Woodhull ? A. I did. Q. And when did you become acquainted with her ? A In May, 1870. Q. And did you know Col. Blood, her husband? A. Yes, Sir. TESTIMONY O. Q. Andwlien did you become acquainted witli Mm? A. At the same time. Q. Aud IMr. Stephen Pearl Andrews, do you Imow him % A. Yes, Sir. Q. And when did you form an acquaintance with that gentleman 1 A. It was somewheres In 1870 ; in the Fall of 1870, 1 think. Q. Now state whether or not you printed the news- paper called The Woodhull <£ Olaflin's Weekly f A. Yes, Sir. * Q. When did you commence its publication? A. I commenced the publication with the third number, I think in May, 1870, when I had charge of that corpora- tion known as the Journeymen Printer's Cooperative Association. A. And how long did you continue to print or pubUsh that paper ? A. I think till about February, 1872. Q. And then what became of it ? A. It was then taken to the office of TTie American Spiritualist. Q. And how long was it published there f A. I think it was discontinued. Q. When was that ? A. I think it was in May or June of 1872 ; I am not positive of the time. Q. Now, was it afterward resumed, and if ao, when 1 A. In November. Q. Of what year 1 A. 1872. Q. And who printed it in November, 1872 ? A. I set the type for it. Q. Where ? A. At my office. Q. Well, was it printed there f A. The type was set there, only. Q. And taken to a press somewhere elsel A. Press- room, and printed. Q. Now, what time in 1872 was the type set 1 A. In the last week of October. Q. How are you enabled to state that it was the last week of October. A. Because that is the first time that I had any men employed in my place-only our two selves previotis to that. Q. Howl A. That is the first time that I had any men employed; our two selves used to do all the work previ- ous to that last week in October. Q. You did your own work, you say ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Among yourselves f A. Yes, Sir, our two selves. Q. Whom do you mean f A. My partner and myself. Q. And that was the first week that you employed any journeymen I A. Yes, Sir. Q. The first week in October. 1872 1 A. Last week. Q. The last week of October, I should say, 1872. And you are enabled to state positively, axe you, that that paper was set up in type. That nimiber of Woodhull & Claflin'8 Weekly in the last week of October, 1872 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. When did the form go out from your place I A. On Saturday evexilT^, the 26tli of October. JOHN WOOD. 411 Q. And by whom was it taken 1 A. Taken away by the carman from the press-room. Q. Did you see it after that 1 A. I saw the copy of the paper after that. Q. How long after ! A. On Monday. Q. And did it contain the article which had been set up in your place 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. Had any part of that article been set up before that time, to your knowledge? A. Not to my knowledge. Q. If it had been, you had no connection with it! A. No, Sir. Q. As a whole or a part 1 A. No, Sir. Q. Do you know whether any number of that paper was published after May, 1872 Mr. Beach— May or June. Mr. Fullerton— May or June, 1872— up to the first week of November, 1874 1 A. I don't think there was any ; the number that I done was numbered after the one that was stopped in May or July, 1872. Mr. Beach— Followed regularly? A. Yes, Sir ; followed in regular ord^. Mr. Fullerton- It was the next succeeding number 1 A. The succeeding number ; yes. Sir. Mr. Fullerton— That is all. CEOSS-EXAMINATION OF MR. WOOD. Mr. Sliearman— I understand you that tMs article when set up, or the paper when set up— the type of the paper Mr. Evarts— The form. Mr. Shearman— The form was taken away Oct. 26, 1872 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. About what time in the day was it taken I A. It was in the evening. Q. When was it set up ? A. It was set up during that week, from Monday to Saturday evening. Q. State whether you set up the whole of that paper in one day, if you please 1 [Handing witness the number of Woodhull <& Olaflin's Weekly.'] A. No; I did not set it up only during the week fiom Monday to Saturday. Q. Did you begin on Monday 1 A. Beginning on Mon- day, we commenced, and set all except this large type — this large speech. That was set up about two months before. Q. The speech, in large type was set up about two months before % A. Yes, Sir. Q. In your office 1 A. Yes, Sir, with a view for a pamphlet. Q, And which part of this paper did you set up last 1 A. I set up the Beecher matter last, this article. Mr. Fullerton— That is, the Beecher article 1 A. The Beecher article. INIi-. Shearman— Do you recollect what time in the day you set that up, or what day 1 A. I think we got the fli'st copy for that article on Tuesday. 413 IHE TlLmN-BEECRER TEIAL. Q. That would be Oct. 22 I A. About that date ; yes. Sir. Q. This speech that you set up two months before was the speech delivered in Boston, was it not, by Mrs. WoodhuU ! A. I am not positive about it. Q. Look at it? [Handing the witness the paper.] A. Yes, Sir. Q. A speech delivered before the Association of Spirit- ualists in Boston on September 11, 1872 ? A. Yes, Sii\ Mr. Shearman— That is all. Mr. Fullerton— Mr. Wood, I see that this number of this paper is Volume 5, No. 7. Do I understand you to say that the next preceding number, Volume 5, being No. 6, was printed in May or June of that year ? A. May or June ; yes, Sir. Q. This succeeded in number ? A. Yes, Sir. Mr. Shearman— How do you know that, Mr. Wood ?— did you see it 1 did you print the previous number 1 A. No, but when giving instructions to make up that paper they gave me a marked paper, the previous number, with the dates changed and the numbers changed, as they do every week. Q. You did not print any of the WoodhuU dk Claflin TTeefcKes, if I understand you correctly, between Febru- ary, 1872, and the issue of this number? A. No, Sir. Q. What were the periods of publication of this paper, Mr. Wood? A. Every week; weekly, Q. Prior to what time? A. It was published weekly all the time, from the time that T done it in May, 1871, until February— May, 1870, until February, 1872. Q. Well, after that you did not print it any more until this number ; now, how often was it printed after this number commenced ? A. I think it was suspended after that number, and the next number was got out in De- cember or January. Q. 1873 ? A. 1873. Q. December, : 872, or January, 1873 1 A. Yes, Sir; and continued wee.Xly after that. Q. Have you conti lued to print it since ? A. Yes. Sir. Q. And have printed it down to the present time f A. Yes, Sir. Q. Was this set up in common type, or was it stereo- typed? A. It was set up in common type, and then stereotyped afterward, after there was an edition printed from the type. Q. Well, this particular edition ; can you tell the edi- tion ? A. I could not tell. Sir. Q. Is there any dilference in the type ! A. No, Sir, there Is no difference. Q. Canyon print from type ttat is uaed for stereo- typing ? A. Yes, Sir. Mr. Shearman— That is alL Judge Neilson— That is alL HEJsRY C. BOWEN TESTIFIES FOR THE PLAIN- TIFF. Mr. Fullerton — Henry C. Bowen. Hem'3' C. Bowen, sworn on behalf of the plaintiff, testi- fied as follows : Mr. Fullerton— Mr. Bowen, I believe you have been for many years a resident of Brooklyn ? A. I have. Q. How many, Su-? A. About 30. Q. And you are now the publisher and proprietor of The Inde^oendent, I believe 'I A. I am. • Q. And for many years in New- York a merchant ? A, Y'^es, Sii". Q. When did you become acquainted with Theodora Tilton ? A. About 18 or 20 years ago, I should think. Q. I suppose you have known Mr. Beecher a longer period than that, have you not? A. About 28 or 30 years. . _ THE RESIGNATION LETTER DELIVERED AT A PREARRANGED MEETING. Q. 1 want to call your attention, Mr. Boweiv to the month of December, 1870, and ask you if you recol- lect of being a bearer of a note or letter from Mr. Tilt<:>a to Mr. Beecher in that month ? A. I recollect bearing such a letter. Q. Do you recoUect the date upon which you bore it to Mr. Beecher and delivered it? A. I think it was on Mou- day following Christmas day. Q. Chiistmas was on Sunday 1 A. On Sunday, and it was on Monday. Q. And it a-; as the following day ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Where did you deliver that note 1 A. At the house of James Freeland. Q. And praj^ who was Mr. James Freeland ? A. A resi- dent of Brooklyn, residing in Columbia-st. Q. Did you meet Mr. Beecher there ! A. I did. Q. Was it by accident that you met Mm there ? A. By appointment. Q. Appointment made with whom! A. I wrote a note to Mr. Freeland asking him to make the appointment. Q. I want to call your attention to Mr. Beecher's testi- mony upon that subject, Mr. Bowen. He states that yon called in at Mr. Beecher's house casually ; that he did not expect you, and you delivered that note to him ; doe« that coiTespond with your recollection ? A. It does not. Q. With what degree of certainty are you enabled to say that you did deliver that note at Mrs. Freeland's house, and in pursuance of an appointment through Mr. Freeland ? A. I am positive that I delivered it there. Q. At what time in the day, or evening, did you de- liver it ? A. About 4 or 5 o'clock in the afternoon ; I am not sure about that. Q. Was the note sealed, or unsealed t A. I am not posi- tive in i-egiird to that. Q. Mr. Beecher also states that you informed him tlurt you were ignorant of the contents of the note. TESTlMOyY OF I >fR. BOWEX'S TESTBfONY EECEIVED AETEE STERN OPPOSITION. Mr. Evarts— WeU, wait a moment. Mr. Beacli— ^^Tiat for 1 Mr. Fullerton— Do you recollect whetlier tliat was so or not ? Mr. Evarts— Mr. Bo-vren, if a witness at all, is a -witness to the Interview. It is not a question of contradiction of Mr. Beecher's statements. Mr. BeacTi— Yes, it is. Mr. Evaits— ^Ir. Beeclier lias 'been a witness on one Bide; anotlier witness conies on tlie other side. It is not a question of contradiction of Mr. Beecher's state- ments as produced on tlie dli-ect examination— or tlie cross-examination of ]Mr. Beecher, to be contradicted Mr. Bowen. Mr. Beach— We offer it as a contradiction of Mr. Beech- er's statements on his direct examination. Mr. Evarts— You offer to prove another witness's view of an occurrence. Of course you must examine him in the usual way, unless you point me to some inquiries that you put to Mr. Beecher. Judge Xeilson — Suppose ymi put the inquiiy ; cannot 70U contradict any statement that a witness makes ? Mr. Evarts— You cannot in that form ; you can call an- other witness to the transaction. A witness s vears that a mast is so many feet high ; another witness can swear that it is so many feet high. Judge yeil-on— Yes. Mr. Fullerton— Well, that is the same thing. Mr. Evarts — No, the emphasis is different. If a "wit- ness speaks to a conversation of a third person, another witness can speak to that conversation, and the two wit- nesses give different stoiies. It is not a question of con- tradiction of witnesses ; it is the contradiction of pro- ducing witnesses that give different views, if your Honor please ; hut each witness must he examined according to the rules of evidence. Mr. Beach — I most heartily coincide in that conclusion, Sir. Mr. Evarts — You cannot present leading questions to a witness of your own. In order to prove an interview you tnufit prove it. Judge Neilson— Go on, Sir. Mr. Fullerton— Mr. Stenographer, will you repeat the Question 1 The Tribune stenographer read the question as fol- lows: "Mr. Beecher also states that you informed him that you were ignorant of the contents of the note ; do you recollect whether that was so or not ?" The V\ltness— That was not so. Mr. Evarts— That I object to, if your Honor please. It is a ief-diug quiisticn. Mi.'. Btach— it is n;>L a leading question. EXET C. BOWEN. 4ia Judge Neilson— Oh, I think the question is rather lead- ing—to be avoided hereafter. Mr. Evarts— It is put exactly as if it was in the form of a contradiction, to which Mr. Beeeher's attention has been called. Mr. Beach— That is just the form that we propose to put it in. Mr. Evarts— Now will you show me Judge Xeilson- We will let that stand, as merely con- tradicting v, hat a previous witness has said, which it la competent to do. I think you cannot do it by a leading- interrogatory ; you must ask the general question. Mr. Beach— We put a question to this witness stating- that Mr. Beecher, a witness and a party, made a c-ertain statement in regard to an interview with this witness j and we ask him what is his recollection upon that subject. Now, is that leading. Sir! I submit to your Honor, nok It is a perfectly admissible inquiry. Judge Neilson— Wen, it wiU stand as it Is, only I think that the better way is to examine the witness in the ordi- nary form ; if it amounts to correction or contra-diction,. well and good. Evarts— It is not a question of extra-judicial stat^e- ments of Mr. Beecher that are now being called for. Judge Neilson — It is perfectly competent to contradict any statements made by the witness, and quite early in our discussions Mr. Abbott handed up a case to Mr. Evarts, which was read, that any statement made by a witness could be contradicted afterward. Mr. Evarts— Anything that is evidence in chief, of course. Judge Neilson— Whether material or not. Mr. Evarts— It is material in the sense of giving col- lateral evidence. I have no objection to this, excepting^ that the inquiries are of producing an independent wit- ness to speak of the same occurrence. Judge Neilson— Yes. Mr. Evarts— And he must be examined the same as an. independent witness, according to the rules of evidenc-e. Jadge Neilson— I think so. They have no occasion to lead him. Go on, Mr. Fullerton. Mr. Fullerton— I supposed the rule was, Sir, that I must repeat the language of the witness to be impeached and ask the witness upon the stand whether that language was used. Judge Neilson— Well, you may be allowed to do so where it is found to be necessary. Mr. Fullerton— In this case I will put the question in that way. Judg? Neilson — Well, go on. Mr. Fullerton— In that conversation did Mr, Beecher say to you in substance that it was his judgment that a man that was tainted as Mr. Tilton was could not prop- erly be retained on such a paper without doing it dam- age, refemug to The Independent, and as it respected!^ Brooklyn Vnion, that he thought Mr. Tilton an impraoti' 414 THE TILTON'Bj ©al man, that he -was not apt to agree with parties or with movements, except so far as he led them, and that " I though t that as the editor of the Repuhlican organ in BrooM^Ti he would be found to be a man that would get the paper into trouble ?" Mr. Evarts— Don!t answer, Mr. Bowen. Judge Neilson— I think you should first examine in the usual form, and if you don't get the attention of the wit- ness to any such statement, or the correction of any such Statement, then you may put the simple interrogatory. Mr. Fullerton— Well, Sir, that will bring a stronger ob- lection than this one has. Judge Neilson— That may be. Mr. Fullerton— Did Mr. Beecher, In that Interview on Monday, following Christmas in December, 1870, advise you against the retention of Mr. Tilton as editor of The Independent f Mr. Evarts— That I object to, if your Honor please. Judge NeUson— It is too leading. Did he give you any advice upon the subject of retaining Mr. Tilton; if so, whati Mr. Evarts— The point, If your Honor please, Is this : that this is not an examination of the witness, except in chief. He is called to speak to an interview of which one party to it has given a view. It is the ordinary case of a witness on one side speaking to an occurrence ; the witness caUed on the other side to speak to the same occurrence is to speak to it as an indepen- dent witness, and under the same rules of examination that the first witness was examined. The fact that a wit- ness has first been called on one side to speak concerning an occurrence, does not alter the rules of examining another witness who Is called by the opposite party to speak concerning the same occurrence, it being evidence In chief. All this apparatus of questions, and confinement of contradiction to ques- tions, is based upon not evidence in chief, or to the merits, but collateral impeachment by out of court to the contrary. Now, that is not this case. There was an in- terview between Mr. Beecher and Mr. Bowen. Mr. Beecher has given his view of it ; Mr. Bowen is called here either to confirm or to give a different view. What- ever it may be, he, in the hands of his counsel, is a pri- mary witness, to be examined according to the rules of evidence. Judge Neilson— Very well. That only goes to the form of the question to be put. It being conceded that it was proper to call the witness to correct or contradict the statements. Mr. Beach— The Idea, if your Honor please, that the contradiction of a witness is confined to statements which he has made out of court, repugnant to the evidence he gives In court, and to which his attention Is primarily and preliminarily called, is a somewhat novel one. I suppose we can contradict a witness by proving that a atatement to which he swears is inaccurate. EOHEB TBIAL. Judge Neilson— Undoubtedly. Mr. Beach— WeU, Sir, Mr. Beecher upon the staT)d swears that, upon a certain occasion, he communicatod a certain thing to Mr. Bowen, the witness on the stand. We can contradict that, I suppose, Sir ? Judge Neilson— Yes, Sir. Mr. Evarts— How 1 By proving what did take place. Mr. Beach— By proving. Sir, that no such thing took place. Mr. Evarts— No, you cannot. Mr. Beach— Yes, we can do it, and will do It. J udge Neilson— There Is no trouble about it, gentlemen. .Tc have gone along upon the theory from the first, and it is so everywhere, that when a witness on one side makes certain statements, the other side may call witnesses to correct, explain, or contradict. The only question is whether they shall put at once to Mr. Bowen, leading questions. Mr. Beach— Well, Sir, how can we contradict 1— and see what a dilemma you would put us in. Judge NeUson— Do it this way : Ask Mr. Bowen whether anything was said on a given subject. Mr. Beach— But Mr. Beecher swears to a specific declara- tion. Suppose we don't want all of the conversation f Judge Neilson— It may not be worth taking altogether, Mr. Beach— Very weU, Sir, that is what we suppose, but your Honor's rule, I submit, of examination, would force upon us an inquiry in regard to a portion of the conversation which we do not desire, and which is not necessary for the contradiction of Mr. Beecher. Still, I understand from my colleague. Sir, that we are quite wUling to take that course. Judge Neilson— I think you are at liberty to interrogate him whether anything was said upon a given subject or topic, or branch of a subject. Mr. Beach— Well, Sir. Judge Neilson— Without indicating precisely what yofi want. Mr. Fullerton— Your Honor, we all take too narrow view of this question, and I will state my reasons fo. making that observation. ItwUl be remembered tha Mr. Beecher stated here in court that the cause of hli overwhelming grief on the Ist of January following the delivery of this letter was in consequence of s -me advice that he had given to Mr. Bowen on the 27th of the De- cember previous as to the dismissal of Mr. Tilton from The Independent. Judge Neilson— T understand that. Mr. Fullerton— And we propose to take away the foundation of that grief, to show that it was caused by another reason, and not by the one stated by the witness then upon the stand. Judge Neilson— You can do that. Mr. Fullerton— It is Important for us to show that no such advice was given at that time, and consequently it could not be the cause of the great commotion. Th'STIMONY OF HBNBY 0. BOW EN. Judge Neilson— You can do that. Mr. Evarts— You can show it, but not by leading quee- ;ion8. Mr. Fullerton— I have tried both kinds of questions, Old have beer met with the same kind of objection. Mr. Evarts— Both leading. 3Ir. Fullerton— Both leading, and not leading ; I al- tered them to pleaae you in the first place, and then to !)lea8e the Court. Judge iSreilson— You are at liberty to ask whether any- hing was said on a given subject. Mr. Evarts— Then what was said ? Judge Nellson— Yes, go on. Mr. Fullerton— What advice, if any, did Mr. Henry Vard Beecher give you on the Monday following Christ- Qas, December, 1870, when you delivered this letter, nth reference to the discharge of Theodore Tilton from lis position on The Independent ? Mr. Evarts— That I object to, if your Honor please. Mr. Fullerton— Of course. Mr. Evarts— That assumes he crave him any advice, iliis witness must be examined as all other witnesses are xamined. Judge Neilson— I understood that. I assented to your aggestion on that point. Mj. Evarts— Your Honor pointed it out. Judge Neilson— It is rather leading, Mr. Fullerton. Mr. Evarts— They are to ask, was anything said on jtiat subject ; then what was said. Judge Neilsoii— Y'es. Mr. Fullerton— I asked the question, what was said on tiat subject, if anything. Mr. Evarts— That was not your question. IMr. Fullerton— Yes it was. Just read it Mr. Reporter, )r the Instruction of Mr. Evarts. I remember it. The Tribvme stenographer read the question as follows : What advice, if any, did Mr. Heniy Ward Beecher give on le Monday following Christmas, December, 1870, when ou delivered this letter, with reference to the discharge of heodore Tilton from his position on The Independent f" Judge Neilson— This question is whether he gave you Qy ad%ice on that subject. Mr. Evarts— That we except to. Judge Neilson— Well. Mr. Evarts— The question is was anything said on a jrtain subject, without characterizing it as advice. Judge Neilson— Well. Mr. Evarts— And if he says nothing, there is the end ; he says something, then what was said 1 0 ADYICE BY ME. BEECHEK THAT TILTON 1 BE DISCHARGED. j Mr. Fiillerton— Will you answer, Mr. Bowen ? The Witness (to the stenographer)- Read the ques- on. 415 The Tribune stenographer read the question as fol- lows : "What advice, if anv. did Mr. Henry Ward Beecher give you on the Monday foil owing Christmas, December, 1870, when you delivered this letter with reference to the discharge of Theodore Tilton from his position on The Independent ?" The Witness— Shall I answer that, your Honor 1 Judge Neilson — The objection Is to the word " advice.'* It depends somewhat upon the opinion and construction of the witness. Mr. Fullerton— Well, Sir, shall I omit that' word, thent Judge Neilson— You had better. Mr. Fullerton— What, if anything, was said by Mr. Beecher in that conversation with reference to the dis- charge of Mr. Tilton from his position at that time on Th€ Index)endent? A. Shall I answer that! Judge Neilson— Yes. The Witness— None whatever. Mr. Fullerton— What, if anything, was said upon tke subject of his retention as editor of The Brooklyn TTnton at that time ! A. I don't recollect that anything import- ant was said in regard to his remaining on The Brooklyn Union. It might have been alluded to, but I have no re- membrance of anything definite stated about it. Q. Was anything said in reference to his fitness for the position of contributor or editor of either one of those papers ? A. Nothing whatever, according to my recollec- tion. Q. Did you state to Mr. Beecher upon that occasion any reason why you requested the interview at IVIr. Freeland's house ] A. That it might be private. Q. Was any one present during that interview i A. No one. Q. I will ask you this general question now, Mr. Bowen, whether anything was said by Mr. Beecher at that interview to you which influenced you in any degree whatever in the action which you subsequently took with reference to Mr. Tilton 1 Mr. Evarts— That I object to. Judge Neilson— We cannot take that. Mr. Porter— They are asking for the effect upon his action of words not stated. Mr. Beach— Will your Honor please consider a moment whether we cannot prove that Mr. Beecher said or did nothing which operated to produce the discharge of Mr, Tilton from his business association with Mr. Bowen 1 Judge Neilson— You can prove he said and did nothing calculated to lead to that result, but going beyond that calls in the operation of this witness's mind. Mr. Beach— Very well, Sir. Mr. Beecher has over and over again, with repeated emphasis, said that he was afflicted and sorrow-stricken from the fact that he had influenced in some degree Mr. Bowen to discharge TUton from his employment. He uses that expression, Sir : he himself swears that he exerted that influence upon Bowen, and may we not inquire from Mr. 416 THE TILTOJ^-BDECEEB TRIAL. Bowen, the party who was influenced, whether Mr. Belcher at any time said or did anything which influ- enced him La his treatment of Mr Tilton or in his dis- charge of Tilton? Judge Ncilson— If it was calculated to influence him, you can ask him. Mr. Evarts— That, in our view, is perhaps even more objectionahle. Mr. Beach— T should suppose it would he. Judge Neil son— The only o^jjection to this CLuestion is that it calls for the operation of this witness's mind. Mr. Beach— Very weU, Sir. Mr. Beecher has testified in regard to the operation upon his mind, by his own ac- tion. He says he did operate upon Mv. Bowen, and did influence Mr. Bowen. Mr. Evarts— Where 1 Mr. Beach— Over and over again, some twenty times in the course of his testimony. Mr. Evarts [in a loud voice]— Where 1 Mr. Beach [excitedly]- Look for it and find it« Mr. Evarts— Ah! [Laughter, J That is not the way to dispose of it. Mr. Beach— Yes, it is the way to dispose of it. I am talking to the intellect and the recollection of this Judge, who knows that that thing was said over and over again, and if your Honor is willing to sit here I am willing to look up the evidence. Mr. FuUerton- Your Honor will recollect the letter that he said he wrote to Mr. Bowen the next day, where he spoke of the influence. Mr. Evarts— Let us see that. WeU, we have produced evidence, and produced it in a proper shape. Now, if you want to show whether or not he did say anything to influence, show what they said. Mr. Porter— And let the jury judge. Mr. Evarts— The jury will judge whether it influenced him. Mr. Beach— WeU, Mr. Beecher judged from the ef- fect Mr. Evarts— He had a right to, and he thought it did in- fluence him. Mr. Beach— WeU, then we have a right to know whether it did influence him. Mr. Evarts— What diflference does it make whether Mr. Beecher was mistaken or not in what he said having in- fluenced him? Mr. Beach— It makes a good deal of diflPerence. Mr. Evarts— Not the least. Mr. Beach— WeU, we will see about that by and by. Mr. Evarts— Mr. Beecher told him something, and he discharged him the next day, Mr. Morris— He says not. Mr. Evarts— He told him something. Judge Neilson— Of course you are at liberty to examine ihis witness as to everything that took place between him and Mr. Beecher, for the purpose of con action of what we have before us. Mr. Beach— Well, if Mr. Beeclier testified Judge Neilson— To the influencing. That was \m opinion or impression ; he might be mistaken in that Mr. Beach— That was a fact. He testified to it as afa^^^t, Sir. Judge NeUson— It was his conclusion. Mr. Beach— Most certainly, it is his conclusion fi-om his own actions, but he presented it in his evidence as a faci, which he gave as the motive for certain manifestaticEs on his part. Judg-e Neilson— WeU, you can inquire as to the fact. Mr. Beach— WeU, the fact is the influence. Mr. Beecher says he influenced Mr. Bowen. Mr. Porter— Find that. Mr. Evarts— Where does he say that. Mr. Beach— WeU, the gentleman probably will gain some information by repeating his question. I referred him to the evidence when he asked me beZore, and I re- peat the reference. Mr. Evarts— That is not a proper reference. Mr. Beach— Yes, Sir, it is a proper reference. Mr. Evarts— Look at the letter ; the letter speaks for itself. Mr. Beach— I refer you to that. Mr. Evarts— Well, look at the letter. Mr. Beach— If you want it get it. Mr. Evarts— I don't want to be told. Sir, over and over again that when Mr. Beecher has stated what he said fx; the witness to influence him, and confined himself to that, they can ask this witness whether it did influence him with the view of contradicting Mr. Beecher. Mr, Beach— You have not been told that once yet. Mr. Evarts— Heaven only knows what influenced him. He left the interview, and he turned Mr. TUton out the next day. Mr. FuUerton— No, he did not. Mr. Evarts— Well, soon after. MR. BOWEN TELLS HOW HE PRESENTED THE SUMMONS TO MR. BEECHER. Judge Neilson — Leaving out, at present, the question whether it influenced Mr. Bo^ven, give m the facts— what occurred between him and BTr. Beecher. Mr. FuUerton— Now, give us the facts that ociurrw) between you and Mr. Beecher, at Mr. Freeland's hous* that night. Judge Neilson — Go on, Mr. Bowen. The Witness — Do you want all the conversation that was had t Q. Yes 1 Judge Neilson — Yes ; go on. A. I presented the letter to TIr. Beecher and he read it and put it into his pocket— be had his overcoat on. then asked him \Th;. 18711 A. Yes, Sir, 1871. Mr. Morris— 1872. The Witness— Yes, 1872. Mr. Fullerton— I want you to give us the history of that Tripartite Agreement ? A. I know but very little of its history, Sir. Mr. Fullerton- Well, it won't take long to give it, then. Mrs. Evarts— I don't know about that Tripartite Agree- ment. It is part of their evidence ; they introduced it. Mr. Beach— Yes ; but you have given some aflfirmative evidence in regard to it. Mr. Evarts— In the original matter, whatever this gen- tleman saw and did with his own eyes. Mr. Fullerton— That is what I asked him. Mr. Evarts— You asked him for a history of the Tripart- ite Agreement. Mr. Fullerton— Within his personal knowledge. Judge Neilson— As far as he knows. Mr. Fullerton— Mr. Bowen won't state beyond what he knows. The Witness— I was waited upon by Mr. Claflin, I be- Uevo, with the document as it was originally drawn, and asked to read it and sign it. Do you wish me to go on ? Mr. Fullerton— Yes, go on, please. The Witness— I read the document, and told him I could not sign it as it was originally drawn. He urged me to do so. I told him that I could not, and would not. He asked me if I could make some emendations not very material, and with those emendations whether I would sign n. I said : " I can change it so that I would be wiU- ing to sign it on youi- personal request," and he urged me to make them there. I told him to leave it with me, and I would see him again the next day. I made some changes in it, and told him I would assent under the circum- stances, giving my reasons why I would sign it, and I did. so. That is about the whole of it. Q. What did you say to Mr, Claflin in regard to it ! Mr. Evarts — Objected to. That is inter alias. Mr. Fullerton— It is part of the history which he started to give. Mr. Beach— What he said. Mr. Evarts— What he said to Mr. Claflin. Mr. Claflin was not Mr. Beecher's agent. Mr. Fullerton— It is what he said accompanying it. Mr. Evarts— Mr. Claflin was his own friend, and under- took to do his side of this business. Mr. Beecher repre- sented his own side, and Mr. Tilton his, and now what passed between Mr. Claflin and him cannot be given in evidence, except as they acted. yir. Beach— You called it out, an interview between Mr. Claflin and Mr. Bowen. Mr. Evarts— I did, so far as carrying the paper and leav- ing it with him, and getting it bacfc Mr. Fullerton— What he said. Mr. Beach- What he said. Mr. Evarts— Yes, what he said. Mr. Fullerton— Your Honor will bear in mind I am only giving in evidence an event that was described by Mr. Claflin, who was a witness for the other side. He stated he went for Mr. Bowen, that he requested him to sign the paper that had been prepared, and was going to give the whole of the conversation between himself and Mr. Bowen on that subject, and the reason why he didn't give more than he did of that conversation was because of the f ailirre of memory. We propose to supply that hiatus in the history of the case. Judge Neilson— I think you can do that, Mr. Evarts— The question is as to the reasons he gave for signing it. Judge Neilson— The conversation with Mr. Claflin. Mr. Fullerton— It is due to the witness that he should state here what he said then, as qualifying the act which he did. Judge Neilson- Yes, in connection with the act ot refusing to sign or signing. Mr. Evarts— He did sign it, and that concludes him. Judge NeUson— Yes. Mr. Evarts— And everything else is merged between the parties by that, by a well-known principle of law. Mr. Fullerton— If the action was on an agreement, that would apply. Ml-. Evarts— A treaty between parties that is contained in a bargain contains the settlement. Mr. Beach— It is an action on the part of a contract. Judge Neilson— If Mr. Claflin gave part of it, perhaps he gave all of it. Mr. Fullerton — State what you said to Mr. Claflin on that occasion. A. I told him that I could not sign ^he- original. Mr. Evarts— He has already stated that. 420 IHE TlLTON-BREOHEIl lEIAL. Mr, FuUertoii— Is tiat the objection 'i Mr. Evai tii— No. Mr. FuUerton—Mention it. Mr. Beach— I think we had better give the gentleman the night to loot, that up. Judge Neilson— No, that would be too liberal. Mr. Porter— The point is, there is no such evidence. The point is for them to find it if there is. Mr. Fullerton— I appeal to the recollection of his Honor. Judge Neilson— I remember Mi-. Claflin stated the fact that he tooJi the paper to Mr. Bowen, and at Mr. Bowen's request he left it with him, and after ward chided him for not signing it. Mr. rullerton— The arbitrators chided him for not sign- ing it. Judge Neilson— No, not the arbitrators; the witness. Mr. Fullerton- For not getting it signed on the spot. Mr. Beach— The distinguished Samuel WUkeson. Judge Neilson— Yes, he suggested the opinion that the paper would never be got back again. Mr, Evarts— That was at another time. That was not in Mr. Bowen's presence. Judge Neilson— Certainly. Mr. Evarts— That is when the parties were all together. Mr. TUton was present when he said that. That made it good evidence. Now, Mr. Clafliu has been permitted to sa^ only that he took the paper to Mr. Bowen and brought it back. Judge Neilson— He left it with Mr. Bowen, and Mr. Bowen requested him to leave it with him for examina- tion, and he did leave it. Mr. Evarts— That is all. If we had introduced Mr. Bowen's conversation, I presume an objection would have been made, and it would have been a proper objec- tion ; his convevsation between Mr. Claflin and Mr. Bowen didn't aifeot the parties to this suit, either of them, Mr. Beecher or Mr. Tilttm. Mr. Bowen and Mr. Claflin were on one side friends, and how they talked together could not have been introduced, and cannot be by them. Judge Neilson— Undoubtedly ; but the question is whether you have given in evidence anything on that subject. Mr. Evarts— And we ask them to point tJiat out. Mr. Prior— We have it. Judge Neilson— Mr. Porter has it. Mr. Porter [readingl : Q. You took the paper and went to Mr. Bowen's, did you ] A. Yes, Sir. Q. And left it with him ? A. I think I did. Q. That evening % A. Yes, Sir. Q. Left the paper with him ? A. I left the paper. Q. For his consideration 1 A. Yes, Sir. Mr. Fullerton— Go on. Mr. Porter— What do yon refer to 1 Mr. Fullerton— I refer to this : It is as fresh in my recollection as if it took place to-day, that Mr. Bowen objected to signing it. I don't want to look for it. The testimony is that Mr. Bowen objected to signing the agreement, and requested that it should be left with him overnight, and that upon the return of Mr. Claflin to the party whom he had left he was chided for not bringing it back signef",, aM the prophecy was indulged in that he would never get it signed. Mr. Evarts— What has that to do with it 1 Mr. Fullerton— It has this to do with it : that when you proved on your behalf that Mr. Bowen objected, that I have a right to know in what language he clothed that objection. That is my point. I am only following up the inquiry of the other side. Mr. Evarts— What took place in Mr. Tilton's picsfuc: at Mr. Moulton's house was the subiect of evi- dence, whatever it was, and that was given in evidence. What took place between Mr. Bowen and Mr. Claflin at Mr. Bowen's house was not the subject of evidence, except so far as Mr. Clafliu ^rought it to be the subject of evidence by what he stated when he came back. Now, that was given in evidence. Judge Neilson— Unless you inquired into the CQnversa- tion had between them when he left the paper. Mr. Evarts— We did not. Mr. Porter— There is not one single Inquiry on that subject, and the simple question is this : Shall they, as a part of their rebutting evidence, be permitted to prove, as evidence against Henry Ward Beecher, a conversa- tion between Mr, Bowen and his arbitrator, as to which we have not inquired I That is not competent evidence, Judge Neilson— It was only suggested on the idea that you had inquired. Mr. Evarts— Ah ! Judge Neilson— Pass to some other topic, Mr. Fullerton, and this can be looked up between now and the morning-. Mr. Morris — It is within four minutes of the time of ad- joiu'ning, if your Honor please. Mr. Beach— If your Honor please, I find on looking at page 649 Mr. Morris [To Mr. Beach]— It is within four minutes of the time of adjoiu^ning. Judge Neilson [To the jurors]— Get ready to retire, gentlemen. Return to-morrow morning at 11 o'clock. The Court here adjourned until 11 o'clock Thursday morning. TESTIMONY OF HJtJNEI G. BOWEJ^. 421 EIGHTIETH DAY'S PROCEEDINGS. HENRY C. BOWEN'S TESTIMONY CLOSED. BHOBT QUESTIONING BY .MR. FULIJIRTON FOLLOWED BY A SEARCHING CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. EVARTS— MR. BO WEN CONTRADICTS MR. CLAFLIX CONCERNING ARBITRATION DETAILS— THE TRI- PARTITE COVENANT FURTHER DISCUSSED — OTHER DENIALS BY MR. BOWEN OF TESTIMONY FOR THi: DEFENSE— MINOR EVIDENCE BY JOHN N. LONGHI. Thursday, Ma^j 6, 1875. The direct examination of Mr. Bowen by Mr. Ful- lerton was short, and there were manifestations of disappointment from the spectators when about 11:45 a. m. Mr. Fullerton said *' That's all," and sat down. His questions to the witness had referred in the main to what had passed between Mr. Bo wen and Mr. Beecher concerning Mr. Tilton, about the time of the holidays in 1870-71, and to the degree of friendliness which the witness had expressed for Mr. Beecher. Mr. Bowen substantially repeated what he had said on Wednesday. Mr. Evarts began the cross-examination of jMr. Bowen with unusual harshness of tone and manner. At times his questions were delivered in terms ap- parently of reproach, and he thi'ew great earnestness iato his voice, and pointed his finger at the witness, who seemed stung by his severe method of examina- tion. Mr. Evarts went exhaustively into the liistory of the arbitration between Mr. Tilton and Mr. Bowen. During his cross-examination the witness flatly contradicted some of the statements of the defend- ant's witnesses and called others in question. He de- nied that he had ever seen the Tripartite Agreement, or any part of its text, before the settlement by the arbitration of his difficulties with Mr. Tilton. He positively denied that at the announcement of the award ]Mr. Claflin had said that *' they had made up their minds to burn all the papers connected with the ficandal, chat IVlr. Bowen should pay $2,000 to Mr. Tilton, and that they should sign the Tripar- Ht© Agreement." Afterward Mr. Bowen quaMed his denial by saying that there was c%?n- versation in the room among knots of persons after the award was made, and Mr. (laflin might have ut- tered the words referred to, but not in his hearing, or as addressed to the arbitrators. " Well, Sir," said Mr. Evarts, how many knots could yau make out of fire people?" "Three at least," replied the witness. Mr. Bowen also called in qnostion the statements of Charles Storrs and Deacon FreeiaiKl, who had con- firmed in general terms what Mr. Claflin said. Mr. Bowen denied, moreover, that he had asked to have the "Woodstock letter" returned to him. These denials or contradictions of the statements of the defendant's witnesses caused a stir of interest among the spectators, which was expressed in whispers and nods, and more than once Judge Neilson had to rap for order. The witness also, in a qualified way, denied that he had made certain statements to Mr. Eggleston. He frequently, during the course of his cross-examination, made use of the expres- si' Daily Union. \ Brooke Yx, Dec. 31, 1S70. 3 Ifr. Theodore Tiltox— 5ir .- TMs is to give you due notice, in accordance with the provisions of a contract made with you to act as editor of The Brooklyn Daily rnion from the 1st day of May last, that your services as said editor will cease from the time of the delivery of this written note. You are therefore required to discon- tinue immedately from further editorial labor and ser- vice on said paper. I give you further notice that I am now ready to make settlement with you according to the provisions of the ^. before-mentioned contract, and that if you have any claims or demands whatever against TTie BrooMyn Daily Vnioyi, I am ready, in behalf of said corporation, to meet them promptly as soon as the amoxmt, if any, is fljxed and awarded by arbitration, as provided in said con- tract. Please name, at your convenience, the time and place to meer and select the names of the said arbitrators, and make any further arrangements necessary and proper in the premises. IIe^try C. Bowex. President Brooklyn Daily rnion. 1 428 TUB TILTON-BEECHEB A. Yes, Sir. IBIAL. Q. Tliat was a corporation 1 [Marked Exhibit D, 143. 1 Q. Did you receive any answer from Mr. Tilton to either of those notes ? A. I believe I did, but I am not positive. I don't recollect, Mr. Evarts, about that. Q. You do not find such a paper ? A. No, Sir, I do not. Q. And I imagine that you have supplied yourself, toy search, with all the papers that you supposed would come in question 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. So far as you know, then, you have not any such pa- per 1 A. I have no recollection. Q. Of receiving it ? A. Still I have an impression that I received some reply. Q. In writing ? A. In writing— I think I did, but it may not be so, however. Q. Now, Sir, did you think that you were Indebted to Mr. TUton upon your termination of that contract, for damages Mr. Pullerton— One moment. Mr. Evarts— [ContLnuingJ— for damages for breaking it, according to its terms. Mr. Fullerton— One moment. Mr. Beach— We object to what he thought. Mr. Evarts— His attitude on that subject. Sir, is, I sup- pose, part of the transaction. Judge NeUson— Yes, his attitude ; but this question is whether he thought he was indebted. Mr. Evarts— Yes ; whether his view of the matter was that he was indebted to him at all. Mr. Pullerton— He certainly thought that he might be Indebted, because he courted investigation according to the provisions of the contract, and expressed his wiUing- ness to pay any amount that might toe found against him. Mr. Evarts— If any. Mr. Fullerton— Yes, if any. Mr. Evarts— I want to know whether, in his view, he •was indebted to Mr. Tilton for the termination of those contracts. Mr. Fullerton— Well, he certainly didn't suppose he was Indebted, xmless Mr. Tilton made some demand, and pursued the course pointed out by the contract. Now, certainly they cannot give what Mr. Bowen thought at that time as to the particular claim that might be made against him by Mr. Tilton. Judge NeUson— I cannot see that It is material what he thought. If you had the contract before you you could tell perhaps better than he could. Mr. Evarts— Ah ! my telling is of no consequence. Judge Neilson— I don't see that what he thought is material. Mr. Evarts— The question is this. The gentleman did not pay anything for a year and four months, though he expressed this readiness to pay Judge Neilson— But he was not willing to pay, except as something might be found due and fixed by arbi- tration. Mr. Evarts— Of course all the materials therein would be the subject of consideration; but I submit, your Honor, that I have a right to the position of this liti- gant or adverse party to the claims— t« know whether he admitted a claim. Judge Neilson— Yes, whether he aaanitted a claim ; but I cannot receive what he thought. Mr. Evarts— Well, Mr. Tilton has said that Mr. Bowen had no defense. Mr. Fullerton— That was Mr. TUton's view. Mr. Evarts— I know it was; and now I want to know Mr. Bowen's view. Mr. Fullerton— That was struck out— what Mi\ Tilton said upon that subject. Judge Neilson— I won't allow you to prove what )ie thought. Mr. Fullerton— This delay that the gentleman speak* about was occasioned by the fact that the adverse party to Mr. Bowen did not pursue his remedy in the way pro- vided for by the written agreement. Mr. Bowen ex- pressed his willingness to pay whenever the amount was ascertained in that particular mode, and invited the ap- pointment of arbitrators. Mr. Evarts— Well, we will argue the matter whenever it becomes necessary or material. I am now seeking what the law allows in the shape of evidence. Mr. Fullerton— It is necessary now, so far as I have gone. Mr. Evarts— Mr. Bowen, you were entirely solvent a ad responsible at that time, and have so continued ever since ? A. I have been and was. Q. And so imderstood to be ? A. Yes, Sir. NO ADMISSION OF INDEBTEDNESS TO MR. TILTON BY MR. BOAVEN. Q. Now, Sir, did you at any time admit that you were indebted to Mr. Tilton in any sum of mono'/ for the breach of— for the termination of those contracts f Mr. Fullerton— That is objected to. Judge Neilson— We will take It. Mr. Fullerton—" At any time admit I " Judge Neilson— Yes, we will take it. Mr. Fullerton— It seems to me, your Honor, that that i» more objectionable than the other. Judge NeUson— I understand him to mean, admit to Mr. Tilton. Mr. Fullerton— I do not so understand it. Judge Neilson— I think that is implied. Mr. Beach— Admit to anybody, Sir, anywhere ! Judge Neilson— Yes, I think we wUl take that, even. Mr. Fullerton— Your Honor wiU perceive that that is giving a construction to language. One person raigtt suppose that what he stated was an admission, and another would construe it differently. Lawyers some- times disagree in regard to the import of language. Judge Neilson— Yes, sometimes, f Laughter.J TEtSTlMOJ^Y OF HE2 Mr. Fullertoii— Yes, Sir. Judge Neilson— I tliiuk \^(t will take tlie ans"wer. Mr. Beacli— We except. Mr. Evarts— Now, Mr. Bowen % The Witness— Will the stenographer plea«e read the question. The Tribune stenographer read the (luestion as fol- lows : " Now, Sir ; did you at any time admit that you were ndebted to Mr Tilton in any sum of money for the breach of— for the termination of those contracts 1" A. I have no recollection on that subject. Q. At the time of the termination of those contracts did you understand that you had a justifying cause for ter- minating them. Mr. Fullerton— That is objected to. Judge Neilson— We cannot take that, Sir. Mr. Evarts— You r Honor will be so good as to note our exception. Judge Neilson— Yes. ME. BO WEN'S THOUGHTS ON THE AEBI- TEATION. Mr. Evarts— Now, Sir, wlien first did you hear of a proposal to have the arbitration which actually took place in April, '72 1 A. I have no better recollec tionthan this, that it was within a few days— perhaps two weeks from the time. Q. And from whum did you first hear if? A. I am not positive in regard to that. 1 had freciuently made proposals myself to settle in that waj', according to agree- ment. Q. To whom 1 A. To different parties. Q. To whom ] A. To Mr. Storrs and to Mr. Claflin, and to other friends who introduced the subject— to anybody. I said I was ready to settle at any time. Q. At any time 1 A. At any dme. Ci. And did you accompany those statements with the luriher stat meut that you did not owe him anything? Mr. Fullerton- That is objected to. Judge Neilson— We will take it. TUl' Witness [emphatically]— I did not. -J V. Kallerton— We withdi-aw the objection, Sir. [Laugh- ter] Mr. Beach~No, we don't. Q,. In any form — you settled certain admitted debts or obligations promptly, did you not, after the teimination 01 the contracts! A. No, Sir ; there were Q. Didn't you pay some notes 1 A. I paid some obli- gations, but there were certain— one or two admitted in na/ own mind, Bm all amoimts, but I wanted the whole tliLng adjusted. Q. I am only asking you about a matter of fact. You dWpay promptly some obligations that were not Ib dis- pute ! A. Sofint obligations, I did. ' K Tmmeciiatel.y after iliis termination ! A. Yes, Sir. ^liY C. BOWEN. 429 Q. What was the amount of that paj-ment, and when was it made 1 A. The amount was two or thiee thousand dollars, according to my recollection, perhaps not so much ; but it was settled within u few days. Q. And was that payment of all that was in dispute! A. No, Sir- ; there were one or two smaU amounts that I felt, myself, ought to be paid ; for instance, the week's salary terminating on Satiu'day night. Q. Beyond what was paid in this two or three thousand dollars ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Well, you thought he ought to have a week's salary t A. I didn't think he ought to have it ; I thought it was Q. But you thought it might be due ? Mr. Beach— Your Honor will understand us as objecting to what he says as to his thoughts. Q. What else was there not included in your aotOAl payment that you did not consider m dispute ! Mr. Beach— We object. The Witness— I have no recoUectiom Mr. Beacli— It will be understood that we stand as pwK testing against these declarations of thoughts, opiniona, and considerations. Mr. Evarts— This is the transaction. He p aid all that was due, except Judge Neilson— He does not object to the fact. ]VIi\ Beach [to Mr. Evarxs]— You could not have under- stood what I said, or you would not have made that reply to it. Mr. Evarrp— With whom did you make this settlement, or to whom personally this payment that you did make ? A. I think it was to Mr. Moulton, or to some messenger sent by him to me. I am not positively sure about that, Q. Did Mr. Moulton bring you an authority from Mr.. Tilton 1 A. He did present one. Q. Did he leave it with you 1 A. think not. Q. Have ycu searched for it 1 A. I have searched for all papers, but T find nothing of that kind. Q. Yovir search would have covered it, if it had been in existence t A. Yes, Sir. Q. What is your recollection as to its having been left or not 1 A. I don't think there ever was such a paper left with me. Q. Now, this week's salarj' that you had in your mind^ was it salary as editor, or salary, under the new con- tracts, as contributor 1 Mr. Beach— He was editor all the time. The Witness— It was the Q. Was it the salary under the previous engagement!: A. Under the last engagement, Q. And not under the new contract! A. Under the last contract. Q. That is to say, tlie contracts by their terms began to draw from the Ist of January ! A. From their date— or from the time specified. Mr. Evarts— I know they were made on the 27th, but I thought they began on the tst of Jinnnxy. [To the wifr 430 THE TILTON-BEEOREB TBIAL. Have you got tbose contracts? The Witness— I ness.l have. Mr. Evarts— Oil, well, then, they will speak for them- selves. We will look at them if you please. The witness produced the contracts. Q. In whose handwriting is this Daily Union contract 1 A. I can tell, Sir, If you show it to me, perhaps. Mr. Fullerton— It is Mr. Tilton's. Mr. Evarts— It is Mr. Tilton's ; there is no doubt about It. The other one does not seem to be in the same hand- writing. Is this other one in your handwriting [handing paper to witness] ? A. It is not in my writing. I am not able to Q. Well, is it not Mr. Tilton's « A, It is not Mr. Tilton's. Probablj- a clerk's. Q. Now, Sir, were these contracts before the arbitra- tion? A. They were. Q. These papers ? Those very identical papers. Q. That is my question, these very papers ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. And were these receipts given upon them? A. They were ; at that time. Q. At that time 1 A. At that time, together with an- other receipt, which is here [producing it]. Q. A duplicate ? A. No, Sir. [The contracts were marked exhibits D, 144 and 145, and the receipt exhibit D, 146.] Mr. Evarts— I read this receipt. [Reading.] Brooklyn, April 3, 1872. Received of Henry C. Bowen, publisher and proprie- tor of The Independent, and Henry C. Bowen, President of The Brooklyn Daily Union, $7,000, in full of claims, demands, and dues, of every name and description, growing out of contracts, heretofore existing, and now terminated, with The Independent and with The Daily Union, in ftdl of claims and demands against said Bowen individually, and also of claims and demands against the publisher or trustees of said Daily Union, This was given you at the time of the payment ? A. On the evening of the on that occasion. Judge Neilson— When you gave your check 1 A. At the time I gave the check. By Mr. Evarts— Now, you say you cannot tell us who :first brought to your attention the prospect, or the pur- pose, of an immediate arbitration ? A. I am not positive. Q. Well, Sir, what is your best impression? A. My im- pression is that it was Mr. Claflin or Mr. Charles Storrs ; possibly some other individual, but I am not certain. THE GOLDEN AGE AETICLE SHOWN MR. BOWEN. Q. One or tlie other. Well, Sir, do you re- member whether that person, whether it was Mr. Claflin or Mr. Storrs, exhibited to you a galley-proof of a pro- posed publication in The Oolden Age ? A, At that time, or about that time, I saw it. Whether the individual who proposed the arbitration presented it at that time, I am not positive. Q. How did it come to your observation— you say you saw it? A. In the course of the arrangement for the ar- bitration that was shown to me. Q. Do you remember whether you had seen it before Mr. Storrs or Mr. Claflin spoke to youl A. I hacl never seen it until it was presented to me at that time, during the progress of the arrangement. Q. In connection with the subject of the arbitration ? A . In connection with that. Q. And from the same person that approached you on the subject of that immediate arbitration % A. I am not certain who presented it. Q. Well, I say, you are not certain who, but this galley- proof business was brought to your attention by the same person that brought to your attention the imme- diate prospect or purpose of an arbitration ? A. I think so ; I am not certain. Q. And at the same time ? A. I am not positive, Sir, but it was at the same time ; about the same time ; it was during the previous two or three weeks to the arbitra- tion, according to my recollection. THE NAMING OF THE ARBITRATORS. Q. Now, Mr. Bowen, when did the naming of the arbitrators first arise ? A. It first arose when I gave Mr. TUton the notice to quit, and that I was ready to settle. Q. I mean this very arbitration that went through— the naming of those particular men? A. I don't remember, Sir. Q. You don't remember ? A. I don't remember. I stated that I was ready to leave it to any three disinterested parties. I said that from the begiuning down to the day it was settled. Q. I don't care anything about begiuning, but you told the person who brought the matter to youi* attention, aa you were approaching the period when there was an actual arbitration— you told that person that you were ready to arbitrate ? A. Ready to arbitrate. Always had been. Q. How soon after did the question come up as to who were to be the arbitrators ? A. I am not able to say the date. Q. Do you remember whom you named ? A. I have failed entirely to remember what person I named, utl think it was Mr. Clafln ; I am not positive ; either Mr. Claflin or Mr. Storrs ; one of those. (4. Are you sure it was not Mr. Freeland ? A. I would not say that it is impossible. I was willing to leave it to those three men. Q. WeU, you named some person, did you not 1 A. I am not positive that I did. Q. You don't know but all three were named by »o\uf body else ? A. They were all acceptable men I fUd nof object to any of them. TjESTIMOXI Q. Did Tou understand wliom ilr. Tilton named ? ■lid not. Q. And did you understand, if lie named one and you one, how the third was appointed ? A. I did not. Q. When did you first know who the tliree were to be ? A. I don't remember, Sir ; it was within a few days before it was adjusted. Q. Was it not the very day of the arbitration ? A. I think not. Q. But you are not positive of that 1 A. I am not posi- tive, but I think not ; I think it was two or three days before. Q. Xow, Sir, how long before the actual arbitration (which was begun and ended, I undoi staud, in one eren- ing,)— how long before that eTenino; did you see the text, or proposed text, of what has since been called the Tri- partite Agreement % A. How long before that evening 1 Q. Yes. A. Xever, Q. You never saw A. [InterruptiugJ Xo, Sir. Q. [Continuing] The proposed Tripartite Agreement ? A. No, Su-. Q. T\Tien did you first see the proposed text of the proposed Tripartite Agreement? A. Afterwards— some days ; I don't remember. Q. You never saw either the complete text or the pro- posed text* A. Nor any text, nor any writing on the subject, before the settlement. Q. Do you remember that you received at anytime about that period— that there was delivered to you what has been called the Woodstock letter i A. I remember it, Sh-. OF BEI^BY A. I C. BOW EX. 431 THE WOODSTOCK LETTER EETTOXED. Q. Wiien did you receive tlie Woodstock let- rer from Mr. Tilton \ A. That was two or three days after the settlement. Q. Two or three days after the arbitration ? A. Possibly Longer, but it was very soon after. Q. Very soon after you received the acmal letter ? A. Very soon alter I had made the settlement with Jli-. Tilton. Q. Y^es. How old a letter was that ? A. Some years old. Q. Well was it not A. If you wish to know, Sii\ I can ceU you. Q. Yes, I want to know, of course. I don't care any- :hing about the letter ; I ouly want to know how old it ^as. A. [Referring to a paper] It is dated Woodstock, Tune 16, 1863. Very well. And that letter was returned to you. 1. That letter was i\ turned to me. Q. Immediately after this settlement I A. Immediately ifter this settlement. Q. When did you first know it was to be returned to ^oul A. I think not before its delivery, but possibly the same day, before— the same day, during the day. Q. When had you first asked or suggested its return to rou ! A. L^mphaticaUj .J I never asked for its return. Q, The whole matter, then, wa-s a voluntary one ? A- I am not certain about that ; I think Mr. Storrs asked flor it ; he told me so. Q. Well, we won't go into third persons. It was volun- tary so far as you were concerned 1 A. I didn't ask for it. Q. Xor expect it? A. Nor expect it; it was a surprise to me when I received it. Q. Very well; now can you say who first brought you the Tripartite Agreement 1 A. I think Mr. Claflin, Sir. Q. Have you any doubt upon that subject I A. I have not. MR. BOWEX'S SIGNING OF THE COVEN A^TT. Q. And as you have stated, it was left with you ] A. It was left with me over night. Q. And was not immediately signed. Now, how long after it was fli'st left with you did you finally sign the paper, as you did sign it ? A. It was left with me in my office in New-York, and sitmed at the same office, I think the next day, during the day. Q. That is your signature \ [Handing the paper to wit- ness]. A. That is my signattu^c. Q. Is there any mode in which you can fix the day on which this was left with you, and so, the day on whioli you signed it ? A. I a:n not able to fix the date. Q. Have you no memorandum or record of it ? A. None whatever. Q. Were the other signatures on it when you signed It 1 A. I am not able to say positively. Q. What is your impression about that ! A. I have failed to recollect. I could not say that there were none, and yet ir is possible. Q. What is your best impression as to whether yon si.gned it first or afterward ? A. I have no impression. Q. None ? A. No, Sir. Q. And the paper, when it was left with you, was com- plete, as it now is 1 A. I am not able to say that. The paper which was left with me wa-s changed— altered, and after it was changed I signed it. Q. Well, was more than one paper left with you ? A. The paper which was left with me was changed by my- self ; that part of it which referred to myself ; whether it was taken away— I think it was, and brought back with those alterations made. Q. Do you mean to say that the paper which you have now spoken of as having been left with you and signed by you the next was taken away in the interval ? A. I think it was, to make the change ; I declined to sign it as it was left with me. Mr. Evarts— Well, we will see about that. [To the witness.] Is that the paper that was left with you the first day [handing a paper to the witness] 1 A. Without reaiing it I should say it is not, because the frequent in- terlineations which I made are not here. Q. That paper has no interlineations, has it? A. No, not as I see. 433 TRE 11LT0IJ-B2 Q. Is that the paper tliat was left with you, as you have said, one day and signed hy you the next f A. I say it is not. Judge Neilson— That Is, it was not the first paper that was left with you ? A. No. Sir. Q. It is not the paper that was left one day and signed the next i A. No, Six, it was not. Mr, Beach— He does not say the paper was left with him one day and signed the next. Mr. Evarts— He has said so. The Witness— It is a mistake if I said that, Mr. Evarts— I don't mean to say you contradict your- self. I only want to get at the fact. I understood you to have said a paper was left one day and signed the next. The Witness— Not the same paper signed the next day. Mr. Evarts— Very well; we wiU get at it as it is. [To the witness.] This is not the paper that was left with you the day before you signed it 1 A. No, Sir. Mr. Beach— The paper he sisnied was not left with him the day before. You misstate his answer in your ques- tion. Mr. Evarts— I don't misstate. Mr. Beach— You \ery clearly do. By Mr. Evarts— This very paper that you signed Is not the paper that was left with you the day before i A. No, Sir ; it was not. Q. Now, before that had any paper purporting to be a Tripartite Agreement been left with you ? A. There was a paper left with me the day or day but one before I signed it. Q. Very wen. And only one such paper was left with you before the day you signed iti A.I th ink not. Q. Very well. And that was the day before you signed it! A. I think so, but possibly two days might have in- tervened. Q. Weil, your best recollection? A. My best recollec- tion. Q. So that there was but one paper laid before you until the paper came that you actually did sigul A. Only one, according to my recollection. Q. The best of your knowledge is that there was an in- tervivl of a day between tlie presentation of the first paper- and the signing of the actual paper 1 A. There was actually one day, and possibly more. Q. Possibly more ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Now, Sir, who brought you this paper the day that you signed it ? A. Mr. Claflin, I believe. Q. And he had brought up the other paper the day be- fore 1 A. Yes, Sir ; if it was the day before. Q. Well, that day, or the previous day 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. One of the two daysl A. Yes, Sir. Q. Have you any idea that there was more than one day between? A. I have no recoUeotion; I think but one day, but there might possibly have been more. Q. Now, where were these papers— the two papers suc- 'rECHEB lELAL, oessively brought to you— at your house, or at your office t A. At my ofice in New-York. Q. At The Independent oflBce 1 A. Yes, Sir ; No. 3 Park- place. Q. And you remember that distinctly? A. I do, dis- tinctly. Q. And that it was Mr. daffibi ? A. I do remember he brought them. Q. Both. Now, how soon did you know that after you had signed this paper that the other parties had signed it? A. I am not able to state. I understood that all had assented to it, if their names were not on it. Q. When you signed ? A. When I signed. Q. You understood aU were ready to sign ? A. K they were not on already. It was a paper which had been assented to by all parties. Q. And yoa so signed it yourself ? A. I so signed it Q. And when you first knew the actual signatures had been appended ? A. I am not able to say. Q. You are not able to state? A. But very soon. Q. Did you retain any copy of it ? A. I did not, nor memorandum. Q. And have no memorandum concerning the dates or places where this was presented ? A. I have no memo- randum whatever in regard to the paper, or to Itie occa- sion. Q. None. Now, when were you first advised that there was to be a meeting of the arbitrators ? A. I am not able to state ; within a very few days before it occurred ; pos- sibly two or three. Q. And what advice did you receive— what information, and what notice ? A. It was a verbal notice. Q. At a particular hour and place that they were to meet? A. It was stated to me that the arbitraton agi-eed they should meet at Mr. Moulton's at a certain hour. Q. When ? A. On a certam evening. Q, When would they meet ? A. I can teU by ref errinff to Q. Was it the evening they actually did meet ? A. Ac- cording to my recollection. Q. According to your recollection ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. That was the 3d of April, as I understand it ? A. It was oTi the date mentioned in the paper which I gave you yesterday. Q. April 3 ; the evening of April 3 1 A The evening of AprU 3. Q. Now, did you receive f*at notice earlier than that evening ? A. I am ruot able to state. Q. You cannot say about that ? A. I cannot say. Q. From whom did you receive the notice \ A. I am not able to state. Q. You have no recollection ? A. No, Sir. Q Whatever ? I think it was fi'om some of the m'bi- trators— either Mr. Claflin or Mr. Storrs. lESUMOyj OF H Q. Yoa have no recollection of it f A. I have no recol- | lection who I received it from. Q. Do you remember whether that was the first notice of the a<5tual time and place of meeting ? A. I have Btated I have no recollection on that subject, and I say it Again. Q, So far as your memory goes ? A. It may be so, and it may not. ^ THE MEETING OF THE ARBTTRATORS. Q. When you got there whom did you meet ? A. I found the arbitrators there in the course of the even- ing ; I don't know whether they were there when I got there or not— all of them. Q. Whom did you find there when you got there ? A, I don't remember which one was the first. Q. I didn't ask you that. There were other people. Whom did you find when you got there ? A. I don't re- member. Q. Did you find Mr. Tilton ? A. I don't remember. Q. Did you find Mr. Moulton % A. I don't remember "Whether he was in the room when I got there. Q. Did you find Mr. Claflini A. I don't remember that. Q, Did you find Mr. Freeland '? A. I have stated I don't remember ia regard to any one. Q. Then, for aught you know, when yon and Mr. Storrs went there, there was not anv one there ? A, For aught I know, there were no other persons there, and they might liave been all there. Q. Exactly; so I understood. You have no recollection about it ? A. I have no distinct recollection. Q. Indistinct recollection 1 A. No indistinct recollec- tion. v^. Xow, what horn- did you go there ? A. In the even- ing; I should think about half -past seven or eight o'clock; I am not positive. Q. And what was the first thing that occurred after you got there that you do remember? A. Shook hands all round. Q. You remember that 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. And did that include the whole— Mr. Tilton, Mr. Moulton, and the three arbitrators 1 A. Yes, Sir; aU round. Q. Well, what was the next thing that was said— that was done 1 A. I am not able to state consecutively the movements of the evening. Q. You were all together in the room and shook hands all roimd ? A. We came together ultimately at the time. Q. You were together when you shook hands ? A. We were. Sir, of course. [ Q. It was not any chasm you shook hands across 1 A. !no, Sir— bloody. Q. Wh^! room vi. tujii a. It was the back room, or dining-iooui. Ci. On the parlor floor? A. On the parlor floor. Q. Nov , v.-iien you were there all together, and before ENEY G. BOW EN. 433 the formal commencement of the arbitration proceedings, what was said and done? Can you" repeat it? A. I cannot. Q. No part of it ? A. No, Sir ; it was casual remarks. Q. Nothing that impressed itself on your mind? A. Nothing important ; no. Sir. Q. Are you able to say that you remember aflSrmatively that nothing important, as you call it, was said? A. I have no recollection of any such thing. Q. Ah ! Then how did the arbitration court organise and commence its sittings ? A. They gathered about the table, and were about to proceed, when I interrupted them by saying: " Grentlemen, what are we to submit?" And they said: "The matters between Mr. Tilton and yourself?" I said that I should decline taking one step until it was put in writing, what we were to submit, and suggested that one of the arbitrators draw that submis- sion, and, finally, I think Mr. Moulton took his pen and said : " Gentlemen, what do you submit ?" And at our suggestion— whether this Is the first one or the second draft, I am not able to say— but, in a few moments, we agreed upon that document which is presented, without question or debate. Q. That is in Mr. Moulton's handwriting ? A. In Mr. Moulton's handwriting, yes, Sir; to my recollection. Q. WeU, then, about the proceedings before the arbi- trators; did Mr. Moulton remain? A. I am not able positively to state whether lie was present. Q. What is your impression? A. I had the impression that he did, but I am not positive ; I certainly didn't ob- ject to it. Q. I didn't ask you that. For aught you know :Mr. Tilton, yourself, and the three arbitrators may have been the only persons present ? A. For aught I know, and Mr. Moulton. Q. Mr. Moulton may have been there and may not f A. He may have been there. Q. What witnesses were introduced ? A. None what- ever. Q. What papers were introduced ? A. The documents which I presented to you. Q. Tnat is, the agreement ? A. The two agi-eements. Q. And the letter of determination ? A. No, Sir. Q. Nothing but the two agreements ? A. Nothing but the two agreements. Q. Who commenced then giving further information to the arbitrators ? A. I think it was Mr. Tilton. Q. Do you remember what he said ? A, I do not, dis- tinctly. Q. WeU ? A. He presented his case briefly. Q. ^\Tiat did he say ? A. I am not able to remember, Sir, what he said. Q. Can you not give us a word of what he said ? A. He said that the object of the interview was to arrange ami- cably the matters between us in dispute, and that he claimed such an amount. 434 TUB TILTON-B. Q. Wliat amount did tie name ? A. I do not think lie named tlie amount ; lie claimed about the amount that was awarded. Q. Well what did he say about the amount he claimed ? A. I have said I don't recollect what he claimed. Q. You began to say " he claimed V A. He claimed about that amount— the amount that was awarded. Q. You said he claimed about something 1 A. What is it] Q. You said he claimed— Mr. Beach— The witness savs he claimed a certain amount; the amount he don't remember, but it was about the amount awarded. Mr. Evarts— The witness is in my hands. Mr. Beach— He is in my hands to iaterrupt you to speak to the suit. Mr. Evarts— Not exactly. Mr. Beach— Yes, he is. By Mr. Evarts— Mr. Bowen, what did Mr. Tilton say in respect to the amount he claimed ? A. I have told you that I don't recollect exactly the phraseology ; he claimed about that amount, according to my recollection ; and what he said I don't remember. Q. Do you mean to say Mr. Tilton said to these arbitra- tors, " I claim aoout $7,000 ?" A. In substance that was what he said. Q. Then did he give his reasons % A. He did. Q. What were the reasons he gave ? A. I don't remem- ber. He stated the case briefly. Q. The case ! I want to know what he said ? A. I am not able to remember the language, if that is youi- ques- tion. Q. The language, or the substance ? A. The substance of it was that he knew the contract claimed such an amount, and he so stated it. Q. And he named the amount, did n't he 1 A. About the amount. He said he claimed about so much, and specified about the amount. Q. About $7,000 ? A. About $7,000. Q. Well, now, did he say anything else? A. I am not able to remember. Q. Did he say one single thing on the subject of that arbitration, or the dispute between you and him, except that he claimed about $7,000 ? A. He may have said Q. Ah ! did he ? Q. I don't recollect. Q. Anything ! A. Anything Important, certainly. Q. And you don't recollect that he did say anything else, do you? A. At this moment I don't. Q. Very well. This is the moment that I am examining you. Now, Sir, after he got through with that statement, what did you say ? A. I said to the arbitrators that in my judgment there was no claim on The Independent or The Brooklyn Union— axiy legal claim for the amount stated, but that I should leave the whole question to the arbitrators. I made but a very few remarks. LECHER IBIAL. Q. Won't you give us those few remarks % A. I hav9< given them to you, in substance. Q. That is about the whole ? A. About the whole. Q. About the whole jon said % A. Yes, Sir. Q. Now, Sir, was yom- statement to them that yoiu didn't [To the Tribune stenographer]— Please read thft last answer. Tl^e Tribune stenographer read the answer as f ollo^v8 : " I said to the arbitrators that, in my judgment, there was no claim on The Independent or The Brooklyn Union —no legal claim for the amount stated ; but that I should leave the whole question to the arbitrators. I made bnt a very few remarks." By Mr. Evarts— Didn't you say to them that there was- no claim for any amount ? A. I have no recollection. Q. What is your best impression? A. I might have said there was no legal claim. Q. No legal claim for any amount? A. I might have so stated, in my jud.i,,ment. Q. I don't know but you were right. And then ou those statements the case was closed ? A. The case Avas closed. Q. That included evidence and argument— aU ? A. Tiie whole. Q. And you retired then ? A. No, Sir, not immediately. Q. When ? A. After the award was made. Q. I don't mean from the room, but didn't you leave the arbitrators alone ? A. We did, and entered the adjoiu- ing room. Q. You and Mr. Tilton and Mr. Moulton, If he was with you % A. Yes, Sir. Q. Retired from the room ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. And where did you go ? A. Into the front parlor. Q. Folding doors open ? A. Shut. Q. Shut then, or had they been always shut ? A. They had been shut. Q. Well, Sir, who were with you in the room that you went into 1 A. Mr. Tilton. Q. And Mr. Moulton? A. I think not; T think he went up stairs, if he M^ent with us. He might have been witli us a part of the time, but I know we were alone some minutes. ^ THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE AWARD. Q. Now, how long were you and Mr. Tilton together before the arbitrators' boaTd was ready to an- nounce their decision ? A. Half an hour perhaps. Q. Is that your recollection 1 A. According to ray recollection. Q. It was as long as that ? A. I think it was about an hour ; it might be a little less time, or a little longer. Q. WeU, what notice did you have to appeal- before them and receive their iudgnu nt? A. The folding doors opened, and we were invited to come back. Q. Who invited you ? A. I don't reuieuiber. Q. Well, you went back? A. We weut back. TESTIMOSI OF HEXEY C. BOWEX. 43.5 Q. Was Mr. Moult on there ? A. I don't remember. Q. Or did lie come there ? A. I think he Tvas present. Q. You den't know where he came from? A. I do not. Q. Well, what then happened ? A. We heard the award. Q. Well, what was said? A. I don't rememherwhat was said; the award was eaid to be so much; that was their conclusion; I don't recollect the language— the phraseology; it was not put in writing. Q. There was no written award 1 A. No, Sir. Q. Who announced what the award was 1 A. I don't remember. Q. Jfow, you cannot give us the words in which the award was announced ? A. I cannot. Q. At all 1 A. I cannot. Q. But you recollect the amount, so far as it related to the money] A. Yes, Sir. NO STIPULATION MADE ABOUT BUENIXG PAPEES. Q. Let me see if I cannot refresh your recol- lection. 3tr. Claflia says that he made the award— the announcement. Mr. Claflin says this : I said that we had made up our minds that they should tirst burn up all the papers connected with the scandal, and that Mr. Bowen should pay Mr. Tilton $7,000, and that they should sign the CoTenant — the " Tripartite Affieement," as we called it. Did Mr. Claflin say that 1 A I say not, most positirely. Q. Did he say any part of it i A. No part of it "what- erer. Q. Do you mean it is an entire fabrication ? A. No, Sir, I do not. Q. Well, what do you mean ? A. I mean that I have no recollection of any such statement being made. Q. Ah ! that is what you mean ? A, I mean that no such statement was made to me 1 Q. Do you mean, anything more than that you do not recollect of any such statetaent 1 I mean that it would be impossible not to recollect it if there had been. Q. That is matter of judgment. A. Well, that is my judgment, then. Q. It is yom- judgment that it would be Impossible for you not to recollect it if it happened? A. I say that no such statement was made to me ; I say that aost posi- tively. Q. Then it is made out of whole cloth i Mr. Fullerton— That is no way to examine a witness. The Witness— I will not say that. By Mr. Evarts — So far as the fa<3t goes, then, your recollection is that nothing to justify that statement oc- 3urred? A. I am not the judge, Sir, in this case. I decline Q. Your recollection ? A. No sucli statement was made to me ; that is my statement. Q. And nothing of that kind ? A. I have no recollection of ever heaiing anything of the kind. Q. Very well. Now, have you a recollection that nothing of that kind was said? A. I have a recollection that nothing of the Mnd was said. Q. Very well. Then, so far as you know and recoUeot, nothing occurred out of which that statement co;ild be made ? A. Nothing whatever. Q. Nothing whatever % A. No, Sir. Q. Now, Sir, will you be so g-ood as to state to us what you do remember Mr. Claflin said 1 A. I may qualify my last statement by saying that there was conversation ia. knots about the room after the award was made, and I have thought this matter over, and thought perhap* there might have been a remark, "Now you must be good friends," &c., around in knots. Whether Mr. Claflin made that statement there I am unable to say, but cer- tainly it was never made before the arbitrators as such, according to my recollection. It is entire news to me. Q. For aught you know, then, it might have been said in that room, while you were altogether ? A. It might have been whispered or said in knots, and I not have heard it, but not addressed to the ai^bitrators. Q. But the whole of it might have been said in that room, for aught you know, that night 1 A. That night it mi^ht have been. Q. Now, how; many knots could you make out of five people ? A. Three, at least. Q. Well, what was the first knot! A. I have no recol- lection. Q. Do you remember any knots ? A. I have told you, Sir, that I did not remember. Q. A knot } A. I did not remember anything about it. That there might have been, I said. Q. There might have been knots. Now, do you remem her any knots, as you call it ? A. I remember there wore conversations— friendly conversations about the room. Q. Was it not a conversation between the whole group t A. No, Sir. Q. Between whom was it ? A. I don't remember. Sir. I didn't say there were any such conversations. Q. Do you remember there having been any separation into knots 1 A. I don't remember, Sir-. Q. And you do remember tkat at one time they were in groups % A. No, Sir ; I said I did not remember ; but there might have been. Q. Jut, they were in a group. I don't say what waa said % A. They were all present that evening. Q. Now, it is not a very large room, is it 1 A. Pretty good sized room. Q. How big? A. Fifteen feet by 17 or 18, 1 should think. Q. And the table of the arbitrators' board, how much room did that take up— was that a dining table i A. Yes,. Sir. Q. The usual dining table ! A. Yes, Sir. 436 THE TlLlON-HtJECBEB TBIAL. Mr. Evarts— It is suggested, if your Honor please, that we have reached our usual hour of adjourning. Judge NeUson— Get ready to retire, gentlemen. Will the jury please return at 2 o'cloclr. Mr. Mallison— [Clerk]— The Court will now take a re- cess until 2 o'clock. The Court then took a recess until 2 o'clock. THE AFTERNOON SESSION. The Court met at 2 p. m., pursuant to ad- Journiuent. Judge Neflson— Mr. Bowen, will you take the stand, please 1 Mr. Fullerton— One moment, please Mr. Bowen, with your Honor's permission. I want to ask, with the con- sent of my learned adversaries, a (luestion of Mr. An- d}'ew8. Judge Neilson— Stand up there, Mr. Andrews. Stephen Pearl Andrews recalled. Mr. Fullei ton— What Gen. Hammond was it whom you mentioned yesterday as being present at Mrs. Wood- h-all's ? A. Gen. Hammond of St. Louis, Mo. Q. Xot Surgeon-General Hammond ? A. No, Sir. Mr. Fullerton— That is all. THE COVENANT NOT MENTIONED AT THE ARBITRATION. Henry C. Bowen was then recalled and his cross-examination resumed. By Mr, Evarts— Page 674, 1 read— Mr. Charles Storrs. Mr. Storrs being asked : After they came in what was done ! A Mr. Claflin made known to them the award. Q. State what was said ? A. He stated that the award was that the three parties, Mr. Bowen, Mr. Tiltoii, and Mr. Beecher, were to sign a paper, called the Tripartite Agreement, and that all the papers were to be burned that the three parties had, that were likely to make any trouble hereafter, and that Mr. Bowen was to pay Mr. Tilton $7,000. Upon having your attention called to this testimony of Mr. Storrs, what do you say, Mr. Bowen, now, in regard to the award % A. The same as before. Sir. Q. Yes; that it may have occurred in knots about, and not as an annoimced award ? A. No, Sir. Q. That is your idea? A. That is my Idea. Q. Now, I will ask your attention to what the other arbitrator, Mr. Freeland, says, page 703, at the foot of the first colimm : Q. Mr. Claflin announced the award! A. He did. Q. What did he say the award was 1 A. Well, in sub- stance he said, first, that the papers were all to be burned relating to the scandal. Q. Well ! A. The next was— let me see, I don't exactly— that was the first, I remember, that was spoken of. Then the award, I think, came. Q. Wli at was the award] A. $7,000. Q. Well, what next? Was there anything said about signing any paper 1 A. Yes, Sir, Q. What was said about signing a paper 1 A. The Tripartite— that hard name that I cannot pronounce very well. Q. Very weU ; we know what you refer to. A. That was to be signed. Q. By whom? A. Henry Ward Beecher, and Mr. Til- ton, and Mr. Bowen, I think. Q. Bowen? A. Yes. Q. Now, Mr. Bowen, upon hearing this statement of Mr. Freeland's are you stUl of the same opinion ? A. I state most positively that nothing of the kind was said in my hearing. I have some recollections, since I left this morning, without conference with any one, how- ever, in regard to the "Tripartite Agreement," which I should like to state. Q. Very weU. A. When Mr. Claflin, I think it was, talked to me about signing it, I made this reply : " Wliy do you " Q. Well, don't go into the conversation between you and Mr. Claflin. A. You asked me, I believe, what oc- curred between Mr. Claflin and myself— what was said, did you not ? Q. No, I did not? A. Excuse me. Q. That we excluded when the other side attempted it, and that they excluded when Mr. Claflin was on the stand, and it was inquired into. Now, Sir, in regard to your own action, if you wish to correct a date or any- thing of that kind ? A. I say that nothing was said to me in regard to the " Tripartite Agreement " until after the settlement, nothing was said about any paper ; no paper was shown to me. Judge Neilson— Until after the arbitration. The Witness— Until after the arbitration. Mr. Evarts— That you said this morning. The Witness— Yes, Sir. I say it again. Q. Well, that is not necessary ; that is not a oorreotion. That, if your Honor please, may be stricken out. Judge Neilson— I think we will let it stand. CONTRADICTIONS OF MESSRS. STORRS AND CLAFLIN. Mr. Evaiiis— Of course I was ready that the witness should make any correction or modification of his testimony. Of course it is not very material. Now, Sir, see if this statement of Mr. Storrs's on another point will recall to your mind what happened there : Mr. Bowen said he wanted what is termed the Wood- stock letter, which, I think, was in Jiine, 1863, he wanted that returned to him, and the arbitrators assented to that. A. No allusion was made to that, whatever, in my presence. Q. You think Mr. Storrs is wholly wrong about that I A. T think he is. Q. Now, I will read what Mr. Claflin says : As to burning the pai^ers, Mr. Bowen said he had no papers, but he would like the return of the Woodstock letter, which was agreed to. TMSTIMOJ^Y OF EE^BY G. BO WEN. 437 A. My answer is the same. Q. Mr. Freeland says : I remember Woodstock vas mentioned and about a letter, and I tliink that Mr. Bowen wanted to have that returned to him and not burned. A. I neither asked for it nor was it announced that it would be returned. Q. But you got it soon afterward t A. I got it, and in tJie way I stated this morning. Q. Yes, exactly. A. Mr. Storrs came and SOME THINGS MR. BOWEN DOEfe NOT RE- MEMBER TELLING DR. EGGLESTON. Q. WeU, no matter, no matter! We don't want it twice. Now, Mr. Bowen, whom were you in con- ference with on Saturday night, when you made that en- gagement a reason for making the appointment for Mon- day with Mr. Johnson and Mr. Tilton? A. I think, a<3- oording to my recollection, some of the editors of The Independent were there. Q. Do you remember which one^l A. I think Dr. Bpear, Mr. Gladden, and Dr. Eggleeton ; I am not posi- tive, though. Q. That is your impression ? A. Perhaps one or two others ; I don't remember. Q. Now, do you remember Dr. Eggleston being at your house at all on the 26th of December 1 A. Have n't I answered that question once 1 Q. Now, you have answered as to his being there just before you left to go to Mr. Beecher, and just after your return. I now ask you if you remember his b&ing at your house at all on the 26th I A. I have no recollection of it ; he may have been there ; he frequently called, but I have no distinct recollection. Q. Don't you remember that an appointment was made on Saturday for him to see you again on Monday? A. Very likely, but I don't remember it ; it was usual. Q. Your memory is an entire blank upon that subject ? A. I have no recollection. Q. No recollection one way or the other 1 A. No, Sir. Q. Is your memory in general good? A. I thinl- .>o, Sir. Q. So when you don't remember a thing you feel some assurance it did not take place t A. No, Sir ; I don't say tbat. Q. You do not? A. No, Sir. Q. You don't go so far as that ? A. No, Sir. Q. Now, I will ask you whether Mr. Eggleston did not come to your house on the afternoon of Dec. 26, by ap- pointment, and whether he did not find Mr. Tilton and Mr. Oliver Johnson Iftiere ? A. I think I have answered that question, that I have no recollection of any such. Q. "Will you say that that did not happen 1 A. I have not said so. I have no recollection of it. Q. You have not said so, and you wiU not say so i A. No, Sir. Q. That it did not happen. Do you remember that Mr. Eggleston went away and returned, and these visitors ol yours had then gone 1 A. I have stated that I have no recollection of Mr. Eggleston being there or going away. Q. And this don't refresh you at all? A. No, Sir. Q. Do you remember Mr. Eggleston finding you put- ting on your boots to go out A. The same answer. Q. Just hear me now. And that you said to him then : " If TUton is as bad as we think he is, he talks exceed- ingly wen ?" A. I have no recollection of it, Sir. Q. That does not refresh your mind at aU 1 A. No, Sir. Q. Nothing to that effect! A. No, Sir; I have no recollection. Q. Do you remember asking Mr. Eggleston then, that afternoon, to go down and see a certain lady whom you named, and to report to you the result 1 A. I do not. Q. May that have happened ! A. It is not impossible. Q. Now, Sir, do you remember at that interview, or on that occasion, that you said to Mr. Eggleston (tapping your pocket,) you said you had a letter from Tilton to Beecher ? A. I think I have answered that. Q. You don't remember that 1 A. No, Sir. Q. Nothing of that kind ? A. No, Sir. Q. Will you say that that did not happen 1 A. No, Sir. Q. Well, or a letter for Mr. Beecher, or anything that is equivalent to that ? A. I have no recollection of it. Q. No recollection whatever 1 Do you remember chat Dr. Eggleston returned that evening after dark with a message from the lady to whom you had sent him ? A. I don't recollect it, Sir. Q. Nothing about it ! A. Nothing about it whatever. Q. And do you remember saying to him then, or that evening : " I have just been to Mr. Beecher's" — or * to see Mr. Beecher ?*' Do you remember that ? A. No, Sir. Q. [ReadingJ : He is a good friend of mine and of yours ; he is de- lighted tliat IMr. Tilton is removed ; he says he is the worst man in the world, and that Mrs. Tilton is a saint, gomg to heaven before her time. A. I have no recollection of anything of the kind, Q. Nothing Uke that ? A. No, Sir. Q. No part of that ? A. No, Sir; not a part of it. Q, Do you say that it did not happen ? A. No, Sii*. Q. You won't say that ? A. No, Sir ; there was a great deal said on the subject all the time, and I do n't know whether that occurred or not. Q. Yes; at that time t A. No, Sir. Well, it is not impos- sible ; I do n't recollect it at all. Q. Did you then say to him that Mi-. Beecher had told you horrible things about Tilton 1 A. The same answer ; I don't recollect it. Q. You don't recoUect 1 A. No, Sir. Q. This does not revive any faded image in your mem- ory ? A. No, Sir; my impression is that I did not. but I won't say that, Q. Won't say 1 A. I won't say positively, no. 438 THE TILTON-Bl THE CONVERSATION WHEN MR. TILTON'S LETTER WAS DELIVERED. Q. Now, Mr. Bowen, won't you be so good as to tell us wliat did pass between you and Mr. Beeoher on tliatday? Was lie at Mr. Freeland's wlien you went there? A. I believe he was; I am not positive, but I think he was in the room. Q. No memory about that ? A. Not distinct enough to say positively ; I think he was in the room when I got there, but he may have come in a moment after. Q. Just as likely one way as the other, I suppose 1 A. 1 think not as likely the one way as the other ; I think he was there. Q. What was the answer that your messenger brought yovi from Mr. Freeland? A. He said, " Yes." Q. Said " Yes ?" A. I simply requested him to make an appointment at a certain hour, and let me know, if it could not be filled, to the contrary ; and be read the note and said "Yes." Q. And that is the message your messenger brought back? A. Yes, Sii-; nothing definite. I was not sure of meeting him ; I expected to, because I requested him to make the appointment and let me know if it could not be made. Q. Very well. A. I expected to hear from him if I did not go ; but not hearing, I went. Q. Then " Yes " was the only appointment you had! Mr. Beach— Well, that does not follow. Mr. Evarts— Yes, it does. Mr. Beach— No, it does not. Mr. Evarts— As it now stands. Mr, FuUerton— Oh, no ! Mr. Evarts— Well, let us know what other appointment you had beyond the word " Yes." Mr. Beach— Why; the witness has said, Sir, that he wrote to Mr. Freeland a note asking him if he could have an appointment, or a meeting, at a certain hour, and the answer was " Yes and the whole of it is a portion of the appointment, the note as well as the reply. The Witness— To let me know if an appointment covQd not be made. Mr. Evarts— Yes. Very well. The Witness— And not hearing from it, I took It that that was agreeable— that hour. Q. What hour? A. The hour i>amed; I don't recollect the precise hour ; it was in the afternoon ; I have stated all I knew about that. Q. You don't remember what the hour was ? A. I have stated all I knew about that. Q. Well, won't you give us, as near as you can, what yoii. said about the hour 1 A. I said it was in the afternoon ; 4 or 5 o'clock, or eariy in the evening ; it might have been as late as 6, but I think not ; I think it was 4 or 5 o'clock. Q. But I am not talking about when you went ; I am IJ^CHER TBIAL. talking about the message that you sent to Mr. Freelaiidf A. The message that I sent, I think, said 4 or 5 o'clock, or any other hour that might suit his convenience—some- thing like that. Q. And the only answer you got to that was " Yes V* A. "Yes;" or he would attend to it, or something like that. Q. But no selection or naming of an horn*? A. No, Sir; I selected the hour myself. Q. Well, how did you know which hour to go ? A. I went at the time I specified. Q. You say, either then or in the evening 1 A. I beg your pardon; I named the hour; and I think it was 4 or 5 o'clock, but I stated in my note that any other hour would suit me — if I recollect. Q. And your answer was to make an arrangement— your request ? A. My answer was to make an arrange- ment at the time specified. Q. Your request was to make an arrangement ; and you got an answer, " Yes ?" A. I got no answer to the note. Q. No ; . but a message ? A. A message that he would attend to the request which I made ; that is as I under- stood it. Q, Yes, but it was the word " yes," wasn't it ? I think you said "yes." A. " Yes " or " aU right," or something. Q. Or that he would attend to it? A. That he would see to it. Q. Then you went at a certain hour 1 A. I went at a certain hour. Q. Now, you are quite sure that Mr. Beecher was not sent for after you got there ? A. No, Sir ; he was not sent for ; I am sure of that. Q. And you are not certain whether you waited for him, or he was there ? A. I think I waited, if he was not there, a minute or two minutes ; I thiak he was there. Sir. Q. Well, that you say. A. I won't be positive. Q. Now, what passed between you ? A. I shook hands with him when I entered the room, and said that I was the bearer of a letter from Mr. Tilton to him ; and he sat down, and read the letter, and, as I staxed before, put it in his pocket, and made no reply for the moment. I asked him what reply he had to make to the letter ; he stated, with a moment's hesitation, " The man is crazy," or " I think he is crazy ;" something like that. Q. Well, did you pursue the subject any further t A. The subject was talked over. Q. Did ?/au pursue the subject? He had gi\ en you uu answer that the mau was crazy ; now did you say any- thing more about it ? A. I asked him what he had to say, and his reply at first was, "Are you fiiendly with me, Mr. Bowen?" I said, "I am; we have settled all our diffi rence; I oome as a friend, and desire a friendly in- terview ; I come in no other vray than as a friend.'* TESTULOKY OF 1 Q. Well, did your manner indicate your sincerity 1 A. It did, most assuredly ; I intended it should. Q. And you felt it sincerely ? A. I felt it sincerely. Q. And sliowed it ; did you show it sincerely % A. I don't tMnk I did ; I "was courteous and polite, but not Q. No, but on tMs matter of your friendsMp : did you show it decidedly tliat you were Ms friend 1 A. I am not able to remember, Sir. Q. WeU, you meant to be understood that you were really his fi'iend ? A. I went with a friendly spirit. Q. Yes, and so told him ? A. And so told him ; he asked me that questio n, however ; I did not tell him that unasked. Q. Well, of course. Go on, now ; how did you get on further in the conversation ? A. After he asked me that question, and I answered it, he said he was happy to hear it ; and then he asked me if I knew anything in re- gard to the troubles in Mr. Tilton's famUy. Q. What did you say to that? A. I said that I did not specially; I knew there were certain troubles, but I had heard nothing particularly; I had heard some things about him, but in the family I did not know anything about it. Q. That is, about Mr. Tilton? A. Mr. Tilton and Mrs. Tilton ; I had not heard particularly ; I had heaid some things that day. Q. Well, I am only asking what you told Mr. Beecher— what you said to Mr. Beecher 1 A. I told Mr. Beecher that I knew nothing particularly ; some general things I did know, but not to go into details ; that was my first reply, not desiring to Q. WeU, no matter about desires, but the facts, now. as they occuiTed. Well, how did you get on after that ? A. Mr. Beecher said that he had received some letters ; he or his wife, I am not sure which, had received some let- ters from Mrs. Tnton, from the West, which he desired very much to have me see. Q. Well, what did you say to that f A. I asked him then If the letters were present, and he said, " No ; I would like to have you call at my house and see them." And he further said that he would ask me that evening, but he ■was to have company, or was going out, or some engage- ment prevented, either himself or his wife ; that the next morning he would like to have me call there. Q. And see him or his wife ? A. Do you wish what I gaid 1 Q. No ; I a«k you whether he said anything about your going to see him or his wife I A. His wife. Q. His wife 1 A. His wife, not him. Q. Not him, the next morning % A. No, Sir. Q. WTiat did you say to that 1 A. I did not care to call there myself ; that I had special reasons for not calling, which perhaps he understood. Q. You meant matters between yourself and Mrs. Beecher, I suppose ! A. I did, and I desired not to call ; and he said, " I will make that all right ; I wish you to ESRY a BOW EX, 439 come." I asked him, I think, if he was to be present. 1 think he said he had an engagement ; was to go out of town, or vras not to be there, but that it would all be arranged. I then hesitated about giving him a reply, but at his urgent request I said that I would go there, and I did call the next morning. Q. Now, what else occurred after you made that ap- pointment; what further was said on either sidel A. There was considerable said in regard to Mr. Tilton, but in a general way. He made some statements which I cannot recall, because he mentioned facts and names which I knew nothing about. It was all, or mostly all, new to me. Some things I did know about. Q. Well, were these facts and these names connected with ladies, or women ? A. They were. Q. Entirely ? A. Entirely. Q. And were there several instances mentioned I There were, I should think, two or three, but I am not positive about that ; I should think two or three. Q. And were all the names mentioned strange to you? A. I knew them by reputation— knew the parties by name and reputation— standing, Q. So that when the names were mentioned they con- veyed some personality to your mind ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. WeU, what did you say to aU that I A. I don't re- member what I said, particularly, except that I was aware that there were damaging reports in regard to Mr. TUton. Q. In that relation— in that connection 1 A, I don't re- member. Q. I don't mean the persons ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. But of that nature 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. Well, Sir, did you ioform Mr. Beecher what those were that you knew oil A, I said they were of a similar character. Q. Did you enumerate or describe them at aU 1 A. Not particularly ; no, Sir. Q. WeU, but so that ? A. Only in a general way. Q. You did not individualize what the story about eacli of the x>ersons was ? A. I named some things that I had heard, but not everything. Q. Oh ! A. (Continuing. ) That I knew ; I spoke gen- eraUy. Q. WeU, did you say anything to him as to the period or recency of these matters coming to your knowl6d^?e I A. I did. Q. TVTiat did you say about that 1 A. I said that when I severed the relations of Mr. Tilton with The Inde- pendent that I had not Q. As editor, you mean % A. As editor t Q. Yes 1 A. I had reasons for that step, and additional reasons that would induce me, in my judgment, to sever his connection entirely, and that that information had come to me since the relation as editor had been severed. Q. Yes, and that you were surprised to hear these things % A. I was certainly surprised. 440 1 a E IIL rON-B E EC HER lELAL. Q. Well, you said so, I mean ? A. Yes, Sir ; it was news to me. Q. Yes, it was news to you, after the severance— these stories to his prejudice were news to you 1 A. Yes, Sir » were news. Q. Had sprung up only since the editorial connection was severed ? A. Was severed; yes, Sir. Q. Did you say anything as to the number or quantity, variety of these imputations that had come to your knowledge? A. I don't think I did ; I spoke of them as a whole; said that I had heard from various sources things which satisfied me that it was my duty to end his relations with the two papers. Q. Yes, and did you inform Mr. Beecher that you had determined so to do ? A. I did not ; I simply Q. What did you say to him in that regard heyond say- ing that you thought it was your duty to terminate ? A. Well, that was all I stated ; I don't Q. Well, that was all. I only want what you told to him. Now, when you told him that, what did he reply ? A. I do not remember any reply that he made to it. Q. Don't you remember whether his reply was in the way of approval or dissent fi'om that determination ? A. I don't think he made any remark when I told him what I had decided to do. Q. Well, previous to that, previous to your announce- ment of what you ha^d decided to do, had he given any expression to either dissuasion or confirmation of your purpose ? A. He had given me no advice in regard to the matter whatever. Q. No opinion ? A. No opinion, for I told him that I had decided to do it. Q. Yes ? A. That I had done the first thing and de- cided to do the second. Q. Yes, and you had, hadn't you? A. What do you say? Q. You had decided ? A. I had decided, but I had not done it. Q. I understand that, but you had decided? A, I had made up my mind to do it. Q. Yes, you had made up your mind to do it ? A. Yes, Sii'. Q. You did not need any persuasion from him ? A. Not a bit. Q. And you are quite sure he did not dissuade you 1 A. I do not think he made any remark to dissuade me or to persuade me. Q. Well, in Mr. Beecher's production of the items or instances in the same direction, of imputation, did you understand them as concurring with your view, or as to dissuade you from it? Mr. Beach— Wait one moment ; that is objected to. Mr. Evarts— What impression did what Mr. Beecher told you. in instances or circumstances that he brought intotlie conversation, make upon your purpose as to dis- missing Mr. Tilton ? A. My mind was made up without him, and it did not change it, of course. Q. No, did not change it of course? A. What he said. Q. Well, Sir, after you had announced to Mr. Beecher that you had made up your mind to dismiss— terminate your relations with Mr. Tilton, what further passed? A. He urged me to come to his house the next morning, and hear the contents of those letters, or letter— letters I think he said. Q. Do yon mean he repeated that ? A. He did ; urged it. Q. Very well, and was that all— you parted then! A. I think that was all— in substance all. Mr. Evarts— Now, will you give us Exhibit 4^2 ? [Exhibit 41s produced by plaintiflPs counsel and handed to Mr. Evarts.] Mr. Evarts— I will read this letter of January 2, 1871, which I wish to ask you some questions about: L^^d- ing.] My Dear Mr. Bowen : Since I saw you last Tuesday I have reason to think that the only cases of which I spoke to you in regard to Mr. Tilton were exaggerated in being reported to me, and I should be unwilling to have any- thing I said, though it was but little, weigh on your mind in a matter so important to his welfare. I am informed by one on whose judgment and integrity I greatly rely, and who has the means of forming an opinion better than any of us, that he knows the whole matter about Mrs. B., and that the stories are not true, and that the same is the case with other stories. I do not wish any reply to this. I thought it only due to justice that I should say so much. Q. Now, when you received that letter, did your mind recur to what he had told you 1 A. I have no recollec- tion what my mind was when I received it ; of course I noticed the contents of the letter. Q. Noticed the contents. Well, do you remember whether, at the time, you thought this note did accord with what you remember as having occurred between you and Mr, Beecher? A. I do not remember. Sir. MR. BOWEN'S CALL ON MRS. BEECHER. Q. Do not remember that? Now, Mr. Bowen, you saw Mrs. Beecher the next day ? A. I did. Q. I do not remember whether you stated how long a conference you had wdth her. A. I do not remember. Q. Well, about how long? A. I should think a half an hour. Q. And you did not see Mr. Beecher? A. I have no recollection of seeing him whatever. Q. And had no subsequent interview with Mr. Beeoher that week you have stated ? A. No, Sir. Q. Well, now, on New- Year's day, or what was kept as New-Year's day, the succeeding Monday, you made an ordinary friendly call ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Was it your visual habit to do so at Mr. Beecher's I A. It was. Q. And this call was in the same spirit and manner a« ordinarily? A. As usual. TEISTIMONI OF H Q. As usual 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. Novs^, you think you said sometMag to him, I be- .'ieve? A. I did. Q. At that time % A. I did. Q. And what was it I A. I simply announced to Mm that the previous Saturday (this was on Monday) I had severed the relations of Mr. Tilton as contributor of The Independent and as editor of The Union. Q. That simple— ? A. Simple announcement. Q. Were there many people there at that time ? A. None that heard that. Q. No, I am not speaking of a public announcement, but do you know whether it was while the calls were going on ? A. My impression is it was during the — ; I know it was during the hours of reception. Q. But whether there was a concourse or not you do nut— ? A. There were other parties in the room. Q. There were — now do you remember whether or not, in the interview of the 26th of December, Mr. Beecher said anything to you in regard to what he had heard or learned that month of December in respect to a medi- tated separation between Mr. and Mrs. Tilton ; do you re- member whether that was in the conversation or not 1 A. That was in the conversation that afternoon or the next morning; my impression is that it was the next morning with Mrs. Beecher. Q. With Mrs. Beecher 1 A. I think that she gave that as her Mr. Beach— I move to strike that out. Judge Neilson— Yes, Sir. Mr. Evarts— I do not of course propose to go into Mrs. Beecher's conversation. [To the witness.] You cannot say then 1 A. I cannot say. Q. Whether it occurred that afternoon or the next morning 1 A. Or the next morning. Q. But, either in the afternoon or in the morning, there was something said? A. There was something said. Q. On that subject? A. On that subject. Q. And you have no means of determining in your recollection whether or no it was afternoon or morning 1 A. I have none. Q. As likely to have been one as the other so far as any memory of yours ? A. I have no memory on the subject. Q. No memory on the subject. Do you remember. Mr. Bowen, at what time the sale of pews that year took place at Plymouth Church ? A. My impression is that it —I think it is the first Tuesday followiug the first Mon- day. Q. In January 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. If so, it would have been the next day after you A. Yes, Sir, Q. After your New Year's— what you call your New Year's call 1 A. Yes, Sir ; my impression— I don't recol- lect in regard to that year. Q. Well, Mr. Bowen, you were among the first planners 'WRY G. BOWEN. m ' and founders of Plymouth Church, were you not ! A. I had something to do with it ; yes, Sir. Q. Well, you were among the first ? A. Among the first Q. Among the first founders, and have remained con- nected with that church ever since ? A. I have. Q. And are stUl ? A. I am still. Q. Mr. Bowen, please look at these two letters and say if they are letters of yours to Mr. Beecher? [Papers handed to witness.] A. They are. Q. And have you — we requested you, I think, to find the originals of those letters of February 6, 1870, letters to you— during the recess you were asked. A. I am not certain whether I have those letters, the originals of those ; I haven't them here. Q. By looking at them do you remember— do you sup- I>ose ? A I may have both. Q. Yes ; you may have both J A. I may have both. Q. And was your habit to keep letters 1 A. It was my habit. Q. So that you probably have them ? A. I thiuk I have them. Q. But they are not among the papers 1 A. They are not among the papers 1 have here. Mr. Evarts— These two that you identify I will have marked for identification only, if your Honor please. [Letters marked for identification, " Ex. D, 147," and "D, 148."] By Mr. Evarts— I wish you would look, Mr. Bowen, if you please, for the orginals of these two letters of Mr. Beecher? A. You wUl have to give me these to take with me, Sir, or Q. Give you the dates ! A. Give me the dates on a piece of paper. Mr. Evarts— We will give you a memorandum of the dates. Mr. Beach— You can use these in the mean time, if you want. Mr. Evarts— That is all, Mr. Fullerton. RE-DIRECT EXAJVIINATION OF MR. BOWEN. By Mr. Fulleitoii— Mr. Bowen, look at those two letters and say whether you addressed them to Mr. Tilton about the time of their very dates. A. I addressed them to him. Q. And about the time of their respective dates ? A. At the time. Mr Fullerton— Yes, Sir. Just mark them for identifica- tion. [Letters marked for identification, "Exs. 125 and 126."] Q. Mr. Bowen, do you know where the draft of the "Tripartite Agreement" now is which you refused to sign ? A. I do not. Q. What became of it ? A. I don't know, Sir. 442 IME TILTON-BEEOHEB TEIAL, Q. Do you recollect wliat you did with it 1 A. I handed Jfc to the party who brought it to me. Q. And who was he 1 A. Mr. Claflin. Q. Are you enabled to state when that was, Mr. Bowen ? A. The date ? Q. Yes, Sir. A. I am not. Q. I call your attention to the date of the " Tripartite Agreement," as it was signed, being April 2, 1872 (it seems to be before the arbitration), and ask if you under- stand why that date was there. A. I am not able to say why the date was there ; I didn't notice Mr. Beach— It is not the actual date 1 Mr. Fullerton— No, not at all. [To the witness.] Don't you recollect, or do you recollect, that the paper that was first presented to you as the draft of the " Tripartite Agreement" purported to have been drawn up several days before it waa presented to you, and had a date ac- cordingly! A. My recollection is that the paper did not oome to me until after the money was paid, and I am able to say that when it was presented to me I made this statement, that as Mr. Tilton and myself Mr. Porter— Well, wait ! Mr. Fullerton— I tbiuk it is proper. Sir. Judge Neilson— I think it is. The Witness [continuing]— That, as Mr. Tilton and my- self had settled our diflaoulties, and as Mr. Beecher and myself had settled them, that I saw no reason why I should sign any such paper ; I made that remark and remember it distinctly. By Mr. Fullerton— Yes, but you don't recollect the date of the instrument that was first presented to you I A. No, Sir, I do not, nor the second. Q. Now, what was there in that first paper then pre- sented to you which you objected to 1 Mr. Evarts— Oh I well, that I object to. The paper is here. It is objected to. Mr. Fullerton— Well, is the paper here % [Paper produced and given to Mr. Fullerton.] Mr. Beach— That, they say, was the one that was pre- sented to Mr. TUton. WHAT MK. BOWEN REFUSED TO SIGN. By Mr. Fullerton— Looli at this paper, wMch is " Exhibit D, 113," and say whether you recognize it as the first paper that was presented to you as the " Tripart- ite Agreement?" A. I believe this to be the first paper. Q. Now, will you be kind enough to indicate by a pencil mark the paragraph which you refused to sign, or the paragraph to which you raised an objection. Just mark it so that I can read it, Mr. Bowen, please 1 A. [After marking the paper presented.] The paragraph— the words crossed I refused to sign. Mr. Evarts— What paragraph is it f Mr. Fullerton — It is contained within a parenthesis. The Witness— All the words that are crossed I refused to assent to. Q. Do you recollect, Mr. Bowen, whether you crossed that paragraph out at the time it was presented to you 1 A. I did. Q. Look, please, at the interlineation in lead pencil, and sav whether it is in your handwriting. A. It is in my writing. Q. Is it your emendation that you made at the time t A. At the time— while I had it. Q. While you had it ? A. Yes ; that evening or the next morning— before I delivered it back. Q. And does the emendation in lead pencil indicate a paragraph which you were willing to sign if it were sub- stituted for the one which you crossed out 1 A. It does if I signed any. Mr. Fullerton— I propose to read what is crossed out and what is substituted in its place. The words crossed out are as follows Mr. Evarts— You had better read the context. Mr. Fullerton— Then you cannot discriminate between the context and the erased part. Mr. Evarts— Very well. Mr. Fullerton— I will read what is erased first, and then read the context. The words stricken out are as f oUows : I declare that those charges, imputations, and innuen- does are without any foundations in fact, to the best of my knowledge and belief. What is substituted in place of this, in lead pencil, is as follows : I sincerely regret having made any imputations, charges, or innuendoes imfavorable to the Christian char- acter of Mr. B. [To the witness]— Now, Mr. Bowen, you may state whether, with that alteration of yom*s Mr. Evarts— Why not prove the paper actually signed % Mr. Fullerton— Well, it is easier to prove it this way. Mr. Evarts— Why so ? Mr. Fullerton— I suppose the same rule applies to this that applied to your account. You had a right to show what balances were. Mr. Evarts— The paper, as amended, speaks for itself. Mr. Fullerton— Yes, Sir. [To the witness.] Look at the alteration at the head of page 3 upon this paper, and say whether you intended to erase the word "disavow?" A. I did. Q. What did you substitute in its place 1 A. " With- draw." Q. " Withdraw all?" A. " Withdraw all." Mr. Beach— Stm the word " disavow" is retained in the paper which was subsequently executed. Mr. Shearman— Well, " disavow " occurred twice, and instead of repeating it, the word " withdraw " was sub- stituted for it the second time. Mr. Fullerton— The original read, "And I expressly disavow the charges, imputations, and innuendoes im- puted as h;iving been lunde and utt<>red by me," &c. The word " disavow " is erased— Mr. Bowen says it was in TESJlMOyT OF HEXEY C. BOWEX. 4AB tended to be— and the words •• ^vitlidraw all" substitute':! in its place. Q. Look at the original drafr^ Mr. Bowen, and state whether you struck out this. After the words " I know nothing," did you strike out the words " derogatory to Ms reputation as a clergyman or a man?" A. I did. Q. Did you insert in their place anything else 1 A. I did. Q. If so, what ? A. Those words [indicating in the paper]. Q.- These •words [reading] : " "^ich should prevent me from extending to him my most cordial friendship, confi- dence, and Christian fellowship." Q. At the time of the arbitration did you know any- thing about the existence of what has been known as the Apology— the Letter of Apology ? A. I did not, that I remember. Q, Mr. Bowen, at the time of signing the "Tripartite Agreement," did you know anything about that I A. Xot that I recollect. Q. At that time did you know of the existence of any of these other letters, namely, the letter of Feb. 5. 1872 I A. What about ? Q. 'Well, it is a notorious letter, and I did not know but what you were abl'_' to identify it. Mr. Evartv— Mr. Beecher'.s letter? 3Ir. Beach [to the witres-]— Those letters that have been in evidence in the course of this trial. The Witness— I cannot tell you un.til you show me the letter. Mr. Erarts— Show it to him. MR. TILTOX'S RE^IAEKS TO THE AEBITEA- TORS. By Mr. Fiillerton — Whilst they are looMng up those exhibits, Mr. Bowen, I will ask you whether, at the time of the arbitration, :\Ir. Tilton did not call the atten- tion of the arbitrators to Section 6 in the contract be- tween yourself and Mr. Tilton relating to ITie Indepen- dent, which is as follows : This contract may be terminated by either party at any time by paying to the other partj- the sum of $2,500, or by the death of either, or by mutual consent, but in no other way. Do you recollect his calling the attention of the arbi- trators to that clause ? A. I think he did. Q. Do you also recollect that he called the attention of the arbitrators to the other contract, in respect to The Daily Union, OT TTie Broo7:Iyn Vnion, and to Sections 3 and 11. which I will read, Section 3 being as follows : The party of the first part (that is yourself) shall pay to the party of the second part a salary as follows : $100 per week in cash, payable weekly, together with an additional sum eciual to ten per cent of th^' ii^t profits of The Brooklyn Daily TJnion per annum, p: bl inrer- vals of not more than one year or ofteue; . atth dise. - tion of the party of the second part. Section 11. This agreement may at any time be an- nulled by the mutual consent of the parties, or bj either of them, after having given to the other, in writing, six months in advance, due notice of a desire and intention to do so ; and may be terminated imme- diately by paying $2,600 in cash to the pany of the sec- ond part ; and the party oi the second part shall have the same privilege by making the same payment. Q. Do you recollect his calling attention to that? I think he did, Mr. Evarta— I understand that those contracts are in eridence. Mr. Fullerton— Oh, yes, they are in evidence, but I wanted to know if the attention of the arbitrators was called to these several provisions. Mr. Beach— They are marked in evidence. Mr. Fullerton— They are marked in evidence. [To the witness.] Did not Mr. Tilton in that arbitration base his claim for damages upon the respective paragraphs to which I have now called your attention 1 A.I don't re- member whether he did entii'ely. He presented all the case, from his standpoint, briefly. MR. BOWEN IGXORAXT OF THE SCAXDAL LETTERS. Q. I call your attention to the letter of Feb- ruary 7, 1871, from Mi\ Beecher to Mr. Moulton, and ask whether you knew of its existence, either at the time of the arbitration, or the time of the signing of the " Tripar- tite Agreement ?" A. I have no recollection of it, .Sir, whatever. Q. I now call your attention to the letter of the same date to Mrs. Tilton ; did you know of that ? A. I did not. Q. Did you know anything of the existence of the letter commencing " The blessing of God rest upon you ; " it has no date, I believe. A. Xo, Sir. Q. I call your attention to the letter of Feb. 5, 1S72, and ask you the same question with regard to that, com- mencing there 1 [Indicating.] A. [Looking at the letter.] I have no recollection of it whatever. Mr. Beach— Is that the Morse letter ? Mr. Fullerton— Yes, that is the one. Q. Did you know anything at that time of the charge which Mrs. Tilton had made against Mr. Beecher in writing 1 Mr. Evarts— "We object to that, if your Honor please. I have no objection to these matters, but it is not material or proper that this witness should be asked concerning his knowledge of this matter in suit here. Mr. Beach— Well, we propose to prove that he had no knowledge. Mr. Evarts— Well, concerning any knowledge. Mr. Beach— He had no knowledge. Mr. Fullerton — This is concerning ?io knowledge that I am going to prove. [Laughter.] It is compLtent Air us to prove that he was entirely ignorant of the existence of this correspondence and of these various papers whi.'^jj 444 THE TlLTON-BEE(JflER TRIAL, have been given in evidence here, at the time of the sign- ing of the " Tripartite Agreement." Mr. Evarts— I don't see exactly how it is material, hut I should not care anything about these letters. This is not a controversy between Mr. Bo wen and Mr.Beeeher, as to whethei; he should be held to the " Tripartite Agreement." Judge Neilson— I think you can show the fact gener- ally. Have you more paper s to show him ? Mr. Fullerton— I have put a question to him with ref- erence to papers that I need not show him, because they are well enough designated by the description of them. Judge Neilson— Well. Iklr. Fullerton— Did you know anything of the exist- ence of any charge which Mrs. Tilton had made against Mr. Beecher at that time ? A. I did not. Q. For of any retraction of that charge? A. I did not. Q. Nor of any recantation of the retraction ? A. I did not. Q. Now, Mr. Bowen, I understood you to say that you informed Mr. Beecher on the Monday following Jan. Ist that yovi had then discharged Mr. Tilton ? A. I did. Q. What time in the day was that % A. It was in the evening ; it was after 4 o'clock, I should judge. Q. Was it before or after this letter was written to you which is marked Ex. 4^ ? A. It was after that letter was received. Q. You had received that letter before you told Mr. Beecher 1 A. Yes, Sir ; I received it in the morning, and I told him in the evening. ME. BOWEN'S ALLEGED IMPUTATIONS ON ME. BEECHEE EXCLUDED. By Mr. Beach— What time, with reference to the receipt of the letter, were the relations of Mr. Tilton •with your paper sundered entirely 1 A. On the Satur- day. Q. The Saturday before? A. Yes, Sir; the last day of the year. Q. I call your attention to this evidence of Mr. Beecher. [Reading:] Q. Well, did Mr. Moulton say that Mr. Bowen charged that you had confessed adultery to him 1 A. I— he did— yes, he said so. I was only hesitating as to whether it was in that interview or not. He said so at some one of the interviews, and about that time. Q. At about this time ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. WeU, what did you reply to that ? A. I think I laughed. I denied it. When I confess adultery to Mr. Bowen I am sure it will be impressed upon my mind. Q. Did you say to him on that subject whether or no Mr. Bowen had ever made any such charge or imputation to you personally? A. I said to him that from the origin of the difficulties between Mr. Bowen and me, down to February, or January and February, 1870, and again, Dec. 26, there had been sev- eral adjudications, arbitrations— that is, there had been many conversacjons, but Mr. Bowen had never had any dillicvaty with me except business difficulties. and that he never under any circumstances had made % statement which Implicated my moral character. Mr. Evarts— How does this become a subject of re- direct examination? Mr. Beach— It is to contradict Mr. Beecher. Mr. Evarts— But it is not re-direct. It is not relating to anything that I inquired about. Mr. Fullerton- It is a question, your Honor, that we omitted to put on the direct examination inadvertently. Judge Neilson— Do you plead inadvertence ? Mr. FuUerton— Yes, Sir; my attention was called to i$ at recess by Mr. Beach and Judge Morris. Mr. Evarts— WeU, now, refer us to the passage. Mr. Fullerton— I refer to it in this large book. Mr. Evarts— Ten us the day on which the testimonr was given. Mr. Fullerton— April 5, 1875. Mr. Evarts— This is a conversation, given on our part, by Mr. Beecher as to what passed between him and Mr. Moulton ; they having given on Mr. Moulton's part the conversation, on their view or Mr. Moulton's view, be- tween himself and Mr. Beecher. Now, that Mr. Fullerton— You had better hear my question flrst; I was waiting for you to look up the place. Mr. Evarts— I beg pardon. Mr. Fullerton— My question has not been put yet, your Honor. I was waiting for my learned adversary to look up the paragraph. The question which I wish to put is this I to the witness] : Did you at any time state to Mr. Beech r a >' charges which implicated his moral charac- ter ? Now, wait until the objection is raised. Mr. Evarts— Is that the question? Mr. FuUerton— Yes, Sir. Mr. Evarts— Well, all that has been given in evidence here is that, they proving a conversation between Mr Moulton and Mr. Beecher, Mr. Beecher speaks of thi^ ' conversation in contradiction, we may suppose, of Mr Moulton. Judge NeUson— Yes. Mr. Evarts— Mr. Bowen cannot be caUed to contradict Mr. Beecher in that statement, because the only state- ment that Mr. Beecher made was concerning what passed between him and Mr. Moulton. Judge Neilson- Yes. Mr. Beach— That is a mistake, Sir. Mr. Beecher went further. I don't know whether it has been read. Mr. Beecher— Not further than what he told Mr. Moul- ton. Mr. Beach— Yes, Sir. Mr. Evarts— [Reading] : I said to him [that is, to Mr. Moulton] that from the origin of the difficulty between Mr. Bowen and mc, down to, &c., * * * there had b^n several adjudica- tions, arbitrations ; that is, there had been many conver- sations ; but Mr. Bowen had never had any difficulty with me except business diffloultiea, and that he never TESTIMONF OF HENBY C. BOW EN. 443 under any circumstaneee had made a statement wMoli implicated roy moral eliaracter. It Is all given as part of the conversation with Mr. Moulton. Mr. Beach— We do not so understand that answer. Mr. Evarts— Mr. Beecher has no right to testify in regard to what passed between Mr. Bowen and Mm. Judge Neilson— No. Mr. Fullerton— We thint the qikestion is a proper one, your Honor. Judge Neilson— It does not strilie me so. I don't think It is a proper one. It is really immaterial what conversa- tion ever passed between Mr. Beecher and Mr. Bowen. Mr. Fullerton— Well, it is not immaterial what charges he broughtf against Mr. Beecher. Judge Xeilson— Why not? Mr. Evarts— In this case it is. Mr. Fullerton— When l^Ir. Beecher testifies that nothing has been said by Mr. Bowen imputing immorality to him ? Mr. Evarts— He testifies that he told Mr, Moulton so. That is all. Mr. Fullerton — And now it becomes necessary to see whether he told Mr. Moulton the truth. Mr. Evarts— Ah ! Judge Neilson— We won't take that ; it is too remote. THE WOODSTOCK LETTEE RULED OUT. Mr. FullertoD — Let me liave the Woodstock letter, please i The Witness— There it is [producing letter]. Q. Is this the letter from which you read the date to the counsel on the other side ? A. It is. Q. Known as the Woodstock letter? A. It is. Mr. Evarts [to Mr. Fullerton]— I would like to look at the letter. Mr, Fullerton— I have not read it. Now, if your Honor please. I offer this letter in evidence. Mr. Evarts— We object to it, if your Honor please. Judge Neilson— From whom to whom ? Mr. Fullerton— It is from Mr. Bowen to Mr. Tllton. Mr. Porter— Wiitten when? Mr. Fullerton— Written in 1863. Judge Xeilson— Not in connection with the employment or dismissal ? Mr. Fullerton— No, Sir; but it is a letter to which at- tention was called by thf other side. Mr. Evarts— No, not in the first instance. Mr. Fullerton— Yes, Sir, in the first instance. You asked Mr. Bowen to refer to it and to give its date, and he opened the letter and read it. Mr. Evarts— No, I didn't. I a.sked him how old the Woodstock letter was, and he said he could not tell with- out reading it. The Woodstock letter is spoken of by the arbitrators, as your Honor knows, as one of those papersthat were to be disposed of; that is, nothing was said about biu-nlng it. but it was to be retui-ued to him. Mr. Bowen differs from Mm, and does not recolleot that, but that does not give a right to expose the letter. Mr. Beach— It was spoken of much earlier than that, in the letter of Mr. Tilton. Mr. Fullerton— Of Jan. 1, 1871 ? Mr. Evarts— The lett-er itself has not been brought out in evidence on our part. Judge NeHson— Is it connected with any event we had before us 1 Mr. Fullerton— Yes, Sir. Mr. Evarts— It has been spoken of as a letter to l>« given up, and I asked him how old the letter was, whether it was t«n years old, or how old it was, and he said he could not tell without reading it. Judge Neilson— Is that the first time you called atten- tion to the letter ? Mr. Evarts— Yes, Sir ; that is the first time I caUed at- tention to it. I didn't call attention to it then. The witness looked at it for the purpose of refreshing Mfl recollection. INIr. Fullerton— It is an exhibit, and is dated Jan. 1, 1371, and contains an extract from the Woodstock letter, and that exhibit is appended to, and became a part of» the " Tripartite Agreement." Judge Neilson— There was a section taken out of that ? Mr. Fullerton— Yes, Sir. Mr. Beach— This letter. Sir, was shown to Mr. Beecher, and the testimony of Mr. Moultlon in regard -fc) it was to this effect, [Reading] : Q, Did you state to Mr. Beecher what Mr. Tilton pro- posed to do with that letter ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. What did you say to him on that subject % A, I told him Mr. Tilton intended to publish it. Q. What did Mr. Beecher say? A. Mr. Beecher said that the statement that he had ever confessed to Mr. Bowen was entirely untrue ; he said that he had differ- ences with Mr. Bowen, and a settlement with Mr. Bowen^ and that Mr. Bowen had never raised with him, at any such settlement, any question of adultery; he said that he presumed that he knew what one portion of the letter referred to, etc. There is no necessity of reading it further. We propose to show by the production of the letter, and by the evi- dence of Mr. Bowen, that the statements of Mr. Beecher upon that subject were untrue— that the representations he made were untrue ; and this letter having been re- ferred to (the Woodstock letter) in this letter which was submitted to Mr. Beecher— Mr. Beecher having made re- marks concerning it (the Woodstockletter) audits contents, why, we suppose, Sir, it naturally and legally draws in the instrument itself to be taken in connection with the com- mentaries, the manner in which it was received, made, and indicated by Mr. Beecher ; that this pert of the evi- dence and conduct of Mr. Beecher cannot be properly understood except in connection with the original pap«r instrument to which these declarations, and this conver- sation, and these references allude. Mr. Evarts— This letter has been made somewhat 446 IBM TimON-BEECHEB TBIAL, famous in the public consideration, tliougli it never haa been given to the public, by its being referred to in another letter that has been made public. Now, I cannot understand, really, how my learned friends can be serious in proposing to give in evidence here a letter written in the year 1863 by Mr. Bowen to Mr, Tilton. Now, no matter what Mr. Beecher has said ; he is not affected by ever having seen this letter between Mr. Bowen and Mr. Tilton. It is not a question— this is not any evidence of anything that Mr. Bowen has said to Mr. Beecher, or that has come to Mr. Beecher's knowledge, at least, and I am unable to see the ground upon which a letter written by Mr. Bowen to Mr. Tilton, in 1863, can be given in evidence on this Issue, a matter that had its first beginning in the year 1868. Mr. Beach— Tt don't make any difference as to the origin or antiquity of the letter. It is revived at the time that the letter of Mr. Tilton to Mr. Bowen was shown to Mr. Beecher. It was there discussed. Mr. Evarts— Mr. Beecher says that was not so. Mr. Beach — He says it was. Mr. Evarte — He says it was not shown to him at the time it was written. Mr. Beach - Not at the time it was written^ Mr. Evarts— Not at the time of the " Tripartite Agree- ment." [Mr. Porter here made a remark to Mr. Beach in an undertone.! Mr. Beach [to Mr. Porter]— I don't understand, John. The contents of the letter were broiight to his attention. Mr. Porter— So were the contents of the Woodhull scan- dal. Would that permit them to introduce that as evi- dence against Mr. Beecher because he made a remark about it 1 Mr. Evarts— I don't see how it can be proper evidence. Judge Neilson— I don't think we are helped by the cir- cumstance that a clause of the letter was incorporated in the agreement, or annexed to the agreement, because that was the act of the parties who used so much of the letter as they chose to use. And although there is some ground for the argument that Mr. Beecher made it the subject of conversation, I don't think it is sufficiently be- fore us to admit the letter in evidence. Mr. E\ arts— He didn't make this letter the subject of conversation. Mr. Beach— Well, Sir, suppose this letter contains a charge of the very fact which Mr. Beecher denies was ever made against him. Mr. Evarts— We have nothing to do with charges made by other people. Mr. Beach— Certainly. But at the time of this con- versation spoken of by Mr. Moulton, the fact of the charge on the part of Mr. Bowen against him of adultery, and of impropriety, was one presented to his mind, and he says that Mr. Bowen never made any such charge. Contradicting that declaration, they proved thai he did. Mr. Evarts— We didn't say he made it to A, B, C, and D ; he might have made it to all the world. ^ Judge Neilson— If it has any bearing on the Mr. Beach— We will prove it was made to Mr. Beecher. Mr. Evarts— What theni The question we are talking about is whether we can offer in evidence this letter that Mr. Bowen wrote to Mr. TQton in 1863. Mr. Beach— We are talking of a broader thing thaa that. Judge Neilson— The learned counsel claims that it Is to be received because of what Mr. Beecher stated here on the subject. I think it is too remote and ought not to be received. Mr. Fullerton [to the Witness]— That is all. Sir. RE-CROSS-EXAMINATION OF MR. BOWEN. Mr. Evarts— I omitted to aslc Mr. Bowen, by inadvertence, this single question. [To the witness.] Mr. Bowen, did you ever see that paper before ? A. I have no recollection of it. Sir. Q. If you had seen it that night of the arbitration you would have remembered it, would you not ? A- I should say that I never saw it before. Q. You did n't append it to the check when you gave it to Mr. Tilton ? A. No, Sir. TESTIMONY OF JOHN NAPOLEON LONGHI Jolin Napoleon Longhi, a witness called on behalf of the plaintiff, being duly sworn, testified : By Mr. Fullerton— Where do you reside 1 A. The resi- dence or business 1 Q. First, your residence? A. Corner of Willoughby and Yates-aves., Brooklvu. Q. And what is your business I A. Delmonico's Hotel and Restaurant. Q. Where 1 A. No. 22 Broad-st. Q. How long have you been in the employ of Delmonico ! A. Forty years about. Judge Neilson [to Mr. Fullerton | —Quite near the end of your time. Mr. Fullerton— It is outlawed, and I won't pursue it any further. [To the witness.] Where have you been for the last few years 1 A. Nowhere. Q. Where 1 A. No. 22 Broad for the last ten years ; J was 30 years in the old house. Q. When did Mr. Delmonico move into No. 22 Broad-st. S A. In 1865, ten years ago. Q. And what part of the building did he then occupy! A. The basement, as a kitchen and cellar, and the bar and lunch room on the first floor. It is about three feet from the grade of the street, inside of the door. Q. Did it run through to New-st.1 A. Yes, Sir. Th% room is 25 by 140. TESTIMONY OF JOHN Q. And did it run through to New-st. from Broad-st., from 1865 up to the present time 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. Broad-st. and New-st. run parallel to each other, don't they ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. NewH9t. toeing in the rear, further west % A. Yes, Sir. Q. Now, has Delmonioo got an eating-room up stairs, above the floor which you speak of t A. Not when I flLrst went there. Q. When did he open that room % A. Last June— the 27th of June, 1874. Q. The 27th of June, 1874? A. Yea, Sir. Q. Before that who had possession of that upper floor 'i A. A floor for offices. * Q. For offices ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. And when did he commence altering it for a restau- rant 1 A. The 1st of May, 1874. Q, And when did he admit guests in it for the first time 1 A. On the 27th of June, 1874. Q. And before that time he did not occupy it ! A. No, Sir ; there was nothing up stairs. Q. Was there any means of communicating between the lower floor, where the old restaurant was, and the upper floor, up to the time the alteration was made by Mr. Delmonico 1 A. No, Sir ; nothing outside in Broad- st., and in New-st. also. Q. Was there any eating establishment up stairs on the second floor 1 A. No, Sir. Q. They were brokers' offices 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. Up to that time % A. Yes, Sii\ Q. And nobody lunched there unttL after the 27th of June, 1874 1 A. No, Sir, except some gentlemen called for anything ; I used to send up anything they wished, private. Q. Private offices % A. Yes, Sir. Q. While they were occupied as broker's offices? A. Yes, Sir. Q. And where were you situated ? A. I attended Q. Were you on the first fioor or second floor after the second floor was opened? A. I had charge of the house ; I was down stairs. Q. Down stairs ? A. Yes, Sir, down stairs, flrst floor. I was down stairs before I had the upper part, of course. Q. And where were you placed after the upper floor was opened— upper room ? A. I attended to all. Mr. Fullerton— That is all. CROSS-EXAMINATION OF MR. LONGHI. By Mr. Evarts— How many steps did you go ip from B.road-st. to get into your saloon as it was in the ^ear 1871 ? Three steps inside of the door. NAPOLEON LONGEl. 447 Q. Inside of the door ? A. The weather-door, some caU it. Q. Now, do you remember the fact that annexed to your establishment there was a restaurant where you went down stairs ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. What was the name of that ? A. Charles Shedler, a German house. Q. That was a restaurant ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Where they dined and lunched, and so forth! A. Yes, Sir. Q. And was it the very next place to yours ? A. Next door, 24. Q. And how near were the steps down to that to the steps up into yours ? A. I should think 22 feet about. Mr. Evarts— That is all. Sir. Judge Neilson [to Mr. PuUerton.J— Can you call another witness to-night 1 Mr. Fullerton— I could. Sir, but I hope your Honor won't ask me to. Judge Neilson [to the jurors]— Please attend at 11 o'clock to-morrow morning. The Court then adjourned until 11 o'clock on Friday morning. EIGHTY-FIRST DAY'S PROCEEDmGS. THE PROCEEDINGS-VERBATIM. AN ADJOURNMENT UNTIL MONDAY. Fkiday, May 7, 1875. The Court met at 11 a. m., pursuant to ad- journment. Mr. Evarts— If your Honor please we are aware on both sides that Mr Beach and Mr. Shearman are compulsively and inevitably prevented from coming to Coiu't to-day, and I am advised by my learned friends on the other side that we are getting very near, probably, the close of the case, and that it may be terminated probably, substan- tially as early, even if we should take this interval of to- day, and there are some reasons why it should be desired on our part, if you have no objection. Judge Neilson— Are coimsel engaged ra a case on the other side ? Mr. Evarts— Yes, Sir, and absolutely ; there was no avoiding it at all. Judge Neilson— Yes ; well then we must adjourn. The Coui-t then adjourned imtU Monday moi-niug, May 10, at 11 o'clock. 448 THE TlLTiW-BEECREE IBlAh, EIGHTY-SECOND DAY'S PROCEEDINGS. JEREMIAH P. EOBINSON'S CLUDED. TESTIMONY EX- MTJCH OF THE DAY SPENT IN ARGUMENTS BE- TWEEN COUNSEL— JEREMIAH P. ROBINSON'S TESTI- MONY ABOUT MRS. MOULTON'S STATEMENTS WITH REGARD TO HER INTERVIEW WITH MR. BEECHER EXCLUDED— MR. BELL TESTIFIES CONCERNING A CONVERSATION WITH MR. BEECHER IN REGARD TO MR. TILTON'S HOUSEHOLD— TESTIMONY FROM MRS. ROBERT EDDY, LEWIS G. JANES, AND OTHERS. Monday, May 10, 1875. 'J'lie principal incident of the trial to-day was tlie calling, by the plaintifl', of Jeremiah P. Eobin- 8on. It was intended to show that Mrs. Moulton had told him the incidents of her alleged interview with Mr. Beecher on June 2, 1873. This led to the anticipated legal battle. Mr. Fuller ton, who had been examining the witness on prelimi- nary points, as soon as Mr. Evarts made an ob- jection, said, " Well, Sir, one of my associates is ready to argue it," and sat down. Judge Neilson said that he was ready to hear the arguments of counsel in regard to the admissibility of the evi- dence. Mr. Pryor then arose and began his ar- gument. He stated the proposition of the plain- tiff to be that when the evidence of a witness was impugned on the ground that it was a recent fabiical ion, brought about from some special inter- est or influence, it was competent to prove that the witness had told the story prior to the date of the supposed fabrication, and before the existence of the imputed interest or influence. He claimed that Gen. Tracy had intimated in his opening address that Mrs. Moulton had been influenced in her state- ments by her husband, and that Mr. Beecher in his testimony had made a similar intimation about Mrs. Moulton. To counteract these asserted imputations against Mrs. Moulton, the plaintiff wished to show that the lady had told the circumstances of her al- leged interview with Mr. Beecher to Mr. Robinson about the time when the interview occurred. Mr. Pryor began his address very slowly, but warming with his subject he became very energetic in manner. He spoke in the main in a high key, occasionally changing to a heavy bass tone with startling abruptness. He was apparently very nervous, and picked up his law-books, opened them over his arm, and read his authorities so rapidly that the stenographers could hardly keep up with him. His gestures were very forcible, and beseemed to put his whole strength into the work. Judge Neilson listened closely to this argument, and the persons in the audience were very attentive, and kept their eyes fixed upon the speaker. Suddenly Mr. Pryor stopped in the middle of a sentence which he had been uttering in a loud voice, pressed hia hand to his brow, and said falteringly, "If your Honor please, I have an attack of vertigo." The windows were quickly raised by order of Judge Neilson, while Mr. Pryor sank back into his chair, and the counsel crowded around him. Rejecting offers of assistance, by a strong effort Mr. Pryor again rose to his feet and attempted to proceed with his speech. He had pronounced only a few words when he was once more obliged to sit down. When he once more arose and began to speak. Judge Neilson asked him to continue his argument sitting, but Mr. Pryor refused to do so. Judge Neilson also offered to adjourn the Court, but the resolute lawyer declared that it was not worth while, and went on speaking, although his hands trembled violently, and his associates en- deavored to have him sit down. After breaking down three times, Mr. Pryor finally said that it was impossible for him to proceed, and left the Court- room accompanied by his friends. Mr. FuUerton said the plaintiff's counsel were sat- isfied to let the argument on their side rest where Mr. Pryor had left it. Mr. Evarts, who was sup- plied with numerous authorities by Mr. Abbott, re- plied to the argument of Mr. Pryor, and his answering address, which began before recess, occupied a large part of the afternoon ses- sion. Mr. Evarts maintained that there was no precedent or authority in this State for the admission of the testimony which the plaintiff' wished to introduce. Mr. Fullerton re- plied briefly to Mr. Evarts. Judge Neilson finally ruled the testimony out, saying in substance that while the imputation contained in Gen. Tracy's open- ing address and in Mr. Beecher's testimony might be the gTOund of an exception to the general rule ex- cluding the evidence offered, yet the charge in the opening if unsupported would go for nothing, and the remark of the defendant was a mere opinion of no weight, and ought not to be considered. The plaintiff's lawyers called Mrs. Robert Eddy of Brooklyn, who testified that a few weeks before July 1, 1873, she had met Mr. Beecher coming out of Mr. Moulton's house. On the part of the plaintiff it was offered to prove that Mrs. Moulton TESTIMO^iY OF C had told Mrs. Eddy about her interview with Mr. Beecher, bnt this evidence was excluded also. Mrs. Moulton was then recalled by the plaintiff. She had come into the court-room accompanied by her husband and jVIrs. Eddy, and the three had sat down near the witness chair. The ladies remained only long enough in the court-room to give their testimony. Mrs. Moulton testified that the visit spoken of by Mrs. Eddy, when Mr. Beecher was met on the steps of Mr. Moulton's house, was on June 2, 1873, the day when Mrs. Moulton had her alleged interview with Mr. Beecher. Mr. Beach explained that jMts. Moulton would be recalled again to give evidenc-e on other subjects. George A. Bell was recalled by the plaintiff imme- diately after the opening of the morning session. He testified that in December, 1870, he had a con- versation with Mr. Beecher about the domestic diffi- culty in iVIr. Tilton's family. :Mr. Beecher told the witness that Mrs. Tilton had left her husband and gone to Mrs. Morse's, that her husband's con- duct had been cruel and licentious, and that he (Mr. Beecher) had been called upon by a young girl living in IVIr. Tilton's family, who had told him about licentious incidents that had occurred in ^Mr. Tilton's house. Mr. Bell gave the details of the in- terview at cousiderable length. He was not cross- examined. Lewie G. Janes, the Superintendent of the Butler Health Lift, in Xew-York and Brooklyn, was called for the plaintiff, and testified that he had seen iSIr. Beecher on the morning of June 2, 1873, on the Mon- tague Terrace, Brooklyn, going toward Mr. Moul- ton's house, with his head cast down dejectedly. Frederick W.^VIitchell of Xorwalk, Conn., formerly bookkeeper of Woodhull, Claflin & Co., testified for the plaintiff. He stated that the colored man Wood- ley had had no regular employment to his knowl- edge, and was a man of little education. Mary Catharine McDonald, a servant, who is nov, in Mr. Tilton's employment, was called for the plain- tiff. She testified that she had helped Mrs. Tilton to get ready to go to Monticello about four years ago. She narrated the circumstances of Mrs. Tilton's de- parture, and what followed, and stated that Miss Bessie Turner left Mr. Tilton's house for Keyport, N. J., on the Monday following Mrs. Tilton's depar- ture for Monticello. EOBGE A. BELL. 449 THE PROCEEDINaS— VERBATIM. GEORGE A. BELL RECALLED. The Court met at 11 a. m., pursuant to ad- joiu-nment. Mr. Morris— George A. Bell. George A. Bell recalled on behalf of tlie plaintiff. By Mr. Fullerton— Mr. Bell, I want to call yom- atten- tion to a proposed Deacons' meeting of Plymouth duu-cli, about the time of tlie West cliarges. Do you recol- lect of a proposed meeting of the Deacons of that church about that time I A. I have vo remembrance about the West charges at all, Mr. Fullerton. Q. Do you recollect of any such proposed meeting, soon after the Woodhull scandal. A. Yes, Sir. Q. And did Mi\ Beecher make any recLuest of you soon after that scandal, in regard to a proposed Deacons' meet- ing? Mi\ Shearman— Wait a moment. If your Honor please, we object, on the ground that this has been gone into on the direct examination of Mr. Bell, on the plaintiff 's open- ing case, page 695. It has been fully covered Mr. FuHerton- 695 ? Mr. Shearman— 695. Mr. Fiillerton— Won't you read, Mr. Shearman. Mr. Shearman— Shall I read % Mr, Fullerton— Yes. Mr. Shearman— [Reading] : " Q. Do you remember being present at any time when Mr. Beecher was present, when the subject of the scandal was up for discussion 1" After one or two other questions on the part of the witness, to get an explanation, he says, " Yes, Sir." Mr. FuUerton— What column ? Mr. Shearman— Second column. Mr. Fullerton— Eight hand side 1 Mr. Shearman— Eight hand side. " Q. Where did it take place ? A. In Mr. Beecher's house. "Q. Who were present? A. Mr. Beecher and my- self. ^ » * * " Q. What occmTed at the interview between yourself and Mr. Beecher ? A. Mr. Beecher said he had sent for me because he understood that there was to be a meeting of the Deacons m regard to this matter," &c. Then the conversation is stated with gr^at detail. MR. BEECHER AND MRS. TILTON'S DOMESTIC TROUBLES. Mr. Fullerton— I believe that is so, Air. BeU, and I will pass to another topic. Do you recollect of Mr, Beecher's calling upon you about the middle of Decem- ber, 1870, with reference to a domestic difficulty in the family of Mr. Tilton 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. Do you recoUect the dat«1 A. Not excepting as connected with the documents published in this trial. Q. But in connection with those documents you do rec- ollect the date { A. I remember that 450 THE TILIOI^-BEECREB TBIAL. Mr. Shearman— Can you speak a little louder? Wait a moim nt, Mr. Bell. [To Mr. FuUerton.] Be kind enough to repeat the question. Mr. Fullerton— I call his attention to about the middle of December, 1870, an interview with Mr. Beecher, in re- spect of the domestic difficulty in the family of Mr. Tilton. The Witness— You were speaking about the date, I understand ? Q. Yes. A. I merely know of my own knowledge within a certain number of years, during which that in- terview must have taken place — ^that is, it must have taken place while I lived ia my present residence, and I moveci into that residence in the Spring of 1869; it mast have been since that time ; but I have been able to fix the date, of course, from the proceedings in this trial. Q. And having so fixed it, what date do you say it was? A. About the middle of December. Q. Of what year % A. 1870. Q. Did you visit the house of Mr. Tilton or Mrs. Morse with Mr. Beecher 1 A. No, Sir. Q. Where did Mr. Beecher see you in regard to it ? A. In his own house. Q. Under what ciixumstanoes were you there? A. I went there by his request— to call. Q. What did he say to you, if anything, in regard to the proposed visit to Mrs. Morse ? Mr. Beach— The question is not heard, Mr. Fullerton. The jury don't hear you. By Mr. Fullerton— What request did Mr. Beecher make of you, if any, touching a proposed visit of Mrs. Tilton at her mother's, Mrs. Morse's ? A. He requested my opinion about certain matters. Q. What request did he make? A. Do you mean au opinion upon what point ? Q. No, what request of you did he make ? A. He re- quested my opinion. Q. Well, did he state any facts upon which you were to base your opinion? A. Yes, Sir. Q. What advice did you give him ? A. It is so much pltmging to the very end of it from the beginning that I can scarcely answer. Q. Well, commence at the beginning ; tell us what he stated to you, and then the advice you gave him ? A. He stated to mc that he had been sent for by Mrs. Tilton to consult in regard to the position of domestic affairs in her own household; that she had left her husband and Wf.s then at Mrs. Morse's, her mother's ; that she was in great trouble and great anxiety ; that the conduct of her husband had been in a great many ways very severe, very cnel, and everything but what a— I was going to say, a decent man's conduct ought to be to a woman ; he sta-^^d that Mr. Tilton's conduct in regard to other mat- ters, in regard to licentiousness, was very low ; he stated t hat he had been called upon by a young girl— he did not mention any name — a young girl, who had been in Mr. Tilton's family ; she had related to him circumstances oc- curring in the family, in the household of Mr. Tilton, which were exceedingly licentious ; he stated— I presume I need not go into the circumstances of that statement ; I have sufliciently indicated what it was ; he stated that at last Mrs. Tilton had been forced to fly from her home? that she had done so, and had gone to Mrs. Morse's ; that she had sent then for him to advise with him as to what course she should pursue; that he had consulted Mrs. Beeecher on the subject, and then they thought— both thorght— that it was better that they should mention the fact to some member of the church, so that they might not go on in the matter without the whole church beinsc ignorant of these proceedings, or what advice they might give- might tender to Mrs. Tilton ; they had therefore called for me, not so much to take my advice, as to inform me of the facts that were occurring, and inform me of what advice they proposed to adve, if any, to Mrs. Tilton. He asked me then— he said then that he proposed to hand the matter over to Mrs. Beecher ; that it was a matter that a lady could manage better ttan a gentleman, and Mrs. Beecher intended, by his suggestion, to go and see Mrs. Tilton the next day. The question was particularly as to what advice Mrs. Beecher should give to Mrs. TU- ton. I don't know whether from Mrs. Beecher or from him, the question came up about a permanent separation, but from one or the other that suggestion was made, of a permanent separation between Mr. and Mrs. TUton, and Mr. Beecher asked me what I thought of that. I said in answer, " Of course, nothing else can be possible ; it is Impossible for Mrs. Tilton to live another day with Mr. Tilton on such facts as you have presented to me." Then Mr. Beecher asked me if I thought it would be well to can in any of the ladies of the church ; I am not sure whether deaconesses were mentioned then, as I am not quite sure that we had them at that time, but it is clear in my memory that he did ask me if the advice of any of the ladies of the church should be called for, or that the matter should be handed over to the ladies of the church— any of the ladies— to manage. I said, unques- tionably not; it was a matter of great delicacy, it was a matter far more easUy managed by a few than by many, and it would be exceedingly harmful to bring it into the church, or even to hand it over to any ladies unofficially, and that I was certain that the best management of the case would be to have it left in his own hands and thosfr of Mrs. Beecher. It was then— I think that was about the substance of that interview. I had another interview the following day, I think. Q. You are not able to state the day of the month when this took place ? A. WeU, I believe I would have been, Sir, if I had known the very slightest what you were going to examine me about, but I came on this stand j without the slightest consultation with any of the law- ' yers on your side ; I have a note at home I think— not TESLIMOyj OF LEWIS G. JANES. m that I pressrved papers, uut my son is au autograpli col- lector, and lie seizes all autograplis of 3Ir. Beeetier that I have, and one, a note, I found within a few weelis calling for that very interview. Q. You can, then, give us the exact date, can you not 1 A. No, I don't think— I cannot. Q. I interrupted you as you were going to say some- thing, Mr. Bell. A. I was going to say that I thought I>erhaps— but I thinlr perhaps I had better not say the date, because I cannot remember distinctly. Q. Can you by referring to the note in question? A. I can. Sir, but I am going away from town this afternoon at 3 o'clock, to be gone until next Saturday. Q. Is there any way you could send the note to us? A. I suppose I can be called upon, Judge, for the note, and there would be nothing improper for me to send it to you, that I know of. Mr. Fullerton— Oh, the other side are willing. Mr. Shearman -Yes. Mr. Fullerton— We can get the date without your ap- pearmg. The Witness— I think the date is in it, but I won't be quite certain ; yes, I think the date is in it. Mr. Fullerton— Well, Sir, if you will be kind enough to send it to us it will be returned to you. The Witness— Yes, Sir. Mr. Fullerton— And the other side wiU consent that it may be used for the purpose of getting the date. That is aU. Mr. Shearman— If you will send that, Mi\ Bell, that is aU. _ TESTmOinr OF LEWIS G. JA^^ES. Lewis G. Janes, a witness called and sworn on behalf of the plaintiff, testified as follows : By Mr. Morris— ISIr, Janes, where do you reside ? A. No. 440 Carlton-ave., Brooklyn. Q. How long have you resided in Brooklyn ? A. Five years last January. Q. And what is your business 1 A. I a: i manager or superintendent of the Butler Health-Lift in New-York and Brooklyn. Q. Where is your place of business in Brooklyn? A- 158 Remsen-st. Q. And where in New-York 1 A. Park Bank building. No. 214 Broadway. Q.. Are you acquainted with Mr. Beecherl A. I have known Mr. Beecher by sight for ten years. I was intro- duced to him in the Spring of 1871. Q. And has he been a customer of yours f A. He has. Q. At what time 1 A. Fi-om the latter part of March, 1871, during the three months followiag, very regularly, 1 and I think running over, irregularly, a little beyond that : time ; a few days in the Fall. Q. You are married? A. I am. Q. Fanulyl A. Yes, Sir. Q. Wken is the anniversary of your marriage — what day of the year 1 A. On the 2d day of June. Q. When was you married— what year ! A. The 2d day of June, 18691 Q. On the Ist of June, 1873, did you have a place of business in New- York? A. I did. Q. Where was it at that time ! A. At the same place where it is at present, 214 Broadway. Q. Park Bank? A. Park Bank building. iVIE. BEECHER'S ALIBI DISPUTED. Q. Do you recollect from about the 31st of May, the week following, of having a patient in New- York, that called you over early in the moining? A. From the 29th of May I recollect such an incident ; yes, Sir. Q. Did you see Mr. Beecher on the 2d of June, 1873 1 A. I recollect that I did. Q. And where did you see him 1 A. I saw him first as he ^rae about stepping upon a little bridge crosstiig the roadway — carriage roadway, which leads down to Wall- Street Ferry at Montague-terrace. Q. From which direction was he coming ? A. From tLe direction of Columbia Heights. Q. There is where Mr. Beecher resides ? A. I under- stand so. Q. No. 124 Columbia Heights 1 The residence has been given. A. I don't know the number. Q. And when he passed the bridge, which dii^ection did he take? A. He took the direction leading toward Kem- sen-st. Q. Montague-terrace 1 A. Yes, Csir ; crossing Montague- terrace. Q. Did you see him tirrn ia Remsen-st. ? A. I did. Q. ^\Tiich way did he tvirn in Remsen-st. 1 A. He turned toward Court-at. Q. And that is toward Mr. Moulton's house? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Toward 69 Kemsen-st. ! A. 49 Remaen-st. Q. 49 I should say. Now, about what hour in the morning was that 1 A. As accurately as I can fix it, it was shortly before 9 o'clock; I think not after that. Q. How far is is Mr. Moulton's residence from Montague- terrace, where you saw him turn ? Mr. Beach — From that corner Mr. Morris— From that comer ? A. I am unable to fix it accurately, but I should think » few houses— four or five houses. Q. In that block ? A. Yes ; it is in that first block, if I recoUect correctly. Q. From 24 Columbia Heights to Moulton's residence, that would be the most direct route to go, wouldn't it? A. I should judge so. Q. About how far is 24 Columbia Heights from Mr. Moulton's? A. I very seldom pass through Columbia Heights, and I am unable to say. Sir ; I should clLink it 452 TELE TILTON-B would be about 10 minutes' walk, if you want a guess- possibly more. Mr. Beach— Well, get it by somebody else. Mr. Morris— Yes ; I will get that by some person wbo knows better than you. Now, then, state wbat circum- stance, if any tbere was, in your meeting Mr. Beecher that morning, that impressed it upon your mind. A. In order to explain that I shall have to explain my state of feeling. Q. Well, explain that. A. [Continuing.] When I start- ed out of the house. The 2d of June is a very pleasant anniversary to me. My intention is always, if possible, when business permits, to make a semi-holiday of it. On that occasion I was— felt obliged to go over to New-York at an earlier hour than usual ; I usually reached my New- York rooms in the vicinity of hall-past 10 ; but on that morning— for a few days about that time, I was obliged to go earlier, and I left the house with the intention of returning, if possible, earlier than usual, and making a sort of holiday of it, and with a very— in a very pleasant mood of mind. On seeiug Mr. Beecher, I recognized him at once, and, perhaps egotistically, thought that he would recognize me when we met, as we did very nearly. But, as I came nearer to him, T saw his countenance indicated a person who was troubled. Mr. Evarts- Well, it is no matter about the indication of his countenance. Mr. Beach— It is some matter to us. The Witness— His head was cast down. He appeared to be in trouble, and it produced a change of my state of mind that fixed itself upon my memory, and upon return- ing home at night I repeated the Incident to my wife. Q. And how near were you to Mr. Beecher— how near did you pass by him 1 A. I should think nearer, or as near, as I am to him now. Q. He did not recognize you ? A. He did not appear to recognize me, I don't think from his appearance he would have recognized any one. Mr. Evarts— I move to strike out that last chiwr Judge Neilson— Yes ; that last clause. The Witness— I hope Mr. Evarts will accept my apol- ogy if I deviate in any way from the Mr. Evarts— Do not vary from the coarse of the exami- nation. I do not know that you owe any apology to anybody. The Witness— Entirely unintentional, if I made any error. CEOSS-EXAMINATION OF MR. JANES. Q. Now, Mr. Janes, you say that you make the 2d of June, or have a disposition on that day at least- to make the 2d of June a semi-holiday! A. Ihat is my feeling and intention when business permits. Q. WeU, this \Tas in 1873 ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Then you had been married four years 1 A. '69 to "73 ; yes, Sir. U^JCHJbJR IBIAL. Q. Had you carried out that purpose on your prevlou* anniversaries I A. Well, to a certain extent. Sir. Q. Not succeeded on any one entirely! A. That I would have to recall to my recollection a little ; on the one following Q. Oh 1 I don't care for the details. A. I think I had . on one, at least ; I can tell why I had not on the other two, if you would like to know. Sir ; would you like to have me tell you why Q. Oh I Not thele^st; I haven't the least cuiiosity; not the least. Now, Mr. Janes, you think Mr. Beecher had a gloomy look! A. Yes, Sir. Q. Do you remember how he was dressed! A. Yes, Sir ; that is, I could not, of course, indicate absolutely, but I recollect the general impression made upon me. Q. Recollect he had his clothes on 1 A. Yes, Sir ; a dark suit, or black suit, I should say, without overcoat. Q. Do you remember whether the weather was warm or not % A. It was. Q. Was it quite hot ! A. Well, my recollection is that it was a day to dispense with coats, or outside coats at all events. Q. The 2d of June ! A. Yes, Sir. Q. But you have no more distinct recollection about it than that ? A. Well, I have refreshed my recollection by a reference to the tables. Q. Yes ; and what did you find out ! A. I found out that it was from 80° to 85° along through the day, in that vicinity— the thermometer. Q. Did you find out it was near 90° about 8 o'clock in the morning ! A. I could not tell you absolute ; I think not, though; about 9 o'clock in the morning I think it was Q. You don't remember it was a very hot day ! A. I recollect it was a warm day ; yes, that is my impression ; it was a warm day ; I recollect the day previous to it more than that day, for I was out of doors nearly all day. Q. Well, do you remember whether it was a hot. sim- shining day ? A. No, Sir, I could not say whether it was cloudy, but E recollect that it was not stormy ; that ia my recollection, not stormy. Q. Well, then the obscuration of Mr. Beecher's face prcv duced more of a chill on you than the question whether sxm was obscured or not ? A. Yes, Sir; decidedly. Q. Now, what sort of a hat did Mr. Beecher have on t A. My recollection is simply that he didn't have on a tall silk hat ; I could not say more definitely than that. Q. Now, was it an unusual thing for you to see Mr. Beecher ! A. Bather unusual, yes, Sir, at that time. Q. Quite so, wasn't it ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. How long do you think it had been since you had seen him « A. Well, T may have met him on a boat or Q, Yes, T am not asking you that ; I asked how long since you remember to have seen him ; you may have met him anywhere A. I do not remember ; I have no distinct \ recollection of having seen hira since he left our rooms ; < TESllMONT OF LEWIS G. JANUS. 45a I thlni, however, that I attended hie church once diu-ing that period, but I am not certain. Q. Don't even remember that! A. Not absolut-elr; I think— I have only attended there three or four times since I have been in Brooklyn ; I vrould not be likely to remember the exact dates. Q. Well, you run on a little, but that is not important if you will attend to my questions and confine your an- swers to them. A. I wiU endeavor to do so, Six. Q. You did see him thela^t time that he left your place"? A. No, Sir, I didn't say that. Q. Your pre«enc«— when was itl A. The last time that lie left my presence I saw him certainly. Q. Your presence i A. Yes, Sir, certainly. Q. When was that 1 A. That I cannot state now defi- nitely. Q. Wen, what can yon say about it? A. Well, he— I think— I am not certain— I cannot say whether I saw him —he was in my rooms, I think, three or four times, possi- bly more ; possibly not over two or three, in the Fall of 1871. Whether I saw him there I do not recollect ; but I do recoUect distinctly an occasion in the Spriug of 1871 which I think was toward the last of Ms lifting. Q. Very well; now, for two years you had n't seen him, j then, aocordiag to your recollection I A. I think I had I met him casually, but not so as to identify the occasion ; there was nothing to impress it on my memory. Q. Well, you don't know, then, that you ever met him, do you 1 A. I could not swear to it daring that period. Q. Now, was your usual trip to the city over the WaU Street Ferryl A. Yes, Sir. Q. That was an everyday matter to you? A. Not an everyday absolutely, but usual. Q. Well, usual— you went over every day, didn't youl A. I went over some way every day nearly. Q. WeU, that was your habit. A. That was my habit. Q. Your busiaess was to go every day. A. Yes, Sir. Q. And you went by the AYaU Street Ferry? A. Usually. Q. Now, where did you live at this time '? A. I lived | Where I live now on June 2, 1873. Q- Well, I haven't the least idea where you live now. A. I stated on my direct examination— No. 440 Carlton- ftve. Q. Where is that as respexjts this ferry i A. It is, I should judge, a mile and a half from the ferry or more. Q. You go through a great many streets to get to it? A. Not a great many. Q. Well, a good length 1 A. A good length of streets- yes, Sir. Q. Now, where did you come into Montague-st. that momiagi A. That I am unable absolutely to say, on that day; I can give you my general course, and occasionally ! I deviate from it. Q. Yea 1 WeU, then, I don't think it would be any use to rae to know; that is the only day I want to know about it I A. Yes, Sir. Q,. And you don't know ? A. I know this— that I came into it on that morning as high up as Clinton-st. Q. Clinton! A. Yes, Sir; as far toward Court as Clin- ton. Q. Now, did you go along the platform there and down the steps, or did you go down under the bridge ? A. I went along the platform and down the steps. Q. Is that your usual course 1 A. That is a very fre- quent course with me ; I like to look out on the water as I go by. Q. Now, which way do you usually go '? A. I think about as often one way as the other, as near as I can Q. You have no impression, however, about that ! A. I know that I did that on that morning ; yes, Sir, I have very decided impression. Q. Do you remember looking out on the wat^r 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. What did you see ? A. I saw water. Q. WeU, you have a distinct recollection that you looked out on the water that morning, and saw it ! A. I perhaps reason to that, Mr. Evarts. Mr. Evarts— Ah ! ah ! The Witness— To be strict about it. Q. Only reason ? A. The incident that struck me most I have mentioned ; of these others Q. Yes, yes ; where was Mr. Beecher when you first saw him? A. He was very near the bridge. Q, What street was he in ? A. I think it is caUed Mon- tague-terrace along there; I am not— I don't know that I ever looked at the name, but I think all that space aoros? there is called Montague-terrace. Q. Yes; well, it is a prolongation of Columbia-st., oi Columbia Iliiihts i A. Pretty nearly ; I think there is a Utile break. Q. Yes, Sir ; a Uttle jog there. Now, you think you were in that part of it ? A. Yes, Sii\ Q. On which side of the street was ii I A. 7'oward Co- lumbia- Hights; it was on the side of the bridge toward Columbia Hights, just about stepping on the bridge, or very nearly. Q. The bridge? A. There is a smaU foot-bridge cross- ing over the passage-way. Q. WeU, what is this bridge ; what is it over I A. It is over the roadway which leads down to the ferry. Q. Yes. A. You wiU reeoUect there is an arch tlicre, and steps which go down by the arch— baek of the arch. Q. WeU, lie was on that bridge 1 A. Yes, Sir ; he was about stepping on it. Q. And where were you when you first saw him f A. WeU, I was up— I was -walking down Montague-st. in that direction on to the ferries— toward the ferries. Q. Then he turned and passed you, did he, and you him ! A. He did not require to turn very much ; we 454 TRM TILION-B Tvere approacliing very nearly at right angles with cacli other. Q. Well, exactly ; did you come together at right angles? A. Not absolutely together, but within a few feet. Q. Well, how did he pass by— in front of you, or you in front of him ? A. He passed by in front of me. Q. Yes ; and he did not turn round and look at you, did he 1 A. No, Sir. Q. And that disappointed you 1 A. Well, possibly. Q. It was not like meeting a man, then, face to face, and his not recognizing you, but he was going at right angles to your course, and he did not turn *? A. Yes, Sir; I could see his face distinctly, however. Q. One side of it, I should judge ? A. A sort of semi- pro file view, I should judge. MR. BEECHER'S LOOK OF TROUBLE. Q. Yes, a semi-profile view; and what indi- cation of trouble did you see in that semi-proflle view which you had of him ? A. Simply that the face was— his eyes were cast upon the ground, toward the ground, and the expression of his face was sober — sad. Q. Sober ? A. A sort of corrugation of the brows, ami he gave me the— perhaps you would not want me to say that, however — ^the impression that he gave me. Q. No, not a semi-proflle judgment of the inside of a man, you know. A. I don't set myself up as a judge. Sir, at all. Q. Well, at any rate, however, he felt ; he did not make any secret of it, did he ? A. I don't believe it is easy for Mr. Eeecher to make a secret of his feelings. Q. You think he is a pretty transparent character 1 Mr. Beach— Well, I object to that, 3ir. The Witness— I am not a judge, as I said before. Mr. Evarts— You ai« not a judge 1 The Witness— But I have seen him Mr. Beach — Wait one moment. Mr. Evarts— You are not a judge, you say? Mr. Beach— Wait a moment ; what is the question f Mr. Evarts— This last one M^as whether he was a-judge ; he said he was not. Mr. Beach— I was objecting all tlje time. Mr. Evarts- -Now, you passed along ; and how long be- fore you cam.' to the descent— to the steps ? A. It was not very long, but longer than I would generally be in coming to the descent, the steps. Q. Well, how long, as a matter of fact, were youl A. T do n't think over three minutes ; possibly not as long as that. Q. Three minutes— well, it did n't take you that time to walk the A. No, Sir. Q. How long would it take you t© walk it at ordinary speed ? A. I do n't know I suppose a minute, possibly. Q. Half a miuute, would n't ill A. I should judge it would be pretty ciuick in half a minute, but it is a mere l^h'.iUlER nUAL. matter of judgment, and I do not think T am a veiy good judge of that. Q. Well, now, Mr. Beecher passed ahead of you ; where did his course take him i A. Toward Rem sen-st. Q. Well, but how— as I understand you were going along Montague-st., weren't youl A. Yes, Sir. Q. And he would cross over, then, and on? A. He would cross the path which I was taking; yes. Sir. Q. Yes, cross the path ; and then would he cross over the road that comes down to the ferry ? A. He would cross over that way the road which— he did cross over the bridge before I reached his immediate vicinity. Q. Before you saw him ? A. Not before I saw him, but before I reached his immediate vicinity. Q. WeU, now, I don't know that you said which side of Montague-st. you were on I A. Which side of Montague- st _i was on the left hand side as you go down toward the ferry. Q. Going down ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. The steps are on both sides, are they ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. And Mr. Beecher then went along— what street would it be? A. I think it is called Montague-terrace, along there ; that is my impression. Q. That is, he would go along 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. As far as he passed you? A. Yes, Sir. Q. His course took him along Montague-terrace, did it! A. Yes, Sir. Q. And which side was that— nearest the water— he waa on? A. Which side of Montague-terrace? Q. Yes. A. Montague-terrace passes parallel with the water, as I understand; he was on the bridge ; you could hardly tell which side he was on ; the bridge is very narrow. Q. And you never saw, after he got on Montague-ter- race, which side he was, did you 1 A. That is, after he crossed the bridge. Q. Well? A. Oh, he was on the upper side, Sir, toward Court-st. Q. Toward Court-st. 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. And how was he heading? A. He was heading toward Eemsen-st. Q. And is Remsen-st. the first street beyond Montague ! A. Yes, Sir. Q. The terrace runs into ? A. I imderstand that to be called Montague-terrace until it reaches Remsen-st. ; I may be incorrect on that, but that is my understanding. Q. It ends there, don't it— runs up against a building ! A. Yes, Sir. Q. Now, did you see Mr. Beecher turn into Remsen-st. f A. I did. Q. Well, < d you stop to look at him ? A. I slacked my pace, and may have stopped ; I had curiosity enough to do that. Q. Yes, and you cannot say whether you came to a dead halt ? A. Well, not absolutely ; no, Sir ; I may havo lESlUWyJ OF walked very slowly ; I may have stopped absolutely for an instant. Q. And tlien you turned your head, I suppose ? A. If I *aw him turn the comer I turned my head. Q. Well, but you turned your head to see him as he went along, did n't you ? A. Yes, Sir, my head or my body. Q. "Well, threw your eyes around somehow ] A. Yes, Sir, certainly. Q. And then, when he turned into Remsen-st. you then ? A. Passed down toward the steps. Q. Paid attention to your own course entii*ely'? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Went down the steps. Now, you did not see any ex- pression of his face except at the moment he was passing you, did you? A. I noticed only the general inclination of his head when I first saw him ; as T came near him I noticed the expression of his face. Q. Yes, and after he got l\v you, why, you then did not see any expression in his face 1 A. No, Sir. not when his back was nuiied toward me. Q. Xow. you say tint von think tbis was the 2d day of June. 1S73? A. Yes, sir; it is connected in my mind with that ovf.it, s;) tliar vrli -n the v.-^-collection of one arose, the i'eeolle-:tion o: the other arose with it. Q. Yes. wirJi the event of your marriage ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. T^rell. on tii;ir diy, after seeing Mr. Beecher, you went to your office ] A. Yes, Sir. Q. And did you stay there ? A. I stayed there for some time ; yes. Sir. Q. Weil, what did you do afterward ? A. After I got throuirh with staying there I went home. Q. Well, what time did you go home ? A. My recollec- tion is that it was later than I anticipated going home in the morning ; that it was in the vicinity of 5 o'clock that I left my room. Q. About your usual time of going home, wasn't it. A. No, Sir; I usually go home at 6. Q. A little earlier 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. So that all you saved of that holiday was from 5 to 6 ? A. Not much. Sir, that day. Q. "^Tiat? A. I didn't save very much that day; I always make it Q. That was all, 5 to 6 ? A. I judge that to be about all the time. Q. About all ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Now, have you any distinct recollection that you saved anything '? A. I am very certain that I did, and if you would want to know, why I will tell you. Q. It is not for me to say; you think you did save that fag end of the day ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Now, when were you first spoken to to be a witness ? A. I was subpenaed last Saturday. Q. Well, how did that come about ? A. Would you like to have me tell you the whole story ? Q. Well, if it is a very long one I would not, but T would EWIS ('. J AXES. 455 like to know what you said or did about the matter to bt. subpeuaed here 2 A. Yes, Sir ; I don't see how I can get rid of going into the history of it a little if I give you a correct idea truthfully. Q. Well, then. I will di pense with it, because I see that you like details; I don't. Mr. Beach— Well, then, you should not manifest so much desire for them. Mr. Evarts— No, I haven't much desire for them. |To the witness.] But all you say is that you were subpenaed last Saturday 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. And that to tell how you came to be subpenaed would requii'e a long history ? A. Not very long, Sir. Q. Pretty long? A. I think I could tell it in ten minutes, perhaps less. Mr. Evarts— Oh, well, that is long. [Laughter.] Now, Sir, how do you know at what time you started from borne that morning, or did you start from home, or from yom' office ? A. I started from home. Q. Well, you were at home to begin with, I suppose ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. But when you started to go across the ferry were you at the office, or at your house ? A. My office iu Brooklyn, do you mean? Q. Yes, Sir. A. That is what I am unable to deter- mine absolutely, that particular day: in.- iieJiit was to stop at my Brooklyn office in the morning, but on that particular occasion of a few days it was especially neces- sai-y for me to reach New-York early, and I think some of those days I dispensed with stopping in Brooklyn in the morning, and whether that was one Q. Some of those daysl A. Yes, Sir; I am unable to say. Q. How many days do you include in that period of "some of those days ?" A. I think for about a week. Q. Antecedent or following this ? A. Commencing on the 29th. Q. And extending for a week? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Then for that period, from the 29th for a week onward, there was something exceptional in the hours of yoirr movements, was there? Yes, Sir. Q. And that exception applied as much to the other days as to the 2d of June? A. Yes, Sir. Q. And you cannot tell me, therefore, what particular hour— whether you were at your office on the 2d of June, in Brooklyn, or not? A. No, Sir; I have investigated that as thoroughly as I could, and I am unable to tell. Q. Can't find out— did you have some business there, of some assistants there? A. I had assistants there, but the 2d of June being Monday I had no absolute business there ; on Saturdays I usually had a little business there, but on that— for that period I am unable to tell any of those days absolutely. Q. So that in your movements that week, to tho!»« liour*, there was no diff^renrp between this 2:i <»" J.-v.\ ■ 456 TRE TlLTON-BKEdUER TRIAL. and any time from tlie 29th of BTay for a week 1 A. No difference in the circumstances that I recollect. Q. No as to honrs ? A. No, Sir. Mr. Moii-is—That is all. Mr. Evarts— Wait a moment ; Mr. Hull, the juryman, asks which side of Moutague-st. Kemsen-st. is. A. Rem- sen-st. is on the left hand side ©f Montague as you go down toward Wall Street Ferry, at the left. Judge Neilson— It is on the west side isn't iti A. South, I should think more properly. Mr. Evarts— How far is Remsen-st., the juryman asks, from Montague ? A. One block. Q. Well, a short block, or a A. Not a very long block. Q. Do you remember meeting anybody else that morn- ing! A. No, Sir. Q. Either In Brooklyn or New- York ? A. I do not rec- ollect any particular person I met; no. Sir. Q. No ; no doubt you did see somebody in the street ? A. Yes, Sir ; no doubt of it. JEEEMIAH P. EOBIXSON RECALLED. Jereii)ia:i P. Rol>mson was next recalled and tes -ilied as foiiowi^ : By Mr. Fuilei-ton— Mr. Robinson, you know Emma C. Moulton, the wife of Francis D. Moulton, do you not 1 A. Yes, Sir, when I see her. Q. How 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. I3 she related to you in any way % A. Yes, Sir. Q. In what way, please ? A. She is my niece. Q. Do you recollect of seeing her in the month of Jime, 1873, and early in that month 1 A. I probably saw her that mont^ ; I have seen her almost every month when I have been at home. MRS. MOULTON NARRATES THE JUNE 2 IN- TERVIEW. Q. Do you recollect of seeing her in the month of June, 1873, when you had a conversation with her in regard to Mr. Beecher ? A. I could not fix the month or the date ; I had a good many conversations with her in regard to the question. Mr. Beach— A little louder. A. I had a good many conversations at different times. By Mr. Fullerton— WeU, I call your attention to the occa- sion, if you remember it, when she related to you any- thing that occurred between herself and Mr. Beeoher in the month of June, 1873. THE NARRATION OBJECTED TO. Mr. Evarts— I object to that. Judge Neilson— As yet it goes to the question of date gimply ; perhaps you had better get the date. Mr. Fullerton— Well, Sir, the conversation will fix the date, if we are permitted to give that. Mr. Evarts— But the conversation cannot be given in evidence. Judge Neilson— Then the question is whether the con- versation Mr. Fullerton— Yes, Sir ; that is the question ; we think it can. Mr. Beach— It is a question we propose to discuss, your Honor, upon authorit3% if it arises. Mr. Fullerton —It may as well come up now as at any time. We propose to show that Mrs. Moulton, in the moi>th of June, 1873, related the conversation that she had with Mr. Beecher on the 2d day of that month, as testified to by herself here as a wi^aess, and that evi- dence we think we are clearly entitled to, Sir, under the law. Judge Neilson— Well, I wiU hear you, gentlemen, on that question. Mr. Evarts— We do not understand any principle of law upon which the conversation is to be given ; we make the objection. Mr. Fullerton— Well, Sir, one of my associates is reaCy to argue it. Judge Neilson— Counsel can proceed. Mr. Evarts— Convei-sations between this genfleman and his niece do not aflfect Mr. Beecher in any way, that I laiow of. Mr. Fullerton— They certainly do. Mr. Evarts— I do not see how. Mr. Fullerton- Well, that is what we propose to show you. Judge Neilson— Are you ready to be heard! Mr. Evarts— I do not understand that I need to argue that matter at present, if your Honor please. Here is ft conversation between two strangers Judge Neilson— Yes. Mr. Evarts— Wlaich is offered to be given in evidence to aftect the parties to this suit. ARGUMENT OF MR. PRYOR. Mr. Pryor— If your Honor please, as an ab solute and universal rule, that the consistent declara- tions of a witness out of court are admissible to cor- roborate his testimony under oath, if ; proposition which we do not afBrm, and which is not involved in the offer of evidence we make. The proposition for which we contend, and by virtue of which we maintain the admis- sibility of the evidence offered, is precisely and critically this : that when the testimony of a witness is imput'ued by the imputation that it is a recent fabrication, or the product of some special interest or influence, that then it is competent to prove, in the one case, that the witness told the story prior to the date of the supposed fabrica- tion, and in the other that he made the statement before the existence of the imputed interests or influence. This, Sir, is our proposition, and it is a proposition maintained by abundant authority, maintained by the teaching* of TESTLVOyr OF JEREMIAH P. BOBINSON. 457 iQl the text-writers, and. \)y tlie uiiiiorm language of the courts, notably ol our own State. Thus, Sir, "W. D. Evans, in his valuable commentaries upon " Pothier on Obligations"— Evans, one of the clearest and most philo- sophical writers upon the law of evidence— employs the following language. I quote from page 289 of the edi- tion of 1806 : One of the cases which are mentioned as exceptions to the general rule for the exclusion of hearsay evidence is where it is adduced to show that the testimony given by a witness upon the trial is consistent with his declara- tions on former occasions. But it has been said that this is not evidence-in-chief, and it is doubtful whether it be so in reply. According to the principles of correct reason- ing, the propriety of the evidence in this case, as in the otliers already referred to, must de]>end upon the nature of the object it is intended to attain. In an ordinary case the evidence would be at least superfluous ; for the as- sertions of a witness are to be regarded, in general, as ti-ue, imtil there is some particular reason for impeach- ing them as false ; which reason may be repelled by circumstances showing that the motive upon which it is supposed to have been founded could not have had existence at the time when the previous relation was made, and which there- fore repels the supposition of the fact related being after- thought fabrication. The suspicion of the opposite eon- duct may result either from the inherent nature and ap- plication of the evidence itself, or it may be iudicated by the iuipur:;tions actually thrown out in the cross-exam- iuation, or otherwise, by the opposite party. If a witness speaks to facts negativing the existence of a contract, and Insinuations are thrown out that he has a near con- nection with the party on whose behalf he appears, that a change of market, or an alteration of circumstances, has excited an inducement to recede from a deliberate engagement, the proof, by unsuspicious testimony, that a similar account was Mven when the contract had every prospect of advantage, removes the imputa- tions resulting from the opposite circum- Btance, and the testimony is placed upon the same level which It would have had If the motives for receding from the previous intcation had never ex- isted. Upon accusations of rape, where the having f aUed to mention the circumstance for a considerable time, is in itself a reason for Imputing fabrication, unless re- pelled, disclosure of the fact upon the first apparent opportunity after its commission, and the apparent state of mind of tlj:- r?rty who suffered the injury, are always regarded as admissible, and the evidence of them is con- stantly admitted without objection. To the same effect Starkie, in his work upon Evidence [marginal page 253], after combating the general propo- sition that the consistent declarations of a witness out of court are admissible to corro»oorate his testimony imder oath, says : But, although such evidence be not generally admissi- ble in conflrmatlon of a witness, there may be cases where, under special clrcTimstances, it possibly might be adruieeible, as, for instance, in contradiction of evidence tending to show that the account was a fabrication of a late date, and where it becomes material to show that the same account had been given before its ultimate effect and op -ration, arising from a change of cii'cumstances, could have been foreseen. And Mr. PhilUps, in his work on Evidence, says— but the book is not here ; I will send for it, and meanwhile read another authority. Mr. Powell, in his treatise upon Evidence, propounds the rule even more broadly and absolutely [marginal paper 60] : It is stated that although hearsay evidence is not re» ceived as direct evidence, yet it may be admitt-ed in cor- roboration of a witness's testimony to show that he aflSrmed the same thing before on other occasions. Mr. Phillips states the proposition, and enunciates the doctrine for which we contend and upon which we stand, in clear, emphatic and conclusive language ; and as soon as the book can be produced I will read his language literally to your Honor. Mr. Greenleaf, in his work upon Evidence [Yol. 1. p. 586], uses this language : Where evidence of contradictory statements by a wit- ness, or of particular facts, is offered by way of impeach- ing his veracity, his general character for truth being thus in some sort put in issue, it has been deemed reason- able to admit general evidence that he is a man of strict integrity and scrupulous regard for truth ; but evidence that he has on other occasions made statements similar to what he has testified in the case is not admissible, un- less where a design to misrepresent is charged upon the witness in conseauence of his relation to the party or to the case, in which case it seems to be proper to show that he has made a simUar statement before the relation ex- isted. And, in the very latest treatise upon the law of evi- dence—the standard and infallible authority in the courts of England— I refer to " Taylor on Evidence," we find the foUowtng language [VoL 2, See. 1,330] : Where evidence of contradictory statements, or other Improper conduct, on the part of a witness has been either elicited from him on cross-examination or ob- tained from other witnesses, with the view of impeach- ing his veracity, his general character for truth being thus put in issue in some sort, it has been deemed reason- able that general evidence that he is a man of strict in- tegrity and scrupulous regard for truth should be admitted ; but evidence that he has on similar occasions made similar statements to what he has testified to in the case is not adanis^ Ible, unless the party be charged with a design to misrepresent in consequence of his rela- tion to the party or to the case, in which case it maybe proper to show that he has made sunuar statements be- fore the relation existed. Now, Sir, this is the language of the elementary writers, but the language of the courts is egtually as consistent and conclusive. In The People agt. Vane, reported in 12 WendeUjthis point was adjudicated,was decided— namely, where the testimony of an accomplice had been im- peached by the suggestion that he was Inspired by a hope of pardon and immunity, that it was competent to relieve his evidence from the suspicion by pro viii!.' eUat on previous occasions antecedent to the time when this inspiration of hope operated upon him, he had ma4e consistent statements out of court. That, Sir, is adjudi- cated, and it is the only point adjudicated in the case ot The People agt. Vane, the opinion of the Court being pro- pounded by Chief Justice Savage, with the concurrence 458 TUB TILTON-BEEVREB IBIAL. J>f liis learned and distinguislied associates. But as even. aiDle judges sometimes are not content to stand upon tlie mere point adjudicated, that learned jurist proceeded to travel beyond tlie record and to propound ex- tra-judicial dicta wliicli subsequently bave fallen under the revision and correction of tbe courts— to wit, lie enunciated tbe broad, absolute proposition tbat wbenevortbe credibility of a witness is impeached, either on direct or on cross-examination or otherwise, that then it is competent to maintain his credibility by proof of his consistent declarations out of court. But this was obiter— not necessary to the decision of the case, not presented by the facts upon the record, not involved in the deter- mination of the point presented. These dicta, I say, have subsequently fallen under the criticism and con- demnation of the courts ; but mark, j'our Honor, that in the very cases which have reviewed and revised and re- jected the authority of these dicta— hi those very cases and in the very act of repudiating and exploding those dicta, these subsequent cases recognize and reaffirm and ratify the exception and the qualification and the doc- tmie upon which we stand. Thus, in 23 Wendell we find the case of Robb agt. Haclvley, quoted at page 50, and yourFionor must indulge me if I read somewhat exten- sively from the opinion here propounded by one of the ablest jurists that ever adorned the bench of this State— I mean Mr, Justice Brouson : Yv'ucn a witness is contradicted his testimony may, of course, be verified by proving the same facts by others. If his character for truth is attacked it may be supported by proving it good ; or if evidence is given that the wit- ness has made declarations out of coui-t inconsistent with Ills testimony, it may be shown that those declarations were made under such circumstances as not to detract from his credibility. If an attempt is made to discredit the witness on the ground that his testimony is given under the influence of some motive prompting him to make a false or colored statement, the party calling him has been allowed to show in reply that the witness made similar declarations at times when the imputed motive did not exist. But as a general and almost universal rule, evidence of what the witness has said out of coui-t cannot be received to verify his testimony. It violates a first principle in the law of evidence to allow a party (and that is the objection raised by the learned gentleman on the other side) to be afl'ected, either in his person or his property, by the declarations of a witness made with- out oath. Besides, it can be no confirmation of what the witness has said or not, to show that he has made similar declarations when under no such solemn obligations to speak the cruth. It is no answer v./ say that such evi- dence will not be likely to gain credit, and, consequently, will do no harm. Evidence should never be given to a ury when they are at liberty not to believe it. The ref- eree was probably governed by the language of the late learned Chief-Justice in The People agt. Vane, but that case does not necessarily go beyond deciding that the testimony of such an accomplice in crime may be cor- roborated by showing that when first arrested he gave the same relation of the facts which he had given on oatb upon the trial. The fact that the accomplice was called as a witness for the people gave rise to the ?.]ofeToac« that he was criminating the de- fendant for the purpose of exempting himself from prosecution for the larceny. It might there- fore be proper to show that he gave the same acco.unt of the matter at a time when there was no such motive for making a false accusation. If when first arrested, and when he had no expectation of personal examination, he had frankly disclosed the whole matter, that might tend to confirm his subsequent repetition of the same state- ment on oath. This brings the case within the acknowl- edged exception to the general rule, that the testimony of a contradicted, impeached or discredited witness cannot be confirmed by proving that he has made similar declar- ations out of court. " The acknowledged exception to the general rule," saya Mr. Justice Bronson. The head-note to the case is this : Proof of declarations made by a witness out of court in corroboration of the testimony given by him on the trial of the case is. as a general and almost universal rule, in- admissible. It seems, hotvever, that to this rule there are exceptions, and that, under special cu'cumstances, such proof will be received. As, where the witness is charged with giving his testimony under the influence of some mo- tive prompting him to make false or colored statements, it may be shown that he made similar declarations at a time when the imputed motive did not exist. So, in con- tradiction of evidence tending to show that the account of the transaction given by the witness is a fabrication of late date, it may be shown that the same account was given by him before its ultimate effect and operation, arising from a change of circumstances, could have been foreseen. If your Honor please, this is the language of Mr. Phillips (marginal page 974) : In one point of view, however, a former statement by the witness appears to be admissible information of his evidence, and that is where the counsel on the other side impute a design to misrepresent from some motive of in- terest or relationship. In that case, perhaps, in order to repel such an imputation, it might be proper to show that the witness made the same statement at a time when the supposed motive did not exist, or when motives of inter- est would have prompted him to make a different state- ment of the facts. And in the case of Smith agt. Stickney, reported in 17 Barbour, page 189, Mr. Justice Welles delivering the opinion of the Court, recapitulates the authorities (or at least so many of them as were then extant) which I have adduced, recognizes and reaffirms them, and then adds : " We can perceive nothing in the present case to bring it within the exception to the general rule ;" recognizing (jhe exception ratifying the principle, reaffirming the doc- trine for which we now contend, and by virtue of which we maintain the admissibility of this evidence. So in 1 "Parker's Criminal Reports," page 147, we find in the case of " The People agt. Finnigan " this lan- guage: "As a general rule (says the head-notes) it is not compe- tent, in support of the testimony of a witness, for the party calling him to prove that he has made declarations out of court corresponding with his testimony in court." And the court says : "The exceptions to the rule, as now established in this State {as now established; not * seems nay, it is')— the exceptions to the rule as now established in this State are, Avhcn the witness is charged with giving his testimony under the influence of TmTlMOJ^Y OF JEREMIAH P. BOB I jY SON. 459 some motive prorapting him to make a false or colored statement, it may be shown tliat lie made similar declara- tions at a time when the imputed motive did not exist ; or when there is evidence in contradiction tending to show that the account of the transaction given by the witness is a fabrication of a late date [it is said"! it may be shown that the same account was given by him before its ultimate eifect or operation, arising from a change of circumstances, could have been perceived," Now, Sir, I could adduce other authorities, both from the elementary writers and from the reports, but it were idle to detain the court with their recital. Suffice it to say, that the concurrence is unanimous, of authors aud of judges, in support of the doctrine which we enunciate ; and that to the contrary of it, not a solitary dogma is to be found in any book of repute, not a soll-^ry dictum fi-om any court of respectability. It stands as little criti- cised or challenged as any principle in the law of evi- dence. It is imbedded deep and unshaken in our system of jurisprudence. It is one of the lights, fixed and un- stable, set for the guidance of courts in the investigation of tiTith, and— pardon me, your Honor— rash would be the hand that would venture to extinguish it. But the proposition is as well established by reason as il is supported by authority. Where the testimony of a witness is merely contradicted by his declarations ; where on one side is mere asseveration and on the other denial ; where affirmation is only opposed by negation, there is only a competition of credibility, and it would be preposterous to receive the unsworn declarations of the witness in confirmation of his testimony under oath. But where, beyond and beside this, by way of contradic- tion, an alien and independent fact is introduced in dis- credit of the testimony, majiifestly and essentially, the case is different, for then the testimony of the witness MR. PRYOR INTERRUPTED BY AN ATTACK OF VER'riG^O. At this point Mr. Pryor suddenly broke off, remarking to Judge Neilson : If your Honor please, I have an attack of vertigo. Judge Neilson directed an officer to raise the window, And, addressiiig Mi*. Pryor, said : You can suspend your argument. General. Mr. Pryor— Yes, Sir. In a few minutes Mr. Pryor resumed as follows : If your Honor please, I think I have made the proposi- tion which we enunciated intelligible to your Honor, and to my learned adversaries, and I do not now feel able to state the argument from reason in support of that propo- sition, because I feel that if I should undertake it, it is possible that I should miscarry again. I assume it, how- ever, to be clear. Then the question arises— but it is im- possible for me to proceed ; your Honor must excuse me. Mr. Pryor fin reply to a suggestion that the court should adjournl— It is not worth au adjournment, if your Honor please. Judge Neilson— I will adiourn cheerfully if it is desired. Mr. Pryor— Oh, no. Sir ; T will endeavor to proceed. It appears, your Honor, by the authorities which I have produced, and by the train of argument which f have been unable to develop, that where the testimony of a witness is impugned by the imputation that it is a recent invention Judge Neilson— Take your seat, Mr. Pryor. I can hear you converse, if it will be easier for you. Mr. Pryor— Oh, never mind, Sir ; I can go on. It ap- pears, I say, that where the testimony of a witness is impugned by the imputation that it is a recent invention, or a fabrication for the occasion, or the product of some special interest or iufluence, that then, in either of these contingencies, it is competent for the party to maintain the credibility of his witness by disproving the infirmi- tive and discrediting fact adduced agamst him. This being, I say, an incontrovertible' proposition of law, the question arises whether here the defendant has attacked the testimony of Mrs. Moulton, by evidence or allegation, of such inflrmitive or discrediting fact ; for we concede, may it please your Honor, that if her testimony were barely contradicted, the evidence offered would not be open to us. Now, Sir, by reference to the address of the learned counsel who opened for the defense, and espe- cially by reference to the testimony of the defendant himself, it will be found that ample foundation was laid aud ample provocation given for the introduction of the testimony we offer. Gen. Tracy, on page 82 of the pamphlet edition of his address, uses this language: We now, gentlemen, approach one of the most delicate subjects which my duty calls upon me to discuss. I refer to the connection of Mrs. Emma Moulton with this case. Apart from her relations to this matter, I shall not speak of this lady otherwise than in terms of respect. I feel most deeply her extraordinary position, the terrible emergency which she had to meet, and the overwhelming power of the temptation before which she has fallen. The truth of this case makes it impossible me to ab- stain from speaking with apparent severity of this lady's testimony ; but I do so with sorrow for her, reserving all my indignation for those who have forced her upon the witness stand to confirm the accusations which they have invented. Again, on page 83, he says : What is the relation of Mrs. Moulton to this case ? This lady is the wife of the only man who has anything to lose by a verdict for the defendant. Animated by his thirst for revenge, Francis J). Moulton has periled all on the issue of this suit. The plaintiff himself might find some persons to excuse him, on the supposition of an insane jealousy, but no such excuse can be made for his friend. He will be held to a strict and stern responsibility, and the plaintiff's failui'e in this suit, as every man can see, involves Mr. Moulton in utter and hopeless ruin. Yet his guilt and his ruin will not release his unhappy wife from her allegiance nor make him any the less the father of her only child. What a terrible alternative for her ! If sLe so testifies as to save Mr. Beech er, she necessarily ruins her own husband, destroys her home, and leaves her only child to a blight. 460 7 H E lllA ON-B I] EiUlKU 7 RIAL. And so on through columns of vehement and exag- gerated declaration. Now, the defendant on his direct examination uses this language in reply to a question by Mr. Evarts : Mr. Morris— What page 1 Mr. Pryor— Page 885, " Q. Did Mrs. Moulton ever address you in that way % A. No, Sir ; it is not in her nature to say anything of that kind, and she never did— [a long pausej— of her own accord." This is apropos of the Interview of June 2. Now, then, further, upon his cross-examination, in development and amplification and explanation of the ideas here asserted, if not expressed, the defendant spoke as follows : ** Q. In the course of the examination of Mrs. Moulton you wei'e asked by your counsel whether she said a cer- tain thing to you, and your reply was in part, ' Not of her o\\ u accord.' A. No, Sir, I do not ; I think, Sir, you have made a mistake in your designation ; you say in the ex- amination of Mrs. Moulton, and I think you have made an error. Q. Perhaps I have ; in the examination of youi'self, then % A. Yes, Sir. Q. You were asked as to whether Mrs. Moulton did not say a certain thing to you, and you said, in substance, that she did not, or she ' never did of her own accord do you recollect the circumstance ? A. I do, Sir. Q. What did you mean by the words • not of her own accord ?' A. Perhaps I meant what I ought not to have said Q. Never mind that. A. [Continuing.) But this is what I meant, that I believed that Mrs. Moulton had been made to make that statement by influence. Q. Who do you think exerted the influence upon her % A. I think that Mr. Moulton did. Q. And when do you think he did it % A. Ah ! I don't know ; after wc broke, probably. Q. In the Summer of 1874 % A. Yes, Sir." Now, if your Honor please, here is the positive and ex- plicit declaration of the learned counsel for the defend- ant. Here is the positive and explicit testimony of the defendant himself that the story told by Mrs. Moulton upon the witness-stand was not the effect of her own mind and will, but was an utterance wrung from her by the sovereign and remorseless influence of her husband. That was a flction fabricated for the occasion ; and it was a tissue of falsehoods conceived and delivered to meet the exigencies of this particular litigation, and to uphold her husband in his present controversy with the defend- ant. Now, Sir, to rebut this fact, and to repel this impu- tation, we offer to prove— and this is our offer— that im- mediately after the interview with Mr. Beecher, and of her own volition, and without the privity of her husband, and before any contiovt j ,sy be- tween her husband and Mr. Beecher had arisen, or was apprehended ; nay, when Mr. Beecher and Mr. IMouiton were in affectionate confederacy of cooperation for a common purpose, namely, to suppress this scandal and to shield the defendant's character— we offer to piove that at that time, and under those circumstances, Mr "^nplton told the story precisely as she told it under the sanction of au oath and in the presence of the Court and the jury. Now, if your Honor please, if this evidence be rejected, then is presented this I cannot go on. Judge Neilson— Take your time. Mr. Pry or— I have done, if your Honor please. It is Im- possible for me to go on. Mr. PuUerton— We are content to leave the opening argument as it is, and to let the other side reply to it. Mr. Beach— We make a proposition, and we have heard ' nothing of the objection of the other side. Mr. EvartS' chave the close. Judge Neilson— If counsel argue this question at all. you have a right to reply, whether he takes the close rr not. Mr. Evarts— I have the close. Judge Neilson— You may have the close at the end ; only, it is possible, if you make an argument at all, it may be one I n ay want help about in order to see the other view. Mr. Beach— It is very fair we should learn from the other side What their views are before the argument closes. Judge Neilson— Undoubtedly. AEGUMENT OF MR. EVARTS, Mr. Evarts — The views on oiu* side remain as simple as they did when they were first stated. If your Honor please, it is a recognized rule of evidence that no party is to suffer in a judicial proceeding by the pro- duction of evidence unless under the sanction of an oath. That excludes all hearsay evidence in all its forms. Now, there came to be a notion in England and in our own courts, that when a witness, in reply to statements mad< in court, has been contradicted by evidence of contra dictory statements out of court, that then there was a seeming reason m allowing confirmation of the statements in court thus weakened by statements to the contrary out of court, to be confirmed or assisted by corroborative ox adhering statements out of court, and, to a certain ex tent, in England and in this country that rule was I'd lowed. But its infirmity, its contradiction of the first principles of the administration of justice and the law of evidence, was soon detected. The rule was rejected and the practice exploded. I shall call your Honor's atten- tion to the cases that thus dispose of the matter. It is a rule which can have no foundation in reason, unless you abandon the rule that hearsay evidence shall not be heard in a court of justice, for whenever opposing wit- nesses under oath resist one another, you are then to look around for what each one of them has said out oi court during a period of years since the occasion arose for opinions and statements. You at once throw down the barrier of reduction, and our court has animadverte Beecher, I am very sorry for you in this great trouble ; there is only one way out for you, and that is by a con- fession and telling the truth ; you cannot continue in this life of deception and hypocrisy ; the truth will come out sooner or later.' Did Mrs. Moulton ever address you in that way? A. No, Sir ; it was not in her nature to say anything of that kind, and she never did— [after a long pause]— of her own accord." Now, what is the cause of imputation 1 Why, the im- putation, if it is anything, is that she speaks under the iafluence of her husband. They don't show any state- ments of her's out of court antecedent to the existence of that relation. They don't show any change of relation on the part ot this witness toward the alleged bias, to wit, her husband's wiQ. They don't show any. change of relation as to this matter at all. What Moulton has been saying and doing, what Mrs. Moulton has been say- tag and doing, is just as much a question of the influence of the husband over the wife at one part of their common dealmgs as at any other. You introduce no change of relation. It is said that Moult-on had an animosity excited as of a particular date. Well, that is to be remarked upon ia its proper plaoe. What he was doing, what he was really doing ia the way of statements to other people, or on any mind^ that he influences, or shaping chiags for pur- poses then at that time in view, we are not responsible for ; we have not f uiuished him with any certificate of credit or freedom from the imputation during this iieilod —not in the least. We are finding out now, by the aid of a cotirt of justice, and under sworn testi- mony, in which they all have an opportunity to speak, what was going on all the while. Now, they undertook to prove what was going on at a particular time by the statement of this married woman to her uncle at the time. What change of atti- tude is there 1 Why, if your Honor please, just look at the proposition. Parties go on in matters of contract, oi in matters of conduct, and there comes a litigation and the suit is brought. Then they differ. Then they oppose one another, and they oppose one another in testimony. And now it is suggested that it is competent for either of them to eke out his testimony against the other by show- ing that while they were going on under the contract, and without quarrel, or in the conduct that becomes the subject of controversy without quarrel, they took the same view of it, and expressed themselves to their neighbors in the same manner that they have testified under oath. "^Tiere are you going to draw the line t Parties oppose one another in testimony too frequently under our present system of evidence. They, it is said, didn't have that opposition of view until they came into court, and before they came into court there is a situation in which this hostility does not exist, and, therefore, this is a changed 463 TBJhJ TlLTOy-BI relation when they come into court, and, therefore, what either of them said to hia friends and neighbors out of oom-t before they got into the attitude of hostility is evi- dence. Well, now, that is the old story whether you can corroborate testimony in court by concirrring statements out of court. It never was pretended that you could do that until you had contradicted, under the rules of evi- dence, the statements in court, not by statements in court of other witnesses, but by statements out of court by the testimony of the witness whose testimony you impugn, and then, as I say, there came up an idea that you might bring in corroborative statements of the testimony of a witness thus attacked. That has gone. There is no pre- tense that that is the law of this State or of England now. Then, as I say, there has been a suggestion that if^ by the old situation of contradiction out of court, proved against the witness under the rules of evidence, you could add an element of an imputation of an influence that had supervened, or of an attitude that had justified or encouraged the present statement, then the witness thus attacked might fall back in a limited degree upon the old protection of showing statements out of court before the alleged change of attitude. But that must be a change not in disposition of the witness, not a situa- tion merely ante litem motum. That has never been presented, for that would bring you up to the situation that all the parties are in before they disagree, and would break up entirely by the rule of evi- dence that has been so carefully guarded about hearsay. Mrs. Moulton was the wife of Mr. Moulton. Moulton was the friend of Tilton. Moulton was the manager of this interest and attitude of Tilton through the entire period as well as when they came into litigation, and there is no pretense that there is a change of situation except a change of disposition, if you please, and a ' change of dis- position is not permitted to be the basis for the introduc- tion of any such evidence. Now, the section of Taylor, which I think is taken bodily from Greenleaf , is this : Where evidence of contradictory statements, or of other improper conduct on the part of a witness, has been either elicited from him on cross-examination, or obtained from other witnesses with a view of impeach- ing his veracity, his general character for truth being thus in some sort put in issue, it has been deemed reason- able to admit general evidence that he Is a man of strict integrity and scrupulous regard for truth. But evidence that he has on other occasions made statements similar to what he has testified in the case is not admissible un- less he could be charged with a desire to misrepresent in consequence of his relation to the party or to tne case, in which case it may be proper to show that he has made a> similar statement before that relation existed. Not that there Is a disposition now which has enlisted a witness on either side of the controversy, and that for- merly he had not that disposition; but when it is im- puted that his relation to the party or to the case in frbiob it may be proper to show that he has made a sim- WEEB TBIAL. ilar statement before that statement existed, but Mrs. Moulton's relation to the party (Tilton) and to the case between these parties— to wit, her relation as wife of Moulton— remains the same during all ths stages of thia transaction. That is all, I believe, of this section that applies to this subject. Now, in the case of King agt. Parker, 3d of Douglass, Buller, Justice, said : "That the evidence was clearly inadmissible, not being upon oath; and that whether Fo^lej ejrpi* c#5ed himself by words or by signs and ges- tures, mnde no difference. As to the other groimd, he said that the information of Fowler was not read as evi- dence for the defendant ; but if it had, it was now settled that what a witness said not upon oath would not be ad- mitted to confirm what he said upon oath ; and that the case of Lutterell agt. Reynell, and the passage cited fiom Hawkins, were not now law." Now, the first case recog- nizing the ensemble is the case of The People agt. Vane. Evidence that a witness has upon previous occasions given the same relation of facts to which he testifies when examined on the trial of a case is admissible where the witness is impeached either by adversary testimony or upon cross-examination, or even upon direct examina- tion, as where he admits that he was an accomplice in the crime of which he proves another to have been guilty. Well, that case has been withdrawn We won't com- ment upon that. Mr. Beach— Who has withdrawn it 1 Mr. Evarts— The Court. Mr. Beach— Not at all, Mr. Evarts— You will have an opportunity to reply to me, Mr. Beaoii— I thought you said it was imnecessary to comment upon it. Mr. Evarts— Not to comment upon it in the case, be- cause it has been withdrawn. I am going to show it was withdrawn. You would not have me comment on a case that has been overruled. Mr. Beach— -I would. I suppose showing it has been withdrawn is a comment on the case. Mr. Evarts— I am willing to submit to all kinds of per sonal criticism that you desire at any state of the case. Mr. Beach— It is no criticism. Mr. Evarts— I stated the case had been withdrawn from our jurisprudence by subsequent legislation. Mr. Beach— And there was no use saying anything about it. ]\Ir. Evarts— About that case, but it may be of use to the hardness of your case to show what oases with- draw it. Mr. Fullerton— You will have a hard case to do it. Mr. Evarts— There is nothing in that case that goes a« far as you contend for, but I don't propose to consider how far a case goes that has been overruled. That is my proposition. Mr. Fullerton— It has not been overruled ou that point That is our proposition. TE^STIjW^^Y of JEBEMlAR F, ROBINSON. 463 Mr. Evarts— It will be quite time enougli for yon to say ti/vt when you make your reply. Mr. Fulierlon— I will say it over again then. Mr. Evarts— RoT)b agt. Hackley, in the 23d of Wendell, Bronson, J., gives the fol] owing opinion : But, as a general and almost universal rule, evidence of what the witness has said out of court cannot he re- eeived to fortify his testimony. It violates a tirst prin- ciple in the law of evidence to allow a party to be af- fected, either in his person or in his property, by the declarations of a witness made without oath. And, bo- sides, it can be no confirmation of wh-^t the witness has said on oath to show that he has made similar dec- larations when xmder no such solemn obligation to speak the truth. It is no answer to say that such evidence will not be likely to gain credit, and consequently will do no harm. Evidence should never be given to a jury which they are not at liberty to believe. The referee was proiT.Juy governed in receiving the evidence by the language of the late learned Chief-Jus- tice in The People agt. Vane, 12th Wendell, 78: -But that case does not necessarily go beyond deciding that the testimony of an accomplice in court may be corrob- orated by showing that when first arrested he gave the same relation of facts which he had given on oath upon the trial." I don't think any one would pretend that that is the law of this State just now. That is the extent of that case, as the Coui't decides. [Reading from the same quo- tation.] The fact that the accomplice was called as a witness for the people gave rise to the inference that he was criminating the defendant for the purpose of exempting himself from prosecution for the larceny. It might, therefore, be proper to show that he had given the same account of the matter at a time xohen there ivas no such motive for making a false accusation. If when first ar- rested, and when he had no expectation of personal ex- emption, he had frankly disclosed the whole matters, that might tend to confirm bis subsequent repetition of the same statement under oath. This brings the case within an acknowledged exception to the general rule, that the testimony of a contradicted, impeached or discredited witness can be confirmed by proving that he made similar declarations out of court. It is suggested that our usual hour for adjourning has arrived. Judge Neilson— If it is convenient we will suspend now. [To the jurorsl— Gentlemen, return at 2 o'clock. The court than took a recess ;mtil 2 o'clock. THE AFTEENOON SESSION. The Court met at 2, pursuant to adjourn- ment. Mr. FuUerton— If your Honor please, Mr. Bell has been kind enough to inclose me the note spoken of in his testi- mony, and it is dated Dec. 15, 1870, which wiU fix the date of the interview between himself, of course, and Mr. Beecher. Judge Noilson— WeU, have that taken down. :Mr. Shearman— Better put the note in evidence. Mr. FuUerton— It is suggested that I put the note in evideace [reading] : My Dear Mr. Bell : Will you gtop in at 1 ?A (old 82), on your way over ? Important. Truly youi-s. h. w. b. December 15, 1870. MR. EYARTS'S ARGUMENT CONTIXTTED. Mr. Evarts— The learned Court, Judge Bronson, pro- ceeds, after considering some of the authorities which have been referred to by my friend, Gen. Pryor : But this most dangerous doctrine was long since ex- ploded in England, although the case in which it was first formally overruled has been but recentlv published. The case to whi h I allude is The .King agt. Parker, 13 Doug., 242, where the witness was an accomplice in the robbery. Buller, J., said : " It was now settled that what a ^^itness said not upon oath, would not be admitted to confirm what he said upon oath,: and that the case ol , Lutterell agt. Eeynell, and the passage cited from Haw- Lins, was not now law;" and such was the judgment of the whole Court of K. B. upon solemn argTunent. Since the decision in The King agt. Parker, I find no au- thority or dictum in the English books in favor of receiv- ing this kind of confirmatory evidence, except under some such special circumstances as have already been mentioned. Mr. t?tarkie says : " It seems the better opinion that a witness cannot confirm by proof that he has given the same account before, even although it has been proved that he has given a difierent account, in order to impeach his veracity ; for his mere declaration of the fact is not evidence." Then, after considering further the English cases— but there is no tendency in this case to reinstate a witness when he has been contradicted— Mr. Phillips is quoted : It may be observed, upon this kind of evidence, in general, that a representation without oath can scarcely be considered as any confirmation of a statement upon oath. It is the oath that confirms, and the bare assertion that requires confirmation. The probability is that in almost every case, the witness who swears to certain facta at the trial has been heard to relate the same facts before trial ; and it is not so much in support of his character that he has given the same accoimt, as it would be to his dis- credit that he should ever have made one different. The imputation on his veracity results from the fact of hia having contradicted himself, and this is not in the least controverted or explained by the evidence in question. If a witness has made a statement a hundred times one way and a hundred times in another way directly con- trary, the only inference must be that he is utterly des- titute of all title to credit. Then the Judge proceeds : Some of the American Courts have admitted this kind of evidence. A collection of the cases, accompanied very judicious remarks, will be found in the learned notes to 1 Phillips, by the Messrs. Cowen & Hill, pp. 776-9. These decisions are based upon English authorities which are no longer respected in Westminster Hall, and I have failed to discover in them anything calculated to shake my decided conviction chat this kind of confirmatory evidence is of dangerous tendency, and ougl.t not to be received, except under some such special circumstances as have already been noticed. We have not in this State departed from that ancient and safe landmark in the law of evidence which requires a witness in all cases to speak under the solemn sanction of an oath, and I am un- willing to peril the lives, the fame, or the property of in- dividuals by adopting the contrary doctiine. TRB TlLTOl^- BEECH BR TBIAL. 464 In 24 Wendell tlie same learned Court, by Cowen, J., Bays: Tlie reception of Bartle's ^atements [that is, one of the -witnesses in the case] in confirmation of his testi- mony -was erroneous. We have recently, in Eobta agt. HacMey, 50 et seq., reconsidered the dictum to the con- trary in The People agt. Vane, 12 Wendel)^ 78, and agree that consistent statements cannot in general he received in reply to contradictions of a witness ; a fortiori are they inadmissible in answer to direct and positive con- tradiction by other witnesses. Now, your Honor will see that all that has ever been pretended for the rule was that when a witness has been impeached or contradicted by showing statements out of court contrary to what he has said in court, that then there was a notion that you might bring him np by show- ing that he told the same story out of court that he told In. But, as the Court say in 24 Wendell, the doctrine is discarded, and a fortiori, as we reject all hearsay evi- dence in support of one witness where the contradiction is not between his various statements of the same Btory, but a contradiction of other witnesses who tell the opposite story. Your Honor sees at once that this is the most pernicious and dangerous form of hearsay evidence, for it is hearsay evidence that is created by the witness in advance of his examination. It is a reproduc- tion by hearsay of his own statement, which never could be testimony per se if he were not a witness, and yet they are brought in to be evidence by the fact that he be- eomes a witness, and thus in the cause, and under oath, corrobo'rates himself by hearsay evidence that he himself had created before he came on the stand. Nothing could l>e more dreadful than that. Now, where will you find any disposition in our courts to recognize what is called *' special circumstances V In Smith agt. Stickney, 17 Barbour, where Welles, J., gives the opinion of the General Term : The action was brought by the respondent against the appellant to recover the sum of $65 63 for work and labor (for building some Mud of a dam). The defendant answered the complaint, and the plaintiff replied. The action was referred to three referees, who heard the same, and made a report that there was due from the de- fendant to the plaintifF the sum of $72 27. From that judgment the defendant appealed. Now comes the posture of the witness : Upon the trial before the referees, the plaintiff's prin- cipal witness to prove his claim was his brother, John Smith. It appeared by his evidence that the plaintiff sawed for the defendant. In the saw-mill of the latter, 133,000 feet of lumber ; that the witness worked with the plaintiff in sawing lumber at $18 per month, and that he had no interest in the sawing, but that the sawing was worth 50 cents per thousand. Other evidence tended to show that the sawing was done under an agreement as to the price at three shillings six pence per thousand. One question which appears to have been much litigated at the time of the trial was whether the eawlng was done by the plaintiff and the witness, John Bmlth, jointly for the defendant, with a view of enabling the defendant to insist that the action in the name of tlie plaintiff alone was misconceived, and that John Smith should have been a party plaintiff. The witness John Smith was inquired of whether he had made statements to various mdividuals mentioned to the effect that he and the plaintiff had taken the job of sawing together and had performed the labor jointly imder such arrangement with the plaintiff ; all which he either denied, or stated he did not recollect of making them. That is to say, he was asked if he had not said out of court that this was a joint interest of himself and thl» brother, whereas he testified in court that it was Ma brother's interest, and he was a mere witness. This was upon a point directly in issue, and upon Vbich it was competent to contradict the witness. The defendant accordingly called a number of the individuals referred to, some of whom materially contradicted the witness, and testified that he had made statements the import of which was that the sawing in question was done under a joint undertaking by the said Jolm Smith and the plaintiff. With a view of restoring the credit of the witness, which, it was claimed, was thus im- paired, the plaintiff offered to prove that he had pre- viously, when not imder oath, made declarations con- sistent with his testimony on the trial in respect to the point in question. This was objected to by the defend- ant's counsel, and the objection was overruled by the ref- erees, and the evidence so offered was received. In this we think the referees erred. Then Greenleaf is quoted : So much of the rule here stated as allows generaS evidence of good character for tnitli in reply to evidence of contradictory statements of a witness, or other par- ticular facts, offered by way of impeaching his veracity, has not been followed in this State. But, in relation to the residue, and which is all that applies to the question under consideration, it may be regarded as the settled law. It is substantiaDy laid down by Mr. Starkie. In Eobb agt. Hackley (23 WendeU, 50). Bronson, J., says: As a general and almost universal rule, evidence of what the witness has said out of court cannot be received to fortify his evidence. We can per- ceive nothing in the present case to briag it within the exception to the general rule. The witness has sustained but one relation to the party or to the cause ; and that relation has at no time been changed. That is, he was his brother, he was his employ^, and there was no change of relation to furnish the basis of a change to be a credit^add credit from outside state- ments, because they had arisen antecedent to a relation which was supposed to accoimt for the untruthful state- ment in court. The case of The People agt. Finnigan, la which the dictum is supposed to be quoted, there the evidence was excluded. Perhaps the latest case is the case of Butler agt. Truslow (55 Bar- bour, page 293), where, under somewhat im- portant circumstances, the general rule is adhered to. Now, your Honor will see that all that is pretended here is that in the first place Mr. Beecher, as a witness, has said, when contradicting the statement of the wit- ness that she had never said this to him, adds to tb;it statement, she never nad said it, and then says— that never of her own acf-ord ; but she did not say it to him That is all that was in evidence— the subject of eridenoe. Her expression was an expression of opinion, Jind goesi TEi^llMONl OF JEREMIAR F. EOBINSOK. 4Go for nothing, and it certainly makes no oiange of situa- tion. Now, In regard to Gen. Tracy's opening in tliis €»se, why Gen. Tracy does not make any change in the situation. Mr. Moulton is charged in the opening with having been a party to certain hostile proceedings and combinations toward Mr. Beecher, and the wife does not come in any relation, excepting of the marilal relation, which, as I say, covers the entire features. Now, if your Honor please, where is the line to be drawn? What is there in this proposition Out an attempt to over- throw the rules of evidence which Judge Bronson and the Supreme Court have said are so essential to the security of life and interest and property ? Why, if your Honor please, the situation is that it is alleged that the litigants to this suit, and the witnesses that go with them, are now In a purpose of recovering in this action, if you please, to give no further description of it, and that before they had any purpose of bringing a suit they made state- ments in confirmation of what has been said. Well, Mr. Moulton and Mr. Tilton have both been made Thp subjects of testimony on our part, of statements out of court contrary to what they have said in court on this subject. Now, is it to be pretended to your Honor that Mr. Moulton and Mr. Tilton are to be permitted to bring in statements that they had made at any time dur- ing the last four years before this suit was commenced, corroborative of the stories that they tell on the witness stand? Well, if it is true of that witness— of either of these witnesses — ^then it is true of witnesses on our side, and you are right back to the proposition that if a wit- ness's evidence on the stand is countervailed or contra- dieted by other witnesses on the stand, you may go then into a controversy or confirmatory aid to the witness, from the fact that out of coiu-t they said to this and that man what agrees with what they say in court, and you are riffht back then to the old proposition that has long long ago been disposed of. ME. FULLERTON REPLIES TO MR. EVARTS. Mr. Fullerton — If your Honor please, the force of the argument submitted by my learned associate, has neither been broken nor impaired in the slightest de- gree by anything that has fallen from the counsel upon the other side. He has quoted no authority, either from a report or from a text- writer, which countervails in the slightest degree the doctrine which was established by the argument of (Jen. Pryor. This case has been presented upon the part of the defendant as if we contended that the rule was that where a witness was sought to be im- peached by proving, first, that his character for truth and veracity was bad, or in the second place, by proving state- ments out of court inconsistent with those made in court, that in such case evidence could be produced upon our behalf to show that statements out of court had been made by the witness consistent with those sworn to in court. Now, that is not our proposition at all. I con- cede, I agree with the counsel upon the other side that the rule in this State is, that you cannot show in court statements of a witness consistent out of court— you can- not show in court statements of a witness which are con- sistent with a statement made out of court. Judge Neilson— In the progress of the case I had occa- sion to state that rule at least once, I think. Mr. Fullerton— And your Honor will recollect that we made the reply that that was the general rule, but that there were exceptions to it. Now, what is the attitude of Mrs. Moulton to this case I What has she testified to that is material to this issue which it becomes necessary for us to sustain by showing that she told a similar story out of court? Attention is called to June 2, 1873. She alleges that at that time she had a conversation with Mr. Beecher, which she detaOed upon the witness-stand— a very im- portant piece of evidence in this controversy. How is it met upon the other side ? It is met first by what they call a contradiction upon the part of Mr. Beecher. He says that no such conversation was had ; that it is all a fiction ; an invention upon the part of this witness, and he adds further, Sir, that that story was told by Mrs. Moulton under the influence of her husband, and that that influ- ence was brought to bear upon his wife after the relation of fi-iendship, which had so long existed between Mr. Moulton and Mr. Beecher, was broken up. That, your Honor will recollect, was late in the Summer of 1874. They put this case, therefore, upon the ground that Mi-s. Moulton, overshadowed by her husband, has invented this story and stated it here to the detriment of the de- f enda^it in this case, wlien there is no truth whatever in it. Now, how are we to meet the proposition, Sir, that that was a reoeiit invention on the part of this witness under the influence of her husband ? How can we meet it so weU as to show that in 1873, in the month of June, and on the same day when the occurrence took place at Mrs. "^toulton's house, that she told that story to third parties as she has told it here ? Does it not completely meet the accusation that it is an invention of a recent date ? Now, I repeat. Sir. we admit that if they had impeached Mrs. Moulton by producing witnesses to swear that her char- ^acter for truth and veracity was not good, that we could not give any such evidence as we now propose. I admit that if they ha^been able to prove that Mrs. Moulton had said out of court what was entirely inconsistent with her story in court, that we could not have given this evi- dence that we now propose. We do not disagree with re- srard to the general rule, but we do disagree with regard to the exception to that general rule. Now, what is the exception 1 It was clearly stated by my associate, in his argument in presenting this case, that where it is imputed to a witness that the story told in court, under oath, was a recent invention, and had ita origin in an improper influence latelj^ brought to bear upon the witness, that there you may overcome that 4G6 IME TILTON-BEPJCHER IIUAL, operation by stiowing tlie same story to liave been told at a prior period when tlie influence did not exist, or when the reasons for it did not exist. Now, what is the law of this State upon this subject ? It is very clear, very well defined, and not easily misunderstood. The first is the case of the People agt. Vane, and your Honor will bear with me while I read somewhat from these authorities to show exactly what questions arose and what questions were decided in that. Now, in the People agt. Vane a prisoner was put upon his trial for a crime. A witness by the name of Wapshot was intro- duced to give evidence against him, and in order to im- peach that evidence they suggested that he gave it for the purpose of producing immunity from punishment ; that he acknowledged his complicity with the ofiender on trial, and, for the purpose of courting favor with the people, he gave evidence tending to convict the prisoner, supposing that he would not be put upon trial himself for the offense. In order to overcome that, the District- Attorney offered to prove, and did prove, under permis- sion of the Court, that the witness, the accomplice, gave the same relation at the time, that the offense was com- mitted before either himself or the party on trial were put in jeopardy, and before there was any inducement to tell other than the truth. The evidence was admitted. Now, that brought that case within the exception to the general rule. Now, what does the Court say in regard to that ? The right of either party to support and fortify the testimony of his witness is essential to the preservation of the rights of individuals as well as the public. When a witness is sworn and testifies, his testimony prima facie is entitled to belief ; if his character is attacked, it may be supported ; if his testimony is shown by other witnesses to be false or doubtful, other witnesses may be Introduced ustt in the testimony as given. If a wit- ness be introduced by the defendant to show that the plaintiiFs witness has given a different account of the transaction about which he has been testi- fying, another witness may be introduced to show that the first witness has on previous occasions given the same story to which he has testified. It is not proper to introduce this kind of testimony in the first in- stance. Should a party offer to do so, it would show that he was unworthy of belief. It is received only in reply and in answer to doubts, attempted to be raised by the other party, by impeaching the witness either by testi- mony or by cross-examination, or it may be proper when the witness stands impeached by the direct testimony given by himself, as in the present case. The witness shows on his direct examination that he was an accom- plice ; his testimony is therefore suspicious ; it comes from a tainted source, and may well be doubted. In such a case it seems to me the principle applies that a witness who is impeached may be supported. Now, your Honor will perceive that the learned Judge, in deciding that question, went beyond what was neces- sary to accomplish that object, because he decided not only that a witness could be supported and sustained in such a case, but that he could be supported and sustained where his character was impeached for truth and veracity, by direct evidence, or where it was in- cidentally impeached, by showing that he had told different stories out of court. He did not administer the exception to the general rule as we contend for it, and as it was laid down in subsequent cases. Now, that case is nowhere directly overruled, but your Honor will perceive that the decision there has been commented upon in several other cases. It came under review in the case of Robb agt. Hackley, in 23 Wendell. Now, in dealing with the case of 12 Wendell, The People agt. Vane, xlie learned Judge made use of these observations : The referee was probably governed in receiving the ev- idence by the language of the late Chief Justice, in The People agt. Vane, 12 Wendell, 78 ; but that case does not necessarily go beyond deciding that the testimony of an accomplice in crime may be corroborated by showing that when first arrested he gave the same relation of the facts which he had given on oath upon the trial. The fact that the accomplice was called as a witness for the people gave rise to the inference that he was criminuting the defendant for the pur- pose of exempting himself from prosecution for the lar- ceny. It might, therefore, be proper to show that he had given the same account of the matter at a time when there was no such motive for making a false accusation. If, when first arrested, and when he had no expectation of personal exemption, he had frankly disclosed the whole matter, that might tend to confirm his subsequent repre- sentation of the same statement on oath. This brings the case within the acknowledged exception to the gen- eral rule, that the testimony of a contradicted, impeached or discredited witness cannot be confirmed by proving that he has made similar declarations out of court. Now, Sir, am I not right in saying that the case in The People agt. Vane is sustained and approved by this case of 23 Wendell, so far as it may be regarded as a decision of the case in question, or which came up for review ia that case ? It is nowhere reversed. And then again he says, on page 54 : Mr. Evans, in his valuable notes to Pothier, after speaking of the admission of declarations of the witness on former occasions to confirm his statements in court, says in ordinary cases the evidence would be at least su- perfluous, for the assertions of a witness are to be re- garded in general as true until there is some particular reason for impeaching them as false, which reason may be repelled by circumstances show- ing that the motive upon which it is supposed to have been founded co7ild not have had existence at the time when the previous relation was mad*, and which therefore repelled the supposition of the fact related being an afterthought or fabrication. He adds, if a witness speaks to facts nega iving the existence of a contract, and insinuations are thrown out that he has a near connection with the party oji whose behalf he ap- pears—that a change of market, or any other alteration of circumstances has excited an inducement to recede from a deliberate engagement^the proof by un- suspicious testimony that a similar account was giyen when the contract alleged had evenj prospect of ad- vantage, removes the imputatiou resulting from the op- posite circumstances, and the testimony is placed upon the same level which it would have \vm\ if the motive for receding from the previous iotention had never had existence. TJESTIMONF OF JERJ3M1AE P. EOBINSON, 467 There tlie exception to tlie general rule is stated, and tlie case in -wMcli evidence such as we propose to give now was considered as proper. I refer your Hono^ also again to the case of 17 i^arhour, where the •opinion is delivered by Justice Welles. The head-note is this : Where the witness is impeached hy proof that he has made statements on other occasions inconsistent with his testimony, evidence that he has at different times made statements similar to what he has testified in the case, cannot he received to fortify his testimony. Now, I read from the opinion in this case, for the pur- pose of showing in what light Judge Welles regarded this decision of the People agt. Yane, and the case of Rohh agt. Hackley, to which I last referred. The learned Judge says : The witness was inquired of whether he had made statements to various individuals mentioned, to the effect that he and the plaintiff had taken the joh of sawing together, and had perfonned the labor jointly in such arrangement with the plaintiff— all which he either de- nied or stated he did not recollect of maMng them. This was upon a point directly in issue, and upon which it was competent to contradict the witness. The defend- ant accordingly called a number of the individuals re- ferred to, some of whom materially contradicted the wit- ness, and testified that he had made statements the im- port of which was that the sawing in question was done under a general undertaking by the said John Smith and the plaintiff. With a view of restoring the credit of the witness which it was claimed was thus impaired, the plaintiff offered to prove that he had previously, when not under oath, made declarations consistent with his testimony on the trial in respect to the point in question. This was objected to by the defendant's counsel ; and the objection was overruled by the Referee, and the evidence 80 offered was received. Now, of course, that was error : In this, we think, the Referee has erred. Mr. Green- leaf, in his treatise on Evidence, states the rule as fol- lows : "Where evidence or contradictory statements by a witness, or of other particular facts, is offered by way of impeaching his veracity, his general character for truth being thus, in some sort, put in issue, it has been deemed reasonable to admit evidence that he is a man of strict integrity and scrupulous regard for truth. But, evidence that he has, on other occasions, made statements similar to what he has testified to in the case, is not admissible unless where a design to misrepresent is charged upon the witness in consequence of his relations to the party or to the cause, in which case it seems that it may be proper to show that he made a similar statement before the relation existed." There the learned Judge recognizes this exception to the general rule. So much of the rule here stated as allows general evi- dence of good character for truth in reply to contradic- tory statements of the witness, or other particular facts, by way of impeaching his veracity, has not been followed in this State. Then he quotes the People agt. Hulse, in the 3d Hill, and other anthorlties : But, in relation to the residue, and which has all that apphes to the question under consideration, I believe it may be regarded as the settled law. It is substantially laid down by Mr. Starkie. Then he quotes the authorities already referred to. [Reading In Robb agt. Hackley, 23 Wendell, 50, Bronson, Justice, says : " As a general, and almost universal rale, evidence of what the witness has said out of court cannot be re- ceived to fortify his evidence. We can perceive nothing in the present case to bring it within the exception to the general rule. The witness has sustained but one relation to the party in the cause ; and that relation has at no time been changed." Now, I ask your Honor, whether or not the relation of Mrs. Moulton to this question and to the parties to this case has not been changed ? Is it to-day what it was in June, 1873 ? The counsel upon the other side does not meet the case by saying that she is the wife of her hus- band now, and was the wife of her husband then, and therefore the same relation exists. We do not use the term "relation" in such a limitM sense as that. "Rela- tion" there is a synonym of " attitude." What is the atti- tude, or, if you please, the relation of Mrs. Moulton now compared with what it was then? Then her husband was the best friend that God ever raised up for Henry Ward Beecher, and he re- peated it over and over again in his correspondence. He was putting forth every exertion, spending his time and his money, exerting his influence to conceal and pre- vent this scandal, and to keep it beneath the surface, and his wife was co-operatmg with him. They aU were of one mind, they all had but one object to accomplish, and their united efforts were directed to the accomplishment of that object. Well, your Honor knows perfectly well what occurred in 1874. Then Mr. Beecher discovered that for the purpose of saving himself he must sacrifice this God-given friend, and he tm-ned upon him and tried to slay him. Instead of an attitude of close, intimate friendship, there came to be an attitude of personal hos- tility. Mr. Beecher at that time was induced to believe, with the aid of two lawyers, that Mr. Moulton had levied blackmail upon him, and he was denounced from one end of the universe almost to the other, as a black- mailer. Well, as a matter of course, Mrs. Moulton sym- pathized with her husband and stood by him ; and her feelings toward Mr. Beecher tmderwent a change ; and her attitude to-day when she comes upon the stand is as different from what it was in 1873, as night is from dark- ness. I need not pursue that subject any further. They say that in 1874, after this breach between Mr. Beecher and Mr. Moulton occurred, after they assumed attitudes of hostility and were making statements and counter- statements, that then this story was concocted by Mr. Moulton and forced upon his wife, and that she has told it here imder his infiuence. How shall we meet that, I say, except by showing that when these relations were different— when this friendly feeling existed be- tween herscT and Mr. Beecher and between IHE TILTON-BEECEEB TBIAL. her huslband and Mr. Beeclier, wlien slie was exhorting tliose who had charge of this thing to give Mr. Beecher another chance to save him from destruc- tion, that then she whispered into the ears of her private confidential, bosom friends and relatives, the same story that she has told upon the stand here? And then what becomes of this invention in 1874 ? Your Honor will see the wisdom and the propriety, and the necessity also, of administering the rule as we say it exists, or the excep tion to the rule as we say it exists, by permit- ting us to show In this case, in order to get rid of those foul imputations upon this good woman, that that story was no production of 1874 ; it did not grow out of hostile relations ; it was not the fruit of that enmity which grew up between these parties then, but it had its origin when her heart beat in unison with Mr. Beecher's and with her husband's, when she was cooperating with them to save Mr. Beecher from this great overshadowing dis- grace, that then she told it, and told it as she has told It here. What we contend for, therefore, is the administration of the exception to the general rule, that where they impute to witness a recent design to mislead and to tell a false- hood, the result of a recent influence, that we may go back of this evidence, and show that at a time long prior, when no reason for falsehood existed, the same story was told for the purpose of corroborating the wit- ness. Now, if your Honor please, I will not advert to the other authorities which have been cited by the counsel upon the other side, because throughout the whole of them there is a recog- mtion of the general rule that you cannot sustain a witness iu court by proving that that witness told the same story out of court, and at the same time they recognize and enforce the exception to that rule as it has Ireen stated and urged upon the consideration of your Honor. JUDGE NEILSON ACKNOWLEDGES PER- PLEXITY. Judge Neilson— Mr. Fnllerton, we all agree, of course, about the general rule, that there is no doubt about it as settled with us, and the writers and the de- cisions very often speak of the exception to the general rule as stated by yourself and also by Mr. Evarts. Now, of course this evidence oould not be offered, and would not be proper matter to be presented save for the reflection, aspersion, or whatever it may be called, made upon Mrs. Moulton in the opening and in that part of Mr. Beecher's evidence to which reference has been made. The right to claim an exception to the general rule, or to have evi- dence received on the ground that it is to contradict the witness, springs out of that, first, the opening ; second, the defendant's suggestion or statement in regard to it. Well, it being conceded there is an exception to the gen- eral rule, of course there is great force in what ^as been said. What troubles me is this : Suppose the evidence is received before the jury; it is in a sense evidence in the cause, and yet it is not evidence to con- firm what Mr. Moulton said ; it is not evidence to prove " any fact whatever, but it is evidence simply to push aside and get rid of this imputation against her, and could it be placed before the jury safely with an instruction to that effect and limited in its mfluence % Mr. Fullerton— Well, Sir, that ctuestion would have been very properly put when this rule first had its ori- gin ; it could have been determined then. But the rule has been established, Sir, without reference to any conse- quences that might flow from it, as a just and a proper rule to be administered in a court of law. Judge Neilson— Yes, what would be the eflect of the evidence upon the mind of the jury 1 Anj^thing beyond getting rid of this imputation? Mr. Fullerton— I am not here. Sir, to speculate upon what effect legitimate evidence will have upon the mind of the jury. Mr. Beach— We disclaim any purpose of arguing for any other effect than for the restoration of Mrs. Moulton to her true position as a witness. Judge NeUson— By way of answering what you call an aspersion. Mr. Beach— Yes, Sir; we don't contend that these out- side declarations of Mrs. Moulton would have any legiti- mate effect to establish the truth of the allegations made in her principal evidence. Mr. Evarts— If your Honor please, this is to me an entirely novel proposition, that without any impeach- ment of a witness there can be corroboration of a witness offered, and there is not a dictum, an argument, or a sug- gestion in the text-books, or in the authorities, but what rests wholly upon the question whether, when the true measure of a witness's testimony has been struck down by direct or collateral impeachment, you can or cannot reinstate it by these out-of-court, confirmatory state- ments of the witness. There never was a proposition that you could do that in the first instance. The proposi- tion was that if contradictory statements out of court ■ were given in evidence, then concurring statements out of court might reinstate. But it never was dreamed of that when a witness had not been subjected to that form of reduction or impeach- ment, such a witness could be corroborated. Mr. Beach— Mr. Evarts, I cite you to the case of the ac- complice. Mr. Evarts— I have it in my hand ; I will read it. I said I would not read it, because it had been overruled, as it has been. Now I will read it and show you that I am right. Mr. Beach— I guess not. [Laughter.] Mr. Evarts— The Courts say : " When a witness has sworn and testifies, his testimony. TESTIMONY OF JEEEMIAR F. EOBINSOy. 469 prima facie, is entitled to iDelief . If Ms character is at- tacked it may t»e supported. If Ws testimony is sliown by other witnesses to be false or doubtful, otber witnesses may be introduced to sustain the testimony as given.'* That we all understand. " If a witness be introduced by the defendant to show that the plaintiff's witness has given a different account of the transaction about which he has been testifying, another witness may be intro- duced to show that the first witness has on previous oc- casions given the same relation to which he has testified. It is not proper to introduce this Mnd of testimony in the first instance." This never came in except in rehabilitation of a witness by concurrent statements out of court, when he had been struck out by showing counter statements out of court, and this case, and all the old cases that permit the rehabilitation, permit it only as a rehabilitation. No court, at any time that the rule prevailed that you could give concurrent statements out of court — no court ever dreamed that you could bring it in before the testimony had been reduced by direct or collateral impeachment. Now, the rule here laid down in the 12 of "Wendell, that ia that case, where there had been a reduction by counter statements out of court, that would be rehabilitation— that rule is exploded. Now, there is not a word here about exceptions in this case, and that I will show you. Judge Neilson— "Well, where the authorities do recog- nize an exception to the general rule, what is that excep- tion' Mr. Evarts— There is not an authority in this State that has ever admitted any evidence under that exception, not one. Judge Neilson— What is the exception ? Is there an ex- ception ? Mr. Evarts— Nobody can tell what it is ; it is a semble ; It is, " it seems there is an exception but so far as it is stated it comes to this (and I am going to discuss it) — 80 far as it is stated it comes to this, that although the naked fact of counter statements being proved, or direct Impeachment, is not enough to introduce the rehabili- tating evidence, yet if, in addition to that, there is also a changed relation, my learned friend says that relation is not used in an explicit or restricted sense. It is used, not as to a change of disposition, but a change of relation, to wit, that, having been a partner at one time, and so interested to state so and so, the party, the witness, had told the same story before he was a party and had no Buch interest. Mr. Beach— Now, will the counsel permit me to refer him to an authority, and read a word or two from it. In the case. Sir, of The People agt. Pinnegan [reading] : " It is said the exceptions to the rule, as now established in this State, are when the witness is charged with giving his testimony under the influence of some motive prompting him to make a false or colored statement, in which case, it is said, it may be shown that he made simi- lar declarations at a time when the imputed motive did not exist. And where there is evidence in contradiction tending to show that the account of the transaction given by the witness is a production of a late date, It is said that it may be shown that the same ac- count was given by him before its ultimate effect and operation, arising from a change of circumstances, could have been foreseen"— referring to the case of Eobb and Hackley, in the 23d of "Wendell. "But neither of these exceptions are" (it should be "is," I sup- pose) "applicable to the case under consideration. The evidence in this case was received only for the pur- pose of answering the doubts attempted to be thrown, &c., by the cross-examination. But it was not admissible for 'that purpose ; it stood upon the same footing as if it had been offered to support the witness after other wit- nesses had been called to contradict it. "What Terhune had previously said was mere hearsay, and could add nothing," &c. Mr. Evarts— "Very well. The nearest my learned friend gets to an argument is— that it is said so and so. But the decision is against it, and there is not a case that has per- mitted the introduction of rehabilitating evidence in thia State except when the rule was understood to be that after contradiction you could then, pure and simple, ia- troduce, without relation or special circumstances, con- firmatory evidence— not a case. And in that case the Court says, " Why, you have nothing but the naked case of introducing evidence, just as if you had been contra- tradicted." Now, let us come to this question of imputa- tion. The imputation is in the opening of counsel. Very well, there has been drawn out on one particular question a statement of Mr. Beecher that INIrs. Moulton did not make that statement to him, and then a superfluous statement that she never made it unless, as he then says, she was under influence or something of that kind. Now, how does that come to be a ground of saying that a witness is to be supported by earlier state- ments agreeing with what she said on the stand? WTiat, if I had called witness after witness, not resting upon the opening of counsel, nor upon this reference of Mr. Beecher to his estimate of her character, altogether in her favor, and putting what he re- garded as the same upon another— what if, instead of that, I had brought witness after witness to prove that this lady had made absolutely contradictory statements up to the very day she knew her husband and Mr. Beecher had quarreled, as they say, in 1874, to take their view of it— supposing I called witness after witness to prove tb at this lady, up to that day, had said that Mi-. Beecher never had such a conversation with her. Judge Neilson— Well, that would not open the door to this evidence. Mr. Fullerton— Certainly not. Mr. Evarts— That would not. And is not that more of an imputation, and under oath of proving that she said so and so, of proving as matter of fact that up to a date she had one view, and her view here comes after that date— and would it not be as vital, as essential, in her in- terest and the interest of the cause that she espoused, to be permitted to introduce her statements out of court to concur with her statement in court, and beat down not 470 IRE TILION-BEECHEB TEIAL. mere imputations, but sworn testimony, that she had a different opinion and expressed it up to the disposition alleged t That would not have been admitted. And yet my learned friends think that the law, in its care that testimony shall be of a quality to be credited and have its true weight as proving the thing spoken about, will exclude it when direct proof has been introduced, all of which may be false, that the lady has spoken a contradictory mind up to the date of the sup- posed change of relation, and there is no license to intro- duce one particle of this evidence. And yet if, in a wit- ness who does not say that she has ever testified to the contrary, but who contradicts her and says also, " That statement she never made to me ; she never made it at all unless under influence"— under that, which is mere rhetoric and not testimony, under the opening of counsel which is their view of the character and conduct of wit- nesses that have been called, and are to be called, there is gained an authority to introduce hearsay evidence, that the law discards even when the contrary evidence up to the very day and date of the supposed change of feeling and opinion makes it so important to the witness that the antecedent concurrent views should be expressed. Now. the Court goes on in this case : It is not proper to introduce this kind of testimony in the first instance. Should a party offer to do so, it would show that he was conscious his own witness required support, and without it was unworthy of belief. Now, this is the law ; it is received only in reply and in answer to doubts attempted to be raised by the other party, by impeaching the witness, either by testimony (that is direct impeachment) or by cross-examination (which is collateral), or it may be proper when a witness stands unpeached by the direct testimony given by him- self, as in the present case. Now, they go on and say, " The witness says on his di- rect examination that he was an accomplice ; his testi- mony is therefore suspicious. It comes from a tainted source, and may well be doubted. In such a case it seems to me the principle applies that a witness who is impeached may be supported." I have not impeached. The best they can make out of the case is that they get an analogy between a man that by his position of an accomplice is quasi impeached, to put him on the same footing as if the party had actually impeached him. Now, is there anything contradictory to my proposition in that t I do not think the reasontag is very good which says the party was in that position, but it does not profess to get the whole of a rule of law upon Mm except by puttiag him upon the analogy that he is in a situation in which a witness is who has been impeached. These positions are believed to be so near to elementary principles that few adjudications are to be found to sus- tain them. And then he goes on and cites the old doctrines of Hawkins [Hawkins's Treatise— Luttrell agt. Reynal] on the intended proposition. Hawkins says : What a witness hath been heard to say at another time may be given iu evidence in order either to invalidate or to confirm the testimony which he gives in court. That is exploded in England we say. Now, the Court go on and say : No one ever pretended that his declaration not under oath was equal to his testimony under oath, nor is it in that point of view that confirmatory evidence was ever given. The question is. Will the fact of his having often related the same story which he has now sworn to tend to rebut the prejudice raised against him by his having given a contrary or different relation 1 That is the only shape that in any of our law books the question ever has been presented. There never has been a time, in Westminster Hall or here, that you introduced corroborative evidence of a witness not attacked and re- duced by evidence could have been sustained. Mr. Starkie admits there may be cases where such testimony may be proper, as where it rebutted the idea that it was a recent fabrication, and when it was given before time was afforded for contriv- ance; that is, after that testimony had been given. "But I apprehend the true question in all cases is whether such confirmatory evidence can tend to the sustaining and supporting of the testimony of the witness who has been impeached. If it can have that tendency it is testimony of which the party may avaU. himself. How much weight it is entitled to is for the considera tion of the jury under the advice of the Court." The rule itself was established long before the trials aUuded to (i. e., some Irish trials). "It was recognized by Chief- Justice Tighlman, in the first of Sergeant & Kawle, who says"— now, these were the bases of the rule, even when it was liberal : It was recognized by Chief-Justice Tilghman, who said: "When the credit of a witness is impeached by evidence that he had said something at another time inconsistent with what he has sworn, this may be rebutted by proof of other declara- tions by him in conformity to what he has sworn, be- cause both being under oath, one is as good as the other, and the jury wiU judge of his credit on the whole. The same rule was adopted, and was recognized by Washington, Judge of the Supreme Court of the United States, who says; Declarations of a witness cannot" be given in evidence, except in answer to other declarations of the witness in- consistent with what he had before sworn to. Now, surely"— so the Court proceeds—" the only reason for giving evidence of contradictory declarations of a wit- ness is to discredit the witness and impeach his credi- bility. When evidence has been given to pro- duce that effect, it may be rebutted by evidence which destroys the effect of such testimony. And, as it has been before remarked, it can make no difference in principle whether the impeach- ment arises from evidence discrediting the witness, or from a cross-examination or a direct examination, if the witness stands"— (his own direct examination that is, of course)—" like a man who swore he was an accomplice.* Has Mrs. Moulton sworn she was an accomplice f TESTIMONY OF J EE_ Mr. Beach— No, but your proposition was tliat tMs evi- dence could not be admitted unless there was an attack from affirmative evidence outside. Mr. Evarts— I did say so, exactly, and I haTe proved it by every word that I have read, excepting that the learned Court tries to argue that an accomplice who dis- credits himself gets within the analogy of having been discredited by evidence. If Mrs. Moulton has sworn that she is an accomplice— if you put her in that attitude — why, then, your case is such that perhaps you may be able to show what she said before she became an accom- plice, though it is very shardowy, this accomplice view, in any case. Mr. Beach— Your proof puts her in that position. Mr. Evarts— It does not. But even if it does— even if it does, it is only by having witnesses prove this, that and the other thing. The question is, whether you have been directly impeached, either by the principal impeachment, or by collateral impeachment, or by this guasi or imag- inary impeachment, of your own statement, that you are an accomplice— an actual accomplice in crime as you say, but of course the jury do not like to believe you if they can help it. That has been always the rule. Now, when it was the law that when a witness had been so reduced by evidence, you could rebut by concurrent statements, such evidence was admitted; but never, even in that state of the law, except in rebuttal of direct evidence, or collateral evidence of impeachment ; that is, contradictory state- ments out of coTirt. But our courts have exploded that, and since they exploded that general rule no witness has been admitted in any court in this State to give corrob- orative evidence of extra-judicial statements in the same sense in which the witness has sworn in Court. Every case that has been attempted to be made an exception, and in which it has been sought to be Introduced, this infraction of the rule of evidence has failed. All that there is— and it is more important in Finnegan's case than any other— is this : " It is said— it is said" that you may rebut impeaching evidence if you have also the fact of changed relation; but if you have not that fact of changed relation, then you cannot rebut. But here the effort is ,not to rebut, for no evidence has been offered, none pretended; and if we had offered, you could not introduce this, because there is no changed re- lation. The imputation is that the wife falls under the husband's power. If she had married since June, 1873, and her statements now, made under that imi utation of marital authority, could be shown to be corroborated by statements out of coxrrt, and we had impeached her by statements out of court to the contrary of what she now says, they might have brought themselves within the ground of arguing to your Honor whether the law of this State made any such exception aa they contend for. Now, If your Honor please— mAH P. BOB IN SON. 471 A DOUBTFXJL VICTORY FOR DEFENDAI^T'S COUNSEL. Judge Neilson— I am quite satisfied about this. In the first place, without assimiing to deny that there may be an exception to the general rule of evi- dence reaching a question of this kind (because it would be remarkable if we could And a rule without an excep- tion or qualification), the real basis for this application is found iathe opening of the learned counsel for the de- fendant, and in an observation made by the defendant himself in giving his testimony— an observation suggest- ive and, as has been said, rhetorical. Now, that part of the openiQg of the learned counsel, If it haa not been proved, goes for nothing. If it has not been proved it ought not to have been made; it is unsupported, and therefore might as well not exist This observation made by the defendant, after having answered the ques- tion put to him, was uncalled for— his mere optoion. It does not appear to have any basis to rest upon, and does- not indeed seem to be entitled to be called even an opin- ion. It is an uncharitable observation, resting, at most, in mere conjecture and suspicion. The theory, the suggestion whether it is in the evi- dence, or whether it is in the opening, or in the argument, or anywhere else— the theory that a wife who comes and testifles on oath before the court,^ and who is ca'oss-examined with diligence and acuteness, is overshadowed by her husband and is under his control and influence, is a demoralizing theory unworthy of a court of justice, and I shall instruct the jury not to be carried away by any such proposition. Better have no husbands if women cannot come into court withont being perverted in their moral sense and led to fabricate and invent and swear to things which did not occur. I think this evidence cannot be received. Mr. Beach— Your Honor will permit ujs to make the offer in form. Judge Neilson— Yes, Sir. Mr. Beach— We offer to prove by the witness upon the stand that on the evening Mr. Evarts— It is already made. Mr. Beach— Sir ? Mr. Evarts— It is already made. Mr. Beach— Then I will re-make it. [To the Court.] We offer to prove by this witness that on the evening of the 2d of June, 1873, he eaUed at the house and saw IVIrs. Moulton, and that Mrs. Moulton then, being somewhat discomfited and agitated, communicated to him the facts of the conversation between herself and Mr. Beecher had upon that day, in conformity with the evi- dence which she has given in court ; and we except if your Honor excludes it. Judge Neilson— Yes, it is nUed out. Mr. Evarts— The witness has already stated about Ills not being able to identify the time. 472 TEE TILTON-BE Jvidge Neilson— This is an oflfer of proof ? Mr. Beacli— Yes, and if this witness shall not identify it we offer to prove the same facts hy the testimony of Mrs. Eddy Mr. Morris— Who met him on the stoop ? Mr. Evarts— That is not an offer of proof hy the wit- ness. Mr. Beach— Well, Sir, when the gentleman gets up to interfere with an offer of evidence that I make, and makes his interruption hy way of comment upon the wit- ness upon the stand, and suggests that the witness has already testified, I make that additional offer to meet that suggestion, and I will maintain the offer that I make. Mr. Evarts— With regard to Mrs. Eddy, we will hear ahout her whenever she is offered. Mr. Beach— Well, Sir, you have heard about her now. Mr. Evarts— Yes, hut not in the sense that I mean. Judge Neilson— The counsel has a right to make his offer. Mr. Beach— Well, Sir, she is in court, and if you want us to put her upon the stand we will do so. Judge Neilson— Your offer stands in the terms in which it was originally made, and it is not overruled from any question about the date. Mr. Morris— We want that offer made of Mrs. Eddy's testimony. Mr. Beach— I make the same offer with regard to Mrs. Eddy, a lady who is in attendance in court. Mr. Evarts— I don't say anything about that. Mr. Beach— I don't ask you to say anything ahout it, nor care whether you say anything or not. Mr. Evarts— When the witness is offered we will have something to say. Mr. Beach— I offer her now. Mr. Evarts— Ah! When she is called we will see about it. Mr. Beach— Is it necessary to call her upon the stand, Sir, in order to make an offer ? Judge NeUson— I think it is a matter of form. I don't know why the counsel should be compelled to call her upon the stand. Mr. Evarts— The matter. Sir, is in the confusion be- tween what is this evidence that is excluded, and alleged statements of facts that may be good evidence. 1 don't know what matter of fact they may have a right to prove. I say that they cannot prove what Mrs. Moulton said to other people before this trial, and any offer to prove that is covered by this, no doubt, without the need of bringing in any witness's name Mr. Beach— Very well. Mr. Evarts— But then it must not be mixed up with the proof of some person going there on a certain day, and aU that Judge Neilson— I think his offer might be taken down in the terms he proposes. I don't see any objection to it. EdRJEE TRIAL. TESTIMONY OF MRS. SAEAH C. EDDY. Mrs. Sarali C. Eddy, a witness called on be- half of the plaintiff, being duly sworn, testified as fol- lows : By Mr. Fullert on— Where do you reside, Mrs. Eddy 1 A. In Brooklyn. Q. What street and nrmiber ? A. 124 Montague-st. Q. Be kind enough to state your husband's name ? A. Robert Eddy. Q. How long have you resided in Brooklyn ? A. I have resided in Brooklyn ten years. Q. Before that where did you reside ? A. In New- York. Q. With your father 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. And who is your father ? A. Josiah Sutherland. Q. Are you acquainted with Mr. Moulton and his family 1 A. I am. Q. State whether you have been in the habit of visiting IMrs. Moulton ? A. I have, frequently. Q. When did your intimacy or acquaintance first com- mence ? A. About fifteen years ago. Q. Before or after your marriage ? A. Just before my marriage. Q. I want to call your attention to the year 1873 ; do you recollect visiting Mrs. Moulton during that year % A, Yes, Sir. Q. Where did she reside in 1873 1 A. 49 Remsen-st. Q. Where she now resides % A. Yes, Sir. Q. Do you know Mr. Henry Ward Beecher ? A. I have met him. Q. When did your acquaintance with him commence ? A. I think in 1871. Q. State whether at any time in 1873 you met him at or near Mr. Moulton's house in Remsen-sti A. I met him just at or on the steps of Mr. Moulton's house, once, I think, in the morning Q. Where were you 1 A. I was just going into the house. Q. You were ascending the steps as he was descending ! A. Yes, Sir. Q. Were you acquainted with Mr. Beecher at that time ! A. Yes, Sir. Q. State whether or not he saluted you 1 A. He did not. Q. Did you salute him ? A. I did not. Q. What was his appearance when you met him on that occasion, Mrs. Eddy ? A. He didn't notice me ; he seemed absorbed. Q. Did you see any one in the doorway or near the door of Mr. Moulton's house as you ascended the steps when you met Mr. Beecher 1 A. No, Sir ; I didn't observe any- body ; Mrs. Moulton opened the door for me ; the door was shut, and she must have seen me coming up the steps. Q, Why do you think 80 1 A. Because r he ciHiied tho door for me- TESTUIOyY OF MF. Q. WittLOut TOOT rin.ging ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Or knoekiiig? A. I didn't knock. Q. 2v'orring ? A. Xo, Sir. Q. 3Irs. MoulTon let tou in, did slie ? A. Slie did. Q. What "svas Mrs. Moulton's condition as slie ap- peared? A. Slie seemed agitated. Mr. Evarts— I object to tliat. We liad notMng to say about tliat. Judge Xeilson— I tMnk vre -will take that. Mr. Evarts— Your Honor vrill note our exception. Judge Neilson— Yes, Sir. Q. Wiat was Mrs. Moulton's condition when you entered tlie room or the hall? A. She was agitated. Q. State if yon can— indicate if you please to what ex- tent— -whether it was slight or considerable? A. She seemed greatly agitated. Q. Did you say anything to her upon th.e subject of her then agitation ? A. Yes, Sir. Mr. Erarts-I object to any couTersation between this lady and Mrs. Moulton. Mr. Fullerton— That brings us now right to the point. I propose to sh.ow by this witness that Mrs. Moulton then and there told her wliat had just taken place between Mr. Beecher and herself, in which she related substan- tially tlie same story she h.as testified to here as a witness. Judge ]S'eilson— The same ruling, and of course you will take the same exception. Mr. Evarts— We except to your Honor's ruling. By Mr. Fullerton— State whether you were in the habit of going into the country during the Summer months ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Did you go into the coimtry in the year 1873 in th.e Summer months ? A. I did. Q. WTiere did you spend the Summer 1 A. In Dutcliess County, town of Stanford. Q. What season of the year did y«u go ? A. The tirst day of July, I think. Q. Ho"vr long was it before you went into the country in the Summer of 1S73 that you visited Mrs, Moulton and found lier in this state of agitation as you liave described, and when you met Mr. Beecher ? A. I think shortly before I went ; I cannot state the time positively. Q. Weli, you think it was shortly before you went into the country ? A. I think so. Q. Within what period of time ? A. Within a few ■weeks : I cannot state po.-itively. Q. One of the jurors asks what time in the day or morning you went there 1 A. I can't remember ; I think It was in the morning, but I don't remenfber what time of day. Q. What time in the morning do you mean by that term ? A. Well, I should think early morning— pretty early, Q. Well, about what time ! A. ^^^^oot, perhaps, 11 or 12 c'clocb. 5. SAFAM C. FDJJY. 473 CROSS-EXAMiyATIOX OF MES. EDDY. By ]yir. Evarts— Wliat does tout intimacy or acquaintance with Mrs. Moulton or Mr. Moulton date from ? A. About the time of my marriage. Q. What is your husband's name ? A. Eobert Eddy. Q. What connection or relation had he, or h.as he, witli the business of Woodruff & Eobinson ? A. He is book- keeper in their establishment, I think. Q. And for what length, of time has he been ? A, I think 17 or IS years. I do not Q. He was so when you were married, and has re- mained so? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Is h.e in the employment of the new firm ! A. Yea, Sir. Q. Jsow, why do you think it was as late as 11 o'clock that you called at that house on the occasion that you have spoken oti A. I usually called tliere about that time in. th.e morning. I don't frequently get out before that time in the morning. Q. ^'ot before 11 ? A. Xo, Sir. Q. How far is your house from theirs ? A. Only a 3h.ort distance. Q. In the same street ? A. 2s o, Sir. I live on Montague- st. Q. Well, the same block ? A. Xo, Sir, about two blocks away, I should think, or two and a half. Q. And was your intimacy such that you were iu the habit of running arotind there — making informal calls as ladies intimate do ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. And on this occasion that you called you have no means of identifying the time any nearer tlian that it waa a few weeks before tlie first of July 1 A. 2^o, Sir. Q. Do you know :ylr. wniis E. CaldweU? A. I do, Sir. Q. He is a friend of yours, is he not ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. A family friend 2 A. Yes, Sir. Q. Do you remember about his going to Europe that Summer, and when that occurred ? A. I remember — he frequently goes to Europe in th.e Summer season ; I don't remember that particular Summer. Q. You don't remember about that ? A. No, Sir. Q. You don't know wh.ether this visit you made waa before or after lie went to Europe 1 A. No, Sir. Q. Mrs. Eddy, do you remember whetlier at the time of this call Mr. Moulton was sick ? A. No, Sir ; I don't re- memt)er. Q. Wbat is :s-our recollection on that subject? A- I think he was not sick in the hou^e. Q. Well, was he sick? A. Tliat I don't remember. Q. Have you no association of his sickness with thia call of yours? A. I don't recollect ; I think I asked 3Ir8. Moulton whether her husband was sick Q. No matter about the conversation; it is onlyyoor own memory I ask you about. A. I don't recollect, Sit. Q. What is your best recollection as to whether, at oi about this time of your call, ^Ir. Moulton was understood by you to be sick ? A. I have no recollection about it, Sir 474 THE TILTON- BEECH EE TRIAL. Q. No impression on that subject? A. No, Sir. Q. Did you know of his being sick at all that Summer ? A. I don't remember that particular Simimer, Sir ; he has irequpntly been sick. Q. But you have no association of this call of yours with his sickness? A. No, Sir. MRS. EMMA C. MOULTON RECALLED. Emma C. Moulton, a witness on behalf of plaintiff, was then recalled and further examined : By Mr. Fullerton— Mrs. Moulton, you are acquainted with Mrs. Eddy, the witness who last testified? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Do you recollect the call she made upon you in 1873, to which she has testified ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. On what day was that call made with reference to the conversation which you had with Mr. Beecher, which you have testified to, and which was supposed to be on the2dof Jime? A. On Monday, Sir. Q. On what day was Mrs. Eddy's caU, with reference to that conversation? A. It was on the same day. Q. Was Mr. Beecher just leaving the house when Mrs. Eddy entered ? A. Yes, Sir ; I think he had just left the house. Mr. Fullerton— That is all that I will prove by Mrs. Moulton now. I shall have to recall her again on other topics. Mr. Beach [to Mr. Fullerton]— Well, I think you should [To the witness. J Wait one moment, madam. [Mr. Beach and Mr. Fullerton held a brief whispered consultation.] Mr. Beach— We have only at this moment recalled Mrs. Moulton for the purpose of closing up the subject which was introduced by Mrs. Eddy. We shall be under the necessity of recalling her again in regard to some points of evidence connected with Mr. Beecher and Mr. Tracy. Judge Neilson— You can do so; it was proper to call her while Mrs. Eddy was here, of course. Mr. Evarts— I suppose I may as well close up my part of this business now. Judge Neilson— As you please. Sir. CROSS-EXAMINATION OF MRS. MOULTON. By Mr. Evarts— Do you mean to say, Mrs. Moulton, that Mrs. Eddy called on you on the 2d day of June ? A. Yes, Sir ; it was on the day that I had that conversation with Mr. Beecher. Q. Well, you have stated that that was the 2d of June ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. You recollect that day, d^i you ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. As being the date that she called ? A. I think so. Q. You think so? A. Yes, Sir ; I rememi^br distinctly her calling Q. You remaraber her calling, but I ask you if you remember her calling on the 2d of June ? A. Yes, Sir; I remember her calling on the 2d of June. Q. What ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. How do you recollect it was the 2d of Junet A. Because it was on the 2d of June that I had that con versation witk Mr. Beecher. Q. And that is the only way you recollect Mrs. Eddy's calling as being the 2d of June? A. That was the only conversation that I had with him where he talked of sui- cide, and I repeated that to her— that was on the 2d of Jane. Mr. Evarts— I have not asked about your conversation with him. T ask to have that stricken out. Judge NeUson— Yes. Q. The only association that you have of Mrs. Eddy's call with the 2d of June is its being the time that you had a conversation with Mr. Beecher, is it ? A. I think that is the only way that I can fix it ; that she came in on that day, and that I repeated that conversation — Q. On the day of the conversation? A. Yes, Sir, the 2d of June. Mr. Evarts— I move to have that struck out about re- peating the conversation. Judge NeUson— Yes. Q. Is there anything in Mrs. Eddy's caU that has relar tion to the 2d day of June ? A. Only the fact that I re- peated the conversation to her. Mr. Evarts— Well, that was not a call before she there. I ask to have that evidence struck out, if yo^ Honor please. Judge Neilson— Yes. Q. Was there anythiaj? in Mrs. Eddy's call, in its pose, that had to do with the 2d of June ? A. I cai fixthecaUinany other way than in relation to the versation which I repeated to her. Q. Then it is only in regard to your opinion that yc had a conversation with Mr. Beecher on the 2d of June, \ that you think she called on the 2d of June, is it ? A. i Yes, Sir. Mr. Evarts— Very well. [To Judge Neilson.] AU ref- erence to the conversation I ask to have struck out. Judge Neilson— Yes. Mr. Morris— Mr. Mitchell— Frederick Mitchell. TESTIMONY OF FREDERICK W. MITCHELL. Frederick W. Mitchell, a witness called on| behalf of the plaintiff, being duly sworn, testified : By Mr. Fullerton— Mr. Mitchell, where do you reside li] A. I reside in Norwalk, Conn. Q. Where do you do business ? A. I have at present] no occupation. Q. What was your business in 1872 and 1873 ? A. occupation in 1873 was speculator in the house of W. B.|l Farr & Co., in No. 2 Exchange-court, New- York. Q. In 1871, what was your business? A. From the 1st of February to the 1st of October I was employed bj Woodhull, Clafiin & Co. Q. In what capacity 1 A. Bookkeeper. Ti:S11210yF OF FREDERICK W. MITCHELL. 475 Q. ^at offices did tliey occupy at tliat time ? A. 44 Broad-st. Air. Beacli [to tlie witness]— You seem to be able- bodied, Mr. ilitctiell. Please speak a little louder. By ilr. Fullerton — Hovr long did tliey occupy tlie offices at 44 Broad-st ? A. I don't recollect exactly tLovr long. I know tliey were tliere wlien I went there, and how long they occupied them after I left them I don't know; I am unable to say. Q. When did you leave them '? A. The 1st of October, 1871. Q. Did you visit them after they removed their office from 44 Broad-st. ? A. Iso, Sir. Q. You left their employ when 1 A. The Ist of October, 1871. Q. Did you know a colored boy in their employ by the name of Woodley ! A. I did. Q. During what period was he in their employ ? A. I think he was there during the whole time I was there. Q. In what capacity ? A. Well, he didn't appear to be in anything, hardly — that is, in particular. He was sweeping out the office once in a while, and would take a few newspapers out and sell them, for something to eat, I suppose. He was very poor. '^Ix. Evarts— Well, speculations By 3Ir. Beach— Sell them on his own account ? A. Yes, Sir. -\Ir, Fullerton— That was not a speculation. [To the witness.] Do you know whether he had any education ? A. I don't think he did, because he could scarcely write his name ; I know that. Q. Do you know whether he could read? A. I don't remember. Q. Do you know of his ever making selections from ex- changes to be printed ? A. I don't think he ever did. Mr. Evarts— Well, the question is what you know. By Mr. Fullerton— Did you ever see him do anything of that kind ? A. >'o. Sir. Q. What was your position with reference to his when he was in the office and attending to his duties, whatever they were ? A. WeU, I was bookkeeper behind the desk, and he was around in different parts of the office. Q. Anything in ftont of you so that your view was ob- structed? A. Xo, Sir. Q. Did he ever stand by the counter with you and make selections from newspapers i A. Xo, Sir. Q. Nothing of that kind ? A. Nothing, to my knowl- edge. Q. What had he to do with the exchanges, so far as you observed t A. Nothing more than to go to the Post-Offlce after them ; that is all I ever knew. Q. What would he do when he got them '? A. Nothing "but deliver them to the office. Q. Did you ever see him opening them \ A. No, Sir, I never did. Q. Or marking any particular part-3 of them ? A. No, Sir. Q, Nothing of that kind ? A. No, Sir. Q. Now, did he do anything beyond the sweeping out of the office, and running to the Post-Office hack and forth, that you knew ? A. Well, nothing more than help them up in Beekman-st. once in awhile putting off the mail, but not regularly. Q. What hours in the day did you spend in the office as bookkeeper ? A. Well, I was there ftom— I usually got to the office about 20 minures past 9. and left about half-past 3. Q. When was the office elosed ? A. About 4 or 5 o'clock. T left before the office closed. Q. What time did you leave ? A. I left at haif past 3. Q. Was the office closed then? A. Not generally; no. Sir. Q. How many rooms were there in that suite 1 A. Well, the main office and two rear rooms, besides thehalL Q. Was there any gas in the rear room ? A. I am not able to say ; I don't remember whether there was or not. Q. Did you ever see Zldr. Tilton there i A. I did ; yes, Sir. Q. How fteguently have you seen him there? A. lam not able to say positively, but perhaps two or three times a week ; maybe more, and may be less; I didn't take par- ticular notice. Q. A great many other people visited the office, I sup- pose? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Largely? A. WeU, there was not generally more than two or three in there at a time. Q. I have forgotten when your duties commenced there as bookkeeper? A. The Isr of February, 1S71. CROSS-EXA:^IiyATIOX OF TEEDERICK W. MITCHELL. By Mr. Evarts— Do you know what TVoodley did there in IS 72 ? A. No, Sir, I do not. Q. Not at all \ A. No, Sir. Q. Do you know what proficiency he made in reading and writing, in his attention to school here, after he got North? A. No, I do not; I have not seen him since Oc- tober, 1871, to my knowledge. Q. You say you saw Tilton there two or three times a week when you were there ? A. About that, I think. I don't know whether he commenced as soon as I was first employed hy them or not ; but I had seen him there. Q. You have no recollection that he didn't commence as soon as you? A. No, Sir ; I have no recoUection either way, vhether he did or not. Q. Do you know what Woodley had a month ! A. He didn't have anything, according to my knowledge. Q. Did n't it go through the bookkeeping of that con- cern, what he had i A. I think not. Q. What was the bookkeepiag of the estabLUment occu- pied about! A. Stocks, &c. 476 THE TlLTON-BEtlCHEB TBIAL, Q. The brokers' part 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. But not tlie newspapers. Did you have anything to do with the newspapers ? A. Once in a while I would help out the other clerks when they were behind. Q. But your business of bookkeeper had nothing to do with the newspaper establishment? A. No, Sir. Q. Not at all ? A. No, Sir. Q. Now, which office was your desk in ? A. In the main office. Q. The outer office ? A. The one nearer the front. Q. And were you exclusively occupied in that office ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Didn't go into the other offices ? A. Oh, no ; I was n't exclusively occupied in that office. Q. What had you to do with the other oflices ? A. Well, Col. Blood's desk used to be in the rear office, and I had occasion to go see him at very short intervals. Q. On the stock question ? A. Yes, Sir ; and different things. Q. I mean stocks % A. Yes, Sir. Q. Not about the newspapers ? A. No, Sir. Q. You had no share in editing or publishing the news- papers? A. Nothing whatever. Q. No responsibility for its articles ? A. No, Sir. Q. You say you think about half -past three? A. Yes, Sir. Q. That was the end of your obligation to be there, was it ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. And you were not there later ? A. Not there later, because I went home to Connecticut every day. Q. So you know nothing of what happened later than that ? A. No, Sir ; I do not. Mr. Evarts— That is all. Judge Neilson— That is all. TESTIMONY OF MARY CATHARINE McDONALD. Mary Catharine McDonald, a witness called on behalf of plaintiff, being duly sworn, testified : By Mr. Fullerton— Catherine, where do you reside now ? A. No. 174 Livingston-st., at present. Q. With whom do you reside ? A. Mr. Tilton. Q. How long have you resided with him ? A. I have always made it my home for a great many years. I did'nt Stay there altogether— I would go and come just as I pleased, to see his parents and back. Q. And during what period of time have you been tn the habit of doing that ? A. During the last five or six years, ever since he has been married. Since he kept house I have visited him occasionally, and have been for three or four years there pretty much altogether. When he kept house I used to visit him occasionally, and for the last two or three or tbrcc or four years I was there pretty much altogetier. Q. Speak a little louder, Catharine, please, for these gentlemen all wish to hoar you, and the jury. For the laat three or four y*»'8 you wer^ there pretty much alto- gether ? A. For a few weeks I would leave to go down to his parents, and then come back again. Q. Where did his parents reside? A. Keyport, New- Jersey. Q. What portion of the time did you spend at his parents' in New-Jersey ? A. Generally in the Summer. Q. And how much time in the Summer ? A. Five or six weeks, or sometimes two months. Q. State whether you were in the habit of going down there every SuEJiner. A. Nearly every Summer, but not quite so long every Summer. Q. Do you recollect when Mrs. Tilton went to Monti- ceUo ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Where were you when she went to Monticello ? A. I was in the house. Q. In what house ? A. In Mr. Tilton's house ; I helped her to get ready to go— Mrs. Tilton. Q. Do you recollect what season of the year it was when she wen* to Monticello ? A. I think it was in the latter part of July. Q. Do you recollect the year ? A. I don't know as I dc? exactly. Q. See if you can remember the year in which Mra^ Tilton went to Monticello ? A. I think it was about thiee or four years ago ; I do n't know which. I think it will be four years this Summer— four years, I think. Q. Are you at all certain as to the year in which she went to Monticello ? A. No, Sir, I am not certain. Q. Did she go there more than one Summer ? A. I. think she did ; I am not certain. Q. You think she went to Monticello more than once I A. I am not certain she did. Q. Did you ever see any letters that Mrs. Tilton wrote back from Monticello ? A. I saw one she wrote to myself; I don't know that I saw any others. Q. Have you got that letter ? A. I have not got it here. Q. Have you got it in your possession I A. I think 1 have ; I am not sure, though. Q. Where is it ? A. I think it is down in Keyport. Q. Where did you remain after Mrs. Tilton went to Monticello ? A. I remained in the house in Livingston- st. for thi-ee or four days, I think ; she went in the middle of the week, I think, and I remained over Sunday. Q. You mean she went to MonticeUo in the middle of the week? A. In the middle of the week, and I stayed at No. 174 Livingston-st. imtil after Sunday. Q. You mean the following Sunday ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. And where did you go after the following Sunday! A. I think on Monday I went down to Keyport. Q. Where ? A. To Mr. Tilton's parents. Q. And how long did you remain at Keyport that timel A. Four or five weeks, I suppose ; I came up occasionally and spent a day and went back again. Q. Who went to Keyport with you on that occasion i A. I don't know as any one did the day I went. Miss Tur TESTIMONY OF MAEY CATHARINE McBONALB. 477 ner, she "was to go on Monday. Slie left tlie liouse to go, but I don't think slie came there until Tuesday. She -was to go -with me, but slie left tlie liouse on Monday before I did, but she didn't get to Keyport, I think, untU Tuesday. Q. On what day did you arrive at Keyport ? A. Mon- day afternoon. The boat goes at 4 o'clock, and I got there about 6 o'clock. Q. When you got there was Bessie Turner there ? A. She was not, I don't think ; I am not certain about that, but I don't think she came until the next day. Q. What time the next day do you think she arrived there 9 A. She could not get there before 6 o'clock in the evening, because the boat didn't go. Now and then an excursion boat went, but it was not regular. I don't think she got there until about 6 o'clock. Q. Now, I want you to state when you left on that day to go to Keyport, where Mr. Greeley was, if you know ? A. I don't know where he was. Q. Was he at Mr. Tilton's? A. He was not; Mr. Tilton, expected him, but he didn't come. Q. Now, I want you to state whether you designed go- ing down to Keyport earlier than you did go at that time ? A. I think not ; I didn't intend to go before Mon- day, but on Monday Mr. Tilton fixed a table for Mr. Greeley to write on in the front sitting-room in the second story, and I assisted him on that day to arrange that table. Q. Was the table fixed in any peculiar way 1 A. Nothing, only the table that was already there was not high enough, and Mr. Tilton put something on top of it to make it higher to write upon, and I assisted him in that. Q. What time did you get through with arranging that table ? A. Perhaps 11 or 12 o'clock ; I could not be cer- tain about that. Q. And what day was it that you fixed that table? A. I don't know the date. It w»s on Monday— the Mon- day after Mrs. Tilton went away. Q. And was it the day on which you left to go to Key- port % A. That very same day. Q. Do you know where Elizabeth, or Bessie Turner, as we call her, went when she left the house? A. I could not say, but Mr. Tilton gave her money Mr. Evarts— No matter about that. The Witness— To pay her fare down to Keyport, and ghe took it and left the house. I don't know where she went to. I don't think she went to Keyport that day. Q. Do you know how much money IVlr. Tilton gave her ? A. I could not say. It was a bill. I could not say whether it was a two doUar biU or a five dollar biU ; it was either one. Q. What time in the day did Bessie Turner leave that house! A. It was after 10 o'clock; between 10 and 11 o'clock, I think, as well as I can remember. Mr. FuUerton— I am reminded by my adversary that it is after the time for adjourning, begging your Honor's pardon for consuming two miautes extra. Judge Neilson [to the Jury]— Return at 11 o'clock to- morrow, gentlemen. The Court thereupon adjourned until 11 o'clock on Tuesday. EIGHTY-THIRD DAY'S PROCEEDINGS. THE PLAINTIFF TESTIFIES IN EEBUTTAL. NUMEROUS DENIALS BY MR. TILTON OF STATEMENTS MADE BY THE DEFENDANT'S WITNESSES— WOOD- LEY, THE COLORED WITNESS, FREELY CONTRA- DICTED—MR. TILTON SAYS THAT HE NEVER TALKED WITH MRS. WOODHULL ABOUT PUBLISH- ING THE SCANDAL — HIS DIFFERENCES OF ASSERTION WITH MR. TRACY— MTANY OF BESSIE turner's CHARGES DENIED — CONTRADICTIONS OF TESTIMONY GIVEN BY MR. BEECHER— MR. TILTON NOT CROSS-EXAMINED— MINOR TESTIMONY FROM MARY CATHARINE m'DONALD. Tuesday, May 11, 1875. The counsel for the plaintiff to-day surprised almost every one in the court-room by suddenly re- calling IVIr. Tilton to tlie witness chair. He was called by Mr. Morris, who turned to him, after the brief examination of Miss McDonald was finished, and said in a low voice, hardly audible beyond the circle of the counsel's chairs, " Mr. Tilton. will you take the stand?" Mr. Tilton arose, and, walking forward, sat down in the witness chair so quietly that many in the audience were unaware that the plaintiff himself was npon the stand. Mr. Tilton began a long series of denials by de- clariug that he had not visited Mrs. Woodhull in Irving-place, as the colored witness Woodley had asserted. Then he said that he had never called Mrs. Woodhull " Vickey" in his life, and had never spoken to her or Col. Blood about publishing the scandal. He contradicted several other state- ments made by Woodley. Mrs. Palmer, one of the defendant's witnesses, had testified that in the early part of 1872 Mrs. Woodhull read a portion of the proofs of the scandal article in the presence of herself and Mr. Tilton. This Mr. Tilton yesterday denied, saying that at the date assigned by Mrs. Palmer for this interview he was absent in the North- West lecturing. Mr. Tilton showed where he was in 1871 and 1872, prior to Nov. 5, 1872, by reading a long list of places, in various parts of the country, where he had lectured during that time. He denied that he had had what is known as the " True Story " at the Sunday even- 478 THE TILTOI^-BEECHEB TBIAL, ing interview at Mr. Moulton's house, when Mr. Tracy, Mr. Moulton, and himself were present. That docu- ment had not been written then. He also contra- dicted Gen. Tracy's statement that at that interview Mr. Tiltonhad unfolded the covering of a manuscript which he had brought with him, and had begun to read a statement. In several other particulars the witness contradicted the testimony of Gen. Tracy, as weU as the evidence of various other witnesses for the defendant. The liveliest interest was shown by the audience in the plaintifiPs statements in regard to the scene at his house when Miss Bessie Turner asserted that she had been knocked down by Mr. Tilton. In a very decided manner the witness denied that any such scene had ever taken place. He was asked if he had made certain statements to Bessie Turner— among others, that " it was no wonder his gray hairs were going down in sorrow to the grave.'' " Did you say that asked Mr. Morris. *' No, Sir," replied Mr. TiLton ; and then added, without smiling, in a low tone, *' I had no gray hairs at that time." Mr. Tilton went on denying state- ment after statement of Miss Turner as they were read to him, from her testimony, by Mr. Morris. These denials, which were listened to in perfect si- lence by the audience, were made without hesitation as rapidly as the questions were put. Mr. Tilton stated that Bessie Turner was absent in Keyport during the whole time of Mr. Greeley's stay at his house in 1869. Mr. Tilton denied that the interview had taken place which was spoken of by Mr. Beecher as occur- ring in 1871, when the defendant said that he and Mrs. Tilton sat on Mr. Tilton's knees, and that they all kissed one another. Mr. Tilton said, however, that he remembered a scene somewhat similar which had occurred about 10 years ago, and which had ref- erence to another matter. Mr. Tilton fur- ther denied that he had read to Mr. Beecher from a slip of paper a statement of his wife concernmg improper advances made to her by Mr. Beecher. He said that he had read a very different paper to Mr. Beecher. He likewise denied that any- thing had been said at the time of the arbitration, in his presence, about burning the papers. Mr. Wilkeson had not suggested or insisted on the de- struction of the papers to him. When Mr. Morris had finished his examination of Mr. Tilton he turned toward Mr. Evarts, indicat- ing that he could begin the cross-examination, but Mr. Evarts shook his head, saying : " I have nothing to ask," and the plaiLtiff stepped do wn from the witness stand and resumed his seat among his counsel. The time for adjournment had nearly ar- rived when Mr. Tilton's examination was finished. Mary Catharine McDonald, whose examination was begun on Monday, was the first witness this morning. Her testimony related to the depar- ture of Mrs. Tilton for MonticeUo in 1869, and the visit of Mr. Greeley to Mr. Tilton's house about that time. Among other things she testified that MisH Bessie Turner went to Keyport before the arrival oi: Mr. Greeley, and did not return for four or five weeks. Miss McDonald's testimony was introduced to con- tradict some of that of Miss Turner. She was cross- examined by Mr. Shearman. THE PEOCEEDINGS— VEKBATIM. MARY CATHARINE McDONALD RECALLED. The Court met at 11 a. m., pursuant to ad- journment. Mr. Beacli— If your Honor please, Mr. Fullerton lias been imexpectedly detained at the General Term of the Supreme Court, in New-York. Judge Neilson— Will you take some other witness 1 Mr. Beach— If your Honor will permit one of us to take his place in the examination, we will endeavor to pro- ceed, Sir. Judge Neilson— Oh, yes. Witness, take the stand. Mary Catharine McDonald was then recalled, and her direct examination resumed. By Mr. Morris— I think you stated yesterday, Miss Mc- Donald, that you thought Bessie Turner went to Keyport on Tuesday, the day after you went 1 A. That is my recollection ; I thought so ; I know she did not go with me ; I didn't see her in the boat. Mr. Shearman— A little louder. Mr. Morris— Speak a little louder, if you ^ease, so that the jury can hear you. Mr. Beach— Repeat the answer. Mr. Morris— She says she thought she went on Tuesday, the day following. And she left Mr. Tilton's, if I imd«M?- stand you right, about 10 o'clock on Monday to go, before the table that you have spoken of was fixed or arranged for Mr. Greeley 1 A. She left before I did, some time be- fore 12— between 10 and 12 ; she was not later than that. Mr. Shearman— Bepeat it. Judge Neilson— You will have to repeat the answer. Mr. Morris— I did not hear it myself. Mr. Beach— You must speak louder. Mr. Morris— Will the stenographer repeat the answer! The Tribune stenographer read the last answer. Q, How long did you remain at Keyport ! A. Four or five weeks. TESTIMONY OF MABY CATHATUyE McDOXALB. 479 Q. Did Miss Turner remain there all tlie -while that you did 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. Did you return together to BrooMyn 1 A. No, Sir. Q. Who returned first 1 A. She did. Q. How long before you returned ? A. Ahout a ^veek or so. Q. And you was there about four weeks ? A. Four or five ; I guess I -was five weeks or perhaps more. I come up twice in the mean time for a day. Q. Do you know whether Mrs. Tilton had returned from Monticello when Bessie came back from Brooklyn ? A. I think she had. Q. Do you know whether Mr. Greeley had left Mr. Til- ton's before jVIrs. Tilton returned or not ? A. I couldn't say ; I don't think he stayed so long as he expected. Q. Do you recollect on any other occasion Mr. Greeley's staying at Mr. Tilton's ? A. Ko, Sir. THE FOLDING DOOES IN ME.TILTOIS^S HOUSE. Q. Now, Mrs. McDonald, you know the fold- ing doors that have been spoken of between the two front rooms on the second floor ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. How were those doors usually left ? A. Sometimes they were shut, and sometimes they were open. Q. How were they fastened, if at aU, when they were shut ] A. I don't think they fastened tight together. Q. Did not fasten tight together ; that is, you mean they didn't shut together ? A. I don't think. Q. Were they ever locked ? A. There was no lock to it, at least I never saw a key in it. Q. You never saw it locked 1 A. Nor the place for a lock to come out; there was just merely a bolt. Q. And do you know Avhether the doors shut so they could be locked or not ? A. I couldn't say that ; I never tried, but I don't think they could. Q. And you never saw them locked ? A. I never saw them locked ; there was a place for a key, but there was no key in the door. Q. When the doors were pulled together was there a crack or an opening at the top, the doors standing apart ? A. On one side there was, one side of those folding doors, at the top. Q. The top part of one of the doors— they didn't come together 1 A. Not at the top. Q. Are those doors in the condition now with reference to their shutting that way that they were then ? A. I tMnk 80. Q. In the same condition ? A. I am almost sure they «re, exactly. Mr. Morris— That is alL Mr. Beach— Miss McDonald, ynil you speak a little londer :n answering questions f The Witness— I wlU try. ceoss-exajmination of miss Mcdonald. By IVIr. Slieamiaii — How long have you been in any part of the Tilton family, jVIiss McDonald I A. I have been la the Tilton family for over 25 years, to and fro ; I didn't remain all the time. Q. Over 25 years since you went to themi A. I always made it my home, for that length of time, with the two families. Q. With whom did you live when you went to them, 25 years ago 1 A. With Mr. Tilton's parents. Q. In Keyport? A. Yes, Sir; they were not in Key- port at that time ; they were in New-York then. Q. How long did you live with them at that time ? A. One year before they moved to the country ; then about —I expect it was 10 or 12 years after that, in the country. Q. And when did you first come to live with Mr. Theo- dore TUton ? A. I uBen't to stay all the time ; I used to come to Brooklyn when I felt like it, and go back, stay a week or two and then go back again. Q. You would stay a week or two, do you mean with Mr. Theodore TUton % A. Yes, Sir. Q. And go back— during all that period, of ten or twelve, years ? A. Well, after he was married, before he went ta housekeeping, I spent some time at IVIrs. Morse's, Mra. Richards at that time ; I used to go and visit him therpi and stay a while. Q. After he was married you used to go visiting to Mrs. Richards, now Mrs. Morse ? A. Yes, Sir, on his account. I used to go there. Q. Do you ncean while Mr. Tilton was living with Mrs. Richards— Mr. and Mrs. Tilton were living with Mrs. Richards ? A. Yes, Sir, before they went to housekeeping. Q. They were not housekeeping ? A. Not at first, but I mean to say that I used to go and see him even then ; I didn't stay all the time with his parents. Q. How long did you stay with Mr. and IMrs. TUton at those times when they lived with Mrs. Richards? A. About six weeks the first time I went there. Q. About six weeks the first time after they had been, married ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. And how long the second time you went there 1 A. I couldn't say. Q. Well, some length of time? A. Perhaps not mora than a few days at a time. Q. But did you make frequent visits of this kind, so that you stayed a month or more 1 A. Not very; no. Sir, not untU after they went to housekeeping. Q. Well, after they went to housekeepiug, when did you ^o to stay with Mr. and Mrs. TUton 1 A. About three or four years ago. Judge Neilson— Mr. Shearman, will you be kind enough to repeat each answer 1 Mr. Shearman— Speak a little louder, and turn toward the jury. If you would speak to the jury it would be the better way ; they want to hear. Now, can you state about how long it was after they went to housekeepmg 480 THE TILION-B. that you went to live mtli tliem ? A. I am not positive about tlie year ; I think about four years. Q. About four years after they went to housekeeping 1 A. Housekeeping; and occasionally I visited them before that; before I went to stay altogether. Well, don't you remember that they went to house- keeping in their present house iu October, 1866 ? A. I was not with them then. Q. How long was it after that period that you went to live with them ? A. I was there the time Mrs. Tilton went to Monticello. Q. Well, that was 1869, we all agree. How long did you stay with the family at that time t A. Well, after Mrs. Tilton went away, I went the next week to Keyport and stayed there tmtil she came back. Q. Yes ; but how long had you been there before Mrs. Tilton went to Monticello ? A. I couldn't say. Q. Were you there when Ralph was born ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. That was in June, 1869 ; now, were you there any length of time before that 1 A. Not very long, except occasional visits. Q. Who paid your wages at that time 1 A. Mrs. Tilton sometimes, and Mr. Tilton. Q, Mr. Theodore Tilton ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Well, did Mr. Theodore Tilton and Mrs. Theodore Tilton pay your wages for any length of time about that period, or more than one month 1 A. Not very long. Q. Did they pay you for more than one month ? A. Mrs. Tilton did not but Mr. Tilton did ; he paid me some after she went away for the length of time I had been there, and for the time that I waited for her return he paid me when I was not there. Q. Who paid your wages for the rest of the time — the rest of the year 1 A. The rest of what year ? Q. This year that Mrs. Tilton went to Monticello? A. That is the year I am speaking about. Q. Yes. Well, I say, did Mr. Theodore Tilton pay you your wages for all of that year, or for any'part of it? A. He paid me for all of the year, I think. Q. All of the year, 1869. Well, then don't you think that you lived in the house all of the year 1869 ? A. I did not, but his agreement was with me to pay me, no matter whether I was there or not. Q. Mr. Tilton paid you whether you were there or not? A. At that time, because I waited for Mrs. Tilton's return, and thought I would remain with her when she came back, but I did not, so he paid me according to agreement, for the year out. Q. Then you came back, did you, from Keyport in about five weeks, if I understand you? A. I tMnk so, near about that time. Q. Yes. I am not particular as to the time, but after that did you stay in the family the rest of that year ? A. I did not. Q. How long did you stay with the family, then ? A. I don't think tliat I stayed more than a week after I ECHEB TBIAL. came up. I went back to his parents, and T stayed away for some time. I used to visit Mrs. Tilton occasionally ; I did not live with her all the time after that until the year she went to Monticello— to Schoharie, and I r©. mained— I kept house until she came back, and have been with her ever since, with the exception of a few days now and then. Q. Then you have been with her ever since the year 1869, do I understand ? Have you been with Mrs. Tilton ever since the year that she went to Monticello ? A. I have not ; I just said I have not. Q. The trouble is I cannot hear half of what you say. I may seem to ask things over when I did not hear what you said. A. I try to make you hear, but I can't speak any louder. Q. I am sorry. What I want to get at is just how long you lived in the family—the house of Theodore TUton. Now, suppose you go back to that year that Mrs. Tilton went to Monticello ; and you were there when Ralph was born ? A. I was there when Ralph was born. Q. Had you been there long before that ? A. No, Sir, I had not ; if I recollect right, Mr. Tilton came for me to be in the house at that time— down to his parents'— and I came up, and he wanted me there to take the children to Coney Island so they would not disturb Mrs. Tilton at that time ; and so, about two days after Frank was born I went to Coney Island. Q. Well, never mind that ; all I want is the time. Then you stayed from the time Ralph was bom until Mra. Tilton went to Monticello ? A. Until she went to Monti- cello — until the week after ; she went in the middle of the week. Q. Never mind. Then you went down tn the following week to Monticello? A. Yes, Sir. Q. And returned in not less than five weeks? A. I don't think, except for a day. Q. Yes ; except for a day. Then, how long did you stay when you returned with them? A. After Mrs. Tilton came back ? Q. Yes ? A. I don't think i stayed with them mon than a week; I don't think I did. Q. Then did you come again with them ? A. I cam© again and again, but I did not stay ; it was no more than a visit ; sometimes two or three days, and sometimes—- Q. You have visited the family constantly, have you not, since that time ? A. Yes, Sir? Q. And now you are Uvrag in Mr. Tilton's family t A. Yes, Sir. Q. And how long have you been living there now! A* Well, I never left altogether since Mrs. Tilton went away ; never took my things from there ; I came and went when I pleased. Q. When Mrs. Tilton went away you were living there, were you not? A. Yes. Sir. Q. And had been for some time. How long then? Since the year Mrs. Tilton went to Schoharie, I tliink. TESTIMONY OF 2 Q. Since tlie year slie "went to Sclioliarie 1 A. Yes, Sir ; I liave never entirely left tlie family since tliat; I would leave for a wliile and go back again. Q. Miss McDonald, you were on very intimate and con- fidential terms, were you not, with tlie family? A. Oti, pretty much so. Q. Mr. Tilton always thought a great deal of you, didn't he ? A. I don't know. Q, Well you thought a great deal of Mr. Tilton and the children 1 A. They always treated me well ; that is all. Q. And you went all over the house, didn't you? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Now, we will go back to the time that Mrs. Tilton went to Monticello, and remember that time, if you please, if you can, when they went to live in this house, 174 Livingston-st.— that was October, 1C66 ? A. I was not in Brooklyn then. Q. No ; you were in Keyport then. Well, did you come up that Fall or Winter, do you think, to stay any time 1 A. I don't think I did. Q. Did you come the next year ? A. No, I think not ; I think I had been away from the Tilton familj- for some time. Q. Living not with Mr. Tilton at Keyport, there; were you living with the old INIr. Tilton at Keyport ? A. I was not, when they were at Monticello— at least not at the time he went to housekeeping, I was not. Q. Well, how long was it before Mrs. Tilton went to MonticeUo that you began to live agaiu iu the Tilton fam- ily—either for a long or a short time, IMiss McDonald- was it as much as a year '? A. I am not certain that it was. Q. Can't you recollect anything about the three years before iSlrs. Tilton went to Monticello, as to whether you lived with the Tilton family or not ? A. I don't think I did. Q. Not any part of the time ? A. No, I don't think so. Q. But you visited there constantly, didn't you ? A. Not very constantly ia that year ; occasionaUy. Q. WeU, how often 1 A. I could not say how often. Q. Now, about Miss Turner's visit to Keyport ; you say he was there, or rather you were there all the time that 6he was ? A. With the exception of two days. Q. With the exception of two days ; and did you see everything that went on iu the house where she was ? A. I don't know as I did. Q. Well, where were you during that time t were you ia the same room generally during the day with the family, or were you in the kitchen, or where were you ? A. I was always treated as one of the family there, and did not spend much of my time in the kitchen. Q. WeU. that is what I thought ; you were treated as one of the family? A. Yes, Sir. Q. And you were as much at the table and iu the room "vsith air. and Mrs. Tilton as Miss Turner was 1 A. Yes, Sir. JEOBORE TILTOIS. 481 Q. And weren't you at meals with Miss Turner ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. You say that you saw I^r. Tilton, or rather you say that 3Ir. Tilton gave Miss Turner money to go down to Keyport; did you see him give her that money ? A. I saw him put his hand iu his pocket and take out a bill and hand it to her ; I could not say what kind of a biU it was. Q. Yes ; what did Mr. Tilton say at the time ? A. She asked him— he told her she must go to Keyport ; he did n't want her in the house ; Mr. Greeley was coming there, and he proposed to her to go to Keyport to his parents, and he iastructed her to be useful to his mother, and she told him if he wanted her to go to Keyport that he would have to give her money to pay her fare there; she did n't have any. Q. She told him if he wanted her to go to Keyport he would have to give her money to pay her fare— she didn't have any ? A. And then, iu the passage betweeen the rooms, in the haU of the second floor, he told her— he' said, " Yes, Bessie, I will give you some money," and so he gave her a bUl ; I could not— Q. He said, " Yes, Bessie, I will give you some money," and so he gave her a bUl ? A. Quite near the room door. Q. Very well, where were these folding doors that you were describing ? A. In the second story, front room— I expect that is what you ask. Q. Well, there are two front rooms there, are there not ? A. Yes, Sir ; but they connect by folding doors. Q. They connect by folding doors, and there is a front bedroom there, isn't there — oneroom was used at that time for a bedroom ? A. One was a bedroom, and tlie other a sitting-room— was uaed for that. Q. And how can you get into those two rooms — can you get from the other part of the house into each room ? A- From the hall— you can get from the hall into either room, and then you can get from the sitting-room to the bedroom without goiag through the haU, by the folding doors. Q. You are not obliged to go through either room ia order to get to the other room ? A. No. Mr. Shearman— That is all. Mr. Morris— Miss McDonald, just one question; Mrs. Tilton went to Monticello when Ealph was a baby, did she not ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. How old was Ralph when she went? A. That re* minds me, Mr. Morris, of something I said yesterday; I said it was four years, I thought, but I have found when I went home that Frank is over five years old. Q. Yes ; and it was when he was an infant f A. Yes, Sir ; it was a mistake of mine. ME. TILTON RECALLED. Mr. Morris— That is all. Mr. Tilton, you take the chair now. Theodore Tilton, being recalled, testified as follows : 489 THE TILlON-1 By Mr. Morris—Mr. Tilton, Mr. Woocllej, wlien lie was upon the stand, testified that he had seen you on different occasions stopping over night at Mrs. Woodhull's when she lived in Irving-place ; were you ever there when she lived at Irving-place? A. I never was, Sir ; I never knew that she ever lived there until I heard that fact announced in court here. Q. Did you ever say in Mrs, "Woodhull's presence Mr. Evarts— What page and what passage do you refer to? Mr. Morris— I refer to Part 9, page 600. Mr. Evarts— Wait until I find it. Mr. Morris— Yes, Sir. The first question refers to testi- mony on page 609 ; the question I ask now, Part 9, page 600. Did you ever say to Mrs. Woodhjall, in Mr. Wood- ley's presence, or in the presence of any person, or to her when no parson was present, anything in substance to this efi"ect : " Vicky, you publish this thing," referring to to the scandal, " you will be a made woman ?" A. No, Sir, I never did ; I never called her "Vicky," and I never spoke to her about publishing this scandal. Mr. Evarts— Oh, well, Mr. Tilton, you are not allowed to go beyond answering the question. Ml". Beach— That is very proper, Sir, that answer. Mr. Evarts— I think not. Mr. Beach— I think it is. Mr. Morris— I should have asked that question, Mr. Evarts ; it saved me the trouble of asking the question by his answering. Mr. Evarts— Oh, well, of course your Honor under- stands that we are entitled to have an answer confined to the question. Judge Neilson— Yes, Sir. Mr. Evarts— Otherwise, we ar^ deprived of our rights of objecting to the question. WHOLESALE DENIALS BY THE PLAD^TIFF. By Mr. Morris— Did you ever, at their office in Broad-st., or at any other -place, call Mr. Blood aside and have an interview with him with reference to the publication of that scandal in the presence of Mr. Wood- ley or any other person, or when no person was present ? A. No, Sir ; I never had a conversation with him on any such subject. Q. Did Mr. Blood, at any time, with reference to the publication of that article, ever say to you that he would have nothing to do with it ? A. No, Sir ; I had ceased my acquaintance with Mr. Blood many months previous to the publication of that article. Mr. Evarts— That I move to have struck out, if your Honor please. Judge Neilson— Well, strike it out, and ask the ques- tion, please. Mr. Beach— Oh, well, I hope your Honor will not go through that form. Sir. Mr. Morris—I will ask the question. EECREB TBIAL. Mr. Evarts— Why, if your Honor please, this Is ^ebu^ , ting evidence. Mr. Tilton has been examined in chief as to all t^iese facts of his general intercourse, its com- mencement, and its termination. Judge Neilson— Yes ; but as to specific facts they have a right to interrogate. \ Mr. Evarts— I agree, and therefore 1 desire that his an-' swer shall be confined to those specific facts; he has already told us when his relations with this family ceased. Mr. Beach— No, Sir. Judge Neilson— Had he been asked as to Col. Blood specifically ? Mr. Beach— No, Sir ; he has not stated anything about his acquaintance with Col. Blood ceasing. Judge Neilson— However, the witness understands now that he is to answer the precise question put; that is what the cotmsel desires. Mr. Morris— Mr. Tilton, when did your acquaintance with Mr. Blood terminate ? A. In the month of April, 1872. Q. And after that, and prior to the publication of that article, the scandal, had you any conversation with Col. Blood whatever ? A. No, Sir ; never a word, Q. Were you, from the time you say you terminated your ?cquaintance with him in April, and prior to the publication of that article, at their office in Broad-st.? A. I was not, Sir ; I never was in the office out of which that article was published. Q. Or at their house ? A. No, Sir. Q. Did you meet them at any place ? A. I did not, Sir. Q. Or either of them ? A. No, Sir. Q. Were you ever present when any proof-slips of that article were shown ? A. I was not. Sir. Q. Did you ever see any proof -slips of that article ? A. No, Sir. ^ ME. TILTON'S WHEREABOUTS IN 1871-1872. Q. Now, Mr. TUton, at this point, will you state your whereabouts dui-ing 1871 and 1872, prior to the 2d, or the 5th of November, 1872? A. | Referring to a paper.] On the 3d of October, 1871, 1 lectured at Mr. Evarts— Mr. Tilton, what use are you making of this memorandum ? The Witness— I am about to state, Sir, in answer to Mr- Morris's question, the list of the places at which I made public addresses outside of New- York City, between the time of the publication of Mrs. Woodhull's card of May and the time of the publication of Mrs. Woodhull's scan- dal of November, 1872. Mr. Evarts— You have made this memorandum to as- sist your memory ? Tho Witness— Yes, Sir ; I wiQ say that, in reference to the memorandum, I have brought with me all the vouchers. Mr. Morris— Never mind that. The Witness— Oct. 3, 1871, at the Cornell University, li:SIIlLOyi OF IILEODOEE IILTOS. 483 In Ithaca, >'eTr-Torl: ; Oct. 26, at Bristol, Conn. ; Oct. 31, at West Cliester, Penn. ; >ruT. 1, "VTiltesbarre, Penn. ; yoT. 2, Allento"?vn, Penn. ; Xot. 7, Fxedonia, 2sew-Yorli ; Not. 8, Randolph, Xevr-York ; ^Tot. 14, Lancaster, Penn. ; ^Tov. 15, Tyrone. Penn. ; >'ot. 16, Locfe Haven, Penn. ; XoT. 21, Honesdale, Penn. ; ^Tor. 29, Webster, Mass. ; >r or. 30, XorTvlcli, Conn. ; Dec. 5, Indiana, Penn. (that Indiana is a little town caJIed alter the State) ; Dec. 6, Washington, Penn. :Mr. Abbott— What is the last place ? What is that ? The Witness— It is a little town in Pennsvlvania called Indiana. :-Ir. Abbott— What is the date 1 The Wimess— Dec. 5 ; Dec. 7, Pittsburgh, Penn.; Dec. 26, Kenneth-scinare, Penn.; Dec. 23, Greencastle, Penn.; Jan. 5, 1872, Shippensburgh, Penn,; Jan. 8, Oneida, Y.; Jan. 9, Taunton, Mass.; Jan. 10, Leom in ster, Mass.; Jan. 16, Columbia, Penn.; Jan. 22, iN'atIck, Mass. ; Jan. 23, Marlboro, Mass.; Jan. 24, Dover, X. H. ; Jan. 30, Columbia, Penn.— second lecture at that place during that same season; Feb. 1, Lancaster, Penn.; Feb. 7, Kantakee, ni.; Feb. 9, Blooniington, Ind.; Feb. 13, Mon- mouth, HI. These engagements were made by :Mr. Mum- ford of the Literary Bureau, and are accompanied with the dates ; the next list which I will read is a list of en- gagements made by Mr. James H. Bliss of the 2!s'orth- Westem Lyceum Bureau, and he has furnished me the places, but not the dates. The places are : Madison,Wis.— Mr. Evarts— What period is this? The Witness— They lie in the period between the 13th of February and the 18th of March, 1872. Mr. Evarts — Same year I The Witness — Same year; the places are these: Madi- ton. Wis. ; Eochester, Minn.— two nights ; Minneapolis, Minn.— two nights; when I say "two nights," I mean two lectures; St. Paul, Minn.; Sparta, Wis.; La Crosse, Wis. ; Watertown, Wis. ; Appleton, Wis. ; Xeenah, Wis. ; Whitewater, Wis. ; MlLtou, Wis. ; Janesrille, Wis. ; Beloit, Wis. ; Freeport, ni. ; Eochlord, 111, ; Belvidere, 111. ; Ea- ciae. Wis.— three successive nights; Piverside, m.; Priaceton, IlL ; Menomonee, Wis.— two successive nights —completes Z^Ir. Bliss's list, which are without dates; then Mr. Mumf ord's list lesumes again : 3Iarch IS, 1872, Chicago, 111.; March 21, Pittsburgh, Penn.; then I reach homo March 24 ; then followed a few days ia early April devoted to arbiti ation with Mr. Bowen ; then, later ia the same month, I went to Cincianati, devoting ten days there Xo the labors of the Convention which nominated Mr. Greeley ; then I went home again, into the campaign ; May 25,1872, Potsdam, X. Y. ; May 27, Ogdensburg, X. Y. Mr. Morris— Just right there, one question. Were you there at one time — was that the period at which you brought your relation of acquaiatance with :Mr. Blood and :Mrs. Woodhull to a close 1 A. Yes, Sir, on the 25th of April ; May 25 at Potsdam, N. Y. ; May -7 al Ogdens- burg; then occurred an interval in my speaking, in which I went to Baltimore to attend the Baltimore Con- vention ; then a visit to Mr. Sumner in Washington ; then back again to the public field, as follows : July 22, 1S72, Bangor, Me. ; July 23, Augusta, Me. ; July 26, Oldtown, Me.; July 29, Houlton, Me.; July 30, Liacoln, Me.; Aug. 1, Dover, Me. ; Aug. 9, Portland^ Me. ; Aug. 11, Biddeford, Me.; Aug. 14, Ellsworth, Me.; Aug. 15, Eockland, Me.; Aug. 16, Camden, Me.; Aug. 17, Bath, Me.; Aug. 20, Lewiston, 3Ie.; Aug. 22, Bridgeton, Me.; Aug. 23, Skowhegan, ile.; Aug. 27, Ca- lais, Me., called Calay" by some people ; Aug. 29, East- port, Me.; Aug. 30, Machias. Me.; Sept. 3, Castine, Me.; Sept, 4, Winterport, Me.; Sept. 5, Belfast, Me.; Sept. 7, Hampden, Me.; September, between the 7th and 8th, mid- night, at Bangor, Me.; then follows the Maine election Sept, 10; then on the following day, Sept. 11, Concord, X. H.: Sept. 13, Orange, J.; Sept. 17, Stamford, Conn.; Sept. 20, Paterson, >r. J.; Sept. 21, Philadelphia, Peniu; Sept. 23, Norwich, Conn.; Sept. 30, Allentown, Penn.; Oct. 2, Harrisburg, Penn. Then followed a list of ap- pointments every night in Pennsylvania up to the Penn- sylvania election. I have written in vain to get those dates, andhave only three— namely : Oct. 2, Harrisburg; Oct. 4, Pittsburgh; Oct. 7, Jamestown, Y.; but I re- member speaking every night during that campaign up to the last night of the election. Then there is a break of two or three Mr. Evarts— The October election, you mean ? A. Yes Sir, Oct. 8 ; then there comes a break of a day or two, or a few appointments. Q. 2sever mind { A. Oct. 16, Dover, N. H.; Oct. 18, Lynn, Mass.; Oct. 25, Willimantic, Conn.; Oct. 20, here on a Saturday evening, in Brooklyn, at home; Oct. 28 Keene, X. H.; Oct. 29, Claremont, X. H.; Oct, 30, Brad- ford, X. H,; Oct. 31, Dartmouth College, and also at Lel> anon in the evening of the same day ; 2s"ov. l, Littleton ; Xov. 2, Lancaster ; ZSTov. 4, Laconia ; Xov. 5, the Presi- dential election, which brought me home. This list is not entirely accurate ; I mean to say by that, that every item in it is accurate, but a few of my engagements are not in- cluded here, because I could not get them verified, and have included in this list oiily such names and places as I have verifleation of here, but the list is nearly complete. By Mr. Beach— Well, you mention July 24 or 26 as the period when you commenced your political discussions ! A. Xo,Sir; I commenced my political discussions before the Baltimore Convention; I commenced Q. Well, July 24 or 26 you commenced in Maine, is it \ A. Yes, Sir; I began my campaign ia Maine immediately after the Baltimore Convention was over, July 22, at Bangor. Q. Well, bet^-een that time and the time when you spoke here in Brooklyn, how often was you here or at Xew-York'f A. Well, Sir, I think that I simply cam© home once in order to gee 2tlr3. Tilion to go back with me 484 THE TILTON-BEEGEEE TEIAL. during tlie remainder of tlie campaign; I remember being borne a day or two. By Mr. Morris— Can you state about when that was 1 A. I baven't made any inquiry, Sir ; I tbink probably I could by Q. Well, witb tbat exception, you were absent from home contmually, or from New- York? A. I believe so ; yes, Sir; I can speak positively only as to that which I have now here ; but from the Fall of 1871 to the Fall of 1872 I spent a whole year of continuous public speaking, the most laborious year of my whole life, and that was the period at which Mr. Woodley says that I enjoyed the honor of his accLuaintance. Mr. Evarts— No matter about Mr. Woodley. Mr. Morris— Well, that was the period when Woodley fixes that intercourse at the ofBce. Mr. Evarts— But that is matter of argument. The Witness— Yes, Sir ; Mr. Woodley says that I was at that office in September. Mr. Evarts— Well, no matter. Mr. Morris— It is not a matter of argument, it is a ques- tion of fact ; he has testified. Mr. Evarts— He has given us the fact, and that is the end of it. By Mr. Morris— Now, Mr. Tilton, Mr. Woodley Mr. Evarts— Give us the reference. Mr. Morris— Part 9, page 670. Mr. Evarts— Give us the page ; they are all continuous. Mr. Morris— 607, second column, right hand page. Re- ferring to this interview to which I have called your at- tion, and to Mrs. Woodhull and Col. Blood, Mr. Woodley was asked this question : [Reading] Q. What did they say to Col. Blood 1 A. They told him to do it and that would be the making of him. She says, "Beecher's congregation wiU pay you $100,000"— Mrs. Woodhull said. Q. For what? A. For publishing it. Q. For publishing it 1 A. No, not for publishing it ; but if they published it they would pay $100,000 to have it taken out, or anything. She said; " It is a lich congre- gation, and they wouldn't have that come out— no how In the world." Q. Now, was any such conversation as that ever had in your presence 1 A. Not a word of it. Sir, nor anything like It. Q. Was the sum of $100,000 or any other sum ever mentioned in connection with the publication of that ar- ticle by you to Mrs. Woodhull or Col. Blood, or by either of them to you or to any other person in your presence ? A. No, Sir, not at all. CONTEADICTION OF THE WITNESSES GILES, GRAY, AND COOK. Q. Mrs. Lncy Giles testified, same part, page 618, that on the 4th of July you stayed all night at Mrs. Woodhull's; is that true? A. It is not true, Sir ; I stayed at my own house. Q.. You say you stayed at your house— have you any distinct recollection upon that subject ? A. Yes, Sir ; I was asked by Mr. Q. Can you name any circumstance t A. Yes, Sir. Mr. Evarts— I don't know about the circumstance. The Witness— I remember that during that Summer I had two or three days of illness, which resulted in my being thrown on my back, and the day on which I was confined to my room, after these two or three days of partial confinement in the house, is identified ta my mind by beiag the day on which the daughter of Mrs. Brad- shaw was married ; that was July 6 ; I was that morning sick abed ia my house, and I remember that I had been confined to the house, though not to my bed, for a day or more previously ; that is the only means I have of iden- tifying it. Mr. Evarts asked me about the 4th of JiHy ; I could not remember anything about it as connected with the 4th of July, and my only recollection now is as connected with that wedding day, which was the 6th of July ia the morning; then I was at home sick abed, and had been— I had been home, I remember, ill the pre- ceding day Q. Did you ever see a sofa bed iu Mrs. WoodhuU's par- lor? A. No, Sir. Q. Did you ever sleep upon one? A. No, Sir. Judge Neilson— Sleep upon one there he means. The Witness— No, Sir ; that is what I understood. Mr. Morris— At Mrs. Woodhull's ? A. I have slept on a sofa bed. Sir, in my own house. Judge Neilson— Yes, but not there. By Mr. Morris— Not at Mrs. Woodhull's house ? A. No, Sir. Q. Mrs. GUes also spoke of an occasion when you were at Mrs. Woodhull's, she states, and you were up stairs in Mrs. Woodhull's room, and she waited upon you. Mr. Evarts— What page ? By Mr. Morris— Took champagne and chickens— page 618— up to the room for you. Did any incident of that Mnd ever occur ? A. No, Sir ; I never saw a bottle of champagne in that house, never sipped a glass of it there, never ate a chicken there, or anything of the Mnd. Q. I was about to ask you, Mr. Tilton, whether you and Mrs. Woodhull were ever served with any refreshmenfs whatever by this person, or any other person, in any room up stairs ? A. No, Sir. Q. Or in any other room in her house ? A. No, Sir. I Mr. Beach [to Mr. Morris]— Does he say he never took refreshments there ? j Mr. Morris— That he never was served with refresh-' ments by this person. [To the witness.] You took break- fast there ? A. I took breakfast ; never in any other way than that; I don't remember the woman ; I don't remember ever having seen her. Q. Mr. Gray spoke of your riding out with her in a phaeton with a white horse ; did you ever ride out with her in a phaeton with a white horse ? A. I never did. Q. Did you ever know of her having a white horse ? A. TBSTmONT OF ISEODOBE TILIOX, 485 Col. Blood told me ttiat in their former days of residence liere ther liad a phaeton and a -svhite horse, hut I never sa^r either the phaeton or the horse. Q. You never sa?r it and never rode ^th thenj 1 A. ^s'o, Sir, I never did. Q. The same Tvitness, in speaMng of an interview that you had vrith Mrs. Woodhull [page 615J in reference to Mr. Beecher presiding at Steinway Hall, "Was asked this question and made this answer : Q. VHio had better 1 A. :Mr. Beecher; that he, 3Ir. Beecher, had hetter preside at that meeting, or that she ■vrould— [this is the language that she is said to have used in your presence]— that she vrould mate it hotter on earth for him than hell was helow. Did ever any such conversation as that take place he tween you and her 1 A. No, Sir. Q. Or ta your hearing 1 A. So, Sir. Q. "Were you ever in the office— in the hack office— when the gas was lighted— in Broad-st.? A. No, Sir; nor any other person; for there is no gas there. Q. You heard Mr. "Woodley describe an incident there of seeing figures upon the glass 1 * A. Not Woodley— Gray. Q. Mr. Gray I should say ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Did anything of that kind ever occur ? A. No, Sir ; it never did. Q. You say there is no gas in that room 1 A. No, Sir ; never. Q. Mr. Cook testified that on the 20th of November, 1871, you and Mrs. Woodhull went to Mr. Moulton's together ia a carriage. Is that true ? A. It is not, Sir; I did not see Mrs. Woodhull on that— at that interview at aU. Mr. Evarts— Whctt page is that ? Mr. Morris— Part 8, page 364. [To the witness.] He also says that you asked him to join The Golden Age. Is that true 1 A. It is not, Sir. He asked me to take him on T7i€ Golden Age, and I declined the proffer. Q. He also says that he was asked in your presence by Mrs. Woodhull — I am not certain as to whether he said you or not, but that he was asked to write this scandal, and put it in shape. Ltr. Evarts— "^Tiat page do you now refer to? Mr. Morris— Page 365. There is considerable on that subject. Mr. Evarts— ^'ell. Mr. Morris- Did you ever hear Mrs. Woodhull ask him or suggest to him the writing of this story called the scandal? A. I never did, Sir. Q. Did you ever ask him ? A, I never did. Q. Or intimate or suggest that he should do it ? A. I did not. Q. Did you ever hear such an intimation or suggestion from any one made to him ? A. No, Sir. Q. Did you ever hear the subject mentioned in his pres- ence? A. Never once. Q. Mrs. Palmer says that she became acquainted with you at Mrs. Woodhull's office before TTie Golden Age was established ; when did you form her acquaintance ? A. Not until several months after The Golden Age was estab- lished ; three months at least. ]Mr. Evarts— That is, acquaintance with [Mrs. Palmer. The Witness— With Mrs. TToodhull. Mr. Morris— :Mrs. Palmer says that she formed her ao quaratanc^ with the witness prior to the establishment of The Golden Age. Mr. Evarts— And is the answer that he formed her ac- quaintance three months after the establishment of Th* Golden Age ? The'Witness— The Goldeyi Age txRd been running about three months. It was in its third month before I became acquainted with Mrs. Woodhull at all. I was introduced to her by ^Ir. Andrews. COXTRADICTIOX OF MES. PALMEE. Mr. Evarts— That is not the point. The point is when you became acquainted with ^irs. Palmer. The Witness— No, Sir ; I do not understand it so. Mr. Morris— Yes. The Witness— I never became acquainted with Mrs. Palmer. By 3Ir. 3Iorri5— Well, state when vou saw her, or met her ? A. I have some recollection of seeing her in :Mrs. Woodhull's office some time in the Summer of 1871. Q. That was after The Golden Age was established ? A. Yes, Sir ; long after— lonsc after. Q. It was after that before you formed the acquain- tance of either of them ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. She says that she heard a conversation with you at the office of Mrs. Woodhull concerning the starting of the projected paper, The Golden Ag^e— heard you talking about it before it was established. Is that true ? A. No, Sir. That is impossible. The Golden Age had been es- tablished long before I ever saw Mrs. Woodhull. Q. I will read a question and an answer or two, for the purpose of asking you about them. I read from the testi- mony of Mrs. Palmer : Q. Do you recollect an occurrence in the early pert of 1872, a considerable time prior to the publication of what is known as the " Woodhull Scandal," when any proofs were exhibited to you? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Who was present on the occasion ? A. Mrs. Wood- hull and Theodore Tilton ; there might have been some- body else in the room, but I don't remember. Q. Now, will you state what occurred on that occasion, as far as Mrs. Woodhull and Mr. Tilton were concerned? A. IMrs. Woodhull and Mr. TUton came in hastily to the private office where I was engaged on my stocking-sus- penders, and ]NIrs. Woodhull says, " I have something to show you, Daniels," and she commenced reading what I afterward heard called, and heard at the time called, the Woodhull Scandal ; read a portion of it ; Mr. Tilton only stopped for a moment, or a few moments, and went out immediately. Did anything of that kind ever occur in that offic-e in your presence ? A. No. Sir, 486 TRE TlLTON-PEEOflUlZ TRIAL. Q. In the Spring of 1872, or at any otlier time ? A. No, Sir. It could not have occurred at the time which she assigns, for then I was in the North-West. Mr. Evarts— Excuse me, Mr. Tilton ; I ask to have that struck out, if your Honor please. Mr. Morris— "Well, I will ask the question. Q. She fixes it in this way [reading] : Q. Some four or six weeks before May I A. Yes, Sir, in 1872. Now, where were you at that time, the period at which she fixes it— the period at which she says the conversa- tion took place ? Mr. Beach— Four to six weeks before May, 1872. The Witness [referring to a memorandum] — May, April, March— well, Sir, I was somewhere between the Ohio River and the Mississippi ; here is the list to speak for Itself. Mr. Morris— Very weU. Mr. Evarts [to witness]— I thought you said you got home on the 24th of March? A. I did. Sir; she speaks of six weeks previous to the 1st of May ; corrects herself and says six weeks previous to the 15th of April ; in other words, six weeks previous to the time when she went into her house. Mr. Evarts— Well, I am only asking now about the ques- tion I have asked. Mr. Morris— Yes, she did correct herself ; she said It was the 15th of April, or about that time. Mr. Evarts— Let us know what the question is; refer us to the passage. Mr. Morris— I read this from my scrap-book. Mr. Evarts— Well, we have got the first place ; now, where is the other ? Mr. Morris— It is in Mrs. Palmer's testimony ; you will find it Mr. Shearman— On the direct or on the cross-examina- tion? Mr. Morris— I read from the direct examination; the question I read. Mr. Beach— I drew her attention to that on the cross- examination. Mr. Morris— It is on the cross-examination that she cor- rected the date. Mr. Evarts— Well, let us find the passage. Mr. Shearman — My question on the direct was this : Did this take place some four or six weeks before the 1st of May ? A. Yes, Sir ; 1872. Then Mr Beach on the cross-examination asked : I understood you to say that she showed you a proof of the scandal ? A. Yes, Sir, but that was later. Q. When was that ? A. That was about two months before I went into my house in Twenty-seventh-st. I went in there on the Ist of May. No, it was the 15th of April ; I didn't go into my house in May ; I went in on the 15th of Api'U, and it was some weeks before this that Mrs. WoodhTill not only showed it to me, but I saw it two or three different times. Now, that is the question of when Mrs. Woodhull showed it to her ; she is not speaking of the time when she saw it in the presence of Mr. TUton. Mr. Beach— Oh, yes, she is. She is speaking of the same time. Mr. Shearman— She speaks of its being shown, but not in the presence of Mr. Tilton. Mr. Beach— Yes, Sir. Mr. Shearman— On the cross-examination she says that Mrs. Woodhull showed it to her two or three times. In my examination I only asked her about one time, when it was shown in the presence of Mr. Tilton. Mr. Beach— This is altogether irregular, your Honor, to argue this question. I first asked her as to the specific time that she spoke of it on the direct examination, and she fixed it as given in her answer, and then added that it was shown to her two or three times. Mr. Shearman — Oh, no. Mr. Beach— She did, and your reading shows it. Mr. Shearman— I read the whole of it. Mr. Beach— I certaiuly did ask her, and your reading of it shows that I did. But it is not a matter to be discussed here. Mr. Evarts— It is a matter to be referred to in the evi- dence. Mr. Beach— No, Sir, it is not a matter for us to make counter assertions about, in regard to the effect of the evidence. Mr. Evarts— Very well. I agree. Mr. Beach— Very well, if you agree, let us drop the suh- ject. Mr. Evarts— I understood you to say so— to make an assertion about it. Mr. Beach— I did not say so until after Mr. Shearman had iaterjected his argument upon it. Judge NeD-Son— Proceed, Mr. Morris. By Mr. Morris— You say that at the time she fixes, yon were absent from the State ? Mr. Evarts— I object to that, if your Honor please. We have this gentleman's absences, which he has been allowed to fix, and he has fixed them, and he says he got home on the 24th of March. Now, whether that is an alibi that excludes his having been at Mrs. WoodhuU's from four to six weeks before the 1st of May, is a ques- tion that can be discussed on these facts. It does not need any other facts. He negatives the interview, and he has given the facts of his absences. The evidence of Mrs. Palmer is already in possession of the Court, and all the rest is matter of argument, not of testimony. Mr. Morris— WeU, it is sufficiently Mr. Beach— No, wait a moment ; the question is proper. Judge NeUson— You are entitled, by additional ques- tions, to get any further light you can get on that sub. ject. By Mr. Morris— Now, where were you at the time when Mrs. Palmer testifies that you had this interview tu the office, when the scandal was read?. TU81IM0NY OF Tf Mr. Evarts— That I object to. Prove where lie was at uny date that you please, and then we will compare his whereahouts, as he testifies to it, with Mrs. Palmer's tes- timony ; we are not to take this witness's estimate of Mrs. Palmers's testimony. TJiere is her testimony on the record. Judge Neilson— Still it is competent for any witness to state that, when it is alleged that a certain thing occurred in his presence, he was elsewhere. Mr. Evarts— That I have not objected to. That he has already stated. He has given us every day and every date. Judge Neilson— Well, as the witness can state where he was, he can also add whether or not he was at a certain place. Mr. Morris— He has not given every date when he was absent, Sir. He is unable to give every date. He can go beyond the dates that he has given. He recollects his absence from the city on occasions the dates of which are not given in the list of appointments that he has read. Now, it is competent for him to give his general recollec- tion. Mr. Evarts— I do not object to your proving any fact as to where he was, in addition to what you have already proved. Judge Neilson— Where he was or where he was not. Mr. Evarts— Exactly. Judge Neilson— One is as admissible as the other, Mr. Evarts— Exactly. But I want facts. Mr. Morris— That is what I am trying to give you. Mr. Evarts— I do not want him to testify where he was •'when Mrs. Palmer says he was somewhere else," when the question of what Mrs. Palmer really does say is a matter of estimate or argument. Your Honor has had your attention called to it, as the jury have. She says that a certain occurrence took place somewhere from four to six weeks before the 1st of May. Judge Neilson— Before the 15th of April. Mr. Evarts— Well, we say before the Ist of May. Judge Neilson— She corrected that, and fixed it as the time when she moved into her house. Mr. Evarts— I do not understand that she did. That is a matter to be debated hereafter. But, assuming that she did, the facts that this witness can introduce are where he was at any dates, not where he was during an ambulatory space of time, as mentioned in Mrs. Palmer's testimony. Mr. Morris — I \vill get at it. Judge Neilson— I tbink the witness can state the gen- eral fact, where he was. Mr. Evarts— He can state any fact as to where he was at any time. That I do not object to. Mr. Morris — That is what I am asking. Mr. Evarts— But not whether he was here at the time that Mi-8. Palmer says he was. That is not the proper 'JEJOnOBJE IILTOK, 487 way to examine a witness. You will compare IVIrs. Palm- er's testimony with his when you have got them both. Mr. Morris— Well ! Mr. Evarts— Now, the witness has been allowed to give with entire freedom, and with such information as he has gathered, his whereabouts ; I never have objected to that. But as for saying that he was here or there when Mrs. Palmer says that he was somewhere else, that is to be made out by argument, when we compare where he was on his testimony with where she says he was. Judge Neilson— I think, Mr. Morris, you can very prop- erly ask the witness whether on any day during that space of time before the Ist of May or before the 15th of April, he was at the oflfice and saw Mrs. Palmer. Mr. Morris— Well Mr. Evarts— He has negatived that f ac t entirely. Now let them show where he was Mr. Beach— I propose this question, Sir- f or we may as well end this debate and get at some practical result. [To the witness.] Mrs. Palmer testifies that from four to six weeks prior to the 15th of April, 1872, you was at the ofllce of Mrs. Woodhull, and the scandal was then exhib- ited or produced ; where was you at that time ? A. I was Mr. Evarts— That we deny. We deny that she says that. Judge Neilson— Well, that is to be considered hereafter. Mr. Evarts— Undoubtedly ; and that is where I am trying to put the whole matter— to limit the witness to the facts and then compare his view of the facts with Mrs. Palmer's view of the facts upon the evidence of each of them. Judge Neilson— I think he can answer this question, ]Mr. Evarts. Mr. Evarts— What is the question ? Mr. Beach— You have been talking about it ; you ought to know what it is. Judge Neilson— The stenographer will read the ques- tion. The Tribune stenographer read the last question as fol- . lows : Mrs. Palmer testifies that from foirr to six weeks prior to the 15th of April, 1872, you was at the oflace of Mrs. Woodhull, and the scandal was then exhibited or pro- duced ; where was you at that time ? Mr. Evarts — That I object to, as the question assumes that IVIrs. Palmer has said what she has not. Judge Neilson— It is subject to the question or doubt on that point. [To the witness.l You can answer the ques- tion. A. I was out West, Sir. Mr. Evarts— Your Honor will note our exception, Mrs. Palmer also stated that after the procession of the 17th of December, 1871, broke, you rode with Mrs. Wood- hull to her house, and got out of the carriage and went in. Is that true ? A. That is not true. Q. Were you in a carriage dvu^ing any portion of that procession? A. No, Sir. 488 IHE TILTON-Ba Q. Did you go after the procession broke up -wltli Mr. Swinton! A. I went a short distance witli Mr. Swinton out of the crowd, and parted company with him, I think, on the corner of Broadway and Fourteenth-st. Q. I believe you have already stated that you did not see them in the procession at any time ? A. I did not. Q. Either Mrs. "Woodhull or Miss Claflin ? A. No, Sir ; nor was I aware that they were in it until after the whole affair was over. Mr. Evarts — That is in the original examination. A HINT THAT DR. STOEES WILL BE CALLED. By Mr. Morris— Mr. Tilton, at the interview at Mr. Moulton's study on Sunday evening, when Mr. Wood- rufif and Mr. Tracy and Mr. Moulton and yourself were present, in the early part of November, did you have what has been called the " True Story " there ? A. No, Sir ; the " True Story " was not yet written. Q. Nor any part of it 1 A. No, Sir ; no part of it ; nor had the idea of it been conceived. Q. Will you state about when that was written, as near as you can recollect? A. It was written about the mid- dle of December, roughly, and completed from that time onward toward Christmas Day. Q. That is, you commenced about the middle of Decem- ber ? A. Yes, Sir ; just about the middle of December ; I do not give that answer trusting to my memory, but I have procured the dates. Mr. Evarts— Well, Sir, that is not proper. Mr. Beach— What is it ? Mr. Evarts— He has no right to state Mr. Beach— I insist that he has a right. Mr. Evarts— Not in answer to this question. He is asked for a fact and he has no right to give the sources of his information. Mr. Morris [to the witness]— Give the data. Judge Neilson [to the witness]— Go on, Sir. Mr. Evarts— I object. The Witness— May I answer. Sir ? Judge Neilson— Yes. The Witness— I have procured the dates from the diary of the Mr. Evarts— 1 object to that, his procuring dates. Judge Neilson — From a diary. The Witness— Mr. Evarts objects, and I understand your Honor to command me to proceed. Judge Neilson— Go on. The Witness— I have procured Mr. Evarts— I object. The witness can state a fact within his recollection, but he is not allowed to state his sources of information. Judge Neilson— Oh, yes, he can state, as any other wit- ness could, that it was on a certain day when a certain event occurred, as he linds in the diary. Mr. Evarts— He can, in answer to a proper question drawing out the fact ; but the witness, in answer to this EGHEB IBJAL. question, certainly has not a right to say what informa- tion he has picked up here and there. Judge Neilson— There is a good deal of license allowed in regard to the question of dates, because dates are the most difficult things to remember. Mr. Evarts— Well, Sir, but we are entitled to the rules of evidence, that it may not be made the recollection of somebody else other than the witness who is under oath. Judge Neilson [to the witness]— You cannot take the information from anybody else. The question of the counsel is, whether you have verified the dates by refer- ence to any entries of your own. Mr. Evarts -The witness is called upon for primary evi- dence now. He gives it. It is for me to reduce it by cross-examination if I see fit ; but it is not for the wit-- ness to corroborate his testimony by stating what othei persons say. Mr. Beach— Nobody has asked that. Mr. Evarts— Or what newspapers he has looked into. Mr. Beach— Nobody has asked any such thing. Judge Neilson— He might look at a diary if he kept one, precisely as he might look at a memorandum here if he had it. Mr. Evarts— If he kept Ms own diary then he would meet me if I undertook to reduce his testimony on cross- examination ; but where the witness speaks of a fact, that is his testimony, and when I undertake to reduce it he may corroborate it by reference to the sources of his information, but not before. Mr. Morris— I imderstand your Honor to say that tiie witness may answer the question. Judge Neilson— There is no substantial importance, I think, in the question. [To the witness.] What was it you say you referred to 1 The Witness— I referred to the diary of the Rev. Dr. Storrs, at whose Judge Neilson— That won't do. Mr. Evarts— Why not, your Honor t Judge Neilson— Because it is the diary of another party. Mr. Beach— How does your Honor know but we will produce Dr. Storrs to prove that the diary was accurate? Judge Neilson— Ah, in that point of view Mr. Beach— Yes, Sir. Mr. Evarts— It will be time enough to confirm this witr ness by Dr. Storrs, who will be under oath, when you bring him here. Judge Neilson— I think he can say now, in anticipation of that, that he saw or did not see Dr. Storrs's diary. Mr. Evarts— Do they say that they are going to bring Dr. Storrs here t Do they say that they are going to bring Dr. Storrs and his diary here 1 I have not heard that suggestion from anybody. Mr. Beach— The rule settled by the Court of Appeals, your Honor, is that a witness, with reference to a date or TESTULOST OF 2 to refresli liis recollection, may refer to a memorandum made by any person, if the memorandum itself refreshes Ms recollection. Judge I?eilson— Yes. Mr. Evarts— "Well, I would like to see a case that said that. Mr. Beach— Well, Sir, the case can he very easily pro- duced. Mr. Erarts— Well, I confess that if I can confirm my testimony hy seeing what a man on the other side of the water made a memorandum of, why it is news to me. I hare understood that the strictest regulation in intro- ducing a memorandum to enable a witness to aid his memory, was that it had been made by himself and made at the time. Judge Neilson— That is one quality of it. Mr. Evarts — When he has made the memorandum he can then recur to that act of his own; that is within his consciousness ; that refreshes his recollection ; but how under heaven a note of Dr. Storrs in his diary can refresh another man's memory I cannot understand. Judge Neilson— Neither do I see. Go on, Mr. Morris. The Witness— May it please your Honor, I am able to swear of my own knowledge that that could not have been earlier than the 15th of December. I went to Dr. Storrs to see how much later it might have been. That is all. Mr. Evarts— I object to that. I object before he verifies it. It is the introduction of evidence that the law does not allow. He says that he has not Judge Neilson— We take his recollection, and we stop at that point. jVIr. Evarts— Stop at that point— what he's able to recol- lect. I ask your Honor to strike out everything else after that. The Witness— I am able to say also positively that the completed "True Story" came to its completion on Christmas Day. Judge Neilson— Well. COOTEADICTIONS OF GEK TEACY. Q. Now, at that interview, after stating what you had said upon entering the room, Mr. Tracy says : Thereupon Mr. Tilton unfolded, as I remember, the writing of a manuscript which he brought with him into the room, and began to read a statement. The manu- script was in loose sheets, detached and much erased and underlined. Did anything of that kind occur at that interview ? The Witness— May I see that page, Mr. Morris ? I think you have read it incorrectly. Mr. Morris— [Handing the testimony to the witness.] It has been scratched out so much with ink there that I cannot understand one word correctly. It is at the top of the page. Tile Witness— Shall I read it i 'EODOEE TILIO^. 489 Mr. Morris— Yes ; it is scratched out so much there I cannot see the words. The Witness [reading]-'* Thereupon Mr. Tilton un- folded, as I remember, the covering of a manuscript which he brought with him into the room, aad began to read his statement." Q. Did anything of that kind occur at that interview ? A. It did not, Sir. Q. Did you hear at that interview the Letter of Contri- tion, as it is called, spoken of by Mr. Moulton as a mere memorandum of a conversation that he had with Mr, Beecher % Mr. Evarts — One moment, Mr. Tilton. [To Mr. Morris, j I would like to have you follow the language of Llr. Tracy, as you undertook to read it. Judge Neilson— Yes ; make your question as specific an you can, Mr. Morris. Mr. Morris— I think that is specific. Mr. Evarts— Mr. Tilton went into this interview fullj on his direct examination. Judge Neilson— Yes ; and he has a right now only t« correct certain specific statements. Mr. Morris— That is aU. Judge Neilson— That, I suppose, is the intent of the counsel. Mr. Morris— That is the object of the question. Judge Neilson— Whose examination have you got be- fore you, Mr. Morris 1 Mr. Morris— I have got the examination of Mr. Tracy. Mr. Evarts— I don't think you will find it in Mr. Tracy's examination. THE VAST VOLUME OF THE TESTIMONY I^IAKES CONFUSION. Mr. Morris— Oh, yes, I will find the specific language, and ask that question, and recur to it again. Q. Did Mr. Tracy at any time inform you or notify you that he could or would, under certain contingencies, be- come IVIr. Beecher's counsel, or feel himself at liberty to become his counsel ? Mr. Evarts— One moment, Mr. Tilton. Let us have Gen. Tracy's testimony. Q. Did IVIr. Moulton, in your presence, use this lan- guage, or its equivalent 1 The Witness— Are you speaking of Mr. Moulton ? Mr. Morris— Of IVIr. Moulton. In referring to the Letter of Contrition he says : It is a memorandum or notes of a conversation I had with Mr. Beecher. A. No, Sir ; I never heard the word " memorandimi" applied to it. Mr. Evarts— Wait a moment. That is the question I ob- jected to. There is not any statement that that was in the presence of Mr. Tilton. The Witness— Yes, Sir, there is ; I stated it. Judge Neilson— At the interview at Mr. i\ron]ton's house 490 IRE ULTOJS-JBEECHUE lElAL. Mr. Morris— Yes, Sir. Mr. Evarts— But there was an interview between Gen. Iracy and Mr. Moulton before Mr. Tilton was called in. Judge Neilson— Yes, lie came in. Mr. Morris— I am asking Mm if anything of that Mnd was said in his presence. Mr. Evarts— Mr. Tracy has not said so. Mr, Shearman— He did not say it. Judge Neilson— Although it may have occurred before he came in, I think it is competent for him to say whether he heard it or not. Mr. Evarts— Gen. Tracy is contradicted, if at all. That is the point of this evidence. Mr. Tracy has said that be- fore Mr. Tilton came in. Mr. Moulton said so and so. Judge Neilson— If he said it before Mr. Tracy came in, that is the end of it. Mr. Shearman— That is clearly eo. Mr. Morris— That is clearly not so. Mr. Beach— Here is a conversation between Mr. Tracy and Mr. Moulton as to the time this paper was exhibited, whether before or after Mr. Tilton came in. Two wit- nesses say there was no conversation and no paper ex- hi1)ited prior to the time Mr. Tilton came in. INIr. Tracy said otherwise. It is very proper for us to show that no such thing as Mr. Tracy swears was uttered. But, Sir, as my proposition in regard to the decision of the Court of Appeals upon the question of evidence was so stren- uously contradicted by my learned filends on the other side, I ask permission to refer to the cage of Marcly agt. Shults, 29th New- York, page 351 : It is competent to read an entry made by a v^itness of any fact material to the issue, if made at or near the time when the fact occmTed, and he can swear it was made correctly ; and he may say the entry made by him- self, or by any other person, was a copy of the entry, if on reading it he can testify that he then recollects that fact to which the entry relates. I am happy to give my friend some instruction as to the law. Mr. Evarts— Well, I shaU not be wiser for that teaching. Mr. Beach— I don't thiak you will. Judge Neilson— You seem to disagree about that. Mr. Evarts— I shaU not proceed on that law. Now, this is the point which we are now on. Gen. Tracy says : He (Moulton) handed me the paper. I began to read it. The first thing that attracted my attention was the char- acter of the handwriting, and I said to htm, " Moulton, is this Mr. Beecher's handwriting?" He said, "No." I Baid, " Whose is it ?" " It is mine." I went through it in that way, turning the leaves quickly. I said : " How do you write a letter to yourself ?" And at the time I went through it tha« way (illustrating) I said quick, " It is not signed." He said, " Yes it is ;" and just at that point my eye caui^ht this indorsement or memorandum at the foot of the sheet, not seeing ic as I looked at them first in that way. He said : " Yes, it is signed by Mr. Beecher," and I saw the form of the signature of Mr. Beecher. Q. What did he say % A. He said in that connection, " it is a memorandum or notes of a conversation I had wlMi Mr. Beecher." I then read the paper over, sentence by sentence, and studied it for some minutes. I don't know how long. He then showed me— the next paper was the retraction of Mrs. Tilton, And then the conversation went on for some time, and after that Mr. Tilton was brought ia. Mr. Beach— Mr. Evarts, may I say that both Mr. Moul- ton and Mr. Tracy swore Mr. Tilton came in before the apology or memorandum of January 1 was exhibited to Mr. Tracy ? Mr. Evarts— On what do you state that ? Mr. Beach— I state it upon the evidence, and up on my clear and positive recollection of it. Mr. Evarts [handing a book to vntnessl— Now, will yon look at that and see what Moulton says on that subject. The point would not make any difference- Mr. Beach— How do you know that ? Mr. Evarts— I have looked at the record, and am ad- vised of its phraseology. It would not make any differ- ence on this point of contradicting Mr. Tracy. Mr. Morris — Just preceding that, he says : " I have a faint impression that Mr. Tilton was there also, but of that I would not be certain. Mr. Evarts— What ? Mr. Morris— Well. Mr. Beach— Whose is that ? Mr. Morris— That is Mr. Tracy, just preceding this. Mr. Beach— Mr. Evarts says that is not in regard to thia interview. Mr. Morris— It is in regard to the interview. Mr. Evarts— Not in regard to this preliminary interview before Mr. Tilton came in. Mr. Morris— It is in regard to the interview, and pre- ceding the testimony I have read and based the im- pression upon. Mr. Evarts— The faint impression that he was in the house. Mr. Morris— No ; " I have a faint impression that Miv Tilton was there also, but of that I would not be cer- tain." Mr. Evarts— That is, in the house. Mr. Morris— He don't say so. Judge NeUson — It is very clear to me ; vou can ask the witness whether he heard a certain statement made, al- though the witness was not there all the time. It would only tend to show, if it was made at all, that it was made before he came in. Mr. Evarts— How do you contradict Gen. Tracy, who has sworn that when Mr. Moulton and he were alone, Mr. Moulton said so and so, by bringing Mr. Tilton to swear that he didn't say it when he, Tilton, was there i Mr. Beach— He would not do it if he was. Mr. Morris— By showing some one elso was present at the time that Mr. Tracy and this man of whom he speak* when he swears he and Moulton were alone. Mr. Evarts— You have not proved that. Mr. Beach— We have proved it. TESTniOXI OF THEODORE TILTOX. 491 Mr. Erarts— Hov 1 Mr. Beacli— I liave told you Xv^o or tliree times. Look, and you will find it. I am looking-. If I can find tliat evidence of Mr. Woodrufl' :Mr. Morris— T can turn to it in a moment. Mr. Evarts— Mr. Woodruff ! Mr. Beacli— Yes, and Mr. Moulton too. Mr. Evarts— Well, all tiiat would not contradict Gen. Tracy, because Gen. Tracy has not stated anytMng was said wlien Mr. Tilton was tliere. Your point is to contra- dict Gen. Tracy. ]\Ir. Beach— TTe conti-adict Mm, I submit, in tMs way : Mr. Tracy swore that a certain conversation, and certain incidents occurred between himself and Mr. ZMoulton when 3Ir. Tilton wa5 not present. There was but one conversation of that kind. It was at a known place, upon a given day, and we proved by two witnesses that upon that occasion, and at the occurrence of that conversation, Mr. TiHon was present, and we then propose to prove by Mm that no such thing occurred as that testified to by Mr. Tracy. Xow, we can contradict Mr. Tracy both as to the persons who were present at an interview and as to what occurred at the interview ; and when we show the persons present at that interview we are contTa,-ts— oil. no. Mr. Beach— Never mind that. The Witness— I know that in the night repeatedly, ia order to have the doors closed, I have taken my handker chief and wound it round the two knobs ; never with the MISS TURNER ABSENT DURING MR. GREELEY'S VI8IT. By Mr. Morris— Now, you say that Miss Turner was in Keyport at that time ; how do you know that 1 A. WeU, Sir, I know by consulting the family let- ters, as well as by my own recollection ; correspondence, I mean, which passed between Mrs. TUton and myself at that time. Q. And during the whole of Mr. Greeley's stay at your house at that time ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Just see if that is the letter which you wrote to your wife. A. Yes, Sir, this is a letter that I wrote to my wife Aug. 2, 1869. Q. And is that the day that Mr. Greeley left— I mean Miss Turner and Kate McDonald, or the day that either of them left ? A. The letter speaks for itself. Sir. Mr. Beach— Well, you can answer. By Mr. Morris— Just say whether that was written on the day of their departure for Keyport. The Witness— Do you hand me the letter of the 2d ? Mr. Fullerton— That is the one. The Witness— Yes, Sir ; shall I read the letter % Mr. Evarts— No ; the witness is allowed to look at this letter Mr. Morris— Was Mr. Greeley there when you wrote that letter— had he arrived yet ? A. No, Sir ; Mr. Greeley did not come to my house in August, 1869, until after Miss McDonald and Bessie Turner went to Keyport. Q. They were both gone ? A. They were both gone be- fore Mr. Greeley came, and Miss Turner was not in my house in '69 diuing Mr. Greeley's visit, and the circum- stance which she alleged to have occurred never did take place. Mr. Beach— You hold in your hand a letter written by you of Aitg. 2. Mr. Evarts— The last I ask to have struck out. The Witness— I do, Sir. Mr. Beach— Which confirms- refreshes your recollec- tion ? A. Yes, Sir ; there is the distinct statement. Mr. Beach— I offer the letter in evidence. Mr. Evarts— I object to its being offered iu evidence. Mr. Fullerton— You can't object to its being offered ; you may object to its being read. Judge Neilson— The witness has a right to refer to the letter to refresh his recollection ; that is sufficient. That answers the purpose of reading the letter. Mr. Evarts— He has a right to refer to it to refresh Ms I recollection. Mr. Morris — Did you write that letter to your wife t A. Yes, Sir. TBSTUIO^ Y OF THEOBOBE TILTOK. 501 Q. What is the date of it ? A. August 5, 1869. Q. Xow state wliat clay Miss Turner and Miss McDon- ald went to Keyport— wliat day of tlie week. Will you look at tlie letters for the purpose of refreshing your rec- ollection? A. Give me the other one; Miss Katie Mc- Donald and Bessie Turner were sent hy me to Keyport on Monday, August 2. 1869. Q. Now state how you are enabled to fix those dates 1 A. I am enabled to fix the date in this way, because this letter, dated New- York, August the 2d, 18C9, written by me in Brooklyn to my wife in Monticello, says : " Kate and Bessie go to Keyport to-day. I have charged them to send my father to join Mr. Greeley and myself." The previous part of the letter states that they were— that Mr. Greeley was to come that evening. I am further enabled to state the date by a letter written Aug. 5, 1869, to my wife, that being Thursday of the same week in which this statement is made. " On Monday I sent Kate and Bes- sie down to Keyport to stay. On Tuesday morning "— that is, the next day—" in response to my earnest re- quest. Grandpa Tilton "—that is, my father—" came up, and, after dining in New-York, went fishing at Gowanus. Although we caught no fish, we had a very delightful time, and it reminded me of the times before Ms head was white. We returned from our excursion in time for a late tea, after which Mr. Greeley came trundling in. I was very glad my father had such an opportunity to meet him. Our breakfast next morning was "—and so on. Q. Now, state what day Mr. Greeley arrived at your house 1 A. Mr. Greeley arrived on Tuesday night at my house ; Bessie Turner and Miss McDonald went away on Monday morning or Monday afternoon ; I wish to state distinctly that Bessie Turner was not in my house at any time, not for one moment, during Mr. Greeley's visit in 1869. Q. How long did Mr. Greeley remain there on that visit? A. Well, Sir, by reading these daily letters care- fully I can answer that question; but I am imable to do so unless— he stayed there a few days, coming and going. His \\sit was interrupted by an occasional call out of town to make a speech somewhere ; and during the time that he stayed at my house very many fi-iends came ; he received many guests. Q. When did he finally leave ? Can you state about -when? A. I should have to hunt through these letters— I should think that Q. Did he leave before Bessie Turner returned from Keyport? A. Yes, Sir ; three weeks before. Q. Three weeks before ? A. I won't make that state- ment positively ; but certainly as much as three weeks. Q. And was it before Mrs. Tilton had returned from Mon- ticello that she came ? A. Mrs. Tilton had returned from MonticeUo and been more than a week at home before Bessie returned fi-om Keyport. I think Bessie testified to that herself. During Bessie's absenc3 at Keyport she never came back to Brooklyn. Katie McDonald, who has been on the stand, returned to Brooklyn two or thre© times to look after the house in the interval. Q. Now, Mr. Tilton, I will ask The Witness [interrupting]- 1 desire — I ought to say, perhaps, that I should not be so positive in these state- ments were it not for these letters. I should not trust my own mere recollection, except as that recollection is refreshed by referring to these daily letters. Q. Do they enable you to speak positively ? A. Yes, Sir ; I wrote a letter every day, or almost every day, dur- ing Mrs. Tilton's absence at MonticeUo, and these letters I have brought into court if they are desired by anybody [holding up the package]. Q. That is sufficiently definite. Now, Miss Turner spoke of a couple of letters which she wrote, and which you have seen here in evidence ; she says that you dictated one of those letters ; is that true ? A. It is not true. Sir ; I had nothing to do with its composition ; I knew noth- ing about the writing of it until after it was done and handed to me ; I did not suggest it in any way; I had nothing more to do with it than any stranger. Mr. Evarts— What letter is that ? Mr. Morris— The short letter. The Witness— [In reply to a remark by Mr. Evarts about one of the letters already produced.] I think, Mr. Evarts, you have only part of that letter. It is qiiite a long one. Here are the other sheets of it [oflfering ther. ]. IMr. Beach— When they ask for them, you can give them. The Witness— Very well. Mr. Evarts— We would like to have them. Mr. Morris— You would like to have them ? Mr. Evarts— Yes. Mr. Beach— Whatever they call for, let us know, so that Mr. Evarts— That one that he refers to to refresh his recollection. OLIVER JOHNSON CONTEADICTED. By Mr. Moms— I call your attention to a statement made by Oliver Johnson upon the stand, that you told him a circumstance on one occasion, of having been in bed with a woman and remaining virtuous. Did you ever tell Oliver Johnson anything in substance to that efi'eet ? A. Well, Sir, I deny the bed and admit the innocence. Q. My question is, did you ever say to him anything of that kind? A. Nothing of the sort, Sir; I don't know what Mr. Johnson alludes to. ME. BEECHER SITS ON MR. TILTON'S KNTiE. Q. Do you recollect an Interview at your house that you had with Mr. Beecher— he places it about May 20, '71, 1 think— when he sat upon your knee ; was o02 THE TILIOI^-Bi tl2?re any sucli interview, or any sucli circumstance, or did anytliiug of tliat kind occur at that time or at tliat interview ? A. T heard Mr. Beecher give that descrip- tion, and the interview, though not correctly described, rose vividly in my mind as having occurred about ten years ago. I re- member a scene of that sort, except the kissing all round— I don't remember that circumstance— but about ten years ago there did occur a little incident of that sort, growing out of a pleasant little discussion that we had over the construction of a sentence in a little book that I had then published called " Golden Haired Gertrude.'* Q, But, did any incident of that Mnd occur In May, 1871 ? A. No, Sir ; nor at any time after the troubles came upon our house. Q. I call yaur attention, Mr. Tilton, to this statement by Mr. Beecher. In speaking of the interview of Dec. 30, he says: I don't reccMect that I talked ; but he drew from his pocket a strip of paper about that— [producing a paper about live inches by one and a half]— like that, and read to me what purported to be the statement of his wife to him that Mr. Beecher had solicited her to become his wife to all the intents which were signified by that term, or substantially that. Did you read or make any such statement as that to Mr. Beecher ? A. No, Sir ; I read quite a different state- ment from that. Q. What was it? Mr. Beach [to Mr. Morris]— That you have got on the direct. [To the Court.] I suppose. Sir, where a witness is called, as Mr. TUton is recalled upon this occasion, your Honor has intimated that we are not at liberty to prove what has been already established by the previous examination. Mr. Evarts— Of course ! NOTHING SAID AT THE AEBITRATION ABOUT BUENING PAPERS. By Mr. IVIorris— At the time of the arbitra- tion did you hear anythiug said by either of the arbitra- tors about " burning the papers A. I did not. Sir. Q. Was anything said by either of them to your knowl- edge % A. It was not, Sir. The only recollection I have of such a phrase was in a letter by Mr. Wilkeson, asking for the burning of the " Letter of Contrition." Mr. Evarts— That last we move to strike out. It has nothing to do with the question. Judge Neilson— Yes. By Mr. Morris— Was anything said before the arbitra- tors in your presence concerning your difficulties with Mr. Beecher, or concerning this scandal, or anything about the Letter of Contrition, or the papers connected with it? A. I do not recall a solitary word referring to that subject however remotely. Q. Was anything said before the arbitrators in your ^JE(JEEE TRIAL. hearing except with reference to your money differences with Mr. Bowen % A. Nothing at all. Q. That was the sole subject of conversation sc tar as you understood ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Was anything, by you and Mr. Beecher, submitted to those arbitrators to be determined ? A. No, Sir ; not with my knowledge; I never supposed that Mr. Beecher had anything to do with the arbitration. Q. Was anything between you and him— anythins' of whatever nature between you and Mr. Beecher— sub- mitted for their determination ? A. Nothing at all. Sir. Q. Or submitted to the authorities in any way \ A. No, Sir. The arbitration was confined to its own terms. The arbitrators were to arbitrate between Mr. Boweu and me. Q. According to the submission that had been made % A. Yes, Sir. Mr. Evarts— The witness has stated generally what took place on his direct interrogation. THE DATING OF THE COVENANi . By IVIr. Morris— The *' Tripartite Agree- ment " appears to be dated April 2, and the arbitration was on the 3d ? Mr. Evarts— That was aU gone into before. Mr. Morris— By Mr. Tilton ? Mr. Evarts— Yes, the whole history of that. Mr. Beach— No, no. The question is as to the date. Mr. Evarts— That was gone into. Mr. Beach— No, it was not gone into. Mr. Evarts— Yes, the whole of it. By Mr. Morris— Can you account for the fact that the covenant is dated April 2, when it was not executed untU after the arbitration ? A. Yes, Sir. Mr. Evarts— That, you know, assumes a good deal. By Mr. Morris— Well, how do you account for its being dated April 2? Mr. Evarts— It is dated AprU 2. The history of the ai- bitration and of the " Tripartite Agreement" have al ready been given by this witness as well as by others. Judge Neilson— Except on the point of date, Mr. Evarts— Well, on the point of date. Mr. Beach- No, Sir. Mr. Evarts— The date of it was in eyidenee. Judge Neilson— The mere date ; but the relative dates of the arbitration and the covenant— I don't think atten- tion was called to that. Mr. Beach— This is the question 1*iat we propose Mr. Evarts— How is it competent evidence 1 Mr. Beach— Please hear our question, and then make youi- comments. This is the question : You have said that the " Tripartite Covenant" was not executed until after the arbitration of April 3 ; how do you account for its bearing date on April 2 % That is the question. Mr. Evarts— That we object to. I don't, care whether he can account foif it or not, Mr. Beach— Well, I ilo^ IM811M0NY OF THEODOBE TILTON, SOB Mr. Evarts— Well, it is not a proper subject of evidence. Mr. Beach— That is tlie question. Mr. Evarts— It does not necessarily require a very great accounting, that a paper should not he executed until the day after its date. You would not expect it to he exe- cuted before its date. But the Tvhole matter, so far as It is competent evidence, dealing in facts, has hecn already produced. Mr, Wilkeson, who drevr it, has told you how- he drew it, and when he drew it, and the date was a part of the draft. Then the history of it, in respect of the emendations, the reengrossing of it, and its heiag a re- production of the original, except as to the modifica- tions, is all in evidence. Judge Keilson— Yes. Mr. Evarts— And the whole matter of the delay to sign ie in evidence 1 Mr. Beach— T^'e admit all that, Sir. Mr. Evarts— i hat has all been gone into. Mr. Beach— We admit all that. Mr. Evarts— Now, to ask the witness how he accounts for it is not producing evidence. My learned friend can account for it, or anybody else can. The facts have all been given. Judge Neilson — Well, the fact of the date, or the fact that it was dated back, or the fact that the draft having been dated, the document remained of that date, no one has spoken to. Mr. Evarts— That is already produced in evidence, and now the witness is asked to argue. Judge Neilson— That may be; but nobody has spoken as to that circumstance, of its being dated earlier than its execution. Mr. Evarts— The whole thing has been told in all its facts, and now the witness is asked to reason on these facts. Judge Neilson— He should not reason. Mr. Evarts— Well, that is all that he is asked to do. Mr. Beach— That shows. Sir, the unwarranted assump- tion of the counsel. How does he know that all has been told on the subject 1 How does he know but this witness can swear that it was antedated at the time of the execution ? I do not know what he will swear upon that subject ; nor does the learned counsel. Now, if he shall give only the explanation that the date of the executed " Tripartite Covenant " followed the antedated date of the draft, why then he gives nothing new ; but we call for any information he may have upon that subject. I do not know wli ether my colleague has talked with him or not. I have not. I don't know whether he has got any information on the subject. Mr. Evarts— That I obiect to. The whole matter, so far as evidence is concerned, has been exhausted by this witness in his narrative. We have, then, given the nar- ratives of Mr. Wilkeson and of the arbitrators to Bome extent, and Mr. Bowen has been examined on their part, and the facts are all in. Now, il this is intended to introduce any new facts concerning that interview, con- cermng that transaction, why, it is not competent, be- cause it is not rebutting ; and if it is introducing reason- ing it is not competent, because reasoning is never ad- missible. Mr. Beach— It is not reaffir min g evidence. Sir. This is the first suggestion that has been made on that point, or I should not venture to speak to your Honor again. It is not afiirmative evidence, or what should have been given on the opentag. They proved upon their defense that the " Tripartite Covenant" was united with the arbitration, was a part of the arbitration. We denied that upon our cross-examination. We now, upon our reexamination, propose to an- swer the theory which they presented in their affirmative defense, that these two proceedings, the arbi- tration and the covenant, were united ; and to do that, it turns out that we must explain the fact that the " Tri- partite Covenant " bore date on April 2, whereas we say, and have said, it was not executed until April 4th or 5th, if you please, or any other subsequent date. Now, this is a part of the explanatory evidence we seek to give la answer to the affirmative defense which they have pro- duced. Judge Neilson— I think this witness may account, if he can, in respect to tiie date ; may state whether it was dated back or executed days after its date. I see no ob- jection to that. Mr. Evarts— I object to the question, if your Honor please, that as matter of evidence it is not in rebuttal,, and as matter of reasoning it is not admissible at all. Your Honor will please note our exception. Judge Neilson— It is in answer to some matter you. have proved. Mr. Morris— Go on and answer, Mr. Tilton. The Witness— The first draft of the Covenant was made by Mr. Wilkeson, and it was made bearing date April 2» That draft was torn to pieces by Mr. Bowen and by me, and Mr. Wilkeson afterward made a new draft, incor- porating into it ]Mr. Bowen's alterations and mine, and when the new draft came to be en- grossed in the form in which it now appears, Mr. Wilkeson copied accurately what he saw on the papers, the original date included; and the paper as thus copied was not signed by the three parties— what you technically call executed, I believe— for several days afterward— I rather think a week, possibly, or ten days. Judge Neilson— But it was executed finally, without the date being changed. The Witness— Executed without any change of date. Mr. Morris— You speak of its being " torn to pieces,** you mean by the alterations that you made I A. Figura- tively speaking. Sir. 504 THE TlLrON-BEECEEE lElAL. MR, WTLKESON'S TESTIMONY DISPUTED. Q. 1 call yom^ attention to an interview to •wLicli Mr. Wilkeson testified, in m vbicli lie spoke of your going to his house on April 2, and in an angry tone stating that Mr. Beeoher had been taken care of, and Mr. Bowen had been taken care of, but that your money had not been paid, and tlie suit would haA^e to go on ? Mr, Evarts— Won't you refer us to the page 1 Mr. Morris— This is the testimony. It was 11 o'clock in the forenoon of April 3, and he came into my office. He was angry. He said: "I want a copy of my portion of the 'Tripartite Agreement'.' I am not going to sign it. It has got to be altered before I sign it." I asked him what happened. Well, he said, enough had happened to Induce him to come to that determination, that he should not execute it. I asked him what happened to change liis pur- pose. He said Mr. Bowen had been well taken care of by Mr. Claflin in this affair, and that Mr. Beecher had been well taken care of by me in this affair, but no one had taken care of him, and he was to be left out in the cold and his money unpaid, and he said, " I won't sign that agreement." He said, " Let me have my portion of it to alter." I took the agreement out of my sate and I made a copy of his portion of it and handed it to him. He sat down at a table in my room and com- menced to scratch it and alter it. I remonstrated with him for going back on his agreement. I said he ought not to change the arrangement that had been made ; that he ought to adhere to it like a man. He said that he would never sign that agreement nor never sign any other agreement that prohibited him from pursuing Henry Ward Beecher ; and he kept at his work of scratch- ing and erasing the manuscript copy that I gave him of his share of the *' Tripui tite Agreement," but without concluding it, he grabbed the work up in his hand, put it in his pocket, and stalked out of the room and went away. Now, did any interview as related there by Mr. Wilke- son take place between you and him on that occasion ? Mr. Evarts— Was not an interview of this kind stated by Mr. Tilton— that is, an interview on that occasion? The interview on this day was gone into by Mr. Tilton, and Mr. Wilkeson gives a narrative — Judge Neilson— Anything new that Mr. Wilkeson riitro- duced may be contradicted, Mr. Evarts— Any specific contradiction of anything new. Judge Neilson— Yes ; that they can introduce. Mr. Evarts— Any specific contradiction of what the witness said. Judge Neilson— Yes ; I suppose that is all they want. The Witness— Well, Sir, it would be difficult for me to Mr. Morris — I had better ask this specific question Mr. FuUerton— Oh, no. Your Honor will recollect this interview was asked by the other side, what took place with Mr. Tilton, not for the purpose of contradicting him as a witness alone, but for the purpose of fixing certain facts against him as a party as well as a witness. Now, we are not obliged, therefore, in reexamining Mr. Tilton, to put in the language of the witness who gave the evi- dence, Mr. WUkeson, to know whether it is true or false, to know whether he contradicts it, because it is to be used for other pui-poses than that of contradiction. He is a party to the case. Judge Neilson— My view is this : That Mr. Tilton, hav- ing on his examination stated the substance of this tater- view, as he then remembered it, and Mi. Wilkeson after- ward having done the same thing according to his mem- ory, the appropriate course now would be to have Mr. Tilton correct or contradict any new statement whic Mr. Wilkeson brought in. Mr. Fullerton— Yes, they asked Mr. Tilton when he was on the stand upon cross-examination whether souit things were not done, and some things said, at the inter- view between himself and Mx. Wilkeson, and he answered as the fact was, either yes or no. Now, your Honor will perceive, therefore, that he was limited in his answer in that way. Judge Neilson — Yes. Mr. Fullerton— He was not at liberty to tell what did take place ; but they put Mr. Wilkeson on the stand and asked him to narrate what took place on that occasion. Having done that, and Mr. Tilton being a party as well as a witness, we have a right to ask him what took place and have him to state the interview at length. Judge Neilson— Although it repeats parts of his former examination. Mr. Fullerton— Certainly. Mr. Evarts— The re-direct is the place to bring that up. if you wish to. The interview forms the subject of testi- mony on the original inquiry ; that is plain enough, and to say whatever you wish to say about it. Judge Neilson— We are here now to correct any new matters, so I think you will have to interrogate him as to any specific statement Mr. Wilkeson made changing its character. It comes to the same thing. Mr. Fullerton— It comes to the same thing so far as the testimony is concerned, but it does not come to the same thing as far as the consumption of time is involved. Mr. Evarts— Yes. Mr. Fullerton— Oh, no ; it is much longer. Mr. Evarts— We are getting on very well. Mr. Fullerton— I am taking a note of how you get along now. Mr. Morris— Now, I will ask you, Mr. Tilton, in the first place Mr. Evarts— What page t ]\Ir. Morris— Page 302— whether yon were at Mr. Wil- keson's office on the 3d of April 1 A. Mr. Wilkeson has changed, as you remember, the date of his letter, wliich bore date April 2 ; he changed the date to April 3, in his testimony. T have no means at hand of sajdng out of my | mere recollection whether I was there April 3, or any other specific date. My recollection is not of the dates, i| but what took place. ' TJESimONT OF THEOVOBE TILTOZ. 505 Q. You recollect the circiimstance ? A. I recollect the circumstance of an interview with Mr. Wilkeson. Q. Now, I will ask you, in the lirst place, whether you were anffryl A. Well, I don't know; I think, perhaps, I was, being solicited to sign the first draft of that cove- nant. I don't recollect heing angry, but I -vv ould not like to deny it. It is very hard to he angry at Sam "Wilkeson, for every one likes Mm so welL I was not angry with : Mm. Q. You say: I want a copy of my portion of the Tripartite Agree- ment ; I am not going to sign it ; it has got to be altered before I sign it. That, you think, is correct ? A. I know that, in sub- stance, is correct. Q. He says he asked you what happened, and you re- plied : Well, he said enough had happened to induce him to come to that determination, that he should not execiite It. I asked him what had happened to change his pur- pose. He said Mr. Bowen had been well taken care of by Mr. Claflm in this affair, and that Mr. Beecher had j been well taken care of by me in this affair, but no one had taken care of him, and he was to be left out in the cold, and his money unpaid. Did you say anything in substance to that effect ? A No, Sir ; that is an entirely incorrect statement ; there had been no difficulty as to the payment of money ; the money had been paid on the spot ; I made no complaint to Mr. Wilkeson. Q. The money had been paid prior to this interview at his office ? A. I won't be positive about that, because there has been some rearrangement of dates by this examination. The money was paid on the night of the arbitration, within the first half hoirr. Q. There was no difficulty at the time you had this in- terview with Mr. Wilkeson at his office about the pay- ment of the money ? A. No, Sir, there was no question of money. Q. Nor about the arbitration? A. Nothing at all. Q. Or about the proceedings of the arbitration ? A. Not in the slightest degree. The complaint I made to Mr. Wilkeson was that I would not sign the paper when Mr. Evarts — One moment ; the question was whether you said that to Mr. Wilkeson, and if you answered that, I suppose that is the end of it. The Witness— I wish to admit part and deny part. Judge Neilson— That you have a right to do. Mr. Evarts— That he has a right to do. He has a right to say he said so much, and to deny he said so much. The Witness— I told Mr. Wilkeson very distinctly I . would not sign that agreement, but I did not tell him j that it was because of trouble concerning the money, be- ' cause there had not been trouble about that. Mr. Evarts— I ask to strike out the latter part of that answer " because there had not been trouble about that." Judge Neilson— I think we will hold that. It goes R» the point. Mr. Evarts— What he sars he did n't say to Mr. Wilke- son is good evidence ; but his reasons for it, because it was not so, is not good evidence. He does not say he said to Mr. Wilkeson this reason. The witness, besides saying " I did n't say so to Mr. Wilkeson," says, "for it was not true." Judge Neilson— If there was no trouble about the money ; Mr. Wilkeson gave him to understand there was trouble about the money. Mr. Evarts— I ask to have that struck out. Judge Neilson— Let it stand. Mr. Evarts— For there was no trouble about the money. Judge Neilson— I learn from 3Ir. Wilkeson there was trouble in some sense about the money, therefore I think it is proper to retain the statement, so as to show there was no trouble about the money. Mr. Evarts— Your Honor und^stands you have limited this witness to saying whether he did or did not say cer- tain things to IVIr. Wilkeson. Judge Neilson— That is the primary object. Ml'. Evarts— He says he did say some part ot it, and the other part he did not say, and he follows the last state- ment by saying, " For there was no trouble about the money "—that is, his money. Judge Neilson— It is argument by the use of the word " for." If that is left out, we have the simple, naked fact. Mr. Evarts— It is a fact which has nothing to do with the question. Judge Neilson— We will let it stand. Mr. Evarts— Your Honor will be so good as to note my exception. Judge Neilson— Interrogate him specifically, Mr. Morris. Mr. Morris— Yes, Sir. TTo the witness.! I will call your attention to this statement : Q. Now, did anything occur at that time in the pres- ence of Mr. Tilton and Mr. Moulton with reference to this " Tripartite Agreement "—this paper— anything further that you now recall ? A. I do not I'ecoiieet that anything did, except that I made the point that all the papers in the possession of either Mr. Moulton or Mr. Tilton should be destroyed; I again pressed that they should be destroyed. Did you have any interview of that kind, you and Mr. Moulton and Mr. Wilkeson, when he insisted on the destruction of all the papers? A. No, Sir; the only suggestion Mr. Wilkeson ever communicated to me was by letter. Mr. Evarts — No matter about any new evidence. It is only whether you said this. Judge Neilson— Leave out aU he said about the letter. Mr. Morris— Did Mr. Wilkeson, personally to you, or at any time in your presence, make any such request or suggestion, or insist that the papers should be destroyed? 506 THE TILIOI^-BEEOREB TBIAL. A. I have searclied my memory ever since Mr. Wilke- eon's statement, and there is no trace In it of any such conversation, nor indeed of any conversation about any euch papers. Q. Mr. Wilkeson speaks of an interview he had with you at the Ebhitt House, Washington, in 1864 or 1865 ; he says : I was in the dining-room of the Ehbitt House, and he came to my chair, occupied a seat next to my own. After dinner, talked with me— after his own dinner— talked with me while I was eating mine. I think that he took out of his pocket and gave me a photograph of his chil- dren, with their mother. He asked me if I knew his wife. I told him I had never seen her. He told me that I would be disappointed in her, that she was a small woman, with- out presence, without port — ^not a woman of society, not a woman of culture. A. I had an interview with Mr. Wilkeson in the Ebbitt House, perhaps in that year ; and, if I should state it ex- actly as it occurred, it would be a personal injury to that gentleman. I wiU state it if asked to do so ; but it oc- curred after dinner Judge Neilson— The question is whether you said that about your wife. The Witness— No, Sir; I did not. By Mr. Beach— Did you show him a photograph of your wife? A. No, Sir; I showed him a photograph of two of my children, one of whom he mistook for my wife, and he made it the opportunity to make some in- coherent Q. Which of your daughters % A. It was my daughter Florence, and Alice and he apostrophised the card of Florence, supposing it to be a card of my wife, over a glass of wine. Judge Neilson— That is not the question. By Mr. Beach— Did you say anything such as he represents to you in regard to the qualities of your wife ? A. I did not, nor to any other human being. Mr. Evarts— That last I ask to have struck out. Judge Neilson—" I did not," is the answer. M**. Morris— Now, I call your attention to this para- graph, Mr. Tilton. He is asked for a conversation that he had with you, and he says : Oh, no; he didn't say it in that way. He said to us— his words precisely— he said that there was not a particle of truth in any of the statements that had been made about Mr. Beecher's adulterous connection with his wife —not a particle of truth in them ; that the utmost that Mr. Beecher had done was to address improper language to Mrs. Tilton, and that for that an ample and written apology was in his keeping. Those were his precise T^ords. Q. Did you have such an interview as that— Mr. Wilke- son ? A. No, Sir ; Mr, Wilkeson and I had no conversa- tion on the question of the criminality of these two p^irties, and he never asked me a question whether Mrs. Tilton had been guilty of adultery ; there have not been half a dozen men who ever asked me that question. Mr. Evarts — I move to have the last part of the answ< struck out. It is only what Mr. Wilkeson said. Judge Neilson— Yes. CROSS-EXAMINATION OF ME. TILTON WAIVED. Mr. Morris— That is all. Mr. Evarts— I have nothing to ask. Mr. Beach [to Judge Neilson]— Shall we put anotli« witness on the stand now, Sir % Judge Neilson— I think you had better, to identify him Mr. Beach— Well, we can identify him by announeingj is Mr. MovdtOTi, but he is not here. Judge Neilson [to the jurors]— Gentlemen, get ready t retire. Please attend to-morrow at 11 o'clock. The Court then adjourned until Wednesday at 11 o'cloci EIGHTY-FOURTH DAY'S PROCEEDIN CLOSE OF THE REBUTTAL TESTIMONY. MRS. WOODHCTLL SUMMONED TO PEODUCB LE^ IN HER POSSESSION— SHE DESIRES INSTRUCTION! PROM THE COURT, AND MAKES A LITTLE SPEECI IN REGARD TO THE LETTERS— COUNSEL FOR THl DEFENSE DESIROUS TO QUESTION MR. TILTOI FROM THESE LETTERS— THEY ARE GIVEN INK THEIR HANDS— FRANCIS D. MOULTON GIVEf BRIEF REBUTTAL EVIDENCE— BEGINNING OF THI SI] R-REBWTTAL— JAMES FREELAND CONTRADICli MR. BOWEN, AND MRS. OVINGTON DiCNIES STATE MENTS MADE BY MR. MARTIN. Wednesday, May 12, 1875. The court had just been called to order to-day, anii the plaintiff's counsel were on the point of caU ing Mr. Moulton to the witness chair, when Mr Evarts interrupted them, sayiug that he was expect- ing some papers in regard to which he might wish te question Mr. Tilton, and that he preferred not to have another witness put upon the stand until they came, About 25 minutes before 12 o'clock, Mr. Sheannai entered the court-room by the door leading from Chambers. Closely following him was a lady who wasimmediatelyrecognizedby many asMrs. Victoria C. Woodhull. Mr. Shearman stated that Mrs. Woodhull possessed letters which she declined to produce without re- ceiving instructions from the Court. Judge Neilson declined to give anj^ instructions, and, after consid- erable discussion, principally between Mr. Fullerton and Mr. Evarts, Mr. Shearman said : " Mrs. Wood- hull, we call upon you for these letters of Mr. Tilton." Mrs. Woodhull arose and cainC| forward quietly, and stood in the midst 01 MBS. WOODRULL'S LETTEBS OBTAiyED. 507 le group of laTTver's cLairs. ^Ir. Evarts and J.-. Sheannaii couTt-r-sed with, licr in low tones for ;veral minutes. Mrs. Woodhuirs gestures showed lat she was speaMng very earnestly, and the result f the conference was awaited amid dead silence in le court-room. The counsel for the plaintiff ap- .gared to regard these proceedings with suspicion, 'ad Mr. Fullerton asked Judge Neilson to inform js. Woodhull that she was not called upon ^^J the oiirt to produce the papers. Presently Mr. Shear- lan said that Ivlrs. Woodhull desired to say some- liiig to the Court. ^kJrs. Woodhull then turned, and bowing to Judge eilson, she spoke in a low voice, saying in sub- -.ance that the letters which she held were entirely .-editable both to herself and to the gentleman who rote them, and that she had no disposition to keep lem from any court of justice. During her impris- tunent for publishing the scandal, she said, er office had been ransacked and her pri- ate letters taken away. In her opinion some [ them were in the hands both of the counsel for the laintiff" and for the defendant. With this esplana- ou she was perfectly willing to give the letters, iidge NeiLson bowed, and when she had finished, dd, " Well f ;Mrs. Woodhull then took out her pocket-book, •cm which she produced several letters, which she ■iiided to ]\Ir. Shearman. ]^Ir. Evarts put on is spectacles, and taking the letters from his mior coimsel, carefully inspected them. Then t\iey ere handed all around among counsel for both sides, ft er a short' conference with his colleagues Mr. Evarts lid that he would not require Mr. Tilton to take le stand at that moment. The plaintiff's counsel ejected to having the matter deferred, and Judge eilson finally said that if the defendant's counsel lereaf ter recalled Mr. TUton they must have Mrs. "oodhull in attendance. J^Irs. Woodhull remained in rort only a few minutes after delivering the letters. Francis D. Mouiton was the last important wit- ?ss, as he was the first, produced for the plaintiff, e sat stroking his mustache wMLe Mr. Morris okedup the matter for questions from a scrap- >ok. Mr. Moulton's first answer was start- tigly short and emphatic. He had been ^ked if he had used certain language scribed to him by Mr. Beecher. Taking his hand om his mustache, Mr. Mouiton brought it down 'licklyupon his knee and ejaculated "No." The ^cisiveness of this negation drew every eye upon le witness. Mr. Morria read from Mr. Beecher's testimony various other passages, which the witness promptlj', and in nearly every ca^a unqualifiedly, contradicted ta the same laconic manner. He also contradicted some of the statements of Gen. Tracy. The examination of Mr. Mouiton wa5 brief, and jVIr. Evarts, who had held Mr. Morris very closelj^ to the specific matter in the testimony of the defendant's witnesses which it was desired to contradict, declined to cross-examine him. THE PLAi:XTIFF RESTS Am THE SUE-EE- BUTT AL BEGES'S. Only two witnesses, besides Mr. Mouiton, were called by the plaintiff's counsel to-day before they rested their case. John N. Longhi, who is em- ployed at Delmonico's restaiu'ant in Broad-st., gave some minor evidence about the distance be- tween the entrances to Delmonico's and Schedler's restaurants in Broad-st. Stephen Pearl Andrews was the second witness. In connection with the recalling of Mr. Andrews, Mr. Fullerton introduced a piece of new evidence in the shape of a lease of two offices in the building at Xo. 48 Broad-st. to James H. Blood, the husband of Mrs. Woodhull. The lease was dated May 23, 1872, and Mr. Andrews testified that ]Mr. Blood and Mrs. Woodhull did not occupy the premises until some time in the latter part of May. ;Mr. Beach announced that the plaintiff had intend- ed to recall IVIrs. Mouiton, but as she was sick she would not be called. He had been assured by her that she would deny, if summoned to the stand, the statement of Mr. Beecher that she had said to him, "Mr. Beecher, I don't believe the stories they are telling about you; I believe you are a good man," or anything equi-^ alent to that. ^^Ir. Beach further stated that the counsel for the de- fendant had agreed to accept his assurance of what Mrs. Mouiton would say, and were willing to take it as if a denial of that character had been sworn to by ]\Irs. Mouiton. As soon as Mr. Beach had uttered the words " We rest," after dismissing ]Mr. Andrews from the stand, ]Vlr. Evarts began the sur-rebuttal by recalling James Fre eland. ]Mi". Freeland denied that on Dec. 26, 1870, ]SIr. Bowen and ]Mr. Beecher had had an interview at his house. These gentlemen, he said, had been at his house together in January, 1870, but not at any other time. Mr. free- land said that Mr. Bowen must have been mis- taken about the interview. Mr. Fullerton moved to strike out that remark of the witness. " Oh, it was only a charitable remark." said Mr. 508 IHJ^ TILTON-BEECEEB TEIAL. Shearman. " WeD. ^^'r? not tlie subject of chaxity," retorted Mr. Fuii<^rt^a« Mr. Freeland w*s cross-examined "by Mr. Fuller- ton, and prove*^. to be somewhat unmanageable. Mr. Fullej'tqn desired him to give more specilic answers. ** I will deal with you kindly," said Mr. FuUerton. " Yes, j^es," replied the witness, "I know bow you are going to deal witb me." Mrs. E. J. Ovington was recalled for the defendant to rebut the testimony of Mr. Martin regarding the intervie»v at her house between Gen. Tracy and Miss Bessie Turner. She declared that at 2:30 p. m. on that day, when Mr. Martin said that he saw Gen. Tracy and Miss Turner in the back parlor, Gen. Tracy was not there at all, and Mr. Martin had not arrived. The witness said in a decisive tone, as the statements of Mr. Martin were read to her one by one, " It is false." Once after usingthat expression she remarked to Mr. Fullerton, who sat facing her, " It is false, Mr. Fullerton." " Well," replied the lawyer sharply, " repeat it again, Mrs. Ovington, if you think it becomes a lady. Yon need'nt address me in that manner." The Eev. Edward Eggleston was recalled for the defense just at the close of the afternoon session, but he did not take the stand before the court adjourned. THE PKOCEEDINGS— VEEBATIM. MRS. WOODHULL APPEAES WITH SOME LETTEES. The Court met at 11 a. m., pursuant to ad- journment. Shortly after the opening of court, Mr. Evarts addressed the Judge as follows : If your Honor please, I am expecting some papers in court in regard to which I may have to ask Mr. Tilton a question or two. Judge Neilson— Yes ; you may do so when they arrive. Mr. Evarts— We would prefer not to have another wit- ness put on the stand, as I expect to bring them into court in a moment. After the lapse of several minutes, Mrs. Victoria C. WoodhuU appeared in court. Mr. Shearman— If yotir Honor please, we have sub- penaed Mrs. Victoria C. Woodhull to produce certain let- ters for the purpose of cross-examination of the plaintiff In this case. Mrs. WoodhuU is in attendance, but declines to produce any letters without boing instructed by the Court that it is her duty to do so. Mr. Fullerton— Well, the Court will not so instruet her, as a matter of course, because it is not her duty to pro- duce them. Judge Neilson— No; you may recall Mr. Tilton after^ ward, if you wish. Mr. Evarts— Well, we understand, if your Honor please, that it is the right of the party under the process of svb- poena duces tecum to bring letters into court, and that it is no part of that process that the witness having pos- session of the letters should be sworn as a witness. Judge Neilson— No ; you can have the letters without ; but yet I do not feel like giving any direction to her. Mr. Evarts— And that the right of the party is that a witness, as may be supposed in many cases, having no other interest or feeling in the matter except that it should not be a voluntary production of the papers, should have the direction of the Court to produce them. Now, our subpena is, as I understand, to produce certain letters. Our subpena— [to Mr. Shearman]— have you the subpena? Judge Neilson— The party who has subpenaed a witness duces tecunif ought to get the papers or the witness bring them into court, whether the witness is sworn or not. But, under all the circumstances, I do not feel like giv that direction. Mr. Fullerton— I don't think that is the rule, if y oar Honor please. Judge Neilson— What 1 Mr. Fullerton— I think that is not the rule, with all due respect. Judge NeUson— A rule that we have applied ia this court very frequently. Mr. Fullerton— Well, Sir, I have never seen it applied myself. I think the practice generally has been, and so ! far as my experience goes, universally, to put the witness upon the stand and have the papers producsd under oath ; and I think that is the only way that your Honor gets the power to compel the production of the papers. Judge Neilson— The witness is not compelled to pro- duce the papers. Mr. Fullerton— No, Sir ; if they want the papers they must produce the witness and put her on the stand and have her sworn, and have them produced under oath. Judge NeUson— Well, I could not give any direction to the witness about it at present. Mr. Evarts— Well, we understand the law, if your Honor please, to be as your Honor has stated it, th^it it is not necessary that any other process than the suhpcena duces tecum should be applied for, and the possession of papers does not make a person a witness in the cause. Then the question is whether the subpena is a proper ex- ercise of the authority of the Court— whether it is a proper exercise of the process of the Court; that is, whether the papers sought for are properly papers which can come in evidence. Now, the subpena is. [Reading.] All correspondence between Theodore Tilton and yourself, all books, papers, and documents in any way relating to any matter of difference between the said TU- ton and the said Beecher. MBS. WOODHUJjL'S LETTERS OBTAINED, 50^ Judge Neilson— Well, tlie subpena compels the witness to attend and bring the papers. Mr. Evarts— Yes, Sir. Judge Neilson— That is authority which the Court ex- ercises in reference to the subpena. Mr. Fullerton — She is subpenaed here as a witness Judge Neilson — Oh, no. Mr. Fullerton— Not as an expressman [reading]. We command you that, all business and excuses being laid aside, you appear and attend before the City Court, &c., to testify and give evidence in a certain action now pendiag and undetermined in the said Court between the parties. Naming them. She is subpenaed to appear as a witness, and as a wit- ness I suppose she is here. Judge Neilson— I cannot give any direction about it, gentlemen. Mr. Evarts— Now, if your Honor please, my friend is quite right in saying that it is in the form of a subpmna duces tecum. But this is a common law process by which the papers are brought into court, and the rule is famil- iar as I think— I suppose yom- Honor has had occasion often to practice it, as from your intimation it would ap- pear that you had. Taylor on Evidence says, at Section 1,286 : And here it Is clear that if the witness be called under a subpcena duces tecum, merely for the purpose of produc- ing a document, which either req.mres no proof, or is to he identified by another witness, he need not be sworn, and if unsworn, he cannot be cross-examined. So if the witness be sworn under a mistake Though that is not important. In the case of Perry agt. Gibson, 1st of Adolphus & Ellis, before the King's Bench, [readiug] : On the trial of this case before Alderson, Judge, at the last Assizes of Cumberland, a person was called upon under a subpcena duces tecum to produce a book belonging to cer- tain trustees appointed under an act of Parliament, which was in his custody as their clerk, and produced the book, but plaintiffs counsel, by whom he was called, having no other question to put to him, being prepared with other evidence to identify the book, did not propose to have him sworn. Counsel for defendant insisted that this should be done, ra order that they might have an oppor- tdnity to cross-t xamine. The learned Judge refused to have the party sworn, and an application was made for a new trial on the ground of this being error in law. Lord Denman, Chief Justice, says : It is best not to disturb the question, which has been fully considered and decided. Bell, Judge— I am of the same opinion; I always thought that the subpcenu duces tecum had two distinct objects, and that one might be enforced without the other. Judge Neilson— Well, if the witness has obeyed the writ, has attended in court, and brought the papers, that satisfies the writ. I am quite aware that the witness need not be examined, and that it does not imply the right to cross-examine. The only question is whether you could attach the witness for not delivering over the papers on your reguest, she being here. Mr. Fullerton— Your Honor will perceive that there is a feature m this case entirely different from those which characterize the cases to which reference has been made. This subpcena duces tecum does not describe any particular paper, so as to enable us to identify it by that descrip- tion when it is produced. There is an omnibus clause in it, to produce all papers of a certain character, without specifying particularly any, and hence it does not bring this case within the rule as laid down in the elementary books, or within the rule as administered in those de- cisions, because in those cases a particular paper was described in a way so that it could be readily identified when it was produced. But I do not think any one ever heard before, that a witness was compelled to come into court under a subpena of this character requiring them to produce all correspondence between A and B, and to hand them over at the will of the partv sending the subpena. Judge NeUson— You have no interest in this, Mr. Ful- lerton ; you could not cross-examine the witness. Mr. Fullerton— How, Sir? Judge Neilson— You have no interest in this ; you could not cross-examine the witness. Mr. Fullerton — Unless she is put on the stand I could not, certainly. But if they put her on the stand, and she produces these papers and swears it is the correspond- ence between herself and the plaintiff in this case, then, if your Honor please, I will have. Judge Neilson— You would have a right to cross-exam- ine her on that subject. Mr. Fullerton— Yes, Sir. Judge Neilson— But they may identify the papers by another witness. IVIr. Fullerton— But the question is, whether she is com- pelled to come here and hand over these papsrs under this general clause of the subpcena duces tecum. ]VIr. Evarts— How is that a question with which the plaintiff has anything to do 1 Mr. Fullerton— WeU, I suppose the plaintiff has got something to do with almost anything that takes place during this trial ; we mean to have a hand in, at all events, on all proper occasions. Mr. Evarts— Well, on all proper questions. Mr. Fullerton — Yes, Sir ; I think that is competent. Mr. Evarts— But the process of the court, as the King's Bench have very properly pointed out, and as your Honor is familiar with the practice in this court, as well as in other courts in the State, the rule is that the process brings papers within the control of the court. The wit- ness, under this process of the court, is in court with the papers in her possession. Now, it may be a question for a witness whether he or she has reasons for not wishing to produce letters or papers. But that is not a question for the opposite parties, not in the least. What we are now discussing Is whether under this subpena, we asking the witness for these letters of Mr. TUton, your Honor 510 THE TILTON-BEECHER TEIAL. will direct them to be produced. If she receives the di- rection of the court to produce letters, if that is the right of the party under a subpo&na duces tecum, why then she Is placed in the position of oheying the law. The ques- tion of swearing or not swearing has nothing to do with that question— nothing whatever. Judge Neilson— I do not feel like giving any direction at this stage of the case. Mr. Evarts— In the case of Somers agt. Moseley [4 Tyr- whltt, 168] it is said [reading] ; There must have existed a common law right in the Crown for the purposes of justice to compel hy subpena the attendance of every person cognizant of the suhject matter of the suit, and also to produce any document bearing on that subject matter though in the possession of a stranger to the suit. Such a stranger is only called to produce a paper as and for the required document, not to identify it, which would be done by extrinsic evi- dence. In numberless cases, as the party producing a paper is wholly ignorant of every circumstance of the case, it ■ would be absurd to swear him as a witness. When a party called on his suhpcena duces tecum to produce the document required disobeys the writ by not producing it, I have no doubt that he is liable to at- tachment. Whether he could be retjuired to be sworn, not to give general testimony in the cause, but to make true answers as to the custody of the document only, is another question. But we think that he has no right to require the party who calls him to have him sworn in that way which would make him a witness in the case for all purposes, for he might be a mere stranger to the document, througii having the custody of it. The wit- ness, therefore, in this case was properly called on to produce the warrant, and that production was properly enforced without swearing him. Mr. Fullerton— That is the warrant described in the •writ, in the subpena. Mr. Evarts— Well, it is not a question of that ; it is not a question of the opposite party ; it is the question of a witness proposing to the court or not that he or she has a right to be sworn Id ner own interest— not a question of the parties. I suppose no witness has that right. Judge Neilson— No witness has that right. Mr. Evarts— And it is for the coiu?t, therefore, to say whether this lady shall be advised that the letter entitles us, under this writ, to this correspondence. Judge Neilson — It entitles you to that correspondence undoubtedly, unless there is some special personal objec- tion, upon her part, that is to be considered. If there is, that remains to be tested in another proceeding. Mr. Evarts— I do not understand that there is any per- sonal objection on her part, except that it should not be a voluntary production of the letters. Judge NeUson— There is nothing to be made by calling the witness and swearing her, because there could be no cross-examination, except Mr. Evarts — ^No, Sir ; there is no question of swearing at aU. Mrs. Woodhull Mr. Shearman [to Mrs. Woodhull]— I call for those let- ters of Mx. Tilton. [A conversation in low tones here took place between Mrs. Woodhull and Mr. Shearman and Mr. Evarts.] Mr. Fullei ton— I think it is due to the witness. Sir, and due to the proper administration of justice, that your Honor should inform the witness that she is not called upon by the Court to produce those papers. Judge Neilson— She has heard what I have said; I have not given any directions. Mr. Fullerton— There is not any objection to Mrs. Wood- hull going upon the stand at all. Mr. Evarts— She has been advised that the writ entities us to the production of the papers. Mr. Fullerton— Provided she sees fit to give them. MES. WOODHULL MAKES A SPEECH. Mr. Evarts— All ! sees fit. The witness can say something to your Honor. Mr. Shearman— She desires to say something to your Honor. Mrs. Woodhull— Your Honor, I have a very few unim- portant letters in my possession, and I feel that if they bring me in at this stage of the proceedings an explana- tion is due. They are letters which are entirely credita- ble to myself as well as the gentleman that wrote them. I have no disposition to keep them from any court of justice. But perhaps you are not aware— I cannot say you are not aware— perhaps you do not remember that I have been imprisoned several times for the publication of this scandal. During that time my office was ransacked, and all my private letters and papers taken away from me. Therefore I have reason to believe that some of my private letters are in the hands of the defense, as well as of the prosecution. They may not be ; that is simply my private opinion ; and the very few unimportant letters that are left in my possession of course can result in no disadvantage to myself, though, of course, I do not wish to be held to act from any thought of that nature. I an perfectly willing to give them with this explanation. Judge Neilson— Well. [Papers produced by Mrs. Woodhull and handed to Mr. Shearman.] MR. TILTON'S CEOSS-EXAMINATION AGAIN DEFERRED. Mr. Evarts— We will not require Mr. Tilton to take the stand at this moment, Sir. Judge Neilson— Very well. Now, Mr. Morris, proceed. Mr. Fullerton— I think. Sir, under the present circum- stances, that if they pursue the cross-examination of Mr. Tilton at all they ought to do it now. • Judge Neili^o:: -Oh, I don't think that is materiaL Mr. Fullerton— Well. Sir, it may be very material. Judge Neilson— I think not. Mr. Morris— It may be, to ua. Mr. Fullerton—They have got possession now of certain letters, and it may be necessary for us to explain those TESllMONY OF Ti letters or docmnents, or -wliatever they are. We are in a condition now, as your Honor knows, to attempt, at least, to do so. Judge Neilson— You will have the opportunity of ex- plaining or disproving them if the matter comes up at all. Mr. Beach — The witness is now in court. Mr. Fullerton— The witness who produces these papers is now in court. If they examine Mr. Tiltou in regard to these letters some days hence, your Honor perceives it takes us at a disadvantage. We do not know where this witness will he at that time. She may he heyond the jurisdiction of the court. Judge Neilson— I think your learned opponent ought to tell you what his purpose is. Mr. Fullerton— What, Sir 1 Judge Neilson— He ought to tell you what his purpose is. Mr. Fullerton— Oh, I know what hia purpose is. Mr. Beach— Well, I don't know ahout that. Let us know what his purpose is. We have not seen the letters. Judge NeUson— Well, whatever suggestion I could make ahout it now would not preclude their calling Mr. Tilton hereafter if they should see lit to do so. Mr. Fullerton— It is all under the direction and control of your Honor whether they shall pursue the cross- examination of Mr. Tilton now further, or whether they shall he permitted to do it under favor hereafter ; and the administration of that rule, as a matter of course, would he such as would subserve the ends of justice. Now, if your Honor perceives that we may he taken hereafter at a great disadvantage hj the postponement of the further cross-examination of Mr. TUton, I suppose your Honor would so order and direct as to prevent any such thing occm-ring. Mr. Evarts— We are subject to your Honor's direction whenever we shall make an application. That we under- stand. . Judge Neilson— I understood that you were going to further cross-examine Mr. Tilton. Mr. Evarts— Yes, Sir. Judge Neilson— Why not do so now ? Iklr. Beach— We have been waiting an hour for that pur- pose, under the declaration of the counsel that they wished to put Mr. Tilton on the stand for cross-examina- tion, and were waiting for those letters ; an hour has been spent waiting for them to proceed with their cross- examination. Mr. Evarts— That does not make any difference. Mr. Beach— Yes, Sir ; that is a circumstance applying to your Honor's discretion, and it is most material. Mr. Evarts— I have stated to your Honor that we will not ask them to put Mr. Tilton on the stand at this mo- ment. They may go on with their case. But now they apply to your Honor to preclude us from making the ap- plication hereafter. HEODOBE IILTOX. 511 Judge Neilson— I have signified that I should make nc order of that kind. Mr. Evarts— Yes. Mr. Fullerton— Your Honor might direct them to go on now, if they desig-n to cross-examine Mr. Tilton further hereafter. Judge Neilson— That, still, would not preclude them hereafter. If they desii-ed to cross-examine him I would not make any order tiiat would preclude them. Mr. Fullerton— Well, it is within your Honor's power to do so. Judge Neilson— T think not. Mr. Fullerton— We have waited now from 11 until li o'clock for the purpose of enabling them to get possession of those letters, and they have got possession of those letters, and the person who produced the letters is now in court, subject to your Honor's jurisdiction— present to give any explanation, if any be needed, of those letters, or any part of them. Now, it does not seem to be any hardship to require the other side to go on at this time with their cross-examination. Judge Neilson— Mr. Evarts, will you agree — I think it is reasonable you should — that if you hereafter, after to-day, call Mr. Tilton for cross-examination, as you have suggested you might, you will also have this witness, who produces these papers, then in attendance ? I think you ought to say you will. Mr. Beach— Not after to-day, Sir ; after now. Judge Neilson— Well, when you recall Mr. Tilton will you agree to have this witness in attendance ? Mr. Evarts— This lady is a free person, if your Honoi please, and, I have no doubt, has as much will of her own as most people ; at any rate, any lady, or witness, has control of her own movements when she is not needed in court. Judge Neilson— Well, it would compel you to subpena her. Mr. Evarts— Well, it would be only the suhpo&na duces tecum. IVIr. Beach— Well, Sir, that is a subpena that commands her presence as well as that of the papers. She is here now in court, in obedience to that subpena. Judge Neilson— You appreciate my suggestion, I sup- pose, Mr. Evarts 1 Mr. Evarts— I do, Sir. It is a proper suggestion; and when the circumstances under which we ask Mr. Tilton to be recalled for cross-examination are before the Court, if there is then any condition of impropriety about it of course your Honor will so order— that is to say, you wiU dispose of the question whether you will allow us to re- call him. or not. Mr. Fullerton— Your Honor has waited for them to pro- cure possession of these papers, and have indulged them with time to read them. They have read them ; they have perused them all. 513 THE TILION-BEEGEEB TBIAL. Mr. Beach— Waited under their announcement that they •wanted to cross-examine Mr. Tllton. Mr. Fullerton— They know their contents ; they Icnow "What use they want to put them to ; they know what questions they can frame in regard to them ; and there- fore I do not see that there is any impropriety in asking them to go on now. Judge Neilson— This is understood then, that if your learned opponent declines to proceed now with Mi*. Til- ton, and desires to call him hereafter for cross-examina- tion, his right to do so shall he conditioned upon his hav- ing Mrs. WoodhuU in attendance at that time. Mr. E\ arts —We understand that it will he iu your Honor's power to apply that condition. Judge Neilson — I make that announcement now. It would be a very unpleasant thing to enforce it, perhaps, tmless it was understood. Ilr. Evarts [continmngj— And we may have a very good reason for not wishing to hreak the cross-examination in two. We may not have all the letters that we desire or expect. Judge Neilson— Well, we will proceed under that condi- tion—that if they call Mr. Tilton hereafter they shall have this witness in attendance. Mr. Faller ton— Well. JOHN NAPOLEON LONGHI RECALLED. Jolin Napoleon Longhi, a witness for the plaintiff, was recalled and further examined. By Mr. Fullerton— Since you were on the stand before have you measured the front premises occupied by Shedler in Broad-st., New-York? A. Yes, Sir. Q. What is the distance between the entrance to Shed- ler's restaurant and the entrance to Delmonico's restau- rant % A. As near as I can judge, 24 feet. Q. And between the entrance to Shedler's restaurant and Delmonico's is there another entrance ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. An entrance to what ? A. For offices. Q. In what building ? A. In Shedler's building. Q. What is the width of that entrance I A. Eight feet, about. Q. Shedler's restaurant is below the level of the street % A. Yes, Sir; down stairs. Q. How many steps down ? A. I should ludge, seven. Q. And between that entrance and the entrance to Delmonico's, I understand you to say that there is a third entrance of eight feet in width, which leads to the office above Delmonico's restaurant % A. Yes, Sir. Mr. Fullerton— That is all. Judge Neilson— Mr. Shearman, do you wish to ask this witness anything 1 Mr. Shearman — No, Sir. Judge Neilson [to the witness].— That is all, Sir. [To plaintiflPs counsel] . Call the next witness. FRANCIS D. MOULTON KECALLED. Framak D. Moulton, a witness on behalf of the plaintiff, was recalled and fmther examined as fol- lows: By Mr. Morris— In your iaterview with Mr. Beecher on the 30th of December, 1870, in reference to delivering up the retraction, as it is called, did you use this language or language of similar import. Mr. Beecher says, speakintr of that interview : The first sentence, I think, was one of the argumenta that he used when I said that I should retain that for sell- defense, and his statement was that I should take a gen- erous view, and act so as should be for the interest of all parties concerned. Did you use any such language as that— that he should, take a generous view? A. [Emphatically] No. Q. I call your attention to this Mr. Evarts— WiU you refer me to what you have just asked about, Mr. Morris ? Mr. Morris— It is near the top, on the left hand side of page 768, Part 11. [To the witness.] Now, I call your attention to this language : Mr. Evarts— What page ? Mr. Morris— Page 770, commencing at the bottom of the second left-hand column. [To the witness.] This is the language : But that it seemed to me that if she had been led to transfer her affection from her husband, by reason of my presence, I could not but feel that I was blameworthy; that she was a woman so quiet and so simple— her exterior life was so far from that, that I had never suspected it Did Mr. Beecher, in that interview Mr. Evarts— Wait a moment. What is the date i Mr. Morris— Jan. 1. Mr. Evarts— The witness has given a full statement of that, as your Honor knows, and Mr. Beecher has given a full statement of that ; and it does not seem to me tliat the inquiries my learned friend is now making are in the nature of express contradiction. That is, there is no defi- nite statement of the language, of what this witness is alleged by Mr. Beecher to have said to him, which tlio witness now is called upon to contradict or to qualify. Judge Neilson— His right is limited to calling the atten- tion of the witness to any new expressions used by the other witness, that he deny or explain them so far as he can. Mr. Morris— Certainly. Suppose Mr. Moulton on hla cross-examination should relate an interview as having occurred on the 1st of January that occupied a minute, and Mr. Beecher shoald go upon the stand and relate an entirely different interview, which occupied an hour; would we have no right to examine Mr. Moulton wltli reference to the new matter ? Mr. Evarts— I have never denied that ; but that is not this case. Mr. Morris— That is this case precisely. Mr. Evarts— There was an interview that oooupiled rESTIMOyi OF FFiAXClS D, MOULTOy. 518 two hoiu^s or more, in the xievr of eacli witness, andeacti ■\ritness gave liis own vie^ oi it. Judcce Xeilson— This Tvitness cannot repeat the view of it that he gave before. All he can do is to speak of specific expressions not used hy him, but used by the other witness. T tMnk you can go that far. :ir. 3Iorris— That is as far as I propose to go. Mr. Evarts— That we have assented to as the correct rule of law when announced by your Honor. Th.e CLues- tion is, of its application to the case as it arises. Where do you begin, Mr. Morris ? ivlr. Morris— At the close of the page. [To the witness :] The question is, whether in that interview Mr. Beecher used that language 1 A. He did not. Q. Or language of similar import ? A. He did not. 3Ir. Morris— I read from the same column, Mr. Evarts, page 771. [To the witness. ] Did you use to Mr. Beecher this language [reading] : Mr. Moulton said to me, sitting in Ms cliair, [here Mr. Beecher put his leg over the arm of the chair, in illustra- tion,] with an intelligent look, " Why, there Is no doubt about that, IMr. Beecher. Elizabeth Tilton loves your lit cle finger more than she does Mr. Tilton's whole body." I\Ir. Evarts— WTiat part of the column is that 1 Mr. Morris— About two-thirds of the way down— the in- side column. [To the witness.] Did you use such language as that to Mr. Beecher on that occasion ? A. No, Sir. Q. Or, in substance, anything of that Mnd 1 A. No, Sir. THE WEITIXG OF THE LETTER OF COX- TRITIOX. Q. On the same page, at tlie bottom of the outside column, right hand page, I read this now. I read this paragraph, Mr. Moulton, from Mr. Beecher's testimony. After the Letter of Contrition was read, he says: He (]Mr. Moulton) rose up from the table and gathered up the papers ; they were on separate sheets, and a sort of afterthought came to him, and he said, " Sig-n this ;" " you better sign this." I said, " No, I cannot gign a letter that I have not written." " Well, but," said he, " it won't have the influence with Mr. TiLton that it will if it has your name." " But," said I, "this is your mem- orandum ; you take that and talk on those pomts to Mr. Tilton, and tell him what you have heard me say, and he believes you ; you are his friend." " Well," he says, " it will be a great deal better if you just put your name to this in some way, to let him see that it is authorized." Mr. Evarts— One moment, Mr. Moulton. I think, if your Honor please, that was all gone into on the direct and in the cross-examination of Mr. Moulton. Your Honor will remember that was a paxt of our case while he was under examination ; that that was the natirre of this paper, and there does not seem to be anything new in Mr. Beecher's statement of it itseK. It was not the paper that he wrote or that he signed in any other way thiiu as an authentication, that it might be useful in Mr. Moulton's hands. ]Mi\ Beach [to Mr. Morris]— Refer back, and put your Ciuestion. Mr. Evarts— I don't care about insisting on it, but I believe that is the truth of it. Mr. Morris— No. [To the Witness]— What is your answer to that 1 Did any such conversation as that take place between you and Mr. Beecher 1 A. No, Sir. Q. Now, after you had written the Letter of Contridon, did you gather up the letter as described here in any manner from the table before it was signed by I^Lr. Beecher ? A. No. Yes, I did, so that he might read them, but not as he describes it— not giving the meaning that he did there. Q. Mr. Beecher says that the close of that interview was the reading of the letter ; is that correct, and, if so, by whom was it read ? A. At the close of the interview was the reading of the letter ] Q. At the close of that interview. A. The letter waa read. Sir, before it was signed. Q. I call your attention to this langiiage on page 773, a question by Mr. Evarts : When Mr. Moulton went ofl— before he went off with this memorandum which he had made— was anything said by him about his burning or returning if? A. Yes, Sir. Q. What was that 1 A. He said— treated it as a mere memorandum to be read, and said after he had used it he would either return it to me or bum it. Did anything of that kind occur between you and Mr. Beecher, in reference to that letter? A. No, Sir. Q. This is thelangun I could not turn to it at the moment. I will read t. paragraph in Mr. Beecher's ex- amination. I read from my scrap-book. It is under the heading of " The Letter of Apology." You (Mr. Evarts) will flLnd the heading : I was walking to and fro, and he occasionally would ask me, when I was speaking rapidly and with some em- phasis—he would say : " Did you say so and so ] " or " Did you say 1 " or something to that effect, and I would check myself for a moment, and make some reply, " Yes," or substantially that, or something like that, and then I would repeat— repeat one thought and another thought, attempting to go over in my mind somewhat the points in the conversation that had immediately preceded this, and which occupied my feelings toward Mr. TiLton and his family. That was the last part of the interview be- fore the reading of the memorandum. Now, did you stop Mr. Beecher during the writing of that letter and ask him whether you had taken it down correctly or not, and if so, state what was said upon that point during the composition— the writing of the " Letter of Conti-ition ?" A. WeU, Sir, I don't remember having stopped !Mr. Beecher in the dictation of his letter to ask him whether or not I had substantially written what he had said. Th? letter was a dictation, word for word, from his own lips. Mr. Evarts -That last part I ask to hare str uck out, it your Honor please. 514 THE TILION-BBECEEB TBIAL. Judge Neilson — The last expression is struck out, as be- ing part of fclie original evidence. Mr. Morris— Tliis lie lias testified, to already. [To tlie witness.] The latter part of this is correct, then— the last part of the interview— this was the last part of the inter- view ; that is, the dictation of the letter, before the read- ing of the letter? A. The letter was finished before it was read, certainly. Q. And then immediately read? A. It was immediately read. Q. As stated by Mr. Beecher here ? A. Yes, Sir. Mr. Shearman— It is well to caU attention to the fact that this is certainly an error of the stenographer. It should be the writing of the memorandum, instead of the reading of the memorandum. Stenographers have almost the same sign for " read" and "write," and they have got it reading the memorandum instead of writing it. Mr. Morris— What authority have you got for that as- sertion ? Mr. Shearman— The context shows. Mr. Evarts— The witness says he never read it, and it was never read to him. Mr. Beecher says he never read it, and it never was read to him. Judge Neilson— Well, we will correct that hereafter. Mr. Morris— Well, the witness (Moulton) says that is correct, whether it is an error of the stenographer or not. Mr. Evarts— The witness has said it was read ; that we understand. THE INTERVIEW OF FEB. 3, 1872, DENIED. By Mr. Morris — Mr. Beecher, in relating an interview he had with you, in which you related an inter- view which you had with Mr. Bowen, says that you told him Mr. Bowen made use of this language at your house in Clinton-st. You said to Mr. Beecher : " It is not for me to tell you what to do," and he said he looked up at the portrait that was hanging on the wa,ll, and said : " Why, I shall never be reconciled to that man ; I shall never be able to be reconciled to that man again." Q. Tlie portrait of whom ? A, My portrait ; the Paige portrait. Did you ever have that portrait in your house atEem- sen-st ? Mr. Evarts— Wait a moment. The Witness— I beg your pardon. Mr. Evarts— This is a question of fact ; this is not a question of contradiction of Mr. Beecher. Mr. Beecher says that Mr. Moulton described to Mr. Beecher the inter- view which he (Mr. Moulton) had with Mr. Bowen. That Is what I understand to be the point here. Now, the basis of the contradiction of Mr. Beecher would be whether he told Mr. Beecher that ; not whether he had a portrait. Judge Neilson— That is the first step— whether he said that thing. Mr. Evarts— If they wish to ask that question, that is a question they may ask, no doubt. Judge Neilson— They may ask that question. Mr. Beach— Why, If your Honor please, this very ques- tion was fully discussed yesterday. Does it make any difference as to the order of the question t Judge Neilson— I recommended that question. Mr. Beach— If vou recommended it, very well. Mr. Evarts— It is not for me to suggest that they should ask that question, for I do n't know whether they wish or intend to. Mr. Morris -Yes, I intend to. Mr. Evarts— All I say is, this inquiry is not of that nature. This inquiry Mr. Morris— There is no use arguing it. I will put that question, as suggested by tlie Court. Judge Neilson— Put it as you wei'e putting it w'len you were inierrupted. By Mr. Morris— Now, did you use that language to Mj-, Beecher, or language of similar import? A. You meau the language with reference to the poiiraif? Q. \' es, that language I read ? A. No, Sir. Q. Did you ever have Mr. Beecher' -i portmit— flie one spoken of — in your house in Clinton- st. ? A. No, Sir. Q. In the month of January, 1871, did you use i r's language to Mr. Beecher, iu an intei view witli iiiiu 1 He never exactly said that ; he spoke of wliat a grand thing it would be if Tilton and I could join forces on The Christian Union. Mr. Evarts— What page is that? Mr. Morris— 788. The Witness— No, Sir, I never said that. Mr. Morris— I read this paragraph purporting to be an interview had between you and Mr. Beecher on tne 3d of February, 1872. Mr. Shearman— What page? Mr Morris— Page 833, the same part f Reading | : Q. Before writing this letter to Mr. Moulton of Feb. 5, 1872, a long letter, had anything passed between you and Mr. Moulton which intluced or led you to write it ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. How did that occur, and what was it? A. I went on a Saturday morning over to the office to see Mr. Moul- ton ; it had been a troublous time from week to week ail along there ; things were breaking out ; I went to see him on some one of these occasions. I sat for some length of time— some little time before he came iu, a:ul when he came in he did not see me— on purpose— aud went about his business, coutinuiug for— kept me waiting for a considerable length of time and then gavemerathev a cold recognition ; he was passing out and I got up and went out with him — I must say I forced myself on him ; he was VTjry distant ; he seemed more nearly in the mood of anger with me than I had ever seen him before, and when I entered into some conversa- tion with him he was very abrupt, and even more ; I be- gan to make some explanation to him of Mr. Til ton's (if mands upon me that I should— that I was not fulfill the understanding and the intent of our cordial agi tt - mont, and that my friends wer e also doing me a gre;it deal of daina.ue— Mr. Tiltou's representation by— doi" : lf.stimo:sy of fe. him a great deal mjudiciouslv, too ; Mr. Moulton replied with a tone that was cutting to me— tlie suljstance of it was it was very well for me, that I had all that I wanted —wealth, and a home, and a chui'ch, and my friends— it was very well for me to slight or pay little regard to Mr. Tilton'8 condition and feelings ; that he was without sup- port ; that he was suffering poverty; that he was heing mjured hy those that were flattering me, and he boi-e down with some severity upon me iu the matter; the conversation was peculiarly ti-nng to me. Q. Did you, on the Saturday of the 3d of February , 1872, have any such conversation as that with Mr. Beecher ? A. I did not. Q. Did you on that day have any conversation with him whatever ? A. My impression is that I had not ; that I was at home ill. Q. Did you see him at your oflice in New-York? A. I think not, Sir. Q. Did you treat him with any harshness, or coldness, or severity, on that day? A. No, Sir. [To Jitdge Neil- son.] I would like to say to your Honor that I am per- fectly satisfied that I never had any such interview; I know I never had any sucli interview as Mr. Beecher describes. I have answered that my impression is I was at home ill on that day; is it proper for me to ex- press the basis of that impression ? Judge Neilson— No; you are confined simply to answer- ing in regard to specific statements made by Mr. Beecher to which youx attention is called. The Witness— I consulted my pliysician about it ; that is all, Sir, and I wanted to know whether I had a right to. By Mr. Morris— When was it you first learned iMr. Beecher had met Mr. Tilton in the cars and had a conver- sation with him ? A. Through a letter of Feb. 5, 1872. Q. Through this same letter ? A. You have not referred to the letter before. Mr. Morris— The letter of Feb. 5, 1 refer red to ; and that was the first you learned the fact ? Mr. Evarts— I object to this. This is not to contradict anything. Judge Neilson— Get at the specific sentences you want to correct, if you want to lay the fouudation. Mr. Morris— I will state the reason of those questions. I am calling the witness's attention to the news part of this letter. This letter conveyed to him certain n e ws, cer- tain information; and, I suppose, it is proper for us to show that the first information that he had of this matter ■^as derived from the letter itself, and that Mr. Beecher had not prior to that communicated this fact to him. Judge Neilson— Who put ia that letter 1 Mr. Morris— The letter was put in by us. Judge Neilson— Well. Mr. Evarts— It is important if it was a part of the chief exa>ni nation. Judge jS'eilson— I think, therefore, any inquiry you [Mr. MorrisJ Imye to make in regard to the letter should have NCIS 1). MOULTOy. 515 boon made then, but you can iread anv new si atemfut he made in respect to it. Mr. Morris — But the interview has be^^a tes"fiedTob,y Mr. Beecher, and a cause assigned for the Avvitir of s letter that did n't exist at the tiiue. Tuat niey lj..A e sou ,vn by their dejense that it was in consequeiite of th's Jn'er- view that he had had with Mr. Moulton , on t'je S.in . v preceding, that inducedthe wrii 'ng of th's let,;-,. . Now, this letter conveyed to Mr. Monltou ceiia:a ini'oi am. ion, certain news, which I submit we have a right to show- was the fi.rst knowlf-dge that Mr. Mouliun h.id with refer- ence to those matters. Judge Neilsoa— If Mr. Beecher a+t ibuted lino^sle.'^ge '0 him at an earlier da;y, of course you can coniradioc hat. as you can any other expression he used. I think it is economical to keep very close to the exact expression, so that there will be nothing to complain of. OTHER COJsTKADICTIONS OF YR. BEECH EK. Mr. Moms— Yes ; that we purpose d.oin^-, [To the Witness.] With rfference to the arbitrauon. Mr. Moulton, Mr. Beecher says : Mr. Moulton talVed with me about whether there could not be an arbitration and quiet settlement of all oar ilini- cuities. including the payment of the debt owed by Mr. Bowen to Mr. Tilton, and the burn ing oi' all difficulties finally and out of sight ; and wanted to know if it won id not be a good thing to ask some o'' my intiuen? al j'lieuds in the church to act in the ma'tev as a consiiUing com- mittee. Q. Did yoti have, with reference to that, any such inter- view as that ? Mr. Shearman— What page ? Mr. Evarts [to jNIt. Morris]— What page, Judge? Mr. Morris— Page 39. [To the witness.! Did you use that language or any language of similar import? Mr. Evarts— Which column ? :^'Ir. Morris— Inside column, the second long paragraph. The Witness— Mr. Evarts, I understand, stoi>s me from an s wering for the present. Mr. Evarts— Y'es; I want to get the part. Mr. Beach— Go on and answer. Mr. Morris— Answer the question. The Witness— I didn't ask that a committee of his friends be appointed, if I understand the last p^rt of jowv question. Q. Did you suggest that the differences andm .tteti between him and Mr. Tilton should be made the -ubjeet of that arbitration? A. No ; I didn't suggest to him tb it the matters be made the subject of arbitration. Q. Was anything upon that subject said between you and him ? A. With regard to arbitration ? Mr. Morris— No. Mr. Beach— [To ^Iv. Morris] : Bead that again. Mr. Morris— I will read it again : Mr. Moulton talked with me about whether there could not be an arbitration and quiet settlement of all our 516 . TRE TILTON-B dulivulves, including the payment of tlie debt owed by M- . Boweu to Mr. Tilton, and the burying of all diilicnl- ti-.^.f? 15 Daily and out of sight. A. No, Sir; it A\as the settU'iment between Mr. Eowen and Mr. Eeecher that was talked about, not the settle- nit lit between Mr. Beecher and Mr. Tilton. <^ At the interview of June 1 — Sunday night, Jane 1, 187 3 IMr. Shearman— Be kind enough to give the page, Mr. Mun-l.s. Mr. MoiTTK -800. Was it agreed betwc'eu you and Mr. Ei'i cher that Mr. Kiusella should be sent for to see Mr. Eeceher in the moiniug J A. On what day was that, Sir 1 Q. On Suuday night, June the 1st, 1873. Mr. J'^varts — Well, thai was ^one into. The Wi.ijess— No. Mr. IVJoiT s— No, Sir ; not that point. M'-. Evarts— All that interview. Judge Neilson--Eut the sending for Mr. Kinsella seems to be the poiui. Ts that stated ? Toe Witness— No. Mr. Morj is— No, Sir. "in reference to the interview of M'iy £1, 1'h';3, Mr. Beecher says Mr. Evarls— Name the page, Judge. Mr. Moriis -8G6. [Keadiug] : I don't remember the consecutive interview; it was an interview in which T did pretty much all the talking, and 81 ent my time iu denouncing Mr. Tilton a cry largely. At that iuierview did Mr. Beecher denounce Mr. Til- ton ? A. On the evening of May 31 1 Q. May 31, 1873? A No Si;-; no. Q. When Mr. Beecher went to your house on the 30th of December, 1870, and had the interview with Mr. Til- ton there tliat has been tesi'fted to, did Mr. Beecher re- quest you to be present at that interview ? A. He did not. Q. I will read this card, Mr. Moulton, with a view of asking you a question about it. Mr. Shearman— What cavdl Mr. Morris— This Tilion card; only a portion of it is here. You understand the card. jKeadingl: Heat n fiom a friend that ?rr. B., in his statement to you, has le versed this, and has done me justice. The card w; itten by Mr. Beecher—tlie proposed e vd, to be presented to the Investigating Committee i>y Mr. Tilton. Mr. Evarts—Wait a moment. It is about that curd ? Mr. Morris— That card—the card written by Mr. Beecher for Mr. Tilton— the proposed card iox Mr. Tilton to make to the Investigating Committee— a brief card. Mr. Evarts— Where is it? Judge, haven't you got the 12th Part. Mr. Beach— I think you will find it on page 63. Mr. Morris— I hadn't the 12th Part when I went ove?- this. [To the witne::'s.i The question is, wiieMer you "^jEGHEB lElAL. suggested to Mr. Beecher the writing of that card ? A. I did not. Q. In referring to an interview that Mr. Beecher had with you in January, 1871, he says that the mortgage upon Mr. Tilton's house was referred to, and Mr. Morris here consulted with Mr. Beach. ]Mr. Shearman- Page 107. Mr. Morris— At the interview held at your study in the early part of November, 1872? Mr. Evarts— You pass over that. GEN. TRACY CONTRADICTED. Mr. IMoiTis— I pass over tliat point. Mr. Tracy says, in speaking of this Letter of Contrition, that you said : He said in that conversation, ** It is a memorandum, or notes, of a conversation I had with Mr. Beecher." Did you say that, or anji;hing of that import, to Mr. Tracy with reference to that letter ? A. No. Q. And Mr. Tracy says that he said, in referring to that letter, tliat " this paper would simply seem to imply that Mr. Beecher had been attempting the virtue of Mrs. Til- ton without success;" did Mr. Tracy make use of any language of that kind? A. No. Q. To you or in your presence? A^ No. Q. In reference to that letter ? A. No. Q. Mr. Tracy uses this langii ige in referring to what has come to be known as the "■ True Story :" I'hereupon Mr. Tilton unfolded, as I remember, a cov- ering of a manuscript which he brought with him into the room, and began to read a statement. Now, did Mr. Tilton at that interview read the " True Story," or any part of it ? A. No. Sir. Q. Was it there? A. No, Sir. Q. Do you know Avhether it had been written at that time or not ? A . It had not been written. Mr. Evarts— Well, that I object to. Judge Neilson- -That is not material. Mr. Evarts— It is wholly immaterial whether it was written or not, if it was uot there. Mr. JM orris— I read this paragraph, Mr. Moulton, and ask your attention to it, in reference to this same inter- view. Mr. Tracy says: I discussed with Mr. Tilton the probability of the truth of his wife's statement in regard to the charge of im- proper proposals. I remember saying to Mr. Tilton in that conversij.tion : " Mr. Tilton, I can understand how you may believe Mr. Beecher has been guilty of that offense, and I can understand possibly how your wife may have conceived that he had intended to make to her an im- proper suggestion; but now isn't it more probable that this statement of your wile, that Mr. Beecher made an improper proposal to her, is the result of misunderstand- ing on her part?" Was any such language as that used by Mr. Tracy in that interview? A. No, Sir. Q. Was there any discussion whatever upon the sub- ject of imjuoper proposals ? A. Not a word. Sir. TESTIMONY OF FBAXCLS J). MOULTON. 517 <5. Or any allusion to it? A. Nor any allusion to it, ex- cept 80 far as tlie letter of retraction alluded to tlie im- proper proposals, Sir, or improper advances. Q. Mr. Tracy says in tliat intervie-w lie made tliis propo- sition : I said, to meet that, ** Mr. Tilton, liow would it be if you and Mr. Beeclier and your wife can agree as to wliat tlie real facts are in tliis case— tiow will it do for you and Mr. Beeclier to go before one or more eminent citizens of BrooMyn and make a statement of tlie facts 1" Was any sucli proposition as tliat made by Mr. Tracy— any sucli proposition or suggestion made by Mr. Tracy during any part of that interview 1 A. No, Sir. Q. Following that he puts this language in the mouth of Mr. Moulton: Mr. Moulton asked me in substance what, in my judg- ment, could be done for Mr. Tilton if this matter was buried in this way. I said I thought the only course for Mr. Tilton was to go to Europe. Did you use the language imputed to you in the first part? A. "Won't you repeat the language of the first part. Q. "Mr. Moulton asked me in substance what, in my judgment, could be done for Mr. Tilton if this matter was buried in this way "—that is, by making a statement to some eminent citizens. A. What in my judgment could be done for Mr. Tilton ? Q. Yes. A. No, Sir. Q. I will read the balance of this paragraph, commenc- ing where I left off: Eminent citizens of Brooklyn who are strangers to this controversy now, and in whom the public have con- fidence, and there make a mutual statement of what the real truth is in this matter, out of which all this story has sprung, and then destroy the documents. T said that course would prevent either one from going back upon the other, because he will be boimd by the statement that he has made to this person or these persons, who always can state what the fact was, and Mr. Beecher cannot go back on you nor you on Mr. Beecher. Now, did Mr. Tracy make any statement of that kind, or any suggestion, or use that language, or any language of any similar import. A. There was no proposition made by Mr. Tracy to leave it to one person or to any number of persons, and then destroy the documents ; iiotliing like that, Six-. Q. Was anything said, Mr. Moulton, about burning the papers and documents at the time of the arbitration be- tween Mr. Tilton and Mr. Bowen? ]VIr. Evarts— Wbat is the CLuestion ? Excuse me. Mr. Beach— Was anything said about burning the docu- ments at the time of the arbitration ? Mr. Morris— That you heard. Did you hear anything ? A. There was nothing said, Sir. Q. Were you present during the proceedings before the arbitration 1 A. I was present all the time. Sir. Q. Did you hear before the arbitration any matter dis- cussed or talked about other than the money claim of Mr. -Tilton against Mr. Bowen growing out of the contract ? A. Yes, an expression of a desire by Mr. Claflin to have Mr. Bowen sign the draft of the Tripartite Covenant, made by Sam Wilkeson. Q. To whom was that remarli made ? A. To whom was that remark made ? Made by Mj*. Claflin to me. Mr. Evarts— It is not very material, but it is not a con- tradiction. Mr. Beach— Yes it is, directly Sir. Mr. Evarts — It is not in regard to any statement. Mr. Beach— Why yes, it is. Mr. Evarts— 1 his witness gave his account of what occurred at the arbitration ; and the other gentlemen have given their account. Mr. Beach— That says that something more occm-red in regard to the " Tripartite Covenant." Judge Neilson— To that extent you can interrogate him. Mr. Beach— Very well, Sir ; what reply did he make to it? They say that it was agreed there that the "Tri- partite Covenant" Mr. Evarts— That is what the arbitrators have all stated. Mr. Beach— The arbitrators did not all state that ; but, nevertheless, we ask this question. Mr. Morris— What reply did you make, if any? A. What reply did I make to Mr. Claflin 1 I don't remember the reply that I made ; it was a matter entirely within his sphere— something that he understood himself. Mr. Beach— But what was it Mr. Claflin said? He said it to you, I understand ? A. He said it to me, yes. Sir ; he said he didn't care what there was in Bowen's soul, Bowen must sign that paper ; that is what he said to me ; I remember that distinctly ; is that the answer ? Mr. Beach— Well, was that at the time of the arbitra- tion? The Witness— No, Sir ; not at the time of the arbitra- tion. Mr. Beach— Well, you were asked at the time of the arbitration. Mr. Morris— I was asking you simply at the time of the arbitration. Mr. Beach— At the meeting of the arbitrators. The Witness— The question was not put in that way, Mr. Beach. Mr. Evarts— Well, this is all to be struck out. Mr. Beach— Yes, strike it all out. Go back to the ques- tion. Mr. Morris— Now, will the stenographer read the ques- tion? The Tribune stenographer read the question as follows : Did you hear before the arbitration any matter dis- cussed or Talked about other than the money claim of Mr Tilton against Mr. Bowen, growing out of the contract ? Mr. Beach— We gave a different construction to it. The Witness— To tne word " before." Then we are both right. Mr. Beach— Before the arbitration. 518 TEl^ TILTON-BH^ECREE TEIAL. Mr. Evarts— Then that wtL stand. Mr. Beach— No, Sir ; the question was misunderstood. Before the arbitration, Sir, means either a date anterior to that, or in the presence of the arbitration as it pro- ceeded. The Witness— I understood it as a date anterior. Mr. Evarts— Well, that stands. Yoiu' question was not limited to the arbitration. Mr. Beach— I think it will not have to stand, as both the gentleman and myself have agreed that it should be struck out. Judge Neilson— Now, Mr. Morris, proceed. Keep your- self to that occasion— that evening. Mr. Fullerton— Your Honor means he shall proceed at 2 o'clock, I take it. Mr. Beach— Well, was anything said before the arbitra- tors upon any subject except the business difficulties between Mr. TUton and Mr. Bowen 1 A. Not a word, Sir. Judge Neilson— The jurors will get ready to retire. Return at 2 o'clock, gentlemen. The Court here took a recess until 2 p. m. THE AFTERNOON SESSION. The Court met at 2 p. m., pursuant to ad- journment. Mr. Beach— If your Honor please, when Mrs. Moulton was upon the stand, I expressed an intention of recalling her as to two points, the conversation, related by Mr. Beecher, between himself and her, on May 31, 1873, and also the conversation between herself and Mr. Tracy as to which I cross-examined Mr. Tracy. I have deter- mined. Sir, not to call Mrs. Moulton with reference to the last topic, as I suppose that evidence, relating to a col- lateral matter, would not be a proper subject of examina- tion ; and, in regard to the other matter, I have conversed with her personally and learned from her that she would deny, if she were called, upon oath, the allegation of Mr. Beecher in relation to that conversation, that she said to him : " Mr. Beecher, I don't believe the stories that they are telling about you ; I believe that you are a good man." If Mrs. Moulton was produced upon the stand she would deny the utterance of that language, or equiv- alent language, and I have, upon my responsibility, as- sured my learned friends upon the other side that she would so testify. She is ill to-day, Sir, and in a very une- qual condition to appearing on the witness-stand and submitting to an examination, from causes I have ex- pressed to my learned friends, and I understand that they, relying upon that assurance of mine, are quite willing that it shall be taken as if Mrs. Moulton had ewom to a denial of that character. Mr. Evarts— We understand Mr. Beach's statement as to what the witness if called would say, as entitling us to accept it as what would be the result of calling her, and we are willing that it should be taken in the ordi- nary form, that if she were asked that question whether she said that, or its equivalent— that single passage that has been read— she would deny it \mder oath, and this statement is to be received as if she had done so ; as I should have no occasion to cross-examine her any more than other witnesses. I believe the lady is not in a con- dition to appear in Court. Francis D. Moulton's reexamination was then con- tinued. MR. MOULTON'S EXAMINATION CONCLUDED. By Mr. Morris — ^Just a single additional CLues- tion, Mr. Moulton. Mr. Beecher was asked in reference to the payment of Bessie Turner's school bills Mr. Evarts— What page % Mr. Morris— Part 11, page 803. [To the witness. | Mr. Beecljer was asked this : Well, about when was that, or how, m reference to any bill that was present % A. My impression is that it was some time in the Summer of 1871. I will not be at aU certain about that. I could refresh my memory, proba- bly. He said to me one day that he was paying a great deal of money out for Mr. Tilton, and that here was a bill that he thought would be well if I woidd pay— he thought it would be a great help to Mr. Tilton. And at another place that is fixed at some time in May, I think. Now, Mr. Moulton, did you say that to Mr. Beecher, in reference to a bill of Bessie Turner's, or tbe equivalent of that ? A. No, Sir. Q. When was your first advance of money to Mr. Tilton 1 A. In July. Q. Following % A. July following, yes— July following the May of which you speak. Q* 1871? A. Yes, Sir. Mr. Morris— That is all. STEPHEN PEARL ANDREWS RECALLED. Stephen Pearl Andrews, a witness for tlie plaintiff, was next recalled and further examined. By Mr. Fullerton — Mr. Andrews, do you know James H. Blood? A. I do. Q. Do you know his handwriting % A. I do, I believe. Q. You have seen him write 1 A. I have. Q. Look at his signature attached to that paper fpaper handed to witness] and say whether it is in his proper hand. A. It seems to be so ; I also know this witness. Mr. Fullerton- 1 offer this paper m evidence. Paper marked " Ex. 128." Mr. Evarts— I assented to this being proved, if your Honor please, without calling the subscribing witness. Mr. Fullerton [reading]— This indenture, made the 23d day of May, 1872, between Thomas Brydon of the City of Brooklyn, County of Kings, and State of New- York, party of the first part, and James H. Blood of the second part, wituesseth that the said party of the first part hath let- ten, and by these presents doth grant, devise, and to farm let unto the said party of the secdiid part all that certain two offices on the first floor of the building known as No. 48 Broad-st., in the City of New- York, and numbered one and two in said building, with the furnitm-e and fixtm-es^ TESTIMONY OF J now in said offices, with the appurtenances, for tlie term of one year from tlie first day of May, 1872, at the rent or sum of $1,200, to be paid in equal monthly advance payments. Mr. Evarts— What time does it cover. Mr. FuUerton— From May 1, 1872, to May 1, 1873. [To the witness] Now, Mr. James H. Blood, whose signature you have proven, is the husband of Mrs. Woodhull, is hel A. So reputed to be, and lives with her as such. Q. Now, then, did they occupy No. 4-8 Broad-st. as a broker'H office after May, 1872 1 A. I should think, after the latter part of May. My impression is that they did not move in at the Ist of May. Q. From the latter part of that month in 1872 they oc- cupied that office i A. I think so. Q. And up to the time they moved into the office, 48 Broad-st. , what offices did they occupy ? A. No. 44 Broad- st. Mr. Beach— What is the date of that lease ? Mr. Pullerton— May 23, 1872. That is aU, Mr. An- drews. ^ CROSS-EXAMINATION OF STEPHEN PEAEL ANDREWS. By Mr. Evarts— This lady and Mr. Blood— Col. Blood— conducted the same business at 44 Broad, did tiiey not, before this ? A. Yes ; with the exception of the fact that their newspaper publication was suspended during that Summer. Q. Well, I mean the brokerage business. A. Yes ; the brokerage business was the same. Q. Now, up to what date did they remain in fact at No. 44? A. That I am unable to say with definiteness. I have only my impression with regard to that, which is not very distinct. Q. What is your impression as to what time they re- moved 1 A. My impression is that they did not move at what we call the regular moving day, at the 1st of May, but perhaps one, two, or three weeks later; I am not certain. Q. The date of this is May 23. A. I presume then that they moved immediately after the date of that. Q. Have you any recollection of your own as to the date of their moving into 48 % A. Not distinctively as to the date, but as I say to you. Q. That, as far as you recollect, it would be about the latter part of May % A. Yes, Sir. THE SUR -REBUTTAL BEGTO Mr. Evarts— Tliat is all. Ml, FuUerton— That is all, Mr. Andrews. ; Mr. Beach— We rest, if your Honor please. : Mr. Evarts— We will recall Mr. Freeland. AMES FEEELANjy. 519 DEACON FREELAND RECALLED. By Mr. * Shearman— Mr. Freeland, you are well acquainted, and have been for a long time, with Mr. Henry C. Bowen, have you not 1 A. I have. Q. Were Mr. Beecher and Mr. Bowen at your house on the 26th day of December, 1870 % No, Sir. Q. Were Mr. Beecher and Mr. Bowen ever in your house together i A. They were. Q. Yes; when was that? A. January— in January,- 1870. Q. In January, 1870 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. Were Mr. Beecher and Mr. Bowen ever at your house together at any other time % A. No, Sir. Mr. Beach— Well, what is the proposed evidence ? Mr. Shearman— Mr. Bowen, called in rebuttal, has tes- tified that Ml'. Beecher and himself met at Mr. Fi-eeland'e- house on the 26th day of December, 1870, by appoint- ment through a note sent from Mr. Bowen to Mr. Free- land, requesting such an appointment to be made. That was m conta adiction of Mr. Beecher's statement that the interview took place at Mr. Beecher's house. fTo the witness.] Now, Mr. Freeland, did you receive on the 26th of December, 1870, any note from Mr. Bowen re- questing you to make an appointment with Mr. Beecher of any kind % A. No, Sir. Q. Was Mr. Bowen at your house at all, either with or without Mr. Beecher, on the 26th of December, 1870 I A. I think not. Sir ; no remembrance of anything of the kind. Q. Have you any remembrance of Mr. Beecher being there on that day 1 A. No, Sir ; Mr. Bowen must have made a mistake, and referred probably to the first meet- ing. Q. Never mind that, Mr. Freeland you kept that day as a holiday, I suppose. Mr. Beach— Have that stricken out. Mr. FuUerton— Yes, Sir ; I move to strike that out. Judge Neilson— Yes, Sir. Mr. Shearman — Well, it was only a charitable remark. Ml-. FuUerton— Well, we are not the subjects of his> charity. Mr. Shearman— You may be before you get through. Mr, FuUerton— Well, we are not now. By Mr. Shearman— HMve you a distinct recollection of this meeting of Mr. Bowen and Mr. Beecher at your house in January, 1870 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. How long did that interview last? A. Well, from three to four hours. Q. And what time of the day w .vs it held t A. In the evening. Q. Well, before or after 7 o'clock! A. After 7, 1 should think— 7 :30. Mr. Beach— Well, I understood. Sir, that that sort of in- quiry was rejected by your Honor % By Mr. Shearman— Mr. Freeland, you recollect the occa- I sion on which the arbitrators met at Mr. Mouiton's house. 520 lEE ULTON-BEFjCHEB lElAL. yniirself, Mi*. Cleveland, and Mr. Storrs, do you not? A. i^. Ii^ow, on tliat occasion did you see, or "were you informed of any written submission [To plaintiff's counsel.] Will you please give me that paper— that writ- ten submission? [Paper not produced.] Well, I will read to you the submission ; I haven't the original here. A paper has been produced in evidence in the following terms. [Heading] : We agree to submit to James Freeiand, H. B. Claflin, and Charles Storrs, the question as to the amount of money due Mr. Theodore Tilton from The Independent and Brooklyn Daily Union, in full for all claims and de- mands to this date, and to abide by their decision, or a majority of them, without fail. Henry C. Bo wen, BrooMyn, Ai>ril 3, 1872. Titeodore Tilton. Did you ever see that paper ? A. Who is that signed by? Mr. Shearman [continuingj— On the day or evening of the arbitration ? A. Who is that signed by ? l-lw Shearman— Henry C. Bowen and Theodore Tilton. Would you like to look at the paper ? A. Yes, I would. Mr. Shearman [to Mr. Morris]— Have you sent for the paper ? Mr. Morris— Yes, I have. Mr. Evarts — Mr. Morris will have it here. Mr. Shearman— Well, we will suspend this examina- tion. Mr. Evarts— We want to show the witness the original paper. Judge Neilson— That is very proper. Mr, Evarts— That is all that we wish to ask the wit- ness. Mr. Fullerton— Well, you want to ask him about the paper. Mr. Evarts— Yes, when the original comes in. CEOSS-EXAMINATION OF JAMES FREELAIsTD. By Mr. Fullerton— You thinlt tliat Mr. Bowen and Mr. Beecher were at your house in January? A. 1 don't tniuk ; I knoAv. Q. You don't think you know— that is what I think. A. I know ; I say they were. Q. What year ? A. 1870. Q. What time in January, 1870? A. Sometime along in the middle, I should think ; from the first to along in the middle. Q. Now, Mr. Freeiand, was n't it in January, 1871, that they were there ? A. I think not. Q. What ? A. No, Sir. Q. Sure— are you suie of it ? A. Yes, i>retty sure, quite sure. Q. How sure are you ? A. I swear to it. Q. Well, that does not answer the question exactlv. How do you know that it was in January, 1870, that they were at your house 1 A. Well, now, you would not let me explain it if I should undertake it— and I only tell you that I am pretty positive of the filing — sure — you would not let me explain it. | Q. Will you tell me how you know it was in January, 1870, thatthey were at your house? A. Our prayer-meeting was in January, the latter part of January. Mr. Beecher and Mr. Bowen met at my house to arrange their diflB- culties ; the prayer-meeting was on— I don't recollect exactly— something the latter part of January. Mr. Bowen was there at that time, and Mr. Beecher made some observations. I mark it from that fact— very con- fident. Q. Well, did they have but one prayer-meeting that year ? A. No, Sir ; they had, I think, more Q. How often ? A. That month particularly— that week of January. Q. What ? A. That week of January ; the latter part of January. Q. You know it was in the latter part of January ? A. I know it was in January, 1870. Q. One moment, Mr. Freeiand ? A. Well, I knew you would stop me, if I undertook to explain it ; I knew you would stop me. Q. Well, having explained it, and having got through with that explanation, I propose to put you another question ? A. Mr. Fullerton, you and I will get along pretty well, I guess. Q. Well, if you won't treat a serious subject with un- becoming levity, we will get along well enough. Did you have more than one prayer-meeting in January, ig70 ? A. Yes. Q. How ? A. We have one a week. Q. One a week ? A. Friday evening of every week we have a prayer-meeting. Q. Of every week ? A. Yes ; as a Q. Then you had four prayer-meetings in January, 1870, had you not? A. I suppose we had. Q. Well, how does the fact, then, that you had prayer- moeting the last week in Januaiy enable you to say posi- tively that they met at your house the last week in Janu- ary ? A. I took a good deal of interest in this matter, Mr. Fullertou, in gettiug Mr. Beecher and Mr. Bowen to- gethvir at my house ; and, after that meeting, they sepa-' rated— seemed to— with the best of feelings; Mr. Beecher Q. Now, will you tell me how you are enabled to fix it in January, 1 870 ? Is there any fact or circumstance ? A. That is the fact and the circumstance of that pi-ayer- meeting ; I went to it. Q. Well, there was a prayer-meeting the first week in January, 1870, or was there not ? Mr. Evarts— Well, Mr. Fullerton, hear what he bas to say about the prayer-meeting. Mr. Fullerton— I have heard what he had to say about the prayer-meeting. The Witness— I know that it is the latter part of— the prayer-meeting— the latter part of January. TESTUWXY OF JAMES FEEELAXD. 521 Q. Well, hoTv are you enabled to fix it tlio last - " Yes, I will attend to it ? " A. I don't remember, Sir. Q. Well, it may have happened and you not remember it? A. Yes. Mr, Fullerton— That is aU. Mr. Evarts— We will complete our direct examlnatloa upon the other branch— not re-direct. Mr. Sheamaan— Look at this paper, " Exhibit No. 122,* on the part of the plaintilf, and say whether you ever saw that paper before ? A.I never did, to my knowl- edge. Q. And did any person at any time on the 3d of April, 1872, inform you of the contents of that paper or of any part of it ? A. No, Sir. Mr. Shearman— That is all upon that point. Do you want to examine him upon that point ? Mr. Fullerton— Is that all you want to examine Mm f Mr. Shearman— All on that point. Mr. Evarts— You wiU remember that you have not croBB-examined about the arbitration at all. We simply wanted to ask this on the direct, and give an opportu- I tunity for you to cross-examine on that point. lESllMONY OF JAMES FBEELANB. 525 Mr. Beach— Do you propose to examine any further 1 Mr. Evarts— No, we propose a re-direct examination on your cross, whenever you have finished your cross. By Mr. FuUerton— Did I understand you, Mr. Freeland, to say that you never saw this paper, " Exhibit 122," before to-day ? A. Yes ; the arbitration ? Q. The submission. Look at it again, so that you will be able to say whatitis (handmg witness " Exhibit 122.") A. I saw no such paper at the arbitration. Q. WeU, I suppose it may have been there and you not see it 1 A. Very possible it might, but I did n't hear any- thing of it or know anything of it. Q. H^ell, you mean to say that you don't remember of having heard anything about it, don't you ? A. I remem- ber—I never saw such a paper there, and I don't remem- ber hearing anything about it. Q. Don't remember % A. No, Sir. Q. It may have been spr)ken of and you not remember it, I suppose % A. Very possible. Q. And it may have been read there and you not re- member it, I suppose ? A. I should think it could not have been read there without my rememberiDg it. Q. "Well, is it not possible that it may have been read there an^ you not remember it? A. I should hardly tlvink it was possible. Q. Do you recollect Mr. Bowen being there ? A. Yes. Q. Don't you reeoUect Mr. Bowen said something about having it understood definitely what was to be submitted to the arbitrators ? A. I do not. Q. He may have said so and you not remember it ? A. Very possible. Q. Do you remember of his saying In substance, " I won't proceed in this matter any further until we know what the arbitrators are to pass upon ?" A. No. Q. He may have said that ? A. I really don't remem- ber what Mr. Bowen or Mr. Tilton, either of them, said. Q. Well, then he may have said that, and you not re- member it, Mr. Freeland ? A. Very possible. Q. And it may have been that after Mr. Bowen said a thing of that kind, that this paper was drawn and you not remember it, I suppose ? A. I think I should re- member it ; if it was drawn there, and it was present, I should remember that fact, I think. Q. How A. I think I should remember that fact if it was drawn there. Q. But it may have been drawn, and you not remember it, I suppose ? A. "Well, I should doubt very much. Q. Were not there some papers there that you did not have in your hands % A. I think— I saw papers on the table there. Q. Do you know what they were? A. I think the " Tripartite Agreement " was there— I saw that on the table. Q. Were there any papers that you did not know the contents of? A. Yes, Sir, I suppose there was. Q. How 1 A. I suppose there was. Q. And this . may have been one of them ? A. Very possible. Q. Was there anything read over there ? A. Yes, there was something read ; I think a part of that Tripartite Agreement ; I don't think it was all.. Q. Anything else read? A. I don't remember anything else. Mr. Fullerton— That is all. RE-DIEECT EXAMINATION OF MR. FREE- LAND. By Mr. Shearman— Mr. Freeland, can you remember for what purpose Mr. Bowen and Mr. Beecher were invited by you to meet together at your house in January, 1870? Mr. Fullerton— That is objected to, Sir. Mr. Shearman— It is for the purpose of fixing the date. The counsel on the other side went into his reasons. Judge NeOson— I think we will take the general fact. Mr. Fullerton— Why, Sir, for what purpose he invited them— the purpose of his own mi i\d ? Judge Neilson— Well, it appears that he did send an in- vitation, as he remembers, and I think it well enough to learn what it was about. Mr. Fullerton— Well, that, if your Honor please, was a year removed from the meeting that we have talked about. What have we to do with the meeting in Janu- ary, 1870. Judge Neilson— I think we will take the general sub- ject. Mr. Shearman — That is the very point. Mr. Fullerton— Won't your Honor reflect one moment ? January, 1870 ! Judge Neilson— Yes, your meeting was December, 1870. Mr. Fullerton— Certainly. Judge NeUson— Nearly a year. Mr. Fullerton— Certainly. What have we do with Jan- uary, 1870 ? Mr. Evarts— The effort of the cross-examination was to- make it appear that this gentleman Judge Neilson— I don't know that that was the effort ; but I think we will take it. Mr. Fullerton— It is not rebutting anything. We have not alluded to January, 1870. Judge Neilson — I know, but it seems to be due to the witness. It cannot do you any harm. The Witness— Thank you, Judge ; I want to explain. [Laughter.] Mr. Shearman— Give your explanation. Judge Neilson— We don't want an explanation ; we - want simply what was the subject matter of that inter- view in January, 1870. The Witness— What the object was— at my house i Judge Neilson— Yes. Mr. Fullerton— It is upou a new subject. 526 TEE TILTON-B Mr. Morris— "We shall want to call witnesses upon the subject. Judge Neilson— No. Mr. Fullerton— If your Honor please, if it is of no con- sequence then I want to renew my objection. If they open that settlement between Mr. Bowen and Mr. Beecher in January, 1870, it is open for all purposes. Judge Neilson— Well, it won't be opened. The inter- view he called Mr. Beecher to he can say related to this subject or that. That is all there will be about it. Mr. Evarts— We can settle this very easily if our learned friends will admit that the interview between Mr, Beecher and Mr. Bowen, in which their difficulties were settled, took place in January, 1870. Mr. Shearman— That is all. Mr. Evarts— We imderstand the effort of the cross-exam- ination was to endeavor to confoxmd those two occur- rences. Judge Neilson— That was the fact, I suppose. Mr. Morris— No, we cannot admit that, because it is not the fact, as the evidence is to the contrary. Mr. Evarts— I don't understand it so. Mr. Morris— Well, it is. Mr. Shearman— Mr. Moulton has given evidence and produced exhibits which show that there was a meeting between Mr. Beecher and Mr. Bowen, either in January or February, 1870. That is left as a matter of doubt. Mr. Fullerton— No, Sir ; it is not a matter of doubt at all. Mr. Morris— Mr. Beecher's own handwriting— a docu- ment introduced here states when it was, and it was in February- the statement of Mr. Beecher himself. Judge Neilson— If we have got the paper we don't want anything more. Mr. Shearman— There is simply an allusion to an inter- view in February, 1870. Now, I want to show that that was this interview— the only one ; it was a meeting in January, 1870; that it was on the same subject that was there referred to. Judge NeUson— Don't Mr. Beecher's paper show what the subject of the interview was 1 Mr. Morris— Certainly it does ; he fixes the date. Judge Neilson— That's all we want. Mr. Shearman— The subject of reconciliation. Judge NeUson— Well, that is all he could say. Mr. Shearman— We don't think that does fix the date as February, although it refers to it in those general terms. We want to show the fact, if the other side don't object to a leading question. Mr. Beach— We certainly object to a leading question. Tour Honor, in our rebutting evidence, has held us with great strictness to the rule. Judge Neilson— Yes. Mr. Beach— Why you should relax it now, Sir, for the purpose of inquiring into an interview or an occasion be- ^tween third parties, at winch Mr. Tilton was not pres- Ul^CEEB IBIAL. ent, a year from the period to which we dii-ected our at- tention, I am unable to perceive, Sir, and I don't under- stand upon what principle of evidence your Honor per- mits it. Judge Neilson— You have a better argument than that, even. Mr. Beach— Well, perhaps I am not through yet, Sir. Judge Neilson— You did not luquire into the interview. Mr. Fullerton— That argument is before your Honor, al- ready. Judge Neilson— The witness referred to that without inquiry, and as Mr. Beecher has referred to it in the pa- per, I think it is to be left where it is ; go on, Mr. Shear- man. By Mr. Shearman— Do you remember distinctly the in- terview already spoken of, between Mr. Bowen and Mr. Beecher. at your house in January, 1870? Mr. Fullerton— I object to that, Sir, because he said upon his direct examination that he did remember it dis- tinctly. Judge Neilson— Well, that ought to be sufficient. Mr. Fullerton— That ought to be sufficient. Mr. Shearman— There is no harm. Mr. Evarts— If the o1)1ection is entered, we waive the question— if it is objected to on the ground that it is al- ready answered. By Mr. Shearman— Do you recollect any incident occur- ring at a prayer-meeting, in the last of January, 1870, which fixes that meeting upon your memory 1 Mr. Fullerton— I object to that, Sir. Mr. Shearman— They brought out on cross-examination that there was a prayer-meeting, and that that helped him to remember it. Then they brought out that there were four prayer-meetings in that month, and they asked the question why he was enabled to identify that particu- lar prayer-meeting. Now I propose to follow that, to show which of the prayer-meetings it was, and why he identifies it. Mr. Beach— That was not the question at all. Sir. The question was. Sir, in answer to an interrogatory put by us— the question presented by Mr. Freeland was that as there was a prayer-meeting on the last week of January, 1870, therefore he remembered that this conversation occurred then, and he was asked— that was given volun- tarily. Sir— and therefore he was asked by us whether there were not prayer-meetings every week of the year, and he was asked how he could distinguish, and he said there was no means by which he could distinguish. The question was put again and again to him. Mr. Shearman— Then I have a right now to show, by the suggestion, that he has some means by which he can distinguish. He says now he does remember an inci- dent. Mr. Fullerton— No, he does not say that. The Witness— I do. Mr. Shearman— He does say that. TUSTJJWyY OF Mr. Beacli— That was wliat we were olDieeting to. Tlie Witness— Tliat is wliat I want to get out. Mr. Fallerton— Itnow you want to ^et it out. Mr. Siearman— We have a rigM to that on tlie re-direct. That is what a re-direct is for. Mr. Beach— The witness did not wajitto get it out when we were examining him. Mr. Shearman— That is an imputation that is not proper to he made in court. If he was not able then to recollect, he is now able to recollect. He tried hard to get it out then, but was not allowed to do it. Mr. B : - : That is a mistake. Mr. Shearman— We think not. Now, your Honor, having said that he does remember an incident that fixes his memory upon that meeting, I ask what was that in- cident. 3Jr. Beach— He has not said that, because there was an objection made to the question. Ml'. Shearman— No, Sir. Judge NeDson— The question then is, "If you do re- member an incident, what was it?" Mi\ Shearman— I ask the question. The Witnes.-' -I remember that prayer-meeting particu- larly ; Mr. Bowen was there, and I requested some num- ber of gentlemen to shake hands with him. and settle the difficulties that had been exiotmg between Mm and Mr. Beecher. Judge Neilson— Very well; that is sutBcient. Mr. Shearman— And that was the first time at which you had ever made such a request, was it not. to any gen- tlemen? A. It was; that was one of the things that marked it. Judge Neilson— Well, that will do. Mr. Shearman Had you taken part in bringing about that interview between Mr. Beecher and Mr. Bowen at your house ? Mr. Fallerton— One moment. That has been proven. Mr. Shearman— It is only for the purpose of fixing Judge Neilson— I think we have it sufficiently. Mr. Fullerton— Now, it is not fixed anymore than it was fixed before. Judge Neilson— Now, Mr. Freeland, that is all. [The witness here started to leave the stand. | Mr. Beach— Wait a minute. Don't go. [Laughter.] Mr. Evarts— One moment. The Witness— I want to explain about that note. By Mr. Shearman— Did you ever take part in bringing about any other interview between Mr. Beecher and Mr. Bowen than this one in January, 1870 ? A. No, Sir ; I ended on that— labored six months. Q. You have said that you received notes sometimes from Mr. Bowen ? A. I did. Q. And are you sure or not that you received none from him on this business 1 Mr. Fullerton— That is objected to. 1 Judge Neilson— We can't take that. MAI^IA X. OViyGTOX. 527 Mr. Fallerton— He has testified he was not sure. Judge Neilson— Anything more wanted I Mr. Shearman— That is all. [The witness then left the stand.] Mr. Fullerton— Mr. Freeland— you need not come back. Who are the persons whom you requested to shake hands with Mr. Bowen 1 A. Well, Mr. Howard, Mr. Shea. man, and others. Mr. Beach— Who ? A. Mr. Shearman. That is all I re- member now, but there was half a do/:en. By Mr. FuT'erton— Can't remember any morel A. I don't remember any more now. Mr. Shearman— Mrs. Ovinyroa. MES. OVIXGTOX EECALLED. Mrs. Mali a N. OTiugton was thea recalled on behalf of defendant. By Mr. Shearman— IMi's. Oviugton, are you aciiuainted with Mr. Albert B. Martin ] A. I haA e been. Sir. Q. Toa were acquainted with him in the Summer of 1874? A. I was. Q. He visited fi'equently at your house after Mrs. Tilton came, did he not ? A. Very frequently. Q. Do you recollect one day when he visited your house at a time when Miss Turner and Gen. Tracy were there ? A. Perfectly. Q. Can you tell what day that was ? A. The 28th of July. Q. 18741 A. 1874. Q. Now, can you recollect, Mrs. Ovington, at what time of the day Miss Turner first came to your house on that day? ]Mr. Fullerton— That is objected to. Sir. Mr. Shearman— Well, if your Honor pleases, it is merely a question of the order in which I shall show the impossi- bility of Mr. Martin's statement. Judge Neilson— You should not comment on the evi- dence. Mr. Shearman— That is what I propose to show. Mr. Fullerton- -Mr. Martin's statement was m answer to your evidence. If you had any further or other evi- dence upon that subject, it should have been given upon the direct. :Mr. Shearman— Oh 1 Mr. Fullerton— Well, "Oh!" is not an argument. [Laughter.] Your Honor will perceive that they went through with that branch of the case then. We have produced a witness in reply to that upon that subject. Judge Neilson— Now, anything that Mr. Martin said that is new they can meet. Mr. Fullerton— Undoubtedly, Sir. Judge Neilson— That is all. Mr. Fullerton- They cannot go at the subject de novo. Mr. Shearman— That is all that we are doing, your Honor. Mr. Fullerton— Well, that is the reason I am objecting. 528 THE TILTON-B Mr. Sliearman— The question is upon some evidence given by Mr. Martin as to the day when he found Miss Turner there, and Gen. Tracy. Judge Neilson— Take up Mr. Martin's precise state- ment, if you want to call attention to it. Mr. Fullerton— They proved by Miss Turner what time she went there and what time she left there, and they proved by Mr. Tracy what time he went there and what time he left there, and the length of the interview with the witness. We then, to meet that, produced a witness upon our behalf to prove the time. Now, does not that end the matter so far as the time is concerned ? If there Is any statement made by our witness in regard to the matter, or the situation of the house, or anything of that kmd, they may meet that— that they can prove by this or other witnesses. Judge Neilson— They must state the specific statement that they wish to contradict. Mr. Fullerton— Yes, Sir. Judge Neilson— Proceed, Mr. Shearman, ME. MARTIN'S TESTIMONY DISPUTED. By Mr. Shearman— Mrs. Ovington, at what time in the day did Mr. Moulton come to your house on the 28th of July « A. Shortly after 5 o'clock in the after- noon. Q. At what time in the day did Gen. Tracy come to your house on that day 1 A. At 5 or about 5, a few mo- ments before Mr. Martin was there. Q. Mr. Martin testified that he came to your house about half-past 2 o'clock in the afternoon and found Gen. Tracy and Miss Turner seated in the back parlor; now at half-past 2 o'clock in the afternoon where was Miss Turner and who were with her ? A. She was in the back parlor playing on the piano. Mr. Ovington, Mrs. Tilton, and myself were there listening to her. Mr. Mar- tin was not in the house, neither was Gen. Tracy. Q. Now, will you state, for the purpose of fixing that time, at what hour Miss Turner arrived at your house, and what she did after that during the afternoon? Mr. Fullerton— That is objected to. That is all gone through with. Your Honor will recollect Miss Turner was questioned with great particularity in regard to that, and we have proved nothing to the contrary. Mr. Shearman— It was on cross-examination and in their rebuttal that they proved something to the contrary. Mr. FuUerton— In the re-direct. Sir, they went into the subject. Mr. Shearman— That was the re-direct of Miss Turner. Mr. FuUerton— They have no right to take up that topic now. Judge Neilson— They have only a right to take it up to contradict statements made by the witness. Mr. Fullerton— Yes, Sir, and that is what I object to. Mr. Shearman— That is what we propose to do. He Bays he met Miss Turner at half past 2. EECEME IBIAL, Judge Neilson— Read the particular clause in which Mr. Martin states that and asks her about it. Mr. Shearman— At what time did Miss Turner come to your house % Mr. Fullerton— One moment. Does your Honor permit that? Judge Neilson— I suggested to the counsel that he read, the particular clause in Mr. Martin's statement upon that subject, or any other. Mr. Shearman— I have read the particular clause. I want to show how this lady establishes the time. Mr. Fullerton— We have not heard the clause. Judge Neilson— Read the clause in contradiction. Mr. Shearman— I have, your Honor. Judge Neilson— Go on then. Mr. Menus— We don't understand the clause. GETTING TESTIMONY UNDER DIFFICULTIES^ Mr. Shearman — I read the clause in which Mr. Martin says he saw Miss Turner at Mrs. Ovington's about half-past two o'clock in the afternoon. That Mrs. Ovington contradicts. Now, this is a question of memory as to time. I propose to show how Mrs. Ovington has an accurate memory as to this time. Judge Neilson— That is not necessary now— the lnde> pendent fact. Mr. Shearman- Well, your Honor, there are two "wit- nesses Mr. Evarts— It is to be assumed, unless it is oontrar dieted by their cross-examination. Judge Neilson— What else did Mr. Martin say I By Mr. Shearman— Mrs. Ovington, are you positive that at half-past 2 o'clock in the afternoon Miss Turner was with you and your husband, and that Gen. Tracy and Mr. Martin were neither of them there 1 A. I can swear so truthfully. Q. Now, at what time did Gen. Tracy leave that after- noon 1 Mr. Fullerton— That is gone into, Sir. Mr. Shearman— Not except by asking Gen. Tracy, whO was imable to state the time, on cross-examination. Mr. Fullerton— No, Sir, the question has all been ex- hausted. Judge Neilson- One moment. Mr. Shearman you mxuA confine yourself to such clauses in Mr. Martin's evideno* as you can read to the witness, and take her answers; otherwise we are opening the subject anew. Mr. Shearman— Very good. Mr. Martin testifies thai Gen. Tracy went away, as near as he eould t«U, about ^ o'clock in the afternoon; is that true! Mr. Morris— One moment. Mr. Shearman— We were told to ask that question. Mr. Morris— Exactly ; and that evidence of Mr. Martin was in strict reply to their evidence. This is not sui^ rebuttal. Our evidence upon that point was In reply to the evidence that they had offered; that is alL Now, tf TESTIMONY OF MES. MABIA N. OYINGTON. 529 chey can contradict that by this "witness, we can put another witness ob. the stand, and when will that topic end— when will that fact be ended ? Mr. Beach— Mr. Tracy testified exactly when he went there, and when he went away. 3Ir. Shearman— Gen. Tracy did not fix the time. Mr. Beach— Yes, he did fix the time. Judge Neilson — I think you can correct ]Mr. Martin upon any specific statement he has made. The Witness— If your Honor remembers, Mr. Martin's name was not mentioned in my former testimony. Judi,^e Neilson— No. The Y7itnes3— Had it been I would have told you then. Judge Neilson— Yes. .Mr. Beach— Your Honor, Mr. Tracy was called as to the timtj when he was at Mrs. Oriugton's, when he went there and when he left, when he had the conversation with Bessie Turner and how long that conversation was. To contradict Mr. Tracy we put on the stand Mr. Martin. Now } ou permit them to contradict :\ir. Martin? Judge NelLson — Yes. Mr. Baaoh— And then you will permit us, I suppose, to give fm-ther evidence to sustain Mr. Martin, and when wiU we get through 1 Judge Neilson— I think we wiH get through about 4 o'clock this afternoon. fLaughter.l Mr. Bsach — I don't think we will. Sir, if you permit that line of examination. Mr. Shearman— Your Honor, would we have been al- lowed to have brought 500 witnesses in succession to confirm the statement of Mr. Tracy as to the hour when he went there % Judge Neilson — I think you can contradict any state- ment that Mr. Martin has made, and you will proceed to do so. Eead the clause. By Mr. Shearman— Mr. Martin says Gen. Tracy went a\. ay, as near as he could tell, about 5 o'clock in the afternoon. Now, Mrs. Ovington, what time in the after- noon did Gen. Tracy go away ? Judge Neilson — No, that is asking an independent fact. Eead the statement of Mr. Martin and ask her if that is so or not. By Mr. Shearman— Mr. Martin testifies that Gen. Tracy went away about 5 o'clock in the afternoon. Is that true % A. It is false. Q. Mr. Martin testifles that Mrs. Tilton and he were on the back piazza of yom- house for at least two hours on that afternoon. Is that true ? A. It is false— it is, Mr. Fullerton. Mr. Fullerton— WeU, repeat it again, Mrs. Ovington, if you think it becomes a lady to do it. You need not ap- proach and address me in that kind of style. If you for- get you are a lady, others may forget it also. The Witness- Excuse me. Mr. Fullerton— I will excuse you. By Mr. Shearman— Mr. Martin testifies that after Gen. Tracy left, there was conversation between Miss Turner and some other persons not named concerning the sub- ject of her testimony before the Committee ; is that true 1 A. It is false. Q. Mr. Martin testifies that the subject of Miss Turner's testimony before the Committee formed the principal topic 01 conversation, after Gen. Tracy left, with Miss Turner and IVIrs. Ovington ; is that true 1 A. It is not true. Q. Mr. Martin again testifles that he can safely say that after Gen. Tracy left there was no other topic discussed during that afternoon or talked about ; was that true— no other topic than the subject of Miss Turner's testimony before the Committee discussed or talked about % A. There was scarcely any conversation of any kind ; the time was short, only at the tea-table. Q. But is it true that the topic of her testimony before the Committee was the only topic of conversation or dis- cussion during that afternoon after Gen. Tracy leftt A. It is not true. There was no discussion of any kind ; very little said on any subject at the tea-table. Q. Was anything said on the subject of her testimony before the Committee after Gen. Tracy left ? A. Not a word. Directly Gen. Tracy left the house we went from the tea-table, and she went to the Committee directly after tea. There was no opportunity for conversation. Mr. Beach— That is all irregular and inadmissible, un- der your Honor's ruling. Mr. Shearman— It is a statement of fact. Mr. Beach— No, it is not a statement of fact. By Mr. Shearman— Mr. Martin is asked whether he knew, as a matter of fact, that your piazza was specially hot about 3 o'clock, and that it was only about 5 o'clock that that piazza was cooler than any other part of the house, and he answers that he does not remember. I ask you what is the fact about your piazza in the afternoon. Judge Neilson— That does not contradict Mr. Martin, and we cannot take that. Mr. Evarts— Why ? Judge Neilson— This witness cannot speak of that piazza, its condition in regard to heat, which no witness has testified about at all. It opens up the whole snbject. Mr. Evarts— Mr. Martin is testifying. He was the first witness that said anything about it ; and, if I remember right, he says that Mrs. TUton and he were up stairs. Judge Neilson— And he went down stairs. It was on Mr. Shearman's examination. Mr. Evarts — Mr. Martin's examination as a witness. Judge Neilson— Mr. Shearman's examination of Mr. Martin. Mr. Evarts— We have a right to cross-examine the wit- ness, to contradict him. Judge Neilson— You cannot eontradict a man if tliat man does not say a thing is so or not. Mr. Evarts— He does say that he and Mrs. Tilton went down stairs because the piazza was cooler, and that the 530 THE TimON-B sun was kept from coming in there and Tjroiling tliem by a projecting wall tliat protected, wliicli shaded them. Now, if we propose to contradict him, we have a right to do so. Judge Neilson— I have said, over and over again, that what he said you can contradict, hut not an independent fact. By Mr. Shearman— This question is asked Mr. Martin, and he gives this answer : Q. Well, was it cooler on the piazza when you went down than up in the room ? A. Yes. we went down for that purpose. Q. Well, was the sun shining? A. Not on the piazza. And he gives tliis time as half-past two o'clock in the afternoon, or three. Judge Neilson— Yes, and look a little further and you will find a specific question of your own on that poiat. Mr. Shearman— Then he is asked : Don't you know that from 2^2 or 3 o'clock ia the after- noon that the sun is blazing on that piazza, and It is the hottest place in the house ? A. I don't think so, Sii- ; I don't know Q. Don't you know that that piazza is exposed to the sun in the afternoon, and that that is the time the sun is shining on it ? A. I think I know it is, but there is a pro- tection there from the sun. Then he goes on to say " there is some protection from the building, the next house. I think the next house is a protection." Further on he says: "This house next door is a thi-ee-story brick house, and running back, and the other house does not ;" and he says that he has re- peatedly sat on the piazza from 10 o'clock in the morn- ing until the evening, and he never went away because of the heat. Q. Not even on the hottest days 1 A. Well, it is very hot at that time, -ir. Mr. Pullerton— All that is collateral. Mr. Shearman— It comes down to the very question whether these parties came down at three o'clock in the afternoon in order to be cool, and went on the piazza. The whole question turns on a question of time. The whole contradiction of Gen. Tracy is attempted on the time he went down, and this witness testifies that although he looked at no clock, and had no other idea of the time, he knows he went on the piazza at three o'clock because he went down there to get cooler, and when aaked whether the piazza was the hottest place in the house he said no. Judge Neilson— Ask the lady that question. By Mr. Shearman— Is, or is not, that piazza the hottest place in yoTir house between the hours of half-past 2 and 4 o'clock ia the afternoon ? A. We have always con- sidered it so. Mr. Beach— Wait one moment, Madam. We object to that answer. Mr. Evarts— Why ? Mr. Beach— We move to strike it out. FjEGHEB TBIAL. Mr. Evarts— It is a good answer. Jadge Neilson— I think we will let it stand. Go on, Mr. Shearman. Q. Does the next house on either side of you project bej^ond the rear of your piazza? A. Neither of them does. A frame house on eacn side of ours, neither one exteuding beyond ours. Q. Is your piazza exposed to the sun in the afternoon or not ? A. It is. Q. Is it not directly exposed to the sun ? A. It is. By Judge Neilson— What is the protection there? There is some protection there, is there not ? A. There is a iirotection until an hour or two in the afternoon by a roof, but between 2 and half past 5, 1 think it is, iii Sum- mer, there is no protection whatever ; the sun blazes there. By Mr. Evarts— You mean the roof of your piazza? A. The roof of our own piazza is a narrow old roof ; it is a narrow, old-fashioned piazza. By Mr. Shearman— Have you recently observed during what houi' the sun does strike upon the whole of that piazza? Mr. Fullerton— She has not recently observed that piazza. Mr. Shearman— The sun occupies about the same posi- tion Mr. Fullerton— That is the way I studied geography. Mr. Shearman— The sun occupies about the same posi- tion on the 14th of May that it does on the 28th of July. Judge Neilson— I think her answer is sufflcient on that subject Q. Have you recently observed during what hours the sun strikes upon the whole of that piazza ? A. From 2 uutU half-past 5 o'clock, I think it is, or 5 ; in the Sum- mer it lies there longer. Q. Mr. Martin testifies, being asked how he has re- freshed his recollection as to the time of being in a room in your house, and he says : Because they have a clock there; I may have looked atthat; I do not remember. Judge Neilson— Y'ou need not ask her about the clock. By Mr. Shearman— Mr. Martin went into Mrs. Tilton's room ; is there a clock in Mrs. Tilton's room 1 Judge Neilson— That is immaterial. The Witness— There is. By Mr. Shearman— Was that clock running in the Sum- mer of 1874 ? A. No, Sir. Q. Had it been ? A. No, Sir, not for some years. Judge Neilson— Never mind about the clock. Mr. Mar- tin didn't prove anything about the clock. Mr. Shearman— He attempted to. Judge Neilson— He attempted to show he looked at It. Mr. Beach— No, he did n't attempt to show he looked at it. lES'lI.VOyY OF MES. MARIA X. oviyGToy. 531 By Mr. Shearman— ]\Ir. Martin being asked the ciues- tion— There was quite a long time elapsed alter Gen. Tracy left before you had tea I answers : WeU, I should think about an hour ; and again, I think, my best impression is it was about an hour. How long was it after Gen. Tracy left before you and Mr. Martin had tea ? A. Gen. Tracy left at 6 o'clock. We went to tea a few minutes past 6. I think the tea bell rang when Gen. Tracy was in the house. Q. I call your attention to some testimony that Mr. Til- ton gave yesterday : I was sitting with Mr. and Mrs. Ovington on their back piazza, and I chanced to make a remark to this eflfect, that I was sorry that the piazza on my house was in the front, and not in the rear ; that my piazza was prac- tically of no advantage to the family, because, in order to sit there, we must expose ourselves to the street; whereas, in Mrs. Ovington's house, they could enjoy the comfort of their piazza, and still maintain their family seclusion. And he fixes this conversation as of the 9th of July, 1874, as I understand. Do you agree as to the date, the 9th of July ? Mr. Beach— No, I understand not. Mr. Shearman— Then, if it was not so, it was improper evidence, because it was no contradiction of the testi- mony Mrs. Ovington gave. Mrs. Ovington gave an ac- count of a conversation that took place on the 9th of July, 1874. Mr. Tilton's attention was called to that, and he gave his evidence by way of contradiction, giving a new conversation. I will put the question in this shape. [To the witness] . You remember testifying, Mrs. Ovington, to a conversation with Mr. Tilton, in which he said to you : "Elizabeth will lie for me. She would tell any number of lies to clear me ; she loves me." You remember testi- fying that? A. I do. Mr. Morris— One moment. Mr. Shearman— That is all, to call her attention to it. [To the witness.] Mr. Tracy testifies that on that occasion the following took place : I was sitting with Mr. and Mrs. Ovington on their back piazza, and I chanced to make a remark to this effect, that I was sorry that the piazza on my house was in the front, and not in the rear ; that my piazza was practically of no advantage to the family, because in or- der to sit there we must expose ourselves to the street, whereas in JMrs. Ovington's house they could enjoy the comfort of their piazza, and still maintain their family seclusion. Mrs. Ovington made some remark, however, about my house being very cool and comfortable in the Sum- mer, in consequence of Gallatin-place opening perpen- dicularly just in front of it. I then made a remark that that was true, but that I was very sorry that Mrs. Tilton had been compelled to yield up the pleasantest and cool- est room in our house, which was the second-story pair of front rooms, to Mr. and Mrs. Taylor, who were then occupying them; and I added, perhaps in a satirical vein, "This is one of the consequences of the scandal, and unless I defend myself against the accusations brought against me, I presume I shall go to complete ruin." Did any part of that conversation take i)lace ; and, if so, what part of it ? Judge Neilsou — She has testified to part of it. Mr. FuUerton— Can there be anything more collateral than that ? Judge Neilson— No, The Witness— [to Judge Neils on] —But, Sir, it was not in the same connection ; and that was not so. Mr. Fullerton [to the witnessj— Let Mr. Shearman argue the case. [To Judge Neilson.J I object to it on the ground that it is entirely collateral. Mr. Shearman— It was evidence worth putting in on the other side ; I suppose anything they put in we have a right to rebut. [To the witness.] Did Mr. Tilton use any such language as that in this connection ? A. No, Sir, he did not ; it was in an entirely different connection. Judge NeUson— Let it stand. Mr. Fullerton— I imderstood your Honor to rule it out. Judge Neilson— Well, we will let it stand. Mr. Shearman— That is all, Mrs. Ovington. CROSS-EXAAIINATION OF MRS. OVINGTON. By Mr. Fullerton — Was the scandal the sub- ject of conversation at the tea-table that night 1 A. It was not, Mr. Fullerton. Q. Not one word said about it ? A. Nothing concern- ing the scandal. The mere arrangement of Bessie being sent to Mr. Storrs's that evening was the only time the subject was mentioned. Q. Nothing as to what she was to testify to ? A. Not one word. Q. Sure of it ? A. Nothing before she went ; before the Committee met no word was said on that subject; neither did JMrs. Tilton or me understand, that I know. Q. How long was the interview between Mr. Tracy and her? A. Less than an hour; lean give you the reasons why I know it was so. Q. How much less than an hour ? A. Perhaps ten minutes less. Q. You think, then, it was about fifty minutes long, as near as you could say 1 A. Fifty minutes ; I could not say to two or three or four minutes. Q. As near as you recollect ? A. I should say it was fifty minutes. Q. And where did it take place? A. In the back par- lor. The conversation took place in the back parlor; I introduced Miss Turner to Gen. Tracy in the front parlor. Q. What took place in the back parlor 1 A. Miss Turner was speaking to Mr. Tracy. Q. It was in the back parlor 1 A. It was in the back parlor. Q. What time did it commence ? A. It commenced di- rectly after I introduced Bessi . 533 IHE TILTON-B Q. What time did it commence ? A. A little past five o'clock ; I cannot say tlie number of minutes. Q. Wliat time did Bessie go to tlie Committee? A. About seven o'clock, I think it was. Q. Did the Committee meet as early as that ? A. I know she left long before dark, or some time before dark ; it was daylight when she left. Mr. FuUerton— That is all. Judge Neilson [to the witness]— That is all. [To coun- sel.] That is the case on both sides, gentlemen, T sup- pose. Mr. Shearman— No ; we have another witness to answer some questions here. Mr. Evarts— If your Honor please, we shall have sev- eral witnesses. We have no expectation of being able to finish to-night. We have several witnesses, but they won't be long. Mr. Shearman— We can finish with Mr. Eggleston in a few minutes. Mr. FuUerton— They say they can finish with him; perhaps I cannot. Mr. Evarts— If you cannot, perhaps we had better ad- journ. Judge Neilson [to the jurors]— Gentlemen, get ready to retire. Be in your seats to-morrow morning at 11 o'clock. The court then adjourned until 11 o'clock on Thursday morning. EIGHTY-FIFTH DAY'S PROCEEDINGS. THE TESTIMONY ALL IN. COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT OBTAIN AN ADJOURN- MENT UNTIL WEDNESDAY— THE LAST WITNESSES —BRIEF TESTIMONY FROM HENRY C. BOAVEN, THE REV. EDWARD EGGLESTON, H. B. CLAFLIN, CHARLES STORRS, GEORGE W. UHLER, JOHN C. SOUTHWICK, AND OTHERS. Thursday, IVIay 13, 1875. Although the end of the trial was known to be very near, yet there was considerable surprise to- day when it was suddenly anuounced, about five minutes before 3 o'clock, that the last witness had given his testimony, and the case on both sides was ready to be summed up and given to the jury. Judge Neilson exhibited unmixed satisfaction when Mr. Evarts announced that he rested the defendant's case, rhe counsel on both sides also appeared re- lieved, and the jurymen looked at one another and smiled as if well pleased that their long con- finement was so nearly over. Mr. Evarts stated that on account of the large accumulation of evi- dence, and because their side would have to begin the Bmnming up, the counsel for the defendant de- EBCREB TEIAL. sire'l a short interval for preparation. Judge Por- ter and himself were to divide the work of sum- ming up the defendant's case, and they would like an adjournment until next Wednesday morning. Mr. Beach stated that personally he should prefer to go on with the case on Monday, but although it would be a personal sacrifice to him, he was willing to oblige Judge Porter and Mr. Evarts by acceding to tlie request for an adjournment. Judge Neilson accordingly granted Mr. Evarts's request, and the court adjourned until Wednesday morning at 11 o'clock. THE CLOSING TESTIMONY. The first witness put on the stand by the defendant yesterday was Calvin J. Mills, who is engaged in an editorial capacity on The New-Torh Herald. It was sought to prove by him that the Woodhull scan- dal publication had been circulated in printed slips prior to its appearance in Woodhull <^ Claflin's Weekly, After a good deal of argument by the counsel on both sides the testimony of this witness was ruled out by Judge Neilson, and Mr. Evarts withdrew the question which had already been put to him. Henry C. Bo wen was recalled by the defendant for further cross-examination. His appearance cre- ated another stir in the audience. He came forward with a quick, nervous step, gave his testimony briefly, and after bemp about five minutes on the stand stepped down again and disappeared among the spectators. He substantially reiterated his former statements concerning the time of the alleged interview at Mr. Freeland's house, and about the Woodstock letter, and his alleged statements to JVIr. Eggleston. The Rev. Edward Eggleston immediately followed Mr. Bowen in the witness chair. IVLr. {Shearman asked him if his occupation had not changed since his last appearance before the Court. " Well, Sir," replied Mr. Eggleston, " when I was here before I said I was lecturer, author, and clergyman ; now I am principally clergyman, Sir. The lecturer and author have been rather sunk out of sight, J beUeve.'' Mr. Eggleston's examination was short. He repeated in substance the statements alleged to have been made to him by Mr. Bowen, and which Mr. Bowen had denied. Horace B. Claflin and Charles Storrs were succes- sively called to the stand by the defendant's coun- sel. Both of them declared that they had never be- fore seen the document asserted to 1)0 the submission to arbitration agreed upon between Mr. Bowen and EDITOBIAL COMM Mi. Tilton, and written by Mr. Moulton. They sub- stantially reasserted the points of tbeir evidence which had been called in question by Mr. Bowen. George W. Uhler, the owner of the house in Clinton-st. occupied by Mr. Moulton in 1871, and Wallace E. Caldwell, were both called by the de- fendant to contradict the statement that there was r.o portrait of Mr. Beecher in Mr. Moulton's house in Clinton-st. Both swore that they had seen a large portrait of Mr. Beecher in the parlor of that house when it was occupied by ]VIr. Moulton. John C. Southwick was called for the defendant to contradict some of the statements of Mr. Wood- ruff, but much cf the evidence which it was desired to draw from him was ruled out. On the cross-ex- amination of this witness Mr. Beach caused much merriment by abruptly asking him if he had any bets on the result of this trial. The witness admit- ted that he had had a bet of $100 of that kind, but had withdrawn it in anticipation of being called as a witness. Mr. Southwick was the last witness for the defendant. The plaintiffs counsel called John Eliot Bowen, a son of Henry C. Bowen, who swore that in 1870— he thought it was in December of that year— he had dehvered a note from his father to Mr. Freeland, and received the reply, " I'll attend to it," or something equivalent to that. Marshall J. Morrell, an architect, was also called for the plaintiff. He brought with him a drawing which he had made of the rear of ]\Ir. Ovington's house, and the situation of the adjoining buildings. His testimony was intended to support the assertion of ^Ir. Martin that he and Mrs. Tilton had sat on the back piazza of Mr. Ovington's house to find a cool place on the afternoon when Gen. Tracy and Miss Bessie Turner had their interview at that house. THE PROCEEDINGS— VERBATIM. THE TRIBUIsT:'S EDITORIAL COmiENTS CRITICISED. The Court met at 11 a. m., pursuant to ad- iouinment. Judge Neilson— Are you ready to proceed, gentlemeu • Mr. Fullerton— If your Honor please, I desire to call attention to a brief editorial in one of tlie morning papers, of this morning. Mr, Beach— Name the paper. Mr. Fullerton— The New- York Trtbune. Mr. Beach— [>S'o^to voce.'] The official paper of this COMTt. mTS CEIUGISEB. 533 Mr. Fullerton— WeD, it is an editorial. It is headed as f oUows : As usual, the Beecher trial was enlivened yesterday by some choice exhibitions of legal blackguardism. And then goes onto quote a question put to Mrs. Oving- ton while on the stand, and her answer ; also an observa- tion made by Mrs. Ovington to me, and my reply. IVIrs. Ovington's answer to the question was as follows : It is false" — and then turning to me, when she was not under examination by me, and in an excited manner, and with a good deal of gesticulation- Mr. Beach— And emphasis. Mr. Fullerton— And emphasis, said: "It is false, Mr. Fullerton," when I replied : Well, you can repeat it agaia, Mrs. Ovington, if you think it becomes a lady to do it. You need not approach and address me in that kind of style. If you forget you are a lady, others may forget it also. Now, the writer of that article could not have under- stood that I was not examining Mrs. Ovington at the time, but my fi-iend Islx. Shearman was, and that she had no right to turn and address me by name, in a loud tone, too, and in such an emphatic manner. Why she did it I certainly did not at the time understand, but I did thiuk. although she was a lady, that it was such a piece of imper- tinence, not to say antliing harsher, that it required some observation from me by way of rebuke. If the lady had been under examination by me, it, of course, would have been a very different matter, but she was not, and she had no occasion and no right to address me in a public court-room in that kind of way, calling me by name, and repeating the answer in the manner, which was very of- fensive, which she did. Judge Neilson— I appreciate what the coimsel says, and regret exceedingly that such an article should ap- pear in that paper. I remember the occasion and recol- lect it as counsel now states it, and regret that Mrs. Ovington should at the moment have forgotten herself so far as to make the remark which she did, especially to coui-sel who was not then examining her or speaking to her. Mr. Fullerton— Mrs. Ovington undoubtedly discovered her mistake, because she apologized in a moment, and the apology was accepted at the time. Judge Neilson— The error of the article goes quite back beyond that. The reference in the first Une— will you be kind enough to repeat it. Mr. Fullerton— The language is this, Sir: "As usual" Judge Neilson—" As usual." Mr. Fullerton [continuing]—" The Beecher trial was en- livened yesterday by some choice exhibitions of legai blackguardism. " Judge Neilson— Well, now, that wiU do. I consider that the offensive part of the article. The reference to Mrs. Ovington, no doubt, proceeds in a measure from misap- prehension—the supposition perhaps that you was deal- ing with the -^-itness. But the expression that this trial. 534 THE TILTON-B. on the occasion yesterday, or any other day, has heen characterized hy " the usual," or any blackguardism, is an unpardonable offense. I, in one way and another, dm-- ing my experience here and at the bar, have seen very many trials hotly contested, civil and criminal, and I have never seen a case where counsel have treated each other and treated witnesses with more courtesy and cii'cumspection than in this case. I think that remark by the editor of that paper was a most unpardonable offense, and calls for an apology from him. Mr. Evarts— I think, if your Honor please, my friend Mr. Fullerton will not disagree in what I shall say in re- spect to Mrs. Ovington. Altogether, I tbink, too much of the occurrence was made of the matter by the press, of course. V/e agree that that is not a fair representation of it, but I am inclined to think that there is too much of an inference of impropriety on the part of IVIi'S. Ovington, from the manner in which my friend Mr. Fullerton took it up. Now, we cannot reproduce in print all that occm-s in court. Mr. Shearman was standing behind Mr. Fuller- ton, as usual, in his position and our position, and exam- ining Mrs. Ovington. Mr. Fullerton, as was his right, was watching the witness closely and looking in her face, as preparing for a cross-examination. Mrs. Ovington, observing in his face an expression which she regarded as distrustful, in some degree, of her statement, did, with- out any justification, under the rules of giving evidence, make an observation to him, and T think made it very good-naturedly, as far as I recollect; but Mr. Fullerton did not treat it in that sense exactly, but treated it as an impropriety, and spoke as he is reported to have spoken. Then Mrs. Ovington apologized; Mr. Fullerton then accepted her apology ; and there I sup- pose the thing should have ended, the people who saw and remember the whole, including the jury, and your Honor, and the rest of us, understanding the matter much more distinctly than by any production in print by mere words that passed either one way or the other. I am sure Mr. Fullerton cannot think that Mrs. Ovington intended any affront to him in what she said, and we must admit that there was no occasion for her speaking again in repetition of her answer as matter of evidence, but she was drawn into it by Mr. Fullerton's position and scrutiny of her countenance, and the expression of his, and the very amicable relations that hud been established between Mrs. Ovington and Mr. Fullerton on the previous examination and cross-examination. Judge Neilson— That act on Mrs. Ovington's part was incidental, and perhaps natural to a person not much ac- customed to proceedings in court, and I think she had been treated very properly, and with courtesy, in her previous examination, and but for the mention of the circumstance in the press I think it would have passed off satisfactorily and pleasantly. I do not think even at the moment that Mr. Fullerton had a wish to censure Mrs. OvingtoD. WOHER TRIAL. A CORRECTION OF THE PRINTED RECORD. Mr. Evarts— K your Honor please, there is a matter in the evidence incidentally brought to notice by an examination of Mr. Moulton as to a particular passage in Mr. Beecher's testimony, and we have asked the stenographer to make the proper examination to see whether the clause as printed was correctly printed or not, and he has made it. Judge Neilson— As to the word " reading 1" Mr. Evarts— Yes, Sir, as to the word " reading." It is on page 45 of the third volume, in the second column, very near the foot, and is in this clause. In speaking of Mr. Moulton he says : He would say, " Did you say " so and so ? or " Do you say ? " or something to that effect, and I would check my- self for a moment to make some reply — " Yes," or " Sub- stantially that," or something like that, and then would repeat— repeated one thought and another thought, at- tempting to go over in my mind, somewhat, the points of the conversation that had immediately preceded this, and which concerned my feelings toward Mr. Tilton and his family ; that was the last part of the interview before the making [instead of reading] of the memorandum. Judge Neilson— Mr. Stenographer, does the character used for the word "reading" also represent the word " writing ? " The Stenographer— No, Sir ; it does not look a bit like it. Judge Neilson— What % The Stenographer— It does look at all like it. Judge Neilson— They are totally unlike ? The Stenographer— Yes, Su\ Mr. Morris— Then it turns out that Mr. Shearman's reasoning was not correct. Mr. Shearman— I will appeal to Mr. Munson, who is quite experienced, as to whether I was right, if you insist upon it. Mr. Beach— Don't be all talking at once. Mr. Morris— Well, I have a right to talk, because I had the floor first. Mr. Beach— Well, I was trying to quiet Mr. Shearman. Mr. Morris— You have got a hard task. Mr. Beach— No ; not very hard. Judge Neilson— Very well, gentlemen; I am satisfied. Mr. Shearman— Well, then, your Honor, I wish to make this explanation. Mr. Munson spoke to me across the table, saying that since the time when I practiced pliono- graphy (for I used to practice it— when Mr. Tilton did) the system had changed— I was told the system had changed, that (here are now four or five systems. Mr. Munson will bear me out that, under the old Pitman system, "read" and "write" were written very much alike- just a little difference in the turn or crook. That waa under Pitman's system. Mr. Munson— That was very early; in the earlier edi- tions it was so. Mr. Morris— That is outlawed. Mr. Evarts— Wq are not proceeding under that now ; TESTIMONY OF OALVIN J. MILLS. 535 -we have asted the stenogTapher to get his own notes and give us tiie correction. Judge Neilson— Yes. Have we any more witnesses ? Horace B. Claflin was recalled on hehalf of the defend- ant. Judge Neiison— Good Morning, Mr. Claflin. Mr. Claflin— Good morning, Sir. Mr. Shearman— The paper is not in court upon which we proposed to examine Mr. Claflin; Judge Morris has sent for it. Mr. Beach— Can't we do something else while he is gone? Mr. Shearman— Mr. Claflin, we will exchange you for another witness. Judge Neiison— Take a seat below for a moment, Mr. Claflin. TESTIMONY OF CALVIN J. MILLS. Calvin J. Mills was called and swoin on be- half of the defendant. By Mr. Hill— Where do you reside, Mr. Mills 1 A. In Brooklyn. Q. How long have you lived in Brooklyn ? A. I have ]'Ted in New- York and Brooklyn about 17 years— occa- sionally I lived in New- York, and sometimes in Brooklyn. Q. Are you acquainted with both of the parties to this action ? A. I am not ; I am acquainted with Mr. Beecher, b Jt not with Mr. Tilton. Q. What is your present Dusiness? A. An editor, Sir. Q. How long have you been engaged in the business of an editor? A. I commenced, I think, the year after the Mexican war ; which I think was 1849, Sir. Q. And have been engaged in the business ever since? A. Not e\ er since. Q. Nearly all the while ? A. The most part of the time. Sir. Q. At what place? A. At Buffalo I commenced; I have been in New-York about six years now- Q. What papers have you been engaged upon ? A. In Buffalo 010. The Buffalo Cornier Bind TJic Buffalo Evening .'est. Q. And in New-York? A. In New-York on The Siand- ird, and where I am at present— on The Herald. Q. Were you so engaged in New York in 1872, any part )f the year ? A. Yes, Sir ; all the year. Q. On what papers flrst? A. In the first half of the year on The Standard, and from July on The Bevald. Q. Do you recollect at any time during the year 1872— I will pass that question at present. Did j ou, duiing the , year 1872, see what w as called the WoocUuiIl scandal— ; the publication in T/ie Wood hull £ Claflin Weekly called i the Woodhull scandal ? A. I did. Sir. ' Q. When did you see it, Mr. Mills? I saw it published to the Woodhull paper about election time, 1872 ; I think pv-rt fh-. 1 st of November, Q. Now, Sir, did you examine the article at that time? A. Yes. Sir. Q. Bead it through ? A.I cannot say that I read it through certainly, but I think I did. Q. Be kind enough to look at this publication and see if it is the same which you read— that is, the subject mat- ter? [Handing witness Woodhull & Claflin^ s Weekly.'] A. Yes, Sir, it is. Q. Now, Mr. Mills, had you .at any time prior to your reading and examination of this publication seen the substance of it in type, either in proof-slips or other form, before that time? Mr. Fnllerton— That is objected to. One moment. Judge Neiison— We had that subject up a month ago, Mr. Hjll. Mr. Hill— I know it. ]VIr. Evarts— Biit your Honor will notice that other evi- dence has been given on their part. Judge Neiison— Then you may turn to the specific statements that have been given by anybody, which you have a right to meet. I want to get you to apply the same principle that you insisted upon yesterday. Mr. Evarts— Exactly ; we agree, if your Honor please, when it goes to the contradiction of the witness, any statements, but this is our point. In the rebutting evi- dence of the plaintiff a witness was produced who had the conduct of the press or publication for IVIrs. Woodhull of her paper. Judge Neiison— Mr. Andrews ? Mr. Evarts— No, Sir. Mr. Beach— Mr. Mitchell. Mr. Evarts— Mr. Andrews was introduced and spoke, but Mr. Mitchell, if that was his name— the prtuter. Mr. Morris — Mr. Wood. Mr. Evarts — Mr. Wood — and showed the suspension of that paper during a certain period, and that there were no proofs of the actual publication— that is, no proofs of this in print, as it came out actually in that paper— no preliminary proofs of that that were made or could have been made at that press or in that publication earlier than a ceT^ln date. JuIr. Evarts— Yes, Sir ; it was to pieclude the idea that our witnesses were right in saying that they had seen slips. Our witnesses had said that they had seen slips in the hands of Mrs. Woodhull and in the presence of Mr. Tilton. &c. Now, these witnesses were, as I understand it, before, excluded by your Honor — as I was not in couix at that time— on the ground of its being a collateral in- quiry, and that we wei e not to go into it. My own view of the matter— to present upon the aspect of the case as it then stood — was that it was good principal evidence, and it was so presented by my associates to your Honor. Judge Neiison— No. It was excluded becaose the at- tempt was to show that slips had passed from hand to 536 THE TILION'BEECBBE TBIAL. 3ian<3, were kno-wn, were the same seen by the colored ^witness. Mr. Beach— Mr. Woodley. Judge Neilson— Mr. Woodley, at the office. Mr. Evarts— Yes, Sir. Judge JS eilson— Whereas it did not appear to the Court that there was any connection hetween any slips that ex- isted and the papers that Woodley had ever seen, and that Woodley did not identify the slips because he could not read. That was the aspect then. Mr. Evarts— I don't think, if your Honor please, that ^e should doubt that when evidence is produced here in rebuttal by them to show that their press was sus- pended, and thus furnislitng evidence that there were no slips flying about during this period, but that it would be certainly evidence contravening that for us to show that this gentleman and others Judge Neilson— I think you can contradict any state- ment made by Mr. Wood, or Mr. Andrews, if you will tm-n to the precise statement and call the witness's atten- tion to it. Mr. Evarts— That is not our proposition, if your Honor please. Our proposition is this— that they have proved not statements but a matter of fact, that there was no press at work of theirs on the publication or any issues, and have brought that evidence as V Smg material or im- portant only in the aspect of discrediting or throwing doubt or contradiction upon the statements of our wit- nesses that they had seen in the form of printed slips the subject-matter of this scandal. Now, they having intro- duced that in the evidence, we propose to show by this gentleman, connected with the newspaper press, and by several other witnesses independent of him— independent of the circumstances of his seeing the slips— that slips of this Woodhull scandal were in circulation during the Summer and Fall of the year 1872, in and through the newspaper offices, or some of them, which will be named, of the City of New-York, and that this gentleman and the others saw them, and know them, from their own perusal, to have been of that character. Then, of com-se, if that was so we have displaced all ar- gument that Mr. Woodley or others that saw slips were mistaken in their statement or false in their statement, because of the evidence that the specific press of the Woodhull publisher was still during that period. That is the object of our present evidence, and that it would have that effect if it is admitted, and that it would have that ef- fect, as counterpoising and countervailing the rebutting evidence of this plaintiff, cannot be doubted. And we are not within the rule that you must meet rebutting evi- dence by the contradiction of the particular witness in the fact that he states. If you inti'oduce in answer to that fact, newly introduced in that rebuttal, an opposite fact that countervails it, not in the truth of the fact intro ducod into the rebuttal, but in its import or value, as l>eariDg upon the evidence in the case, it is strictly vvithin the line as it seems to us, of sur-rebuttal. That is our proposition. Judge Neilson— I think we will take the answer, Bir ; it is a very remote matter. Mr. Beach— Well, your Honor will please consider this question before youx^ule in favor of this proposition. This is strictly. Sir, cumulative evidence to that which was given upon the defense. They presented the issue in regard to the circulation of these slips anterior to the publication in The Woodhull & Olaflin Weekly of Novem- ber, 1872. They gave evidence of this precise character —identically the same. Sir— that slips of that article were circulated and were seen by others during the preceding months to its publication. We then content ourselves with the production of evidence upon that affirmative issue presented by the defense, and we prove by Mr. An- drews that he was the author of this article, and did not commence its preparation until a few days before its publication. And we show, in addition, that betweea Spring and Fall of 1872, not that the press of Woodhull & Claflin was suspended, but that the publication of the paper was suspended. And now they propose, Sir, in sui'-rebuttal, to come in with this cumulative evidence thus opening the issue to which we gave nothing but answering proof upon oui- rebuttal. Now, if your Honor is disposed to open the issues m this case, and permit additional evidence to be given, because if this evidence is received we must have an opportunity to meet it ; it is a departvu-e from the ordinary rules of evidence. It is clearly cumulative evidence upon an issue which they jj presented, upon which they have the affirmative, and worse than that, it is of the same identical character which they gave upon the opemng of their defense, and which we answered in our reply. Now, Sir, there is no dispute of this proposition. A refer- ence to the minutes— the record— will show that this statement is strictly accurate, and your Honor has, here- tofore, with a good deal of strictness, in our replies to the evidence upon the defense, confined us to the rules of ex- amination, not having permitted us in a single instance to wander beyond the strictness of those rules ; and I submit to your Honor, with great earnestness, that this will be the first departure from the application of those rviles which your Honor has made since the affirmative cases on the part of the plaintiff and the defendant )ia re been produced. Now, your Honor has made the remark jjlj that this is extremely remote. Judge Neilson— Well, I would like to ask you what earthly bearing it has upon this case ? Mr. Beach— I have submitted to your Honor heretofore, Sir, that it has no bearing upou the issue; that it i^ e:^- tirely collateral. They presented that issue and upon our objection yoiu- Honor received that evidence, and after we have, upon each side, exhausted our evidenoej upon that issue and rested, you now permit thorn to come in, if you admit this evidence, with additional proof in' TIJSllMONT OF HEN BY 0, BOWUK 537 support of their opening upon the defense, and upon a question that has but tliis very distant and collateral bear- ing upon the merits of the issue. I submit to your Honor that it would be an irregularity in the course of this trial which I should very much regret to have estab- lished as a precedent in this case, because, I assure your Honor, that it is opening an issue which will necessarily lead to a further protracted investigation, and we must ask your Honor, if you permit this departure from the rules of evidence, to give us an opportunity to prepare to meet it. It tates us entirely by surprise, Sir, Judge Neilson — I think I will take the general answer. Eepeat this question, Mr. Stenographer. Can you find it ? The Tribune stenographer [reading] : " Now, Mr. Mills, ihad you at any time prior to your reading and examina- tion of this pubUcation, seen the substance of it in type, either in proof-slips or other form, before that time ?" The Witness— I had. Mr. Fullerton— Well, one moment — the substance of it, Sir? Judge Neilson— Well, let him say yes or no. Mr. Fullerton— Well, Sir, that is not in contradiction of anything we have proven. Judge Neilson— Well, leave out the word " substance." Mr. Hill— Well, leave out the word " substance." LIMITATION OF THE TESTIMONY. Mr. Morris— Now, if your Honor please, yes- terday when I was examining Mr. Moulton, and when I undertook to ask questions calling for a contradiction of facts, general facts, they objected, and your Honor com- pelled me, in every instance, to read the precise language and confine the evidence to a strict denial of that. Now, we say to your Honor if this general question is asked, it opens the whole door ; we have witnesses, and we must be permitted to bring lie witnesses here and tiy that issue ; and your Honor cannot tell, nor any one else, if this course is to be pursued in this examination, when the examination of the witness will end. In no single instance in our rebuttal were we permitted to ask a question to disprove a general fact in the case, but In every instance we were met by an objection, and in every instance your Honor compelled us to turn to the evidence and read the language and put the precise ques- tion to them. Now, we submit that the same rule should be applied to them that was applied to us. If not, then ^e want to put our witnesses upon the stand again and pursue the examination. We have a number of witnesses that we desire to call If this is done, and we shall ask the court to give us the opportunity. We can exhaust days upon that subject if there is [Mr. Evarts here rose to speak.] Judge Neilson— I think we have enough upon this sub- ject, and I wiU let the witness answer this. I do not want any more argument upon the subject ; I am sorry you put the qiieetion. Mr. Evarts— I do not propose to argue. Judge Neilson— I have said he can answer yes or no, unless you withdraw the question. Mr. Evarts— I am going to state what will be very agreeable to yom- Honor if I have an opportunity ; and that is, that under this distinct threat of prolonged ex- amination that will be given to the subject, I withdraw the question. Judge Neilson— I recognize that as a very judicious and fair performance of professional duty on the part of counsel. Mr. Evarts— I agree to that; all these things are rela- tive, and the magnitude of a question is, of course, some- times such as compels counsel to insist upon it; at other times it does not, and I agree they would have a right to call witnesses on tbe other side of this question, of this distinct question, whether there were slips ; and I con- cede that the interest of the Republic is that we should come to an end of this case. [Laughter.] Judge Neilson— Yes ; that is all, Mr. Witness. ME. BOWEN RECALLED FOR CROSS-EXAMI- NATION. Mr. Shearman — If your Honor please, we de- sire to recall Mr. Bowen for a few moments for further cross-examination. [Mr. Bowen took the stand.] By Mr. Shearman— Mr. Bowen, you were asked on your previous cross-examination whether you recollected an interview with Dr. Edward Eggleston, at your house on the afternoon of the 26th of Dec, 1870, after your return, fi-om Mr. Beecher's ; I ask you now, whether you still have no recollection of that interview] A. I have no recollection ; it is possible, but I have no recollection of it. Q. Do you recollect in such an interview, on that occar sion, saying to Dr. Eggleston that Mr. Beecber had told you that an adopted daughter of Mrs. Tilton had told Mr. Beecber that Mr. Tilton had taken her out of her bed at night, or anything to that effect 1 A. I have no recollec- tion of it, Sir ; none whatever. Q. Nor anything in substance like it 1 A. Nothing whatever, Mr. Shearman— That is all, Mr, Fullerton- Mr. Bowen, what time did you leave the house of Mr, Mr, Shearman— Oh, Mr, Fullerton ; one other matter. Mr, Fullerton— Certainly, By Mr, Shearman — Do you recollect, Mr. Bowen, after leaving the scene of the arbitration between j'-ourself and Mr. Tilton, on April 3, 1872, going away with Mr. Claflin and Mr. Storrs ? A. I recollect going with Mr. Storrs, but not with Mr. Claflin ; it is possible, however, he might have been there, or near there ; we all went, as I recol- lect, "about the same time. Q. Do you recollect saying to either or both of those gentlemen, or in their presence, that you desired to have 538 THE TILTON-BEEOEEB IIUAL. the Woodstock letter lelurned to you, and lioped one of tliem would attend to it ? A. I said notliing whatever on the subject, according to my recollection. Q. Do you recollect whether Mr. Claflin replied to you that that was " a matter that Mr. Storrs had better attend to?" A. I recollect nothing on the subject; I am posi- tive, if you wish my statement, that nothing of the kind was said. Judge Neilson— I so understood you before, Mr. Bo wen. The Witness— Yes, Sir ; I so stated before. I desire to state further, if I did not at that time, that nothing was said for two days (according to my recollection) after the arbitration. Judge Neilson— On that subject f The Witness— On that subject of the Woodstock letter, and when it was spoken of it was a surprise to me. Mr. Shearman— Wait a moment. I move to strike that out, if your Honor please. Mr. Morris— It is a proper explanation. Mr. Beach— Let them strike it out. Judge Neilson— Well, I think it is an explanation. Let It stand. Mr. Shearman— We except ; please note our exception. [To the Witness.] I believe you have said that Mr. Storrs brought you the letter— the Woodstock letter ? A. He did. Q. Did he say to you at that time, when you proposed to keep the letter, that he did not feel at liberty to give it to you to keep until you had published a certain article in The Independent f Mr. Beach— That is objected to, Sir, as being totally im- material and incompetent as to what passed. By Mr. Shearman— And that he had made that promise to Mr. Tilton 1 A. Nothing whatever of the kind. Mr, Beach— Wait one moment; I object to the question. Mr. Shearman— I am not going to fight about it ; I will withdraw the question rather than take any time. Mr. Beach— Well, strike it out ; strike it out. Judge Neilson— Do you wish to ask Mr. Bo wen anything ? Mr. Fullerton— Yes, Sir. RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION OF MR. BOWEN. Mr. FuUerton— Mr. Bowen, what time did you leave Mr. Freeland's house on the 27th, or 26th of Jan., 1870, after this interview with. Mr. Beecher— 26th of De- cember ? Mr. Evarts— Well, how is this ir aterial to our present inquiry ? This has nothing to do with the questions that we have asked. Mr. Fullerton— Oh, yes ; it has a good deal to do with it. Mr. Evarts— We have recalled Mr. Bowen in cross-ex- amination before we put Mr. Eggleston on the stand to ask him certain questions. Judge Neilson— Well, Mr. Fullerton is now contiued to the subjects indicated by you, I think. Mr. Evarts— He is now going back to the general frame and progress of the interview between Mr. Beecher and Mr. Bowen. Mr. Beach— Can we not contradict the last evidence of Mr. Freeland ? Judge NeUson— Any witness of theirs examined since may be contradicted. Mr. Fullerton— Your Honor will perceive that they asked Mr. Bowen with reference to an interview with Dr. Eggleston after he left Mr. Freeland's. I thiuk it is com- petent for us to know what time of night he left there, bearing upon that matter. Judge Neilson— Yes ; if it was 12 o'clock it would be a circumstance, unless Mr. Eggleston keeps good hours. Mr. Fullerton— That is what I want to find out. Sir; what hours he did keep. [To the witness.] What time did you leave Mr. Freeland's that night? A. What night do you refer to? Q. On the 26th of December, 1870, after your interview with Mr. Beecher. A. I do not recollect the precise hour; but it was before evening. Q. It was before evening 1 A. It was betore 6 o'clock. Q. That you left ? A. That I left Mr. Freeland's house. Q. What time did you arrive at the house ? A. I should say, perhaps before half-past 6 at the latest, not later than half-past 6 . Q. What time did you arrive at Mr. Freeland's house ? A. According to my recollection it was 4 or 5 o'clock, I am not certain which, and the interview was prolonged some time, perhaps an horn*, perhaps more, possi'oly a little less. Q. Now, how soon after the signing of the " Tripartite Agreement " did you hear of the Woodstock letter 1 A. NotuntUtwo days after; lean give the particulars If I am permitted to by your Honor. Mr. Fullerton— I wish you would give the particulars. Mr. Evarts— I object to that— what were the particu lars. The inquiry is as to the date. Mr. Fullerton— Yes ; I want to know how Mr. Bowen recollects that it was two days after. Mr. Evarts— That is not necessary. Mr. Fullerton— Oh, yes ; it is The Witness— I recollect very distinctly. Mr. Fullerton— The witness has a right to fortify him- self when he gives a date, by showing some competent circumstance which enables him to give it. Mr. Evarts— Well, it is just what we have discussed over and over again, that a witness cannot be corrobo- rated except when their testimony is reduced through some form of contradiction. He says he recollects dis- tinctly that it was two days afterwards. We have not made any controversy as to the date that it was delivered to him. Mr. Fullerton— I am asking when he first heard of the "Woodstock letter. Mr. Evarts— He said it was when it was delivered to him. TE81IM0N7 OF EDWABD EGGLESTim. 539 Mr. Fullerton— Now, I ask him liow lie is enabled to fix the time when he first heard of the Woodstock letter. Mr. Beach— Why, Sir, the rule of rebuttal evidence does not apply to this; they call this witness for additional ex- amination, and they ask him in regard to the Woodstock letter and the transaction concerning it, and we cer- tainly have a right to di-aw out all his knowledge on that subject, if necessary, in answer to their cross-examination ; I repeat, Sir, that the rule in regard to rebuttins' evidence does not apply. Mr. Evarts— I have not said anything about that rule, Mr. Beach— Well, I have. Mr. Evarts— I have said Mr. Fullerton— The gentleman tries to get the advan- tage of it without scying anything about it. Mr. Evarts— But this is not in answer to anything that we show. Mr. Beach — I say it is a proposition in answer to what you established ; that his Honor has repeatedly ruled on this question, whereas that question has not been before him. Mr. Evarts— It was not that question of rebuttal I was talking of; it was the corroborating of witnesses. We were not permitted to do it by Mrs. Ovington yesterday, the very point that we tried to get in— why she knew this, that, and the other ; it was not allowed ; It is pre- cisely the same matter that is now proposed by this gen- tleman. Judge Neilson— I think we have the answer sufficiently from this witness. Mr. Fullerton— How, Sir ? Judge Neilson— I think we have the answer sufficiently from this witness. Mr. Fullerton— Well, your Honor will recollect that yes- terday, when Deacon Freeland said that he knew a cer- tain meeting took place the last week in January of a certain year, that he was permitted to say why, and did so; it was because they had prayer-meeting that week; and when it turned out that they prayed four times in a month in Plymouth Church, then he was enabled to go further and state why he knew it was in the last week of January, 1869. Judge Neilson— To wit, the shaking of hands. Mr. Fullerton— The shaking of hands, yes, Sir. Judge Neilson— WeU, I remember that now, Sir; take this answer. Mr. Evarts— That was on their cross-examination, and then on the re-direct. Mr. Beach— No, Sir, it was in answer to Mr. Shearman that it was given. Mr. Evarts— Tliat is what I say ; on the re-direct. Mr. Shearman— T asked the same question on the re- direct which they had asked on the cross ; that is why I was allowed to nsk that. Now, if we had asked Mr. Bowen. why he ipsmembered, and he had given an imper- fect answer, they would have the right to ask tbe same i question again. But now Mr. Bowen is in the position with them which Mrs. Ovington was with us, and w© were not allowed to ask just that question. Judge Neilson— I think Mrs. Ovington was allowed to state, the witness having been so long on the piazza to get out of the heat, that it was a hot place, and the hot- test place in the house ; I think we wiU take this answer. By Mr. Fullerton— Now, Mr. Bowen, how are you enabled to state that it was two days after the signing of the " Tripartite Agreement." [To Mr. Shearman, who was beginning to speak.] One moment, if you please, Mr. Shearman ; I wish you would only speak when we get through, or when I get through. [To the witness.] How are you enabled to state that it was two days after the signing of the " Tripartite Agreement " when you first heard of the Woodstock letter? A. One of the arbitrators, Mr. Charles Storrs, came into my office and said, " I have some news for you, Mr. Bowen," using that expression. I said, " What is it?" Paid he, " It is in re- gard to the Woodstock letter." "Well," said I, " what have you to say about the Woodstock letter?" " I am going to get it and return it to you." " Well," said I, " I should Uke to have it." I am not positive, on a moment's reflection, whether he said " I am going to get it" or " I have got it." Wiieu lie told me that, he did not hand me the letter, but, after stating that fact, he either produced the letter at that time— but I fail to recollect that point— or he went out and got it ; it was brought to me or delivered to me at that time, or very near that time ; when he brought the letter to me I took it and read it and put it in my safe. The next day or day following Mr. Storrs came to me and asked me for that letter. Mr. Evarts— We object to this. By Mr. Fullerton— Was it an unconditional delivery of the Woodstock letter to you ? A. An unconditional de- livery. Q. And you took possession of it ? A. I took possession of it and put it in my safe and locked it in the safe ; that was the first I heard of it. Mr. Fullerton— Now, I shall have to recall you, Mr. Bowen, after the examination of Mr. Eggleston, and if you will be kind enough to l ematn you will oblige me. EDWARD EGGLESTON EECALLED. By Mr. Shearman — Dr. Eggleston, I have an impression that your occupation has changed since you were on the stand before. Will you state how you are now at present engaged ? A. Well, Sir, when I was here before I said I was lecturer, author, and clergyman ; now, I am principally olergjrman. Sir ; the lecturer and author have rather been sunk out of sight, I believe. Q. Are jow pastor of any church! A. I am pastor, Sir. Q. Of what church 1 540 THE TILTON-BFjECHEB IBIAL. Mr. Beacli— Well, we object to going into the liistory of this gentleman ; I do n't know what it is in reply to. Judge Neilson— Tlie witness has not had time to write a book since he was here. [Laughter.] By Mr. Shearman— Of what church are you pastor ? Mr. Beach— I object to it. Mr. Evarts- Then, we will have to argue it. Judge Neilson— No, I rule it out without argument. He is pastor of some church, and we have no cvu*iosity what it is. Mr. Evarts— We have a right to show what the witness's position and employment Is. Judge Neilson— Well, that was asked when he was here before. Mr. Evarts— Well, it has changed. Judge Neilson — That is not the subject of criticism. Mr. Evarts— I agree ; but it would not take three min- utes to find out what church. Mr. Beach— That is no argument in favor of it. Mr. Shearman— \ our Honor rules it out, and we except. Judge Neilson — I can't see that it is material now. By Mr. Shearman— In December, 1870, did you have any business relations with Mr. Henry C. Bowen ? A, I did, Sir. Q. What were they % Mr. Beach— I object to that. Judge Neilson— Oh ! we will take that. Sir. Mr. Beach— The business relations of this gentleman with Mr. Bowen ? Judge Neilson— Yes, by way of bringing him in con- tact with him, I suppose. By Mr. Shearman— What were these relations? A. I was his employ^ ; I was employed by Mr. Bowen. Q. In what capacity % A. In the early part of Decem- ber, Sir, as literary editor of The Independent, and the latter part of December I was superintending editor. Q, Did Mr. Bowen make an appointment with you for Monday, December 26, at his house ? Mr. FuUerton— Now, that is a leading question. Mr. Shearman— I understand I am obliged to ask in this form. I refer to a question and answer of Mr. Bowen. Judge Neilson— Well, answer that. The Witness— It is my recollection that he did, Sir, but I am not positive that my meeting on Monday was by appointment. MR. BOWEN CONTEADICTED. Q. Do you recollect whether you were at Mr. Bo wen's house on the 26th of December? A. I was, Sir. Q. How often were you there I A. My recollection is that I was there twice. q. On that day ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Vtwhat time first did you see Mr. Bowen? A. I tiiiiie— I irisl correct my previous answer, Mr. Shearman— I ought to say I was there three times, in- cluding once that I found Mr. Bowen engaged. Q. Three times, including once that you found Mr. Bowen engaged ? A. Yes, Sir ; that is my recollection. Q. And one of the times you did not see him ; what hour did you first see Mr. Bowen on the 26th of Decem- ber ? A. Well, Sir, I could not fix the precise hour ; it was in the afternoon. Q. Was Mr. Bowen then putting on his boots to go out! A. Yes, Sir, he was putting on his boots ; my recollec- tion is that it was to go out ; I remember the act ; the picture is upon my mind. Q. Did Mr. Bowen then say to you, " If Mr. Tilton is ae bad as we think he is, he talks exceedingly well ?" Mr. Beach— That is objected to. Sir. Mr. Shearman— On what ground ? Judge Neilson— That inquiry was put to Mr. Bowen. Mr. Beach— Well, Sir, it is entirely collateral. Suppose it was ; what has the declaration of Mr. Bowen in regard to Mr. Tilton to do here ? Judge Neilson— Nothing, except as connected with the proposed visit, if it was so. Mr. Beach — Well, Sir, there is no connection at all be- tween the two. Mr. Bowen may have expressed favor- able or unfavorable opinions of Mr. Tilton, and are they to be gotten in upon this idea of contradicting htm. Judge Neilson— No, Sir. Mr. Beach— After they ask him whether he made those declarations and he says he did not, can they get then) in upon the idea of contradicting him upon that immaterial and irrelevant matter 1 Judge Neilson— The only materiality in connection with this question is the time when Mr, Bowen went to Mr Freeland's and when he returned. Mr. Beach— Well, Sir, this declaration has nothing to do with that. Judge Neilson— I cannot take the declaration. Mr. Shearman— Your Honor will allow me a moment; I was simply reading in sentences part of a conversation; it is clearly material. Judge Neilson— Well, any opinion expressed then by Mr. Bowen cannot be received even if this witness re- members it, and although Mr. Bowen did not remember it. Mr. Shearman— Well, it is a part of a conversation tDat is clearly material. The whole conversation is this : Mr. Bowen is asked whether Mr. Eggleston found him putting on his boots ; whether Mr. Bowen said, " If Tilton is as bad as we think he is, he talks exceedingly well ;" whether he then asked Mr. Eggleston to go down and see a certain lady, whom he named, and whether he then said to Mr. Eggleston, tapping his pocket, that he had a letter from Tilton to Beecher. Judge Neilson— Well, that is the point where you can take up the examination. By Mr. Shearman— Well, Mr. Eggleston, did Mr. Bovren say to you in substance that he had a letter from Tlltoii TIJSTIJTOJSY OF ED to Beeelier, tapping his pocket at tlie time? A. To the be/'t of my recollection he did, Sir ; I don't recollect that part of the conversation so Tiyidly as the other, hut I rememher— a r;mark something liie that is in my memory. Q. Well, Sii-, did you return agatn that evening to jMr. Bowen's house 1 A. I did, Sir ; that is my recollection. Q. About what time was that ? A. I don't rememher. Sir, at what time I came. I waited for Mr. Bowen— I don't know whether I am allowed to go on — I waited for Mr. Bowen until, I think, past his dinner horn-, 6 o'clock, when he came in — about the time that he said. Q. Was it after dark when he came in? A. It was after dark. Sir. Q. Did Mr. Bowen then say to you, " I have just been to Beecher's ; he is a good friend of mine and of yours ; he is delighted that Tilton is removed ; he says that he is the worst man in the world, and that Mrs. Tilton is a saint, going to heaven before her time." Mr. Beach— I object to that question. Judge Neilson— We wUl take that. A. The latter part of that I remember very distinctly, that he said precisely those words ; the former part In substance; whether he said he had "been to Beecher's" or " to see Beecher," I would not like to swear positively. My impression is that it is as you have stated, but I would not say with positiveness that he said he had been " to Beecher's." Q. Which is the latter part, that you say is accurate ? A. That he said that Mr. Beecher said that Mr. TUton ■was the " worst man in the world ;" that is my recollec- tion ; then, I remember this phrase : ** And that Mrs. Til- ton is a saint, going to heaven before her time;" that I remember to be precisely the words ; I think I cannot be mistaken about that. Q. WTiat is your recollection as to the phrase, " Mr. Beecher is a good friend of mine and of yours ?" A. I am very positive in reference to that. Q. What is your recollection about these words : " He is delighted that Tilton is removed ?" A. He said that in substance, Sir. Q. Now, did Mr. Bowen at the same time say to you that Mi. Beecher had told him horrible things about Til- ton? A. Yes, Sir ; in substance that. He said— "things that were horrible " was the phrase, or something lilce that. Q. Did he at the same interview say to you that 3rr. Beecher had told him that an adopted daughter of Mrs. Tilton had told Mrs. Beecher that Mr. Tilton had taken her out of her bed at night, or anything to that effect? A. To the best of my recollection it was at that interview, standing in the door, and in that connection, that he said to me lust about what you have read, that an adopted daughter of Mrs. Tilton had told Mrs. Beecher (this was given to me as something tliat Mr. Beecher had just told WARD EGGLESTOy. 541 him; that is my recollection) that Mr. Tilton had takeik her out of bed at night and carried her to his room. Mr. Shearman— That is all. CEOSS-EXAMINATION OF EDWAED EGGLE- STON. By ;Mr. Fullei-ton— You don't recollect, I un- derstand you, whether Mr. Bowen said he had been to Mr. Beecher, or that he had been to see IVIr. Beecher ? A. My inclination is to Q. I don't ask for your inclinations ; I am aware of them. A. I don't want By inclination I mean that my impression is Q. I want your memory. We don't ^s ant your impres- sions at all. Judge NeilsoD— He asks you if you recollect ? A. T don't certainly recollect which of those expressions he used. Q. Yery well ; that is an answer ; when did you cease to be employed by Mr. Bowen ? A. In July, 1871,. about the middle of the mouth. Q. Do you recollect the date ? A. Not the precise date; it was about the middle of July, I think about tlie 12th — no. Sir, a little later than the 12th ; I cannot say just the date, but I remember by the Orange riot that it was later than the 12th. Q. To whom did you first communicate that you heard or had such a conversation with Mr. Bowen ? A. I am not sure ; I have conversed with several friends about it.- Q. When ? A. If you want to know to whom connected with this trial, I can tell you. Q. Yes— when first did you speak of it? A. I spoke of it first, as I remember, to any one at all, directly or Indirectly, connected with the trial, iucidente.lly to Mr.. Koss. Raymond, in Tlie Christian TJnioa office, one day. Q. When? A. I cannot i,ave the date. Q. About what time ? A. I should say. Sir, before the beginning of the trial ; I cannot speak about it with posi- tiveness, however ; I have not a distiuct memory of the date. Q. It was after it was supposed that Mr. Bowen would be a witness in this case, was it not ? A. Not after ; I supposed that he would be a witness— I think not. Q. I did n't ask you what you supposed. A. Well, Sir ; I did n't know anything about anybody else's supposi- tion. Q. Hadn't it been talked of in your presence that he would be a probable witness ? A. I don't remember, if it was. Q. Why did you communicate it to Mr. Ross. Raymond! A. It was a general conversation of what I knew. Q. Very likely. I am asking you now why you com- mimicated it to him in that way ! A. I commimicated it to him as I had to others,, bec ause I was talking about the^ trial, and did it almost without motive, perhaps. ^42 TUB TILTON-BI Q. You knew that lie was a member ot Plymoutli rClitiroli ? A. I did. Q. And a prominent gentleman in that clmxcli? A. Yes, Sir, I knew lie was an acti-ve man there. DR. EGGLESTON'S RELATIONS TO MR. BOWEN. Q. Have you ever had any difficulty witli Mr. Bowen? A. No personal difficuliy between Mr. Bowen and me in the world. Q. Leave out the word " personal," and say whether you have had a difficulty with him ? A. I think it would not be proper for me to say that I have had a difficulty with him. Q. Then, of course, you won't say it? A. No, Sir. Q. Wm you say that you have not had any difficulty with him ? A. I think a categorical answer woula not describe it exactly ; I never have had a difficulty with Mr. Bowen —yes, I think I can say that. Q. No misunderstanding between you? A. I don't re- member any misunderstanding in the sense that misun- derstanding is used ; we have had differences of opinion. Q. Did those differences of opinion engender anyiQ- feeling 1 A. Between Mr. Bowen and myself ? Q. Yes. A. I think not, Sir, I don't know that they did; I would not say that they did not engender this kind— a certain kind of ill-feeling ; it did not amount to personal animosity, it was not hostility. Q. Did Mr. Bo wen make any demands upon you which you failed to comply with 1 A. No, Sir ; he did not. Q. Your connection with The Independent ceased, you think, about the 12th of July ? A. Some time about the middle of July. Q. 1871 ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. You received your salary up to that time, did you ? A. I received my salary up to the time of my leaving. Q. Didn't Mr. Bowen complain that you took with you some of the results of your literary labor which belonged to him, when you left % A. Mr. Bowen did not. One of his editors Q. Mr. Bowen did not ? A. Mr. Bowen neither directly jor indirectly did— that I understood to come from Mr. Bowen. Q. Did any one connected with Mr. Bowen make that complaint % A . Mr. Ward called on me, and asked me to give him a story that I had written. Q. Did you give it to him ? A. I did not ; I didn't admit his right. Q. Didn't he claim it on behalf of The Independent ? A. He claimed it ; I denied his claim. Q. He claimed it on behalf of The Independent f A. He did. Q. You denied his claim f A. I denied his claim. Q. What were the terms of your denial! Mr. Evarts— I don't think you can take that. Mr. Pullerton— Oh, yes, I can. A. The terms of my de- LSiftl were that I had permission from Mr. Bowen to do "iJGEEB TEIAL. outside work, and that this work did not belong to him. A variety of considerations were taken into accoimt. It was an ethical point that I submitted to several gentle- men, and they Q. Never mind the several gentlemen. Did you write the story during your employment by Mr. Bowen ? A. I wrote a great many stories during my employment by- Mr. Bowen. Q. I mean this particular story. A. I did. Q. What was the title of that story? A. " Priscilla." Q. Was it not written for The Independent ? A. It was written with the intention of publishing it in The inde^ pendent, Q. Was it so announced ? A. It was announced that I would print a story in The Independent during the Summer. Q. Of your own composition 1 A. Yes, Sir ; one of a dozen— I was one of a dozen who were to print stories in The Independent during the Summer. Q. Had you written the story before the announce- ment ? A. No, Sii\ Q. No part of it ? A. No, Sir. Q. You had written some part of it before your em* ■ployment cesL&Gd on The Independent ? A. Part of it be- fore I left The Independent. Q. Didn't you write it whilst you were in Mr. Bowen's employ? A. Part of it. Q, You say he gave you permission to do outside work! A. That was the understanding when I went on the paper, Sir. Q. Did you mean to publish this outside work that you did, in The Independent 1 A. No, Sir ; the outside work was published elsewhere— a great deal of it. Q. You had that story published elsewhere, did yon not ? A. I did, Sir. Q. Where was it published 1 Q. In ScHbner's Monthly. Q. You received a comi)ensation for it ? A. I did. Ex- cuse me; I ought to correct an answer that I made* moment ago. One of the terms of my refusal to Prof. Ward was that I had already sold the story to Scribner's Monthly before he came and asked for it, supposing that they would not want it in The Independent. Q. When did you sell it to Scribner's ? A. Soon after I left The Independent. Q. How soon ? A. Almost immediately. Q. Didn't that give rise to ill-feeling between you and Mr. Bowen ? A. I did not know that it did. Sir. Q. Was it not claimed that that story was the property of Mr. Bowen 1 A. I had no message from Mr. Bowen about it. I never knew his feeling on it. Q. Was is not communicated to you by this gentleman I A. Not as from Mr. Bowen. He spoke for himself as hav- ing taken my place in charge of the paper. He never mentioned Mr. Bowen. Q. Did n't you design to publisb that story in Th« ii** dependent 9 A. Yes, Sir. TESTIMONY OF EBWAED BGGLESTON. 513 ] id you expect compensation for it ? A. No, Sir ; I expected to pulblisli it as part of mj salary. I expected to leave the paper tlae latter part of August ; I left toe- fore that time, and did not publish it in tlie paper con- sequently. Q. [Handing witness a letter.] Is that letter in your liandT\-riting? A. That appears to he my writing, Sir ; I don't remember anything about the letter. Ml'. Fullerton— I will read a part of it, because I want to ast you a question in regard to it. Mr. Evarts— Let me see it, please 1 [Mr. Evarts, having scanned the letter, handed it back to Mr. Fullerton. 1 Mr. Fullerton— This letter is addressed to Mr. Bowen by Mr. Eggleston [readiagl : July 3, 1871. I am glad to hear that you had so pleasant a time in Boston. We are getting along pleasantly as ever. I spent most of my time during the past week in writing my Btory, which is now done except a little touching up. I shall try to keep it imtil the last. Q. Did you have reference in this letter to the story which you have spoken of in your evidence 1 A. f did, Sir. Q. J^ow, will you be kind enough to look at The Inde- 2)endent under date of May 4, 1871, and say whether that article there [indicating] refers to this story 1 A. [Look- ing at the paper.l It does. Sir. Q. [Reading] : May 4.— In our next illustrated number, we begin the series of Summer stories, by thirteen first-rate story writers, upon the arrangement of which we have spent not a little pains and expense. The fli-st story will be " The Mouse and the Lion," by the Rev. Edward Everett Hale. It will occupy the first page, and will be illus- trated by cuts from Tesigns by Felix O. C. Darley, and engraved in excellent style by * * * The titl'^s of the other stories, so far as we have them, are as follows : "The Lady of Shalott," by Elizabeth Stuart Phelps; "Only a Woman's Hair," by Chas. F. Briggs ; " Katie's Wedding Gown," by Rose Terry ; " Finding a Soul," by Eev. Geo. Axf ord ; " Le Roi S'Amuse," by Harriet Pres- cott Spoflford, and "Ti.e Vine-dresser of Vevay," by Edwaa'd Eggleston. The following writers, contributing to the series, have not yet sent in their stories, &c. Q. Who was the author of that article 1 A. I am not sure, Sir ; I suppose likely that I had a hand in it ; such thtags as that were generally gotten ap among iis in the office ; they were a sort of advertising. Q. You were superintending editor ? A. I was super- Intending editor, so that I am responsible for it at leasx. Q. Now, who called upon you with reference to this story I A. The Rev. Dr. Ward, Sir, my successor. Q. What connection had he with IVIr. Bowen or The ■IndejJendent? A. He was my successor as superintend- ing editor. Q. Did he not demand that story in behalf of Mr. Bowen 1 A. Oh, he asked for it, Sir ; I could hardly say he demanded it. We were on pleasant personal relations; lie asked for it. Q. Claiming it to be Mr. Bowen's property ? A. He claimed that he had a right to it. Q. How? A. He claimed very strongly that he had a right to it. Q. That he had or Mr. Bowen had i A. O h, the paper, of course— Mr. Bowen. Q. And he claimed strongly that he had a right to it ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. He ui'ged upon you strongly that you had written it while in Mr. Bowen's employ, aud under his pay? A Yes, Sir ; that most of the work on it was done while I was in Mr. Bowen's employ. Q. What did you sell that story for? A. I sold that story for $100. DR. EGGLESTON'S NEW PASTORATE. Q. Now, Mr. Eggleston, I think we shall have to ask you something about that chureli. A, Well, Sii'. Q. What church are you pastor of, please ? A. The Church of Christian Endeavor. Q. The Chui'ch of the Christian Endeavor? A. The Church of Chi'istian Endeavor, Sir; there is no definite article in it. Q. T^Tiere is that church situated 1 A. At the corner of Lee-ave. and Hooper-st., Brooklyn. Q. What denomination does it represent ? A. Tt repre- sents no denomination. Q. It is on its own hook? A. It is on its own hook. [Laughter.] Q. Is that the church you have always belonged to ? A. No, Sir. Q. What other denonunation ? A. I have belonged and do belong to the Methodist denomination. Q. Were you ever pastor of a Methodist church 1 A. Of several. Sir. Q. In this State ? A. No, Sir. Q. Where? A. Miunesota. Q. When ? A. From 1857— well, T began my ministry in Indiana in 1856, and from that to 1866 I was pastor of various Methodist churches, chiefly in Minnesota. Q. Yes ; and this is the Church of Christian Endeavor i A. Y^es. Q. When was it established? A. It is a very old chiu'ch, Sir ; I don't know when— more than 20 years ago— established as a Dutch Reformed Church. Q. And when did it undergo a change of heart? A. It underwent a change two years ago, when it became a Congregational Church, and it again underwent a change a few weeks ago, when it declared itself to be an inde- pendent church. Q. Is it likely to undergo another? A. I think not. Sir, while I remain. Q. When did you become connected with it! A, I , have been supplying— I was supplying it when I wa« 544 TEJE TILTON-B here before, and I liave been, since about the 1st of Feb- ruary, supplying it as a Congregational cliurcb tben. Mr. FuUerton— Yes ; I believe tbat is all. EE-DIRECT EXAMINATION OF DR. EG- GLESTON. By Mr. Shearman — ^Yon received no special pay from Mr. Bowen for tbis particular story ? A. No, Sir ; I would like Q. If you would like to make an explanation, you may. A. I would like to make an explanation I think; I not only received no pay, but Mr. Fuller ton — One moment. The Witness— You have asked the grounds on which Mr. "Ward insisted, and now I would like to state my grounds. JuAsTfi Neilson— Anything you said to Mr. Ward you can state. The Witness— I said among other things to Mr. Ward that I had taken no vacation at all in The Independent while the other editors had had vacation, and that the little time that I spent on this story was very little indeed for me to take in lieu of a vacation ; that if the story had been asked for before I sold it, I should have given it to them in token of good- will on leaving the paper ; but as it was not asked for until after I had sold it, I declined to give it. Mr. Shearman— That is all. Sir. HORACE B. CLAFLIN RECALLED. Mr. Shearman called Charles Storrs, but be- fore the witness could take the stand, changed his mind and called H. B. Claflin, who was thereupon further ex- amined as follows : By Mr. Shearman— You were one of the arbitrators be- tween Mr. Bowen and Mr. Tilton, I believe? A. Yes, Sir. Q. You were present at the arbitration on April 3, 1872 % A. Yes, Sir. Q. Look at this paper, the written submission, " Ex. 122," and state whether you ever saw that paper before i A. [Inspecting paper] No, I never saw it. Q. Look carefully over it ; look at the signatures. A. I see it ; I never saw it. Sir. Q. Was this paper read in your presence or hearing ? A. I did not hear it. Sir ; I have no recollection about it at all. Q. Were yon mformed at any time on April 3, 1872, of the existence of such a paper ? A. No, Sir. Q. Did you ever hear of its existence before the trial of this cause ? A. No, Sir. Mr. Beach— That is objected to. Mr. Shearman— I don't discover any objection to it. Mr. Beach— Well, I object, whether you discover it or not. W.CtiEU TEIAL. Mr. Shearman— Mr. Bowen gives this testimony. [Read- ing:] Q. Then how did the Aroitration Court organize and commence its sittings ? A. They gathered about the table, and were altout to proceed, when I interrupted them by saying : " Gentlemen, what are we to submit And tney said : " Tlie matters between Mr, Tilton and yourself." I said that I should decline taking one step until it was put in writing what we were to submit, and suggested that one of the arbitrators di'aw that submis- sion, and finally, I think Mr. Moulton took his pen and said . " Gentlemen, what do you submit?" Did any part of that take place in your sight or hearing I A. No, Sir ; I don't remember anything of the kind. Q. Can you say positively whether or not Mr. Bowen said that he would decline to take any step untU it was put in writing what they were to submit ? A. I— I did not hear any such thing. Q. You are positive that you did not hear it? A. I am positive that I did not hear anything of the kind. Q. Was any written submission of any kind drawn in your presence by Mr. Moulton, or Mr. Bowen, or Mr. Tilton, that night ? A. No, Sir. Q. Was there not an interval during which the ar- bitrators were alone ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Now, Sir, after leaving that arbitration, with whom did you go away ? A. I think we all went away together, Mr. Freeland, and Mr. Storrs, and Mr. Bowen, and my- self. Q. On your way home did Mr. Bowen say to yon, in substance, or say to any one in j-our hearing, in sub- stance or in effect, that you must get the Woodstock letter ? A. Mr. Bowen addressed some of us in that way. I don't know but he said : " Gentlemen, you must get it," without referring to any particular one, and I re- member I referred him to Mr. Storrs, saying he was Judge Neilson — We have that. Mr. Beach— This is but a repetition of the evidence. Mr. Shearman— No, if your Honor please, this ifl another occasion. Mr. Claflin related that originally M happening at the time of the arbitration. Judge Neilson— Certainly. Mr. Shearman— But this is subsequent to the arbltrSf tion, on their way home. Mr. Bowen has been specially interrogated as to the occurrence of that event. Judge Neilson— Well, read Mr, Bowen's statement. Mr. Shearman — The stenographer wUl have to do tllAt. Mr, Evarts— That happened this morning. Mr, Shearman— I am going, Mr, Beach— I submit, Sir, that they cannot recall a wit- ness after they have rested, and we have rested for re-croaa- examination, merely for the purpose of contradiction, and contradict him. They must take his answer if they recall him. Mr, Evarts— No. Judge Neilson— Yes ; otherwise we cannot proceed wttb any chance of terminating the suit. TUSTIMONF OF CHARLES SIOERS. 545 Mr. Beacli— Yes, Sir; ttiis trial Tvill proceed indefinitely otherwise. Mr. Evarts— The objection should have been made when we asked Mr. Bowen about that. Mr. Beach— No, I didn't make the ohiection then. They must take his answer. I didn't know that they were purposing to contradict him. I didn't know hut they were calling him for the proof. Mr. Erarts— We called him to contradict him. That was plain. Mr. Beach— It was not plain to us, Sir. Mr. Evarts— And we asked those questions. Mr. Beach— Certainly you did ask. Judge Neilson— I think we have sufficient on that suh- ject. Mr. Shearman— That is all that I have to ask, Mr. daflin. I understand that his answer is taken. Mr. Evarts— Yes. IMr. Beach— No, Sir; I do not understand that the answer has been taken down Mr. Evarts — No. Mr. Beach— I objected. Mr. Evarts— The stenographer has it. Mr. Beach— Well, the Court says that it was improperly taken, and is to be stricken out. Mr. Evarts— Well, it was taken. Judge Neilson— Is there any objection? Mr. Beach— I objected in season. If the stenographer has taken the answer it is taken under the objection, and is to be stricken out. Judge Neilson— Yes, I suppose it is stricken out. We have enough on that point. Mr. Evarts— Will the stenographer be so good as to read the question ? Judge Neilson— No, it may not be down at all. The Tribune stenographer read the question and an- swer as follows : On your way home, did Mr. Bowen say to you in sub- stance, or say to any one in your hearing, in substance or in eifecl,that you must get the Woodstock letter 1 A. Mr. Bowen addressed some of us in that way ; I don't know but he said: " Gentlemen, you must get it," without re. f erring to any particular one, and I remember I referred him to Mr. Storrs, saying he was" Q. Now, Mr. Claflin, was not that what occurred be- fore you left! A. No, Sir, that was going home, after we left the house— after we got out of the house. :Mr. Evarts— No objection was made until the witness proceeded so far. The answer was taken down to that point. Mr. Beach— I made the objection. Mr. Fullerton was putting me a question, and he has left under circum- stances which compelled bim to go from suffering ; and as soon as my attention was drawn to the answer Mr. , Claflin was giving I objected. Mr. Evarts— I don't object to Mb moving to strike it out. Judge Neilson— Of course. Mr. Evarts -That is timely, but he had answered, and I suppose it must be moved to be stricken out. Mr. Beach— The answer is not there ; part of it is there, and I objected during the giving of it by the witness. Mr. Evarts— No, the question is whether it must be stricken out. I suppose it is perfectly good evidence. Mr. Beach— I have said what I chose to say on the sub- ject. Judge Neilson— I think it is one of the points which at some phase of the case might lead to iuterminable con- tradiction and re-contradiction, and it is a point where we ought io stop, and, therefore, the answ^er ought to be stricken out. Mr. Erarts— Your Honor will be so good as to note m7 exception. Judge Neilson— Yes, Sir. Mr. Shearman— That is all, Mr. Claflia. ]Mr. Beach— No question. CHAELES STORRS RECALLED. Mr. Shearmaii — Charles Storrs. Charles Storrs was then recalled on behalf of defendant and further examined. By Mr. Shearman— You were also present at the arbi- tration of AprU 3, 1872 ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Will you examine this paper. Exhibit 122, being the written submission of Mr. Bowen and Mr. TUton, and state whether you ever saw that paper before [handing paper to witness] ? A. No, Sir. Q. Were you ever informed of the existence or the con- tents of that paper in any manner before this trial ? A. No, Sir. Q. Were you ever before this trial informed of the ex- istence or contents of any written submission whatever about Mr. Bowen and Mr. Tilton ? Mr. Beach — I object to that question. Judge Neilson— It is covered, by the last question ; I think he may answer. Mr. Beach— I should have objected t© the last question If I had not been occupied. The Witness— No, Sir. Q. Mr. Bowen testifies as follows with regard to the arbiti-ation of April 3, 1872 : The arbiti-ators gathered about the table, and were about to proceed when I interrupted them by saying, ** Gentlemen, what are we to submit And they said, " The matters between Mr. Tilton and yourself." I said that I should decline taking one step imtil it was put in writing, what we were to submit, and suggested that one of the arbitrators draw that submission, and finally, I think IVIr. Moulton took his pen and said, " Gentlemen, what do you submit ?" Did anything of that kind, or any part of it, take place in your presence or hearing ? A. No, Sir. Q. Did you that evening leave the house in company with Mr. Bowen and Mr. Claflin 1 A. And Mr. Freeland. Q. You did? A. Yes, Sir. TtlE TlLlOI^-BFjEGnEB IBIAL. Q. On your way did Mr. Bowen request any of yon gen- tlemen to obtain for liim the Woodstock letter ? Mr. Beach— Objected to. Your Honor has already ruled that out. Judge Neilson— Yes, matter of form. It is ruled out. Mr. Evarts— Your Honor will remember that Mr. Bowen, against oirr objection, was allowed to t-estify about the Woodstock letter when he was on the stand about half an horn- ago. Judge Neilson— It was to meet what had been proved by you on that subject. Mr. Evarts— We examine this witness to meet what is proved. Judge Neilson— Then some one else can examine some other witness. No, I think we will stop at this point. It is very remote. That same letter was ruled out, so we do n't know what it relates to. It may have been an in- vitation to dinner, for all we know. By Mr. Shearman— With whom did you go to Mr. Moul- ton's house on that evening ? Mr. Beach— That is objected to. Judge Neilson— He has given an answer on that sub- ject. He has been examined on that a»ibjeot. Mr. Shearman— It is for the purpose of meeting Mr. Bowen's evidence. Mr. Bowen— they brought in on his direct evidence this matter of the written submission. Judge Neilson — You can show it so far as you can. Mr. Shearman— We propose to meet it in a further way, by showing that the three arbitrators were absent for about half an hour Mr. Beach— This written submission had nothing to do with the companions with whom Mr. Bowen went to that arbitration. It is a totally immaterial point. Mr. Shearman— Our purpose is to show, in contradic- tion of Mr. Bowen, that not only that didn't take place in the presence of the arbitrators, but that there was an Interval in which Mr. Bowen, Mr. Tilton, and Mr. Moul- ton were together, in which, if it ever occurred, it took place. Jufljce Neilson— You may show that they were to- gether. By Mr. Shearman— Did you not go that evening to Mr. Bowen's ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Did you not find Mr. Moulton and Mr. Tilton there ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Did you leave Mr. Bowen, Mr. Moulton, and Mr. Tilton together to go to Mr. Claflin's ? A. I did, to go to Mr. Claflins. Q. You went to Mr. Claflin's ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Did you go for Mr. Freeland ? A. I found him at Mr. Claflin's. Mr. Beach— We had aU that in the nrior examination. By Mr. Shearman— How long were you, Mr. Cliifliii, and Mr. Freeland, away from Mr. Moulton 's house after the time you left Mr. Bowen, Mr. Moulton, and Mr. Til- ton there! A. I should say from fifteen to thirty miJautes. Q. You took the Woodstock letter to Mr. Claflin's! A. To Mr. Bowen. Q. Delivered it to Mr. Bowen % A. Yes, Sir. Q. Did Mr. Bowen express any surprise on hearing It f Mr. Beach— That is objected to. Mr. Shearman— Mr. Bowen testified on his direct ex- anaination Mr. Beach- No he didn't. Mr. Shearman — He said it was a surprise to him when lie received it. Judgt NeUson— I think we will leave that where it is. I am afraid we shall have to admit the letter by and by. if we deal with it any more. Mr. Evarts— If your Honor please, we resisted their calling it out. Your Honor allowed it, and now we pro- pose to contradict him. Judge NeilsoH— Yes, it was allowed, because, dming your testimony, that evidence was referred to, and evi- dence given in respect to it— if Mr. Bo^ en demanded it on the occasion of the arbitration. Mr. Evarts— I am not now complaining of its having been allowed. Judge Neilson— It was allowed simply to meet that. Mr. Evarts— I am not now complaining that it was allowed, but it was against our resistance. Judge Neilson— Whatever they have ^ven on the sub- ject was to meet what yon put in. Mr. Evarts— Well, they have brought it out on their part— direct evidence of their rebutting witness, Mr- Bowen— new evidence brought into the case in rebuttaL If it has anything to do with the matter, it is part of their rebutting evidence of their rebutting witness. Judge Neilson- -Well, it came up in this way. Before the arbitrators, the materiality of it was flrst put by you in your evidence that the papers were spoken of to be burned, the Woodstock letter excepted. They put in evi- dence by Mr. Bowen his views to meet that, and, as a part of that comes in the fact that although it was not spoken of on that occasion it was brought in afterward. That is, all there is of it. It was simply to meet your view of the case. Mr. Evarts— And they have been allowed, against our resistance, to give specific proof of the accuracy of his memory by his recital of what took place between Mr. Storrs and himself when Mr. Storrs brought him the letter— wholly on that ground, against our objection. The general rules of evidence didn't allow it, and he has thus put himself on this fact as to the occurrence, which is the basis of his principal evidence on this point, and now we prove, or offer to prove by this witness, that no such thing occurred, and, if your Honor excludes it, why, of course, we have no mod© Judge Neilson— Well, we have the case standing thns : You put in evidence, in reference to this letter, wliat yo« ^ say occurred at the time of the arbitration in connection with the suggestion ot burning the tther p& pers. TESTIMONY OF C 'jnABLES STOEBS. 547 Mr. Evarts— And I don't renew that. Judge Neilson— Tlieir evidence is simply to meet that ; tiiat is all. Mr. Evarts— Mr. Bowen is allowed, against our objec- tion, to give as proof, to confirm his principal statement, Ms. distinct memory of what took place between Mr. Storrs and himself. Judge Neilson— Very well. Mr. Evarts— That basis I propose to strike down by Mr. Storrs, and if I am not allowed to Judge Neilson— My view is simply this : You put in evidence what you chose on that subject, and freely, but confined to the action of the arbitration, as if then the Woodstock letter was the subject of discussion, and to meet that they call Mr. Bowen, which they had a right to do, and proved by him, according to his recollection, the Woodstock letter was not spoken of then, but was brought to him afterward, and that was simply to meet what you put in evidence, and that is all we ought to take. Mr. Evarts— I think my statement is correct. Against my objection your Honor allowed Mr. Bowen to give an interview between Mr. Storrs and himself as confirma- tion of his memory. Judge Neilson— There are two ways of contradicting what you have proved to have occurred before the arbi- trators. One was that Mr. Bowen didn't recollect what you proved did occur in the presence of the arbitrators about this letter, and the other way was that that was brought to him afterward, going to the same point. Mr. Evarts— If they had stopped there, as I tried to hold them, this evidence would not have been produced ; but against my objection they were allowed to confirm Mj. Bowen's accuracy by his adoption, as the basis of his accuraey, his memoiy of an interview between Mr. Storrs and himself. Judge Neilson— To wit, that what did not occur before the arbitrators he thinks did occur between him and Mr. Storrs. Mr. Evarts— Now, we ask Mr. Storrs whether on that same interview it did occur. Judge Neilson— Then they might call a witness to prove he was present at Mr. Bowen's office, and heard oonversation between Mr. Bowen and Mr. Storrs, and that that did occur as ytated by Mr. Bowen, and you might call another witness to support Mr. Storrs, and perhaps by to-morrow afternoon we would get rid of the Woodstock letter. I think we cannot go any further with it. Mr. Evarts— WiU your Honor be so good as to note my exception ? Judge Neilson— Yes. Mr. Shcaimnn— We offer by this witness speciificaHy to contradict the very conversation which iit. Bowen related this morning. Judge Neilson— Very welL Mr. Shearman— We imderstand that. Judge Neilson— The same ruling. Mr. Shearman— The conversation wliioli Mr. Bowen related as occm-ring in regard to the Woodstock letter. Judge Neilson— Yes. Mr. Shearman— Your Honor rules that out and we except. CROSS-EXAMINATION OF CHARLES STORRS. By Mr. Beach.— Do you assume to recollect all the details of the proceedings before the arbitrators ? A. No, Sir, I cannot perhaps say all. Q. Do you assume to recollect all the conversation that occurred before the arbitrators 1 A. Not alL Q. Do you mean to swear positively that, in the presence of the arbitrators, and of Mr. Bowen ard Mr. Tilton and Mr. Moulton, Mr. Moulton did not diaw up that paper 1 A. I think he could not without my know- ing it. Q. I want you to answer my question. Do you mean to swear positively, upon your recollection, that in the pres- ence of the arbitrators, at tJiC time of the arbitration, and in the presence of Mr. Tilton, Mr. Moulton, and Mr. Bowen, Mr. Moulton did not draw up that paper, and it was then signed by Mr. Bowen and Mr. Tilton ? A. If It was, it was unknown to me. It was not read o*- made known. Mr. Beach— I didn't ask anything about reading or making known. I move to have that sti'uck out. Judge Neilson fto the witness]— He simply wants to know if you are positive. Mr. Beach— Is tihat struck out ? Judge Neilson— Yes. The Witness— I am positive it covild not have been. Mr. Beach— I don't think that answers my question. I wish to put this gentleman on his responsibility upon that question, and I repeat my question. [To the wit- ness.] Do you swear positively that in the presence of the arbitrators, and of Mr. Tilton and Mr. Moulton and Mr. Bowen, that paper was not drawn up by Mr. Moulton at the time of the arbitration ? Mr. Shearman— I object to the renewal of the question. I would not object if the gentleman would ask him if he will swear it was not done in the sight of tlie arbitrators ; but asking him to swear positively that it was not done in the presence of the arbitrators, when their backs might be turned, and without taking any notice of it, is too broad a question, because he has answered once it could not have occurred. Judge Neilson fto Mr. Beach]— I think Mr. Shenruian's criticism on your question is very reasonable. You ought to incorporate the worcls " or in your sight." Mr. Beach— No, I \vill not incorporate the words " or in your sight." My point is to prove those papers, as sworn to by Mr. Bo^yen, and coiToborated by Mr. IMoultjDU, were drawn up m the presence of the arbitrator^ and, if they 548 TMI] TILTON-B were looking, in their sight— tliey may have Tbeen inatten- tive—hut I want to know whether this witness will swear positively the thing was not done in the presenee of the arbitrators. Judge Neilson [to the witness]— Now, answer, Mr. Stores, The Witness— I have no knowledge. By Mjh Beach— Will you answer my question % Judge Neilson [to the witness] —Is that as positive as you can make it ? The Witness— It is, unless I explain. I don't think it could be done without I had seen it, and I have no knowledge of it whatever. By Mr. Beach— Now, Sir, have you any recollection of any paper having been executed at that time by Mr. Bowen or Mr. Tilton 1 Mr. Evarts- Has he not answered the question, what- ever paper he does refer to f Mr. Beach— I am not asking him about that paper— I am not asking about any paper. Mr. Evarts— He has been told to answer yes or no. By Mr. Beach— My question is, whether you now have any recollection of any paper having been executed on the occasion of that arbitration by either Mr. Bowen or Mr. Tilton or both of them? A. After the arbitration, Mr. Beach 1 Q. What ? A. After the award had been made % Q. Not before the award 1 A. No, Sir, I have not. Q. No recollection at all ? A. No, Sir. Q. Have you any recollection of any being executed after the award was promulgated 1 A. I think some writing was received. Q. Do you recollect iti A. I am under the impression— but I would not want to swear positively— I am under the impression that there was some paper at the last of the arbitration, but I would not want to swear to that posi tively ; I am under the impression that there was a paper, but whether it was a l eceipt, or what, I cannot state. Q. Can you swear positively that on that occasion Mr. Bowen did not insist upon having a writing? A. He did not. Q. You swear positively to that ? A. T do, Q. And he could not have Insisted on It without your hearing it ? A. He could not, Q. And you swear positively he didn't say to Mr. Tilton liiat the matters must be submitted in writing? A. No, Sio-. Q. That it could not, in the course of the proliraiuarics, have occurred in the presence of the arbitrators ? A. I think not. Q. Do you 8V/aar positively that it could not? A. I swear I didn't hoar it. Q. That is not the point; it is very likely you didn't bear it. I want ' know if you will swear that it did not occur? A. I wculdnot want to go any further, because it may have bee ^ uaid. EECHEB lEIAL, Q. That is what I hare been asking your atteiition to. That is what you mean to say— that you didn't hear it I A. That I didn't hear it. Mr. Beach— That is all, Mr. Storrs. Judge NeUson— That is aU, Mr. Storrt. RE-DTRECT EXAMINATION OF MH. STORES. By Mr. Shearman — Coiild anything of this kind, such as this written paper, and the request by Mr. Bowen for a written submission, have occurred in your presence without your hearing it ? Mr. Beach— Objected to. Judge Neilson— I think I will take that, if it could have occurred in his presence. Mr. Beach— Is it for him to say, as a matter of judg- ment, that it could not have occurred ? Must he not re- late the condition of the circumstances and surroundings and let us judge ? Judge Neilson— I think he can answer it. Mr. Beach [To Mr. Storrs.]— Come back to the stand, Sir. By Mr. Shearman— I will ask you whether this language could have been used by him in your presenee— whether he could have said in your presence that he should de cline taking one step until it was put in writing what they were to submit, and could have suggested that one of the arbitrators draw that submission without your hearing it ? A. I think he could not. Judge Neilson— He had virtually said that before. It leaves it where it was. Mr. Beach [to Judge Neilson]— You seem to thiuk I ought not to ask him any question. Judge Neilson— We are drawing so close to the end of the case that I would rather encourage you than pre- vent you. Mr. Shearman— That is aU, Mr. Storrs. The Witness [to Mr. Beach |— Are you through, Sfr. Mr. Beach— Yes. Mr. Shearman— Mr. George W. Uhler. TESTIMONY OF GEORGE W. UHLER. George W. Uhler, a witness called on behalf of the defendant, being duly sworn, tebtified : By Mr. Shearman— Where do you reside? A. No. 3i Orinond-plac». Q. How long have you resided in Brooklyn ? A. Since 1842. Q. Are you the owner of real estate in Brooldyn ? A^ I am. Q. How long have you owned real estate in BrooMyn f Mv. Fullerton— What is that in reply to ? Mr. Shearman— Oil, well, well. Mr. Beach— What is it? Mr. FullertoB— His ownership of real ©state doat qualify him to talk about some one else's real estate. Mr. Evarts— We have a right to show the witness — - TESIIXOXI OF Gj 5Zt. ?Tiearman— I mil ^^aive That. Jndge yeilson — "^ell, tliat is waived ; go on. Bt 3Ir. Saeamian— In tlie years 1870 and 1871, vrere jon the oTTaer of tbjo Ilovlsh in wliioh Mr. ilotilton lived in Clinron-st. ? A. I -was. For iLow many years vas Mr. Moulton vour tenant 1 A. Three or f onr. Q. Did you fregnently visit tie liou*e during that period of 1370 and 1871— did you ever visit it ? A> Tie first part of 1371, before that, durlas the time that he HTed there. Q, Did you, hervreen the Ist of January and the Ist of May, 1871, visit the house ? A. IS 71 ? Q. Yes, Sir. A. I did. Q. Did yoa. go into the parlor of Mr, Moulton's house ? A. T did. Q. Did you see any picture of the Eev. Henry Ward Beecher hanging in the parlor of Mr. Moulton's house in Clinton-st. at tliat time ? A. I did. Q. What sort of a picture vras it? A. Life size, hea-d and shoulders, dovm to the bust, Q. Hovr often have you seen it there ? Did you see it during that period 1 A, I seen it previous to that. I should judge, three times altogether, Q. Did you see it hefore the Ist of January, 1371 ? A. I think I did. Q. When did 3Ir. Moulton leave your house ? A, I Think it va^ the 1st of May, 1871 ; I cannot tell vrithout looking at the lease : I think I have that time. Mr. Shearman— That is all. ceoss-exa:mixatiox of me. rULER. By Mr. Fnllerton— Was there more than one portrait there ■? A. Of Mr. Beecher ? Q. I ask you if there vas more than one portrait there ; A. I cannot say. There vras only one of Mr. Beecher that I saw, Q. Did you see a portrait there of any other person, or persons ? A. I may have seen it, Q. Why &aji you not reoolleot that as well? A. Simply he«"ause Mr. Beeeiers is a very prominent face, and as I knew it very weU I rememhered it. Q. Did you see a portrait there of Mr. Tilton ? A. I can- not ^-ay. Q. How A. I eannot say ^ to that. Q. Where did this portrait of Mr. Beecher hang? A. It tixmg on the ea-st—hetweon the windows at the east end of the parlor, or on the south side, I think; I won't he certairi; that is, on the wall on the south side— the side toward Schermerhom-st. Q. And you swear positively it was a portrait of >Ir, Beecher i A. I do. Q. A portrait in oil ? A. I cannot say as to that, Q. It was not a portrait of Mr. Tilton ? A. I didn'cknow Mr. Tnton. That is the reason I ask you the question. It was ^OBG£ W. URL EE. 549 not a portrait of :Mr. Tilton, was it? A. Sox IMr, Beecher's. The one that I seen, Q. I am talking about the portrait you saw. A. It was Mr, Beecher I seen. Q. I ask you whether you are positive the portrait yoTi saw hanging there was not a portrait of Mr. Tilton in- stead of Mr. Beecher? A. I am, Q. PositiTe ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Xo doubt in your mind at all about it, is there ? A. I want to understand the ciuestion. Q, I ask you if you have no doubt whatever in your j mind upx)n that subject, as to whether the portrait you did see was a portrait of Mr. Beecher or of Mr, Tilton? A. I have no doubt in my mind but that it was Mr. Beecher. Q. Yery well. And when do you say you saw it there i A, Well, in the first two weeks of February. 1571. 1 had occasion to go to the house— I think that was once ; previous to that I seen it. Q. WeU. how long previous to that ? A. Oh. well wiihin two or three years that he lived there. Q. How early did you see it there ? A. I cnnndt tell you, Q, As near as you can tell ? A, Within that time. Q. Did you see it there in 1S70 ? A, In that year I should judge, Q, What time do you think in that year you saw it ! A. I cannot tell Did you see it there in 1569 ? A. I cannot tell: I seen it several times within the time he lived there. He lived there in 1569. Q, Do y©u think you saw it in 1565 : A. I cannot say, Sir. Q, Was }*Ir. Moulton there in 1565 ? A, I think he was. I can tell by looking at the old lease. Q. Can you not tell now? A. I know he lived there three or four- yen_rs. Q. You cannot tell which, can you 1 A, Tell which what ? Q, Whether it was three or vour years ? A, Zs'ot with- out looking Lit the lease, Q. Were you che owner oi the pr-mises ? A, I was, an4 am now. Q. How ? A. I was then and am now, Q. Well, what is thereto fix in yo'ar mind when you ■ Jii-st saw the portrait there ? A, Because I knew the face j I knew ]Mr. Beecher by sight I knew his portrait ; I heard him preaeh. Q. How late ean you say you saw it there? A, That would be the last time in the first part of February. Mr. Moulton was sick. Q. The first part of February of what year ? A. 1571. Q, :Mr. Moulton was sick at the time ? A. He was siek in bed, Q. And the portrait was ia the parlor, wa^s it ! A. It I was in the parlor. 550 IRE limON-BF.ECHEB lELAL. Q. When was yoiir attention first drawn to the time ■when you saw the portrait there in the house ? A. I hardly understand you. Do you mean lately ? Q. Yes. A. Well, I was reading Mr. Moul ton's answers in regard By Mr. Fullerton— A little louder, please. A. I was was reading the paper this morning — his answers in re- gard to Mr. Beecher's portrait, where he says there was none in the house. I think— at least, I so understood it Mr. Fullerton— A little louder. The Witness— My attention was then called to it. Q. Was that the first ? A. In this connection. I re- Biembered seeing his portrait there previous, though, while this trial has been going on. Q. What did you do when you saw Mr. Moulton's testi- mony? A. Well, Sir, I have business with a Mr. James in Montague-st., a real estate man. He has charge of some property of mine. As I had business, why I thought I would go in and ask Mr. Evarts— A little louder. The Witness— I thought I would go in and ask Mr. Tracy whether that was meant, that he stated there was none there, as I recollected having seen one. Q. Did you go to see Mr. Tracy ? A. I did, for informa- tion. Q. Told him what you knew % A. No, I went to ask him if that was meant. Mr. Beacli— We didn't ask about that. The Witness— I am telling why I went there. By Mr. Fullerton— Did you communicate the fact to Mr. Tracy of what you have now sworn to? A. I did. Q. When? A. This morning. Q. At his office? A. At his office. Mr. Fullerton— That is all. Mr. Siiearman— That is all, Mr. Uhler. Jmdge Neilson— That is all, Sir. [To the jurors.] Get ready to retire, gentlemen. Please return at 2 o'clock. The Court then took a recess until 2 o'clock. THE AFTERNOON SESSION. The Court met at 2, pursuant to adjourn- ment. After a delay of 15 minutes Mr. Fullerton said : Shall we proceed. Sir ? Judge Neilson— Is there anything more, gentlemen ! Mr. Shearman— We have, your Honor. Mr. Evarts— [Who had been talking to Mr. Carpenter, foreman of the jury.] I was addressing the jury. Sir. [Laughter.] Judge Neilson— I think this will be a good time in the case to rest, gentlemen. Mr. Fullerton— There is no rest for the wicked, and they propose to go on. [Laugh tei-.] Judge Neilson— Well, I will take a portion of that to myselt, of course. Mr. Shearman— Mr. Caldwell, TESTIMONY OF WALLACE E. CALDWELL. Wallace E. Caldwell, a witness called anci sworn on behalf of the defendant, testified as follows : By Mr. Shearman— Mr. CaldweU, where do you reside? A. In Brooklyn. Q. How long have you lived in Brooklyn f A. Most of the time, for 25 years. Q. Are you acquainted with Mr. Francis D. Moulton ! A. I am, Sir. Q. When did you become acquainted with him ? A. I should think about six years ago, six or eight years, per- haps—partially. Q. Did you visit Mr. Moulton's house in the early part of the year 1871 ? A. I did. Q. And at what time did you visit him ? A. I should think it was about the month of February; the snow was on the ground, I know. Q. Where was he then Uving ? A. Cltnton-st. Q. Did you stay some little time in his house ? A. 1 spent about 15 hours there, with about two hours inter- mission—an hour and a half intermission. Q. State the reason. A. Mr. Moulton was sick and I was watching with him from about 11 o'clock in the forenoon until 2 o'clock the next morning, or per- haps a little longer. Q. Did you go into the parlor while you were there t A. I did, when I first went in. Q, Did you see any portrait of Henry Ward Beecher in the parlor ? A. I did. Sir. Q. Was it an oil painting ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Was it the one described as Paige's portrait of Beecher 1 Mr. Beach— Oh! well, what does he know about that? By Mr. Shearman — Well, no matter. That was hanging on the wall when you went there ? A. Hanging on the wall, I believe, right opposite the door. Mr. Fullerton- Nothing at all. The Witness— Thank you, Sir. Mr. Shearman— Your Honor will excuse a little delay. We have both telegraphed and sent a messenger for the only remaining witness that we have. If he does not come in a few minutes, why, we will give him up. Mr. Fullerton— If your Honor please, Mr. Shearman suggests that while waitiug for their witness to eome in we may call a witness, so as to save time, and I will do so, Mr. Beach— With the understanding that they have but one witness more. Mr. Fullerton— They have but one witness to call. Mr. Bowen, come forward. TESTIMONY OF JOHN ELIOT BOWEN. John Eliot Bowen, a witness called and swoi'u on behalf of the plaintiff, testified as foUows : By Mr. Fullerton— You are the son of Henry C. Bo wen, I believe ? A. Yes, Sir. TESllMONT OF MARSHALL J. MORRELL, 551 Q. And your own aame is Jolm Eliot Bowen i A. Yes, gir. Q. Do you reside liome witli your father i A. Yes, Sir. Q. And have you so resided for a number of years pasti A. Yes, Sir; always. Q. What is your present occupation, if any, Mr. Bowen ? A. Studying. Q. At school 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. In this city 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. I want to caU your attention to the month of De- cember, 1870, and ask you whether you recollect during that month of delivering a letter to Mr. Freeland from your father ? A. I recollect delivering a letter, but I could not state whether it was that month or not. Q. What is your best recollection upon the subject ? A. My best recollection is that it was on a holiday, from the fact that my father called me to deliver this note in the afternoon, and it was light when I carried it there, and he never was home from business before dark at that time of year except on holidays. Q. To whom did you deliver the note 1 A. To Mr. Free- land, to the best of my recollection. Q. State to whom it was addressed 1 A. To Mr. Free- land, I suppose. I could not swear to that. Q. You saw the address, did you ? Did you see the ad- dress of the letter ? A. Yes, Sir ; I probably saw it. Q. But have no recollection 1 A. I do not recollect ; I could not swear. Q. Now, what reply, if any— did Mr. Freeland take the note ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Did he read it in your presence 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. What reply did he send, if any, to your father ? A. Something like, " I wiU attend to it" or " It is all right," or something like that — equivalent to that. Q. And did you give the message to your father ? A. Yes, Sir, I returned it to him. Q. Where did you find Mr. Freeland when you gave him the note 1 A. I believe he came to the door himself. Q. At his own dwelling ? A. At his own dwelling. CEOSS-EXAMINATION OF JOHN ELIOT BOWEN. By Mr. Evarts— Mr. Bowen, if lie did not come to the door, you had no interview with him ? A. How is that. Sir? Q. If Mr. Freeland did not come to the door you had DO interview with bim ? Did you go into the house ? A. I went into the house, right inside of the hall. Q. The door ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Well, if Mr. Freeland did not open the door for you, did you see him personally at all ? A. I saw him per- sonally. Q. Well, did he open the door for you 1 A. To the best of my recollection he did. Q Have you any recollection of seeing him, excepting that he opened the door ? A. I recollect his, as I think, opening the door and delivermg a message to me to return. Q. And aU at one time ? A. What, Sir % Q. All at the moment 1 A. Yes, Sir, right at the mo* ment. Q. What was your age at that time, in 1871 1 About 13. Q. 1870, 1 mean t A. 1870 ; I was not quite 13 then. TESTIMONY OF MARSHALL J. MOEEELL. Marshall J. Morrell was called and sworn on behalf of the plaintifi, and testified as follows : By Mr. Morris— Mr. Morrell, where do you reside ? A. In Brooklyn. Q. What is your business 9 A. Architect. Q. How long have you been in that business i A. Four- teen years. Q,. And carried on business in Brooklyn ! A. Yes, Sir, Q. Have you made an examination of the rear of premises No. 148 Hicks-st. 1 A. Yes, Sir, Q. Mr. Ovington's 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. When did you make it 1 A. This morning. Q. Did you prepare this diagram ? [Producing diagra: j. | A. Yes, Sir. Q. Does this correctly represent the situauon in the rear of that house? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Now, will you take the diagram, and I will asl: you a question. [Handing witne?s the diagram.] State how the rear of the houses 146,148, and 150 are situated— whether they run back the same distance. A. They are not quite on the same line ; 146 and 148 are on the same line, and very nearly alike, having each a piazza "uthe rear and a small room finished from the p'a . a ; No. 150,. from which we made the measurements, has no piazza, except an inclosed one, as it is called; that extends a little beyond— two feet beyond— No. 148, and four feet of the piazza cf 148 extends beyond that. Q. Mr. Ovington's is 148. between the two that you are speaking of now 1 A. Yes, Sir ; Mr. Ovington's is 148. Q. Now, on which side is the house that you are now speaking of, 150 ? A. On the south. Mr. Beach— Which way does the piazza front? A. West ; very nearly west. Mr. Morris— What is the point of compass there? Which way does the house front ? A. Very nearly east. Q. The house stands nearly east and west? A. Yes, Sir. Mr. Beach— Then the piazza fronts south ? The Witness— No, Sir ; the piazza fronts west; it is di- rectly on the rear. Mr. Morris— Now, did you observe the houses adioining, 150 and 146 ? A. Not adioining 146; but adjoining I'^O is a three-story house, having an extension of nine feet, two stories high ; the whole of the extension and one foot of the main building extends beyond No. 150. Q. You did not observe the house on the other side, ad- 553 TEE TILTON-B 1omiTigl46? A. No, Sir; my impression is that it does not extend beyond 146. Q. You are mistaken; it extends nearly tlie whole length; that is immaterial; that Is on the other side. Now, Mr. Morrell, wUl you state how that piazza of 148 is situated; just describe the piazza. A. The floor is about four feet from the yard, in hight. The piazza itself is about nine feet three inches from floor to celling ; it is six feet in depth from the house to the outside of the columns, and is inclosed on all sides except directly west. Q. And is there a small room there, in the rear of the house 1 A. There Is a room, four or five feet, as nearly as I could judge, on the north side of it. Q. Now, is there any arbor over— extending from the piazza 1 A. A grape arbor ; yes, Sir. Q. Just describe that arbor % A. The perpendicular portion of it is 12 feet from the piazza — ^from the columns. Mr. Beach— How far, Sir % The Witness— Twelve feet ; about that. Then, probably at a hlght of ten feetr— perpendicular hight of ten feet- rafters are extended to the piazza roof. Q. That along the whole length of the piazza ? A. No, Sir ; it is short of the building about four feet at each side. By Mr. Morris— And any grape vines 1 A. Yes, Sir. By Mr. Beach— How well covered is the arbor 1 By Mr. Morris— How large are the vines ? A. I should say they were old vines, 15 or 20 years old. By Mr. Beach— Covering the whole arbor s A. Well, they are trimmed now; one of the vines reaches to the j)iazza roof ; others fall short. By Mr. Morris— Now, in the yard adjoining 148 and 150, are there any trees ? A. ITiere is a tree in the yard of 150, thirty-nine feet from the rear of 150, about thirty-four feet from the rear of the piazza of 148, and six feet six inches from the line between 148 and 150— a cherry tree. Q. How large a tree % A. The average of the trunk, about four or five feet from the ground, is four feet six Inches in ojrcumference. By Mr. Beach— The average of the trunk of the tree? -A. Yes, Sir. By Mr. Morris— And as to its hight, about how high ? Al. About 35 feet, I should judge, judging from the hight of the buildiugs adjoining. Q. A cherry tree ? A. Cherry tree ; yes. Sir. Q. A large top 1 A. Yes, Sir ; quite spreading. Mr. Beach— Well, that is on the south % A. That is on the south of No. 150— of No. 148. Mr. Morris— And the buildings in the rear, fronting on Willow-st., how are they located % A. There are two three-story and attic brick buildings, each 46 feet and 6 inches from the dividing line— the line dividing the lots •t the rear. There is a frame house, 50 feet, between RFCEEB TBIAL. the two, and more nearly opposite No. 150, that is lower, about a three-story house. Q. Is that tree that you have spoken of situated so as to break off the rays of the sun from the piazza of No. 148 in the afternoon ?• A. That I am not sure of. Sir. Q. But the arbor is directly over 1 A. The arbor is directly over ; yes, Sir. Mr. Morris— That is all. CROSS-EXAMINATION OF MR. MORRELL. By Mr. Shearman— I did not catch your name, Sir ? A. Morrell. Q. I was not able to hear what your business was ? A. Architect. Q. Have you ever visited the rear of these premises be- fore, Mr. Morrell 1 A. No, Sir. Q. What time in the day did you visit them? A. Be- tween 9^2 and 10^ this morning. Q. The sun was on the front of the house then? A. The sun was on the front ; yes. Sir. Q. Where do you reside yourself? A. Pacific-st., be- tween Third and Fourth-aves. Q. Paciflc-st. runs diagonally with Hicks-st. ? A. Yea, Sir. Q. Then you are not able to judge from your own expe- rience the way the sun strikes the house ? A. No, Sir. Q. You never have seen this house ta the afternoon ? A. No, Sir. Q. Well, Sir, judging from the position of the house, from the aspect of the sun at present, is it not the fact that the sun shines about this hour of the day, dii'cctly upon that piazza ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. It would shine full and square upon it, wouldn't it I A. With no obstruction it would; yes, Sir. Q. Now, did you not observe that behind that hoiuse, No. 148, that the position which the sun would take uow is such as to cause the rays of the sim to go between the two houses 1 Did you notice that there were two houses that were rather high ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. And two houses that were quite low between them ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Is it not your judgment that in the position which the Sim occupies at this hour, half-past two, that the rays of the Sim would go directly between those two higii houses and over the low ones ? A. I should say that the sun would be above any of the buildings there. Q. Well, at this time it would be above any of tJiem ; when it comes to a lower point, are not those houses f»o situated that even at a later hour than this, when ihe sun falls below the level of those high buildings, the rays would go between the high buildings and above the low ones ? A. I think they might, Sir. Mr. Beach— Well, so as to strike the piazza 1 Mr. Shearman— Yes, so as to strike the piazza. Mr. Beach— Well, I don't understand him to say so. TESTUlOyY OF JO Mr. Shearman— The rays of the sun, if tiey came be- tween tliose two Mgli houses, woxild still strike the piazza full, would they not, Mr. Morrelll Do you recollect the position of those two houses? A. Yes, Sir, because the two high houses are in the rear of the adjoining houses. Q. Yes, and the low houses are in the rear of No. 148 ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. And, therefors, the sun's rays coming square on No. 148 would strike the piazza at the time when the rays of the sun came between those two high houses, wouldn't they ? A. Yes, Sir. Mr. Beach— That would depend upon the position of the sim and the angle of the light. By Mr. Shearman— Do you know anything as to the condition of this grape arbor, or rather the grapevine upon it ? Did you have any means of judging as to whether it was a fruitful one or a barren one I A. Not any at all, Sir. Mr. Fuller ton— Fruitful of leaves, I guess. Mr. Shearman— Well, that he does not know. iVIr. Fullerton— Well, then you had better leave that out. [Laughter.] By Mr. Shearman— There is no building projecting on either side of that piazza, il I understand you correctly, at all, so as to project beyond the piazza ] A. No, Sir, not immediately adjoining it. Q. Now, is there any building, either immediately ad ioiuing, or near adjoining, which could possibly intercept the rays of the sun from that piazza, I mean any building on the same side of Hicks-st. — is there any building which could possibly intercept the rays of the sun between 2 and 5 o'clock in the afternoon ? A. I should say not. Sir. Q. The rear of this building, No. 148 Hicks-st., faces almost directly west does n't it 1 A. Yery nearly directly west. Q= Faces the setting suni A. Yes, Sir. Mr. Shearman— That is all. Sir. JOHN C. SOUTHWICK RECALLED. Jolm C. Southwick was then recalled and examined as follows : By Mr. Shearman— Mr. Southwick, do you recollect an interview between yourself and Mr. Franklin Woodruff at your house, in which he said to you, in substance, that Mr. Moulton had placed to his credit in his firm shortly before $5,000 or $5,3001 A.. I do. Mr. Beach— I do not see what materiality this has. Sir. 3-Ir. Shearman— This first question is simply to identify The interview with the one mentioned by Mr. Woodruff. That is all. [To the witness.] Did Mr. Woodruff' in that in erview tell you that Mr. Moulton had deposited that mun'-y that very day, and that Mr. Moulton said it was to be drawn out for Theodore Tilton ? A. Yes, Sir; he did. Mr. Beach— I wish to be considered as objecting to tlii , Sir ; it is on a collateral subject and not proper. UN C. SOU TRW ICR. 553 Q. Did you say to Mr. Woodruff on that occasion thali you thought your uncle, H. B. Glaflin, might pay that money. Mr. Beach— I object to that. Judge Neilson — Whether he did or not 1 Mr. Beach— rrell, Sir, it is totally immaterial. The question is whether we shall take this contradiction up- on collateral points when it is objected to. Mr. Evarts — There is not anything new in the situa- tion. Mr. Beach— Well, if there is not anything new in the situation we had better not have it repeated. Mr. Evarts— I say there is nothing new in the question of law raised in the matter ; it has been frequently passed upon. Mr. Beach— I know it has been frequently passed upon and disposed of against the evidence. By Mr. Shearman— Did not Mr. Woodruff on that occa- sion ask you whether you didn't think it was your uncle, Mr. Claflin, who had paid iti Mr. Beach- 1 object to it. Sir. The Witness— Shall I answer i Mr. Evarts— Mr. Woodruff has been inquired of in a proper way to lay the foundation for his collateral im- peachment by calling the witness to whom he made the statement ; there is nothing in the situation Mr. Beach— That is not the ground of objection, Sir ; the objection is that this is an entirely collateral matter upon which Mr. Woodruff was examined. The rule has been too often discussed before your Honor to require re- iteration now. Mr. Evarts— Mr. Woodruff was recalled to contradict Gen, Tracy, and at least partly— wholly, perhaps, the last time, and we have asked him, in reduction of his evi- dence, whether he did not say so and so out of court to Mr. Southwick. He says he did not. Now, we bring Mr. Southwick to say that he did. Mr. Beach — ^TV^ell, that is a most unmeaning statement, Sir, of the condition of this objection and evidence offered. We called Mr. Woodruff to contradict Mr. Tracy in regard to material matters. They then cross-examined Mr. Woodi-uff in regard to those supposed declarations made to Mr. Southwick in regard to collateral matter, and now, I object that they are concluded by the answer which yu:. Woodruff gave ; that these declarations in regard to this $5,000, or where it came from, has no sort of reference or materiality to the issue. Judge Neilson— Well, I think Mr. Evarts will agree with you that that came out on cross-examination ; it seems to me so. Mr. Shearman— Well, Mr. Southwiek— I will take your answer. Mr. Beach— No, you won't. I Judge Neilson— No ; we won't take the answer. INIr. Shearman— I beg your Honor's pardon ; I thought 1 y^-.u said the question was lo be answered. 554 THE TILION-B. Judge Neilson— No ; when you come to sometlung tliat ie more vital we will proceed. Mr. Shearman— I take it, your Honor, that this suhiect ■was brought out in connection with Mr. Tracy's evidence — Mr. Tracy having testified that it was in respect to this matter relating to this $5,000 ; then he went into this question which was cognate to that. Judge Neilson— There was a question about the $5,000. Mr. Shearman— That is the whole point ; the whole question between Mr. Tracy and Mr. Woodruff was whether the conversation related to $500 or $5,000. Mr. Evarts— That is the point of our evidence. Judge Neilson— Anything that will illustrate that would be proper. Mr. Shearman— With all deference we thint this does Illustrate it. Judge Neilson— Ask him whether anything was said about the $5,000. Mr. Shearman— Exactly ; but he asked him whether the money was referred to and spoken of as money that came from Mr. Beecher, and at the same time that we claim a conversation was had with Mr. Tracy, and we propose to show that Mr. Southwick heard this statement about the $5,000 at this time, and to show that Mr. Woodruff is unable to recollect with any kind of accuracy, without imputing anything further to him, what he did tell Mr. Southwick about the $5,000, and on that ground we claim that he is mistaken in his impression as to what he told Gen Tracy. Judge Neilson— Well, there are two separate interviews. Mr. Shearman— There are two separate interviews, but they are at the same time, as we claim, and our evidence is that they were the same day. Mr. Beach— Now, Sir, the proposition is avowed and discussed that they put this question to Mr. Woocli-uff and proposed this contradiction to Mr. Woodruff upon a sep- arate and distinct matter to show that his recollection was faulty in that transaction, and from that to argue that it was faulty in regard to the transaction that occurred with Mr. Tracy. Mr. Shearman— The matter that I say Mr. Beach— No, Sir. Mr. Shearman— Well, I say that is your evidence. Mr. Beach— No, Sir ; nothing upon the subject, for noth- ing was said in regard to the $500 in the conversation with Mr. Southwick ; they did not propose that. Mr. Shearman — The gentleman is begging the question. Mr. Beach— I am begging no question : I am asserting a fact. They propose to prove a faulty recollection in regard to one circumstance or fact for the purpose of im- peaching recollection in regard to another. Mr. Shearman— Gen. Tracy is asked on cross-examina- tion whether he had a conversation with Mr. Woodruff about the sum of $500. He answers no ; in effect, he had a conversation only at the time the $5,000 were paid, ECHEB TBIAL. and on the very same day that money was paid. Now^ we ask Mr. Woodruff, oh Mr. Woodruff comes on to con- tradict Mr. Tracy on that point, and he says he did not talk with him about the 1 5,000, but did talk with him about the $500 ; we ask Mr. Woodruff whether he did not on the very same day on which Gen. Tracy testifies that he had this conversation with him, speak to Mr. Southwick on the subject of the $5,000, and then we question Mr. Woodruff as to his recollection of that conver- sation. It differs entirely from the recollection of the witness whom we now put upon the stand, a^d having given Mr. Woodruff an opportunity to set that right, we claim the right to show that his recollection of what happened on that very day when he had a conver- sation with Gen. Tracy is entirely inaccurate and as con- firming Gen. Tracy's conversation with him on tho very same subject concerning which Mr. Southwick talked. Now isn't that legitimate? The subject is the same, the principal party to the conversation is the same. Judge Neilson— And the day is the same. Mr. Shearman— The day is the same ; the only differ- ence is that one is Mr. Southwick and the other is Mr. Tracy. Mr. Beach — I don't know. Sir, whether the last word is to control in this matter ; I am objecting to evidence ; we have discussed it; I have presented my views to you;: the gentleman insists upon having apparently the last of the argument. Now, I can only repeat Sir, that there are two distinct conversations relating to a distinct and different subject, and the proposition is to prove Sir. Woodruff's faulty recollection in regard to the conversar tion with Mr. Tracy, by proving, if you please, thrtt it was inaccurate, or that he talked upon the same subject with Mr. Sou hwick, and without offering to prove that what he said to Mr. Southwick was untrue. Mr. Tracy swears that he had no conversation upoo a given day with Mr. Woodruff in regard to a $500, that it related to the $5,000. Mr. Woodruff swears that upon that day he did communicate to Mr. Tracy informatioa regarding $500, and that it did not relate to the $5,000. Now, they propose to prove by Mr. Southwick that upon that same day Mr. Woodruff had a conversar^ tton with liim in regard to the $5,000 and what he said. And they propose to prove that for the purpose of in- ferring or reasoning from it that because Mr. Woodi ujflt spoke of a $5,000 on that day in a conversation witn Mr. Southwick, that therefore he must have spoken of it in a conversation with Mr. Tracy ; and that is the sort of ar- gument, if your Honor please, by which this evidence upon an entirely collateral conversation is sought to be given. Judge Neilson— I think we cannot take it, Mr. Shear- man ; it is collateral matter ; jind if there were a contra^ diction, it is upon a collateral matter which is of no moment to u.«. THE TESTIM Mr. Sheamian— No moment except to the auestion. of the Mr. Beach— Well, now, I object to a further argvmient on the (luestlon. Ml-. Shearman— Well, when the Court makes a further suggestion, I have a right Judge Neilson— It is of no moment that Mr. Tracy and Mr. Woodruff had not agTeed on that collateral question. That is of no moment at all. Mr. Shearman— Well, we except— Judge Neilson— I think I must exclude it— lyir. Shearman— Your Honor wlU he so good as to note our exception. Judge Neilson— Yes. By Mr. Shearman— Mr. Southwick, do you recollect sm interview with Mr. Woodi'uff at your house shortly after the publication of this scandal, and on the subject of that scandal ? A. Yes ; I recollect a great many interviews. Q. Well, Mr. Woodruff testifies to an interview of that kind; I want to identify the occasion simply. Do you recollect Mr. Woodruff at such an interview saying to you : " Is it best for us to drive Mr. Beecher out of Brook- lyn, or not 1" A. I do. Mr. Beach- That is objected to. Judge jSTeilson— T think we will take that. By Mr. Shearman— You do ? A. I do ; yes, Sir. Q. And did you, in answer to that, say to him in sub • stance, that he had " a head of sufficient level to drive the salt and fish business ; but that when he undertook to drive Henry Ward Beecher out of Brooklyn, you thought he had taken a contract that he could not carry through 1" Mr. Beach— I object to this ; it is not important to take this gentleman's declarations to Mr. Woodruff. If this evidence is admissible at all it is admissible only for taie purpose of showing the state of mind and the feeling upon the part of Mr. Woodruff toward Mr. Beecher, and not the state of mind or feeling of this witness as toward Mr. Beecher or Mr. Woodi-uff. The declarations of this witness to Mi\ Woodruff upon that occasion are entirely immaterial and inadmissible. Mr. Shearman— This is part of the conversation, your Honor. Mr. Beach— No matter if it is. Mr. Shearman— And consecutive conversations we may gi^e. Judge Neilson— An independent iuterview would of coui'se be inadmissible, but it is a connected conversa- tion; I think we will take it. By Mr. Shearman— What is your answer? A. I did make, in substance, that remark to him. Mr. Beach— Your Honor will note me as excepting, Sir, to the admission of this evidence. Judge Neilsou— Y^'es, Sir. BylVIr. Shearman— Did Mr. Woodruff say to you, "I w\ll show you a lett+^r which, if published, or shown LYJ CLOSED. 555 generally, would diive him out of Brooklyn?" A. He did. Q. Did you ask ^Vlr. Woodruff if the charge against Mr. Beecher was adultery ? A. I did, Q. What answer did Mr. Woodruff make % A. He said that it was not. Mr. Shearman— That is all. Mr. Beach— That is aU, Sir ; I won't.— [As the witness was leaving the stand]— Have you made any bets on the result of this case % A. No, Sir. not one doUar ; no. Sir. Q. Have you had any wager upon the result of this case? A. No, Sir, I have not any. Q. Have you had ? A. I have had at the first of it, but I have not now, not one doUar. Q. When did you have them 9 A. I had about two weeks— three weeks ago, I think. Q. And did you cancel the bets for tlie purpose of being a witness ? A. Yes, Sir, I did for that very reason. Mr. Beach— You can leave. Sir. The Witness— Yes, Sir ; I thought I would be asked that question. Mr. Beach— Thought what. The Witness— I thought I would be asked that ques- tion ; that is the reason I canceled ; it was only a small amoimt any way. THE TESTIMONY IN THE CASE CLOSED. Mr. Shearman — How much was it ? The Witness— One hundred dollars. Judge Neilson— We wont take the amount. The Witness— I like to back up my opinion any how, even if it is wrong. Mr. Evarts— We rest. In regard, if your Honor please Mr. Beach— The evidence, then, is closed; Iimderstand HOW THE SUMMING TIP IS TO BE DONE. Mr. Evarts— Yes. In regard, if your Honor please, to the completion of the cause, so far as the labors of counsel before the jmy are concerned, it has seemed to us, after a very careful consideration of the matter, very desirable, in consequence of the long period of our en- gagement and the large accumulation of matter, as the summing up is to first f aU on our side, that we should have a little interval, which we desire to make as brief as possible. Of course we feel that any interval is undesirable in many aspects of the case, and the shorter it is the better. It is undesirable of course that the time of the jury should be exhausted any more than is absolutely suitable to the proper administration of justice m the case, and it is very undesirable for us counsel that we should be delayed our dismissal from the case any longer than is necessary. It is very desir- able that your Honor should be at liberty to attend to your usual judicial duties, free from >^ngngement in this 556 IRE IILION-B case, tlia,t has occupied so mucli of tlie public time. We have understood from our learned friends that their expectation was that only one counsel on their side ■would sum up ; and though it places us at some disad- vantage, perhaps, in the length of our arguments that ■we are not advised, by hearing one on their side, what the real grounds insisted upon, upon the com- pletion of the proofs are, yet, of course, it is entirely proper that that arrangement should be made. Judge Porter and myself have advised your Honor early in the case that we should desire both to be heard, and the purpose we have is, that neither should repeat what the other may say, and that we should not together take more time than we necessarily or properly might take alone. It is our expectation that both of us together ■will not occupy more than the usual sittings of a week. Four days we should hope to compress wha*: we have to say in. We do not think there is any danger of our run- ning over five, together. I have been obliged, as your Honor knows, to attend in court up to this very moment, and have had no opportanity to hold confer- ences, or to make arrangements as to the division of this matter between Judge Porter and myself, in the con- sideration of the evidence. It would seem very conve- nient to us, and, as we think, very suitable to the conduct of the case, and not likely to postpone at all the date of the final conclusion of our adjustment, that when we adjourn to-day your Honor would aUow us to adjourn vmtil Wednesday morning. I have spoken to my learned friends, and they, with great courtesy and kindness, though they feel some inconvenience from it, no doubt, are disposed to agree to our wishes in that regard. I am quite sm'e, if your Honor please, that the time will be well spent in reducing to order and within lesser limits what we may have occasion to say to the jury, and if your Honor should take that view of it we should hope that the jury, although probably not very agreeable to them, would not feel that it was unreasona- ble on our part. Mr. Beach— I should greatly prefer personally, Sir, that the argument of this cause should proceed at the usual day of adjournment upon Monday, passing over to-mor- row, which is a session day in our ordinary practice. From my own engagements it is exceedingly oppressive to me that there should be any extension, when we may hope to conclude this cause and be rid of it. But my friend, Mr. Porter, has sent a request to me, and it is fortified by the application of my friend, Mr. Evarts, and although there is some personal sacri- fice about it, and some inconvenience, I must, of course, very cheerfolly concur in their desire. I could not rea- sonably refuse without being somewhat discourteous, and I would rather suffer than bear that character. 'EC HER lELAL. JUDGE NEILSON SEEKS AUTOGRAPHS. Judge Neilson— The arrangement whicli tlie counsel, out of consideration to each other, agree upon, is of course acceptable to me; indeed, any arrangement would be to me, and I have no doubt wiU be agreeable to the jury. With reference to another matter, I wish to ask the several counsel in the case if they ■will see me in the other room Taefore they leave. The reporters and gentlemen connected with the press who have not yet given us their signatures in this book, and who may be present, will find it with the clerk, and it -will be vei y agreeable to us if they would take the trouble to see it and write their names in it. Gentlemen, we then sepa- rate imtU Wednesday morning next, at 11 o'clock. Please to make that as agreeable as you can to yourselves. The Court thereupon adjourned until next Wednesday morning at 11 o'clock. EIGHTY-SIXTH DAY'S PROCEEDINGS. JUDGE PORTER BEGINS THE SUMMING UP. EMPHATIC DENUNCIATIONS OF THEODORE TILTOK- JUDGE PORTER CONDEMNS IN STRONG LANGUAGE MR. MOULTON AND OTHER WITNESSES— THE LIFE AND CHARACTER OF PLAINTIFF AND DE- FENDANT CONTRASTED— MR. BEECHER'S CAREER OUTLINED— LETTERS BETWEEN MR. AND MRS. TELTON READ TO SHOW THAT ADULTERY ON HER PART WAS IMPOSSIBLE. Wednesday, May 19, 1875. It was nearly 15 minutes after 11 o'clock when, after Judge Neilson liad requested tlie audience to keep perfectly quiet during the proceedings, Judge Porter slowly arose in his place and, addressing the Court and jury, began his argument. The attention of the audience was enchained from the beginning, and they listened in perfect silence. The jurymen showed more continuous interest than they exhibited while the testimony was being taken, and not one of them grew inattentive during the whole day. Judge Porter, after contrasting the lives and char- acters of the plaintiff and defendant, hastily sketched the more salient events in the life of Mr. Beecher, and pronounced Mr. Tilton to be an adulterer aud a perjurer. Describing the discussion of the paternity of the boy Ralph, Mr. Porter exclaimed with electric force, and facing Mr. Tilton : "If there be a beast upen earth capable of holding such a conversation over his own boy, witli the paramour of his adulter- ous wife, he has lived too long upon earth— it is time for him to die. What are such men for, unless they have a mission in hunting down clergymen, crucify- ing women, and committing perjury in courts of justice?" The denunciations of Mr. Monlton and several other persona were only less severe than those launched against Mr. Tilton, but as the per- sons who were denounced were not present, the eflect was much legs marked. In describing the circumstances of the publication of Mrs. Tnton's letters, Judge Porter repeated sup- posed expressions used in selecting the letters which were to be published in a way which stirred up a "breeze of merriment in the audience. Judge Porter afterward read some of the letters which passed between ^li. and Mrs. Tilton previous to 1S70. By the tone of these h2 sought to prove that it was impossible that there should have been a-dultery between :Mrs. Tilton and ilr. Beecher when ehe mentioned .Mr. Beecher so frequenely in her letters to her husband. After reading the crpening words of one of Mr. Tilton s letters, whicn begins, " My dear angel, I dreamed of you all last night," ' Judge Porter turned to 2klr. Tilton with a sarcastic smite and exclaimed, " Ah, that was a long dream 1" The chief aim of Judge Porter's argamt«.t yester- day was to prove, from the character both of ^Ir. Beecher and ]VIrs. Tilton, and from the tone and na- ture of ^Irs. Tilton's letters to her husband, thb. gre.i;t improbability that any adulterous intercourse) had t;\kon place between Mrs. Tilton and ^h:. Beecher. A curious feature of the argument was the force with which little points of evidence, mere momentary ]3 ashes of light cast by brief and almost unnoticed expressions of the witnesses, were brought to bear by the skillful orator. Judge Porter was interrupted only two or three times during the day, and these interruptions came from his own counsel. THE PROCEEDINGS— YEEBATTM. THE BECtTN'N'IXG OF THE END. Jndgc XeiLson— It is expected that the audi- ence will keep perfectly silent. Any interruption seri- oasly dijiturbs tlie speaker, and detracts tlie attention of tlie jury fi-om hat they ouglit to hear. It is especially desirable, therefore, that we should have-jg^rfect quiet. ME. PORTER BEGIN'S THE SOOnXG UP. Mat it please the Court— Gentlemen of THE Jukt: Each of you is one hundred and thirty-lire days older this morning than when this trial commenced ; and that one hundred and thirty-five days of your life has been taken from yom btisiness, from your POETEB, 557 families, from your domestic occupations, in the interest of an adulterer who brings this suit for the ' purpose of establishing by your verdict that he slept for four years with an adulteress. You have been pressed for five months of your lives into the service of Theodore Tilton, in the forms of law, and in obedience I to a mandate which you are bound to obey, in the dis- charge of a duty from which you cannot shrink. There has been much plain-speaking, gentlemen, on the part of the prosecution in this case. Men are apt to be ' bold of speech when two stalwart cb amnions like Moul- j ton and Tilton make a joint assault upon a clergyman ■ and a woman, the one forbidden by Ms profession to re- turn evil for evil ; the other weak, powerless, held as in the hollow of the hand by a man [turning toward Mr. Tilton] who has but to look upon her to subdue her to his will. My client has, from the beginning of this case, dealt on Scripture principles with those who assailed him. They struck him upon the one cheek, and he turned the other also; and they failed not to strike that, too. The wife was dutiful, loyal, carrying loyalty to the point 1 of personal dishonor, but she received no thanks for it I and she stands to-day in the view of mankind, the subject ' of scoffs, of calumny, and of derision, all originating there. [Poiuting to :Mr. Tilton.] Although the multitud- inous channels through which it has passed are as num- I erons as the presses of the country, they have been re- I duced from time to time to the uses of this ignoble i prosecution. There is one thing, gentlemen, that 1 think we all saw in your manner and bearing I before ^he evidence was closed on the part of the pros&cutlon. It seemed to us — you can judge wheihei we were right— it seemed to us that you were impressed, -upon their ovvn showing, with the air of general untruthfulness that pervaded their case, with the air of dramatic and artistic skill wi-^rh which it had been gotten up in ihe first instance. I think, if the cause had stopped then, every juror in this bos would have said that he felt in his hettrt that the action was one which never should have been brought. But when we come to view the case in the light of the whole of this evidence, when we see it ilium ined as it is by the written as well as the oral disclosures of these parties ; when we have their acts for four years, their declarations for four years— allin direct conflict with their oaths— you wiU. be- pretty apt to say when yuu come to render your verdict that this case stands along with the great Tichborne case in England as one of the two leading impostures in the jurisprudence of the nineteenth century. A GLAXCE AT THE GROUP OF ACCUSERS. The plaintiff, and gentlemen, and those who aided him in setting this accusation on foot, represent a very different class from the defendant, and the phalanx I of friends who close around him to protect him from thi 558 THE TILION-BEEOREU TBIAL. prosecution. On tlie one side we have Tilton and Moul- ton, Bowen under a friendly mask, tlie informer Jayne, tlie friendly adviaer of Moul-^oii at tlie Fifth. Avenue Hotel ; Woodhull and Claflin and Andrews, the apostles of free love and spiritualism ; Gen. Butler, the cliamher counsel and strategist of the campaign, Joe Richards, stealing up softly from behind to strike his sister in the hack, Kate Carey, vulgar and flaunting, hut a fitting asso- ciate in this motley group. These are the parties who appear as the sponsors of this accusation against a man whose name is a tower of strength, not only to his church, "but to the city which boasts him as its noblest citizen, and to the republic which is illumined by his genius, and as- sociated with his fame. Those are the parties who ap- pear in the character of the champions of domestic l)urity and of elevated Christian morality. Here we Jiave, you will observe, gentlemen, in the names I have mentioned, grouped together in conjunction, the original fabricators of the accusation, its publishers, its authora^ its advisers, advocates and chief witnesses. And these are those who commend the accusation to the confidence of the church of God, of tlie country, and of the world. MR. BEECHER'S SUPPORTERS. Against this we have the jury of the vicin- age. Ah ! your Honor, it was one of the proud featui'es of the old English law that every man was to be tried by those wlio knew him, those nearest him, those who, if he was a rogue, knew that h.e was a rogue. We have, in fa- vor of this defendant, tlie unanimous voices of the jury of the vicinage, tlie unshaken confidence of the wife, the children, and the grandchildren who find shelter beneath liis roof, the unbounded confidence of the 3,000 worship- ers at th.e Plymouth Church, the Claflins, the Sagos, the Ovingtons, the merchant princes of Brooklyn and New- York, the professional men of your city and of ours, the mechanics, the artisans, the laborers, the old men, the matrons— those who look up to him with a:rateful and reverent love, and tlie young men, and the maidens whom lie has been leading upward to Heaven, even the clus- tering around of the young children who love Ms name, and will live to bless Ms memory when you and I will be sleeping beneath the sod— nay, more, the great body of tbe population of Brooklyn, that larger jury of the vicinage, men, women, and cMldren, who honor him, and who loathe the name of Theodore Tilton and Frank Moulton, his treacherous and perjured accusers. We have with us the almost unanimous and enthusiastic sup- port of his professional brethren, not in his own denom- ination alone, but in every foim and of every faith. We have with us the judgment of enliglitened Christendom, anticipating your j adgment which will accord with it, and we do not believe, where we have the truth with us, this accusation will thrive under the eye of man, for it cannot triamph under the eye of the Great Defender of ,tLe innocent THE TRUTH EVER TRIUMPHA?s"T. False judgments are rarely rendered in the tribunals of public justice. They have sometimes oc- curred, but rarely with an upright judge on the bench and honest men in the jury box. The attempt has often been made, false accusations are frequent in every land, in every condition. He, who said thousands of years ago on the top of Sinai, " Thou shalt not bear false witness againstthy neighbor," knew the weakness of those whom lie addressed, and that that command would be needfui to the latest day of human history. Malice, greed, and vengeance often lead to attempts to strike down the inno- cent. The class of men wbo cherish these passions have great faith in the efficacy of craft and lies. But tbeir best laid plans, their most cunning contrivances, their boldest perjury come to naught when they are brought to the light of day, and subjected to the scrutiny of an impartial iury. In the tribunals of justice innocence is secure. It is the ^hole object of our system of law to secure it, and our system of juiisprudence is not a failure. John Milton was right when he told us two centuries ago ** Thougli all the winds of doctrine were let loose upon, tlie earth, so truth be in the field, we do injuriously to misdoubt her strengtli. Let her and falsehood grapple. Whoever knew truth put to the worst in a free and open encounter. For who knows not truth is strongest next to the Almighty. She needs no policies, no stratagems to make her victorious. Those are the shifts tbat error uses against her power. Give her but room, and do not bind her when sbe sleeps." Men of a hollow and theatric nature like Theodore Tilton, men of plausible and un- scrupulous cunning like Moulton, think truth is a thing to insinuate, that all its need is an ingenious arrange- ment of drapery, and the support of competent false wit- nesses. They think with Aaron Burr, "truth is that which is boldly asserted and plausibly maintained." They ask with jesting Pilate, " What is truth ?" Nowar days, jesting PUates do not find their way into the jury- boxes, nor upon the judgment seat. THE OBSTACLES IN THE WAY OF THE ACCUSERS. When these men come into a court of justice to prefer their infamous accusation, they must submit to the ordeal whtioh Justice herself has ordained. They come here in substance imputing black and beastly guilt to an aged and honored clergyman and to a feeble but nu- stained matron. The first obstacle they encounter in their imdertaking is the shield which the law lifts before each in the legal presumption that both are innocent. That shield shelters them at every stage of the case, from the hour of their arraignment down to the rendition of the final verdict. The lances of the accusers must be driven home with a strength sufficient to penetrate that double shield before there can be a verdict. That shield SUMMING VP BY ME. POBTEB. 559 is tne protection wliioli tlie law extends to eyeiy womau, to every man; it is yours and mine. Tlie second 6b- staole tliese accusers encounter is the defendant's oath of his innocence and hers, the oath of an honest man, the oath of one who never was forsworn, an oath which will be accepted hy God though it were rejected hy mau. Bear In mind that that oath of the defendant harmonizes with the presumption which the law raises in her protection that she is innocent, in his defense that he is innocent ; that it is absolutely conclusive in his favor unless it is borne down by impartial, reliable, and trustworthy evidence, so overwhelming in its strength as to convict him of falsehood and of perjury. The third obstacle they meet presents itself in the unblemished character and the unspotted purity of the life of the lady and the clergy- man up to the very day when they are charged with this joint act of crime and infamy. The fourth obstacle they must encounter is that both Tilton and Moulton, for four successive years after their pretended knowledge of the crime, in private and in public, by their words and their acts, orally and in writing, falsified the accusation which they now ask you to indorse. They meet a fifth and fatal obstacle in the fact, opposed to all human observation and experience, that Tilton cohabited, slept, with the al- leged adulteress as a pure and unsullied wife for years after he knew that she had polluted his marriage bed ! You feel and you hnow that the charge is false. Nay, more, that he and Moulton both maintained, through all those four years, relations of social and family inter- course and of professed friendship and good-will toward the alleged adulterer, a fact at war with the truth of their accusation, and utterly revolting to public decency, if, as they now pre- tend, they were accessories to dishonor after the fact. They met a sixth obstacle in the fact that they both admit that they are now here, with the oath upon their lips, in a mood of mind which they admit to have been for a long period that of bitter and malignant hostility, hostility so malignant that each of them frankly avows that one of them meditated shedding blood, and we have proved as to the other that he declared that all he wanted was the countenance of the man whom he was talking with to cut down Henry Ward Beecher. Are these the fair, the honest, and the impartial witnesses on whose testimony you are going to become the pall-bearers of Henry Ward Beecher ? They encounter a seventh obsta- cle in the fact that they are compelled to swear that in respect to the very transactions as to which they now stand as witnesses and accusers they lied for years ; and this they must do in order to induce you to believe that they are not lying now. The eighth i obstacle they have to encounter is, that on I points vital to their credit as trustworthy i witnesses they are overborne by explicit and overwhelm- | ing contradictions, proceeding from witnesses of the j best character, some of them ladies of known purity 1 and elevation, many of them among the foremost citi- zens of Brooklyn and New-York, and all entitled to a confidence and respect which neither Tilton nor Moulton can ever command after the revelations they have in- vited during the present trial. A ninth obstacle is pre- sented in the inherent improbability of the truth of the accusation, in view of the antecedents and the surround- ings of all these parties. There is an old maxim of the law. familiar even in the days of Rome : Witnesses are to be weighed, not counted. In the one scale you have Henry Ward Beecher and his life, Elizabeth Tilton and her life ; in the other yau have Theodore Tilton and his life, Frank Moulton and his life ! HOW WITNESSES AEE TO BE WEIGHED. I lay out of view the minor accessories with which I do not at present have occasion to deal. You all recognize this as a wager of battle joined between Theo- dore Tilton and Henry Ward Beecher, and because Tilton is to fight a woman as well as a clergyman, he calls in Moulton to help him. Tilton is to swear down Beec^her, and Moulton is to crush her; for it would be a little un- gracious in Theodore to be crushing her, when he swears that she is such a white-soided woman, even to the pres- ent hour. He leaves that for "Frank!" [Sensation.] Gentlemen, what is the import of that wise maxim of the law: Witnesses are to be weighed, not counted? Simply this : no number of dishonest men can, by their joint attestation, make the truth a lie. One honest man speaking what is the truth, will so state that truth that a jui-y shall be able to discern, to comprehend, to read, the inner man, and to know whether that which he utters is the truth of God or a lie of the Evil One. This confidence which rogues have in the power of lying is a mistaken one. We are accustomed to judge the truth not by the number of those who speak it, but by the probability of the thing spoken. You look at your own observation. Y''ou lay side by side with your observation and your ex- perience, the narration which is to l)e put to the test. If It accords with your observation and experience, witli the ordinary probabilities of human aft'rtirs, is spoken with apparent candor, is spoken without motive and with- out malice, is attested hy the oath of a man who respf cis the Being from whom the oath derives its solemn it y, you accept it as true. Let us look for a moment at tlie pro lia- bilities of this matter before we come to consider tl? • details. Is the story probable 1 MR. BEECHER'S EARLY STRUGGLES. Who is the alleged cnlprit ? A man tliiee score years of age, mature, self -disciplined, well poised, i not merely a Christian, but a veteran Christian; not I merely a veteran Christian, but a veteran mmister ; a j man who from his youth up has dedicated himself to the 1 service of God and man. Fortunate in his antecedents. 5«0 THE TILTON-BEECHEE lEIAL. \n the teaching: of that honored father whose name -will stand np in luster and in light through all the future generations ; still more fortunate in the training of that heloved hut honored mother whose short hut radiant life left a stream of light on the ecclesiastical history of New- England ; a woman of whom, in his hetter days, Theo- dore Tilton was the eulogist ; a woman who, if ever God sent an angel of mercy on earth, was sent on a mission of mercy when she was sent to that rude New-England home. Are these they who teach their hoys the lessons of lust and licentiousness which, after a time, shaU mark your criminal calendars and disgrace the records of your jurisprudence ? And what had heen his earlj- trainiugt You twelve embrace in your experience a large variety of the vicissitudes of human life, but I undertake, without intimate knowledge of the fact, to say that not one of you twelve went through the same stern, rigid schooling of humble pov- erty and honest endeavor, of sterling culture of aU. the manly and Christian virtues, that Henry Ward Beecher did when going out into what was then comparatively a new pioneer region ; he labored for a less salary than a day laborer at the work of his Master, and with the joy of one who knew that He was a Master that, iti the life beyond, would give him a crown of stars for his ever- lasting reward. Do you believe that that is the kind of training and tuition, that that is the kind of endeavor, that leads men to pollute their own souls with the ideas of base and filthy debauchery % Again, it is hardly proba- ble that one of you twelve as early as he, turned to a face of love, which he wished to make the face that should be the light of his future home — the noljle matron whom you have seen and admired here in her faithful loyalty and devotion to the husband whose innocence she knows, then a bright, beautiful school-girl, the daughter of an honored and eminent physician ; the center of a noble social circle, a woman of Christian faith and loveliness, a woman of Roman firmness even f l om her girlhood ; one who possessed those intellectual gifts and those spiritual traits which won the love of the foremost man of the age, and have held it from that hour to this. He and she pledged themselves like Jacob and Rachel. For seven yeaws he was struggling in poverty and gaining his edu- cation, and the means of a future livelihood ; and this man, then in the heyday of youthful blood, then with a vigor and a power such as no man in this assembly— not even my splendid friend Beach— ever had, with a physi- cal strength and a glowing, earnest, and daring nature— this man passed through that ordeal, and did not yield. Then he was an honest man; 3 the gift, is sin." " Your gift of influence "-that is her language. " Your manhood, and its purity and dignity, if you feel it, is stronger than love itself. I know this,, because here I am strung. 2s o demonstrations or fascina- tions could cause me to yield my womanhood. You have- not yet replied to my inquiry whether the giving you my whole heart in my iett i-i"s offends yuu." Gentlemen, is there any doubt about what that letter means ? Is it not the modest, tender, appealing prayer of a wife to her- husband not to exercise those gifts which have won her love in winning the love of others, and carrying that love to a point where it would verge on sio. t And yet the dastard to a\ hom that letter is addressed pul->lished it in a fonn garbled, false, and forged, in wLiclt 568 THE TILTON-BEJ^CHJEB lElAL. she is represented as confessing the very thing she im- imtes to him. And he says, by way of apology for it : •* Well, since I commenced this suit I fvu-nished a true copy." Furnished it to what? To The Graphic, What copy was it that you furnished to the people of the United States? What copy was it that you sent broadcast through the land in order to convict Henry Ward Beeeher of a crime of which he was innocent, even by blasting your own wife ? Now, gentlemen, accidents like this are too frequent in this case to be without a meaning. Let me again remind you of the saying of John Milton, " Truth needs no policies, no stratagems, to make her victorious. Those are the shifts that error uses against her power." Mr. Beach— What page is that letter ? THE EVENING OF " MUTUAL CONFESSIONS." Mr. Porter — 483. Let me in this immediate connection read— but no, I must not leave this. There is more in the letter when it comes to be produced here than even this : I was with you all day j^esterday, Sunday. What holy associations cluster aronnd that day in our experiences, the morning hours suggesting Mattie's death ! and who can tell what that hath done for us? And now, the evening, memorable forever of confessions, with repent- ings, cleansings, and sacred vows. You remember, gentlemen, his letter that I read a short time since ; here is hers. Long before the alleged defec- tion of his wife to Mr. Beeeher he refers to the "memor- able evening," and she to the "memorable evening," an evening indeed " of confessions, of cleansings, of broken and renewed vows." Gentlemen, who confessed on that memorable evening? ISot she. Who did it ? Who took that evening for cleans- ing and renewing broken vows? Do yoti doubt that it was Theodore Tilton? Is there not here an inside light which enables you to see beneath that roof as if you were looking in upon it at that hour ? How does this har- monize with that false coloring he gave, when he came to the stand, of that peaceful, pure, innocent, harmonious liome ? My friend Mr. Abbott calls my attention to a letter bearing date the 26th of January. 1868. Mr. Shearman — That is the very evening referred to in this letter of Mrs. TUton. Mr. Porter— The evening referred to in the letter of Mrs. Tilton. Mr. Beach— What is the page ? Mr. Porter— 617. Now, here is what the husband says : You have never seemed so noble to me as during last evening and this day. You are not only all but more than all that any man can need or ever can deseiwe. Life never seemed to me more full of objects and ends worth living for than since our recent long interview and mutual confessions. What were those mutual confessions ? Hers ?— we see it running through all these letters— were of coldness, of suUenness, of ill-temper, of weariness, of disquietude, 'because he did not return her love in the same unlimited measure in which she tendered it to him. What were his confessions?— those broken vows which swung to the gates of heaven, those infidelities to her, that made the future seem to him one of darkness until she, like an angel, gave it the new form of a future of perennial light ? He says : I am by nature so frank, that the attempt to hide my feelings, to cloak my shortcomings and deny utterance to my inward sorrows, has lately almost driven me to des- pair. The secret of my long-continued moodiness has been dissatisfaction, not with you, but with myself. I was once well enough content to be esteemed at some- thing better than my merit, but of late all such estimat^^g of me have been horribly repulsive to me. They have revealed me to myself in the character of a hypocrite, a deceiver, a whited sepulcher filled with dead meji's bones. Above all things, it has been dreadful for me to hear praises of myself from you and Florence. I could not rest under the idea that either of you felt that my gloom was occasioned by anything lacking in yourself, but only in my own self. And then he reassures her that he is " now and hence- forth and forever" hers. " Forever" meant until, through her body, he could strike at the heart of tha man he envied and hated. THE ORIGIN OF THE CHARGE. Again, Jan. 28, 1867, we have a letter from her. This is a year before the alleged criminality began r I am very sorry my letters are lost; they contain so much that stranger eyes should not see. There is the shrinking of the modest woman from the publicity which he gives to these letters the moment he can break into her closet and it serves his ends. Now, as to Mr. Beeeher, she writes : " Mr. B. called Sunday." The time will come, gentlemen— perhaps I should not say the time, but the revelation will come, in that eternity which we are all to face, that right there originated this prosecution. That single sentence has been distorted, and, in the language of Wilkeson, has grown, grown, grown, until finally it culminated in the present accusa- tion by which he seeks to hurry his wife to the grave. And that shows how words, harmless words, if you sow them, may bring forth very harmful fruit. Tiiis woman, innocently enough, writes to her husband, who had charged her to report everything that passed whenever Mr. Beeeher was there— writes to him that Mr. Beeeher in going out of the house said : " W)iat a pretty house this is ! I wish I lived here." Do you be- lieve, gentlemen, that Mr. Beeeher meant adultery by that ? The thing is so preposterous that no one would for an instant entertain it. Whatever other letter has bi?'>n kept back from the public this, this woidd be produced. Now, gentlemen, I come to another letter more .slanmifi- cant by far than either of these that I have read, when I come to connect it with another which follows it. I want to show you that the Elizabeth R. Tilton, whom he alleges to have been pure and unspotted in Feoruarf, 1867, was the same pm-e and unspotted Eliza- SUMJliya UF BY MR. FOE'lER. 569 betli R. Tilton in 1869, TrlierL she wrote Tlie coimter- part to tMs letter, and after the alleged adultery. >'ow, you observe that this man pretends that after the alleged confession to hlni in July, 1870, he nerer at- tended ;Mr. Beecher's church; he broke off from the chui'ch at that time. Well, you have it in proof fi-om Mr. Halli- day, "vrho had been, I think, nine years pastor of that church (I don't remember the preeisL- timt"), that he had never seen Theodore Tilton there. You have It in proof by himself in tvro of his ovm subseciuent letters — in one of his subsequent communications to the Committee that he discontinued going to that church more than four years before 1373. You have here, ho^vever, a touching appeal by his vrife : The church to-night was filled \vith medical students, Mr. B. preaching before their Christian Union. He cer- tainly is gi'eatly aroused this Winter, and works most earnestly. Will you not, on your retui-n, throw in your inspiration, and.ioinme in fulfilling our vows as mem- bers of this Christian church ? Youi* beauirCul spirit would help many there, as it does everj-where, and to me thi-re is no spot so sacred in all this earth as Plymouth Church. She then proceeds to say, as indeed in almost every letter, " I am not as well in body, though I do feel that I have gained some victories over my temper." It was her sullen temper, which was not joyous when Theodore Tilton came home cross I "I have striven (she says) for Christ's sake, who has been most precious to me, and for yours, to array myself with purity of thought and action, and you know what it costs," &c. Feb. 1,1868: "Your closing Unes are, 'Have I not a great heart, when all its foimdations are stirred V Yes, most truly." But, gentle- men, do you think either of you would ever have felt less than mean if you had found that in some old letter you had written to your wife, " Have I not a great heart when all its foundations are stirred ?" and your wife had answered, "You have" — would not you feel very mean to hand that letter over to a printer for publication ? Again she quotes : " ' Elizabeth, thou art highly favored, chosen among women,' are words ever sounding in my ears." The mockery 1 The same man who afterward distinguishes himself in the saloon of free love, adopting that most eloquent language of the Holy Spirit addressed to the Elizabeth of Biblical mem- ory, and appropriating it to himself as his own language to her, and then publishing this to the world in order to show how weak she was, and how great he was. MES. TILTOX'S DESCRIPTIOXS OF ^m. BEECH- EE'S CALLS. About 11 o'clock Mr. B. caUed." Theodore Tilton says he never had a suspicion of Beecher down to the time when this revelation was made to him (jii the 3d of July, 1870. Here is a letter which he produced, diired Feb. 1, 1868, written to him by his wife, la which she says; I Xow, bel )ved, let not even the shadow of a shadow fall on your dear heart because of this, now. hpnceforth. ^^^ forever. He cannot by any possibility be much to me since I have known you. I implore you to believe it. aiid to look at me as in the Day of Judgment, when it shall be revealed to you. Do not think it audacious in me to say I am to him a good deal, a rest. Can you understand it, I appear even cheerful and helpful to him ? Xot, of coiu'se, to Theodore, but to him. Xow, does nor that let you iuto the language of rebuke to her after tli-T 5 letter in which she told him that Mr. Beecher - d, " What a pretty house this is ; I wish I lived here T' Do you not know the manner of talk that took place be- tween that husband and that wife \ Does not this indi- cate it ? Again : After seeing the children, I asked him if he would go with me to Mattie's and see the bust. Without any hesi- tation he said he would. I immediately got ready, and I tookmy first walk to the Court-st. cars without much diliiculty, so that I feel free again, and will walk out every pleasant day. We found neither Mattie or Mack at home, to my great disappointment, seeing only Laura Bradshaw and Gip, and your dear head, darling, which on second seeing is more than ever to me. Mr. B. ex- pressed great satisfaction with it, feeling that it was far better than he expected to find it, and he believed aa correct a likeness as you could have. He is very de- sirous for Mack to try him. Nothing noteworthy oc- curred, save that he left me at the door with the remark that he " had had a pleasant morning." You once rold me that you did not believe that I gave you a correct account of his visits, and you always felt depress-^d much. Sweet, do you still feel this \ I strive in my poor word-paintiQg to give you the siyirit and impression which I give him, and he to me. It would be my supreme wish and delight to have you always with me. This trin- ity of friendship I pray for always. Here, gentlemen, you can see the jealousy of a man who wanted to be jealous, who wanted an excuse for in- fidelity, who hated another and who would have given 6oof to have occasion to be jealous, who wanted to labor with his wife to convince her that he was jealous. He had his pm>poses then ; he accomplished them afterward. You have been told about gifts by Mr. Beecher. They were paraded by my friend Judge Morris in his opening, as they had previously been paraded be- fore the public. 2Srow, you see cropping out here, just how those gifts came to be made. Here is a letter dated April 1, 1S68 : ]SIr. Beecher gave us a pleasant episode yesterday— a visit of more than an hour. He said, with great earnest- ness, you never could know the gratification your letter appreciating " Norwood" gave him. He meaui to give you the American edition and me the English, or vice versa, so that we might have one each. Yet these two poor •• Norwoods" figure as the gifts of a libertine to an adulteress ! Again, Jan. 22,1867; now this, observe, is one of the letters after, according to his a-ccount, she has turned prostitute : My Dearly Beloved : Your Monday's letter from Clinton, Ohio, telling me of your convalescence I have just received. =^ * » * Forgive me that I want si? 1 much love— yet my soul cries " Give, give." I believ. I 670 THE TILION-B am big enougli to supply even your big heart witli love If vou wUl only let me. Is that tlie letter of another man's mistress to her own husband « Again, Feb. 20, 1868 : My Beloved: Will you talk with me in the future about all that interests you 1 Let us be more frank and free to each other. Good night. Good angels guard your sleep. Feb. 26 : "Mr. Beecher put our baby to sleei ' I am selecting out those things more particularly which refer to Mr. Beecher, because I want you to see just what passed between them. Theodore Tilton singled out every letter in that daily correspondence for years in which he could find the name of Mr. Beecher, and we find that she not only communicates to him every visit that Mr. Beecher made, every meeting with him, every time she hears him make a speech, but she goes fm^ther, and (by his express injimctions, as these letters show) in each instance repeats and reports to him what passed be- tween her and Mr. Beecher at these interviews. Mr, B. put our baby to sleep, laid him down, and covered him up, the last time he was here ; whenever we could not quiet him, said send for him and he would come. His call amused the children very much. This frank, hearty, rollicking manner of Mr. Beecher. which leads Tilton to call him " a great boy," and this love of fun which abounds in the man, and which is often f otmd in men of genius, this is turned into a poisoned arrow to pierce his heart and the heart of Mrs. Tilton 1 If there were anything wrong in that would she have written about it to her husband % Again, here is a letter of Feb, 7, 1869, and this is the one to which I call your attention specially, Ln connection with one I read a JTttle time since. I want you to watch this letter and see whether, in your belief, it is a letter written by an adul- teress to the husband whom she is then daily dishon- oring: Sunday, Feb. 7, 1869. My Beloved : I have just finished reading to Emma Lowell's "Extreme Unction," and the chapter in •* Norwood" of Parson Buell's grief on the death of his wife. It is very touching, and I realized for a moment what that agony must be— the parting at the river be- tween a husband and wife who have truly loved. How inevitable it is I God only can sustain the one who re- mains, while He enables the one who departed to say, " I shall be satisfied." Allow me to say, without cant, that God has given me a blessing to-day— He has enabled me to do something for Him, and that conscious privilege overflows my heart utterly. At home He helped me to be patient, willing, yea glad, to spend myself for others ; and in the Bethel— my little, little room was crowded. The interest in- creases in my class. They all love me, I feel it — because I, too, love every one. I do indeed feel grateful for the encouragement they give me, in these new labors. I tell you rather more at le.ngth than usual of my work here, because I eari e tly wish your sympathy, and to feel free to talk with you of everything in which I 'm interested, as in " auld lang syne." However imperfect we may ap- pear to each other, yet the dear Lord does not hesitate to uee us. Now, to-night, I give myself to you— my best, my BEGHEB TRIAL, worsf—" just as I am." Take me once again into your confidence ; bear with my folUes as in early days. I con- secrate myself to you so long as I shall live, before God this night, as a fitting close of this Sabbath day. For- give all my infirmities, and help me to overcome to final victory. Wilt thou ? So will I you, if you permit. The freedom with which you write of Paul gives me great pleasure. Then the fountain is imsealed and we flow to- gether. P A letter from Danville. Now, observe, this is the 7th of February, 1869— right out of the hotbed of adultery. Mr. Shearman — ^Judge P«>rter, Paul was the dead child. Mr. Porter— Yes; thit Paul was the child that had died. Now, for the letter of August 3, 1869, Here is a letter, gentlemen, which has especial import. I deny that the whole history of the himian race fm-nishes an instance of an adulterous woman writing such a letter to a cuckold husband. Now listen : My IteAR Husband: My heart sorrows to-night for my loss in the death of Mrs. EUiott, Pity dear mother, as one after one of her friends leave her. Minister to her if you can, my darling. Oh, dear Theodore, may I not persuade you to love the Lord Jesus Christ ? Do not let this entreaty estrange us more, for my pillow oft is wet with tears and prayers that we may come into sympathy in our religious natures. Do have patience with me, for, as the time remains to us, I feel as though my hetirt would break if I did not speak to you— not that I am right in any sense, and you are wrong; God forbid ! but we are not one in feeling, and it is impossible for me to be iudifl'erent, especially while God blesses me with dear children. I once again ask forgiveness if I have offended you by showing my heart. Our dear baby grows finely, &c. Just imagine a woman, fresh from a bed of debauchery and of lust, writing a letter to her husband, a husband who, she fears, is losing the foundations of his faith, and humbly, modestly, appealing to him, imploring him to reconsider his course. Was there ever such an absurdity as the pretense of these two men, that those letters writ- ten by Henry Ward Beecher to Frank Moulton, all breath- ing the spirit of the Divine Master, were written between two men who were mutual confidants in an intrigue with a dishonored woman ? It is not true ; it is not true. The woman who wrote that letter to Theodore Tilton was not an adulteress. She was one who loved him too well for her own good ; and it was because of that love that, at the risk of Incurring his displeasure, she implored him to ac- cept that religion which was her consolation, and in which she wished him to live and to die. Again, on the 28th of February, 1869, another of those letters written during this period of alleged prostitution : Now, my sweet, after so long a tale, let me for om' mutual refreshment turn to our own sweet love. I liless God that it abideth. Among the terrible changes of many hearts. God has kept us steadfast, with a growing love, admiration and respect for each other. Oh, let ua praise His name forever ! All the differences, misunder- standings we have had are, as Whittier says, " Like moimtain ranges overpast." If God be for us, who can be against us I SrjnflSG UP BY MB. FOB! EE. 571 ■pireine voiir patience vrhlle I spread out before you tte fruitage of your iDeautiful love. And tlien slie proceeds to malie a series of extracts of the passages in Ms letters, from time to time, containing tlie protestations of Ms lore and tenderness and regard lor her. Is tMs the language of an adulteress '? A LETTER ^ITH AX UXFOETUXATE DATE. Again, it is well to recur to a still earlier period in the history of these peoide. AVe have a letter here of the 25th of Decem'ber, 1?66. Xo^, ol^seive if this letter had heen pulDlished at the date of tlie " Cp.thr- rine Gaunt letter," Avhat po^'er it would give to their claim that she was confessing adultery ; and yet this, according to theii' own account, ^as tlie year before, when there is no question of her ahsolr.te puiity and in- nocence : My beloved, I have been thiuMng of my love for Mr. JB considerably of late, and those thoughts you shall have. I remember Hannah 3Ioore says : " My heart in its new sympathy for one abounds toward ail." 2so"w, I think I have Lived a richer, happier life since I have known him. And have you not loved me more ardently since you saw another high nature appreciated me ? Certain it is that I never in all my life had such rapture of enthusiasm in my love for you — sometMng akin to the birth of another babe ; anew loimtain was opened, en- ricMng all — especially toward you, the one being supreme in my soul. '"Hove the;^ "with the breath, smile, tears, of all my life 1 — and if God chooae I shall but love thee better after death." It is not possible for any htiman creature to supersede you in my heart. Above all you rise grand, highest, best. I praise God that He is teaching me of His great mercy and love, shown by his gift of so great a heart as your own, to be mine. For many years I did not realizt the blessing. THiat remor-e it brings to me I Memories bitter, awful ! But to rL-turu to ^Fr. B . He has been the guide of oui' youth, and until the tMee last dreadful years, when our confidence was shaken in him, we trusted Mm as no other human being. MRS. TTLTOX'S SIN. That lifts the vail that Theodore Tilton did not in Ms testimony. TMee years prior to 1866, before she had come to be at all Intimate with him, Mr. Beecher was made, in the estimate of that woman, by Theodore TUton. to believe that he was a man unworthy of confidence ; and she frankly says to Mm in this letter that for those tMee long years " our confidence in him was shaken;" and he pretends that during aU this period there was a frank and mutual friendsMp between them. Gentlemen, Theodore Tilton was then his secret and backbiting enemy, and that was when they were serving together in The Independent. Again, here is a letter m 1 366 : God is with us. We havu had great experiences this Winter. He will help us, I am sure ; our trust is in mm. Let us pour out our souls in prayer that we may never sin as before, when we meet again. Is that adultery ? Xo. Self-deprecintion. humiliation, filn. confession— not adultery ; but the moment he linds it convemtnt to make a charge against Henry W'l.rd Beecher, the simple use of the pMase " my sm " is con- verted into evidence of a vile debauch, and by the man who knows that such a construction is a forgery and a lie. Again, on the 24th of February, 1868, we have a letter of tMs sort : Mt D.iELixG OF DAELrs-GS : * * * I thank you for a look into your beart; for, with one or tv;o excei-tions, you have not showTi it to me since you went away. * * It is t-oo true you have given largely, grandly, and bountifully of your best love to friends, aye, even to yoiu' 1 wife, while in return you have received most often indif- ference, and at best love not deserving the name, in com- parison with thine own. * * * Again, in one of yciu- letters you close with "faithfully yours— tbat word 'faithful' means a great deal." Yes, darling, I believe 1 it, trust it, and give you the same surety with regard to myself. I am faithful to you. have been always, and sball forever be, world without end. Call not tMs assur- ance impious. There are some things we know. Blessed be God. I sorrow more than you can for your lost friend- sMp — as my soul stiug-s with remorse that I was the cause — and yet, for all this, you love me. There is a letter with "remorse," stinging the soul of this woman, conscious of that great sin. He says that did not mean adultery ; but in the " Catharine Gaunt Letter" sin— what would satisfy him but the beastly gathering of a woman and a clergyman in a polluted mar- riage bed ! Again, we have Mr. Tilton, on the 21st of August, 1866, giving a little insight into himself. I would to God I were not so easily overcome by my own worldly-mindedness as to be brougM so quickly and fatally down from my heavenly moods to the earth. But tMs belongs to the infirmity of human nature. I bave walked like a king ever since that ovening. * * * May God make us wise [Solomon asked that], rich [who was it asked that ?], and pure. The prayer was granted as to the wife. I appeal to Mrs. Woodhull whether it vras granted as to the husband. ^YR. Tn.TOX'S "RAGGED EDGE" LETTER. Again, December 6, 1866: My Darling: All daylong I have been reading Grif- fith Gaunt. * * * * It turn on jealousy. I am not jealous, nor do I know the feeling. Of course he is not jealous ; he never had a vice of any Mnd, in the world. I thtak any man is a fool to be jealous. If he is jeal- ous tcitJiout cause, he is foolish; if with cause, more foolish. But I am somewhat disturbed, and have been for a long while past, at the dimmishing faith wMeh I enter- tain i or human nature. Human characters do not seem so lovely to me as they once did. [Xor divine characters either, as we remember, because it was about that time that he proceeded to dethrone the Eedeemer.J During my ti'avels I hare had profoimd reflections on my life. I am a weak man, supposed to be strong ; a selfish man. supposed to be the world's lover and helper ; an earthly- minded man, supposed to be more CMlstian than my 572 IRE TILTON-BEECBEB TEIAL. fellows. I canuot endure the mockery. * * * i feel myself scarred, shotted, miserable, and unworthy. * * * My life is so unprofitable that I sometimes dare not turn round and look upon it. What language has Henry Ward Beecher ever used like that 1 And yet they say Mr. Beecher's language oan be satisfied with naught except adultery. MR. TILTON EXPRESSES JEALOUSY. Again, on the 27th of December, 1866, writmg from Dubuque, Iowa. Now, observe, he has no loibles ; he has no jealousy; he is not a jealous man ; any many is a fool to be jealous. Somehow his wife had an idea that he was a little tending in that direction, be- cause she had occasion to explain to him ; but neverthe- less he was not ; that was a mistake, and so he says : I don't expect, however, to be lonesome much longer ; for I am to meet you in Chicago. Now, that the other man has gone off lecturing (as your letter mentions), you can afford to come to me. You ought to be enjoying what I am enjoying on this magnificent trip — for instance, this afternoon— a dinner party. Leave home, children, kith and kin, and cleave unto him to whom you originally promised to cleave. You promised the other man to cleave to me, and yet you leave me all alone, and cleave to him. " Oh, fraUty ! thy name is woman." If you can get anybody to pour tea for you, and to take sauce from the servants, and to re- ceive pastoral visits, I shall expect to meet you under the roof of Robert Hatfield. Mr. Beach— What page is that 1 INIr. Porter— 49^. Now, gentlemen, every one of you know fchat he had not the slighest idea of being really jealous of Mr. Beecher. It was the purest affectation, but it was quite convenient when a family dialogue came up as to irregularities, that there should be two sides, and something to talk about on both sides. " Do you remem- ber that letter in which you told me that Mr. Beecher, when he went out of the house said: 'What a pretty house this is, I wish I lived here ? ' When the other man married us you promised to cleave to me. Why don't you get somebody to receive pastoral visits, and leave the other man and come to me ?" It was not the spirit of a man honestly jealous, but the spirit of a man who wanted to make his wife believe he was jealous, and, I am sorry to say it, he was the man who would have been delighted to know there was foun- dation for it. _ FIRST TOUCHES OF MR. TILTON'S DEFEC- TIONS. Again, on the 12th of February, 1867, a year after, he says : I am satisfied that whoso makes no intimate or confi- dential friends, both among men and among women — friends with whom he girdles himself around about as with a halo— friends who are props to keep him lifted per- petually toward his highest life— friends whose friend- ship is a kind of sacred wedding that knows no sex— such a man neglects one of the greatest opportunities for in tellectual, moral, and spiritual groM-th. Here we have the outcropping which afterward brought so bountiful & harvest of free love under the active cvdture of the WoodhuU & Claflin coterie. Again, " The old religious teachings." Mark you, thia is seven years ago. " The old religious teachings, and orthodox view, the dr^ad of punishment, the Atonement, have less and less power over my mind. Of course you wiU mourn over this. Bu^ T must be an honest man. I don't believe in Orthodoxy, and therefore I will not pre tend to do so." Again, we have a very curious revelation in itself in this passage : And this fact reveals the one prolonged mistake of my past life— my association with your mother. I can now plainly see what I mig-ht have been if, for instance, I could have livcvl under such a roof as sheltered me in Princeton, instead of breathing, during all these years, the atmosphere of Livingston-st. If my mother-in-law had been such a woman as Mr?, Lovejoy, and the influences of Brooklyn had been like the influ- ences of Princeton, I believe that I might have grown by this time as unselfish as a good woman. How much more I would then have been to yourself and the children I How many pangs you might have been saved ! How many unknown ioys you might have experienced ! I have not been a wise man or I would not have consented,, eleven years ago, to pitch my tent in a bank of fog. Moreover, let us beware of the tragic and dreadful mis- take of teaching to our children that when they shall be maiTied, their first and chief allegiance wiU still be to their parents as heretofore, and that only a secondary fealty is sufficient between husband and wife. I have never seen so plainly as I have seen this Winter what Livingston-st. mildew I have been carrying on my gar- ments for eleven years. Six months ago I was accustomed to say to myself in my secret hours, Theodore Tilton it is time for you to die ; your soul grows not whiter but darker ; die soon and save yourself from total destruc- tion I But I believe that if I shall return to Brooklj^n at all, I shall return a different man. God grant it ! I know that I have tried to wash myself clean. And don't you think he needed it ? He evidently did. March 18, 1867 : During all the Winter I was as one clothed in king's apparel. * * * * i came home from the West respect- ing myself too highly. My crown then was suddenly taken off and cast to the earth. All through these letters you. see that if nobody else except that poor woman worshiped him, he, Theodore Tilton, worshiped Theodore Tilton from morning till night and from midnight till morning ; there was nothing else to occupy his mind. Self-glorification ; self -adoration. Now a prince, now a king, now a crown ; now delighted with the letter in which his wife compares himself to the Savior. Now delighted with the letter in which his wife rebukes Mm for want of allegiance to that Savior. " Oh ! the time of those things past J" smimyo up by mr. porter. 573 ME. riLTON GEATEFUL FOE ME. BEECHEE'S VISITS. Now, here we have another letter of his dated, " Eochester, March 21, 1867," in regard to wliieli I wisli to note one or two things : I am, in this midnight hour, In the same hotel, and in the same room wherein you and I were quartered eleven and a half years ago on our wedding tour » * * * Gray hairs have stolen upon us since. * * * Gray hairs ! Bessie Turner said he talked of gray hairs in December, 1870, and he came hack to the stand and lifted his hand in the presence of Almighty God and Baid, " I had no gray hairs then." What was he writing about in 1867? Life is sober, as I now look upon it. Death is near, as I now think of it. Heaven is sweet, as I now wait for it. * * * I have less faith in my usual integrity now than at any former period of my life. Well, I think he will have the consolation, at the close of this trial, of believing that the universal sentiment of those who have heard it is in accordance with that ex- pressed by himself in this letter. Why, gentlemen, do you want any better illustration of the complete hollo w- ness of this accuser than those very letters which he was weak and fortunate enough to publish to the world ? Again. Why, you marvel at the sentimental form of the letters of Mrs. Tilton. Now, bear in mtad, gentle- mf n, she had an excuse : this man required it. It was he that dictated how her letters were to be written. Now, for instance, we have this in this letter written on the 6th of February, 1867, from Michigan : Sometimes we allow our loves simply to be taken for granted, whereas we would both enjoy each other's love the more by coining our own into a repeated confession of words. " Confession is good for the soul," says the poet ; and I hereby confess that I love you as fervently as any man ever loved any woman on the earth, or perhaps ia the heavens. And, gentlemen, that protestation was iust as true as two-thirds of the testimony he gave you from that stand ! Again, February 21, 1867: I inclose to you Oliver's letter, received this morning. So you see that there are men, as well as women, who love your husband. Does not that let in the light a little to the dialogues that had occurred between this twain i I am sorry to hear that Mr. Beecher had a poor house in Brooklyn. In view of his kind attentions to you this Winter, all my old love for him has revived and my heart would once more greet him as of old. I sometimes quar- rel with old friends on the surface, but never at the bottom. Wise man ! Woman he quarrels with at the bottom ; clergymen only on the surface, until the time comes when he can strike through the woman. ME. BOWEN THE HAELEQUIN OF THE CASE. Again, Jan. 13, 1865, a still earlier date : I am glad Mr. Beecher called on you. I will write to thank him for it. I have not had a line from him, but I have had two brief notes from Mr. Greeley. And yet those calls thus social, publicly made at noon day, reported to him, and the conversations re'ported, are brought forward in aid of this vile prosecution as evidence of clandestine visits with an adulterous pur- pose. Now, on the 25th of January, 1867, we have a letter from her, which is somewhat marked : I think in reference to Oliver's opinions of Mr. Beecher, as his remarks were made to Mr. Bowen, and they are embittered toward one another, that what Mr. B. said of you may appear very different through the coloring IMr. Bowen may give it. Is it not odd ? Now, so far as I can see, except Frank Moulton and the counsel, of course, my adversary, Mr. Tilton stands pretty much alone. But there is one friend, and that is Bowen. The man of whom he had the least to expect, makes his appear- ance on the stand, and, yet, it happens unluckily that poor Bowen gets more kicks than compli- ments on all hands, for you cannot open an old letter written by this little woman to her husband but there is a fling at Bowen. You cannot have a midnight walk be- tween Frank Moulton and Henry Ward Beecher but even the snow-storm is made wickeder with the exclamations that " Bowen is treacherous," " he is a traitor to yon,'* " he is a traitor to everybody else." We have Bowen ap- pearing and disappearing and reappearing; sometimes the author and sometimes the rejecter of all these scan- dals ; sometimes threatening and sometimes forgiving, sometimes commiming and sometimes maligning. Wherever we have him, he is appearing under some doubtful relation. Now, gentlemen, I have a secret feeling, like Mr. Beecher himself, that, perhaps, Mr. Tilton is more ex- cusable than we supposed. We had Bowen, who trained Joe Richards and qualified him to make the appearance he did on that stand; that Bowen, who traiued Theodore Tilton ; that Bowen, to whom he attributes the origin of all these calumnies may perhaps have exercised over him a malign influence. At any rate his wife here seems to think that even at as early a day as 1867, Bowen, who appears to be a very worthy and respectable man, editor of a newspaper sometimes called religious, sometimes secular— how it happens that wherever we come to any- thing in the way of mischief, anything in the way of dis- turbing families, and disturbing churches, and disturbing communities — how is it that they always bring in the name of Theodore Tilton's friend, Henry C. Bowen ? Of course I assume that he is innocent. I assume he is not at aU what she describes . him, but it only goes to show you what is the disadvan-- 574 TRB TILTON-BEEOHER TBIAL, "tagc of liaving a Tbad oliaiTicter, and it enforces wliat I eay when I claim for Mrs. Tiieodore Tilton and for Henry AYard Beecher tiie ibeneflt of a good cliaracter. No man maligned tliem until the work was begun, Tilton says hy Bowen ; Boweu would lead us to infer by Tilton. I don't know wliich. MRS. TILTON ON MR. BEECHER'S FAULTS. Well, she goes on to say: How my soul yearns over yoa two dear men. That is, Tilton and Beecher. She evidently don't sym- pathize with Bowen. You, my beloved, are higher up than he. This I be- lieve. Will you not join me in prayer that God will Iceep hiia as He is keeping us? Oh, let us pray for it! You are not willing to leave him to the evil influences which surround him. He is in a delusion in regard to himself, and pitifully mistaken in his opinion of you. I can never rest satisfied until you both see eye to eye, and lo\^e one another as you once did. This will not come to pass as quickly by estrangement. But with all the earnestness of my being I commit you both to God's love. He has signally blessed you both, and He will keep His own beloved. "Why I was so mysteriously brought in as actor in this friendship I know not ; yet no experience of all my life has made my soul ache so verily as the ap- parent lack of Christian manliness in this beloved man. That shows you that this was a woman who could see faults in Henry Ward Beecher; who was easily per- suaded by her husband, by that same husband at whose instance, though through the hand of Carpenter, she was subsequently made to write that letter to Mr. Storrs, de- claring that there had been a conspiracy in December, 1870, at the time of the Bowen transaction to which Mrs. Henry Ward Beecher was a party. " Mattie feels as I do " (thatis, Mrs. Bradshaw). "I saw her to-day. She said she received two letters from you." Here is a married man writing two letters a day to a married woman, and his wife knowing all about it. She is not jealous. Mr. Beecher has written, in the course of his life, some four or five or six letters— I don't know how many— to Mrs. Tilton, and on most of the occasions at the particular instance either of Tilton himself, or of Frank Moulton, and yet it is taken in his case as evidence of adultery. It is absurd to turn the ordinary courtesies which exist between respectable families, and which, with the freedom and publicity, carry with them the evidence upon their forefront of their innocence. It is absurd to impute to letters of this kind, or familiarities of that kind, the basis of most unworthy purposes and motives. We have from her in this letter a further statement, which shows how ready she was to Wfime herself : Hereafter, I guard my temper. You shall have a true, pure wife by and-by. I am ashamed that I am so often unattractive to the Great Lover of my soul. Now comes a letter written on the 13th of January, 1870. Now observe. That was the beginning of the year which ended in the midnight interview and the dis- missal of Tilton from The Independent. [Reading.] Mt Dear Husband : You once said, and often acted, that I was always craving sentiment. It is verily true. I am what I am. Therefore, to such a nature as mine Jesus Christ, as He discovers himself to me, is unuttera- bly precious. Let my tongue cleave to my mouth M I fail to bear testimony to His unchangeable love. Your letter reached me yesterday. How It lightened my day like a glory! You are well beloved by one human, .md., therefore, it is love struggling and unperfected. I do not, however, comfort myself in my humanity — rather, whenever I am vietoi- over it. Oh ! how slow is the warfare i * * * * To-day has been a quiet day. Mr. Beecher called. Why should she mention that if she was a paramour and his visits were clandestine ? Why write to him in a remote State to tell him the fact that Mr. Beecher had called that day 1 He is in fine spirits, maldng calls. He devotes Wednes- days and Thursdays to this work, " till further notice ;" has three hundred to make ; made twenty to-day ; enjoys it immensely. He called on the Wheelo6ks to-day, and kissed them all around — ^Lizzie Wood included. Is that the kuid of letter you would expect a woman of this kind to be writing to her husband, and needlessly introducing the name of her paramour ? MR. TILTON'S CHIEF MISERY. But on Nov. 3, 1868, comes a letter that I want to call to your particular attention. This is one from Mr. Tilton. It is written at his oflace. It was in an- swer to a letter that she had left there that morning. Now, bear in mind their story is that on the lOth day of October, at the house of Henry Ward Beecher, he de- bauched Elizabeth R. Tilton ; that on the 17th of October, between his Friday night prayer meeting and his Sunday morning service, he again debauched Elizabeth R. Tilton, at the house of Theodore Tilton. Now, we have, on the 3d of November, within a fortnight after, this letter, written by that husband to that wife, and showing their then relations : Mt Dear : Your kind and loving note falls so pleas- antly on my spirits Mr. Shearman [interrupting]— This was written in New-York t Mr. Porter— Written at his office in New- York. falls so pleasantly on my spirits that I would im- mediately go home this afternoon were it not that I have engaged to go out this evening. There is so much sunshine pouring into my little office at this moment that I think I never knew a brighter day in my life ; and I hope that some of the light and warmth will steal into and remain withui my cold and cruel heart. It is the greatest regi'ct of my life that I do not seem constituted so as to make you as happy as you deserve to be ; but I have the best of intentions— and the worst of success. The cause of so much of my trouble at home is my gen- eral anxiety about everything. SUMMIXG UF BY 2£E. POBTEB. 575 You remember that, in order to give color to the state- j ■ment that about that time there must have been adultery, he alluded to difficulties that occurred at his ovm home. Here is the record of vrhat they vr ere. Xot vrhat trans- pired between the vrrfe and '^Ix. Beecher. n-anspired between Theodore Tilton and those vrith whom he ousht not to have had communion : It is the greatest regret of my life that I do not seem constituted so as to malie you as happy as you deserve to be : but I have the best of intentions— and the worst of success. I repeat it, because I wish to impress it upon your memory : The cause of so much of my trouble at home is my gen- eral anxiety a^i out everything. Latterly I worry more or less concerning evtry matter which I touch. I have hardly ten minutes a day of uninterrupted freedom from ■care. This may seem an exaggerated statement, but it is the painful truth. I feel as if I were growing old before my time. Lights that used to burn within me have been rpienchi-d. Hopes are faded; ambition is Mlled; life seems a failiu^e. * * ^ * Then, too, all my religious doubts and difficulties have been, and are, and I fear must be, shut up within my- self, because I cannot open my mouth to you concerning them without giving you a wound. You are the finest flbered soul that ever was put into a body ; you jar at my touch, and I am apt to touch too inidely. As for my own character, I saw, at the time of Paul's death, what it was to be a man, and how far short of it I am myself ; and I have ever since been ut- terly overwhelmed with my own worthlessness, selfish- ness, degradation, and wickedness. At some time I ex- pect to recover from this slough of despond ; but not now. I must remain longer in suffering before I can emerge into peace. I have been overthrown, and, before I rise, I must be made to feeL like Antseus, that strength comes from touching the ground. But the chief of all my miseries is this— is this—" that I impart them to others. Let me say, with the utmost fervor of protestation, that neither you. nor the children, nor the house, nor the servant, nor anything that is within oiu' gates— not one alone— nor all combined — no, none of these persons or things, has the slightest origi- nating share in my troubles." What does that mean ? "SVhat does that mean ? This is not a theatric declaration for a newspaper, It is an hon- est confession of a man in confidence to a wife who has lust left at his office a sweet remembrance of affection. Those troubles (such a« they are) are of my own making. And this Is the man who swore here day after day that they were troubles of Henry Ward Beecher's making. Would to God they were also of my own enduring I But they have to be inflicted upon others— upon yourself and the children. It is this fact that doubles my af- fliction. I como now, grntlomen, to a lottor of Mr. Beach [to 3Ir. Port'T]— It ii^ 4 o'clock. Judge NeiJson rto the jurors]— Get ready to retii'e, gen- tlemen. Return to-morro^T at 11 o'clock. The Court tlien adjourned to Thursday morning at II O'clQC]?. EIGHTY-SEVENTH DAY'S PROCEEDIXGS. SECOXD DAY OF THE SUMMING. JUDGE PORTER COXTIXUES HIS DE^n:xCIATIOXS OF THE PLAINTIFF— HE EXTOLS MISS TURXER'S CHARACTER AXD HER TESTLMOXT- HER STATE- MENTS AXD THOSE OF MR. TILTOX'S WITNESSES CONTRASTED— THE SCENES BETWEEN THE PLAIN- TIFF AND MISS TUPuNER GONE OVER— FTRTHEE READING OF LETTERS BETWEEN MR. AND MRS. TILTON— HENRY C. BOWENS EVIDENCE TOUCHED UPON. Thursday, May 20, 1875. Before iDeginning Ms argument Judge Porter ex- plained that The reason that his words were some- times partially inaudihle was on account of a former dittlcnlty of the lungs, from which he had not en- tirely recovered, and lie asked reporters to remind him whenever he dropped his voice too low. He at first continued the line of argument which he had pursued on Wednesday, and read from some of the letters of !Mr. and ]SIrs. Tilton. Among these was the letter of Mr. Tilton to his wife in February, 1867, in which he mentions his meditations on Christ as He would be in the character of a married man. Eeading one of Mrs. Tilton's letters, full of ex- pressions of devotion to her linsband, the orator eloq.nently described— by way of comment upon an expression in the letter — the charm of apparent youthfulness which the mutual love of husband and vrife casts over the gray hairs and vrriiiMes which come upon them in age. In doing this lie paid a graceful tribute to Judge Xeilson. PEOMIXEXT POINTS IN THE AEGOIENT. Yesterday Judge Porter opened the more strictly argumentative part of his address by calling atten- tion to the dates on which the complaint particularly charges that adultery was committed— Oct. 10, and Oct. 17, 1868. These dates, he asserted, were se- lected because they were believed to be safe from proof of an alibi by the defendant. " I can imagine," he exclaimed, "the searching of almanacs by Tilton and Moulton. when the days were fixed upon." The testimony of Miss Bessie Turner formed the prmcipal subject of the argument yesterday. With, great power the orator sketched the scenes between ^liss Turner and ]^Ir. Tilton as described by "NHsa Turner. He then analyzed her evidence, praising her character as Innocent and devoted, and her statements as truthful and consistent. The testimony of the witnesses who contra- 576 THE TILTON-B dieted her was rapidly reviewed. Mr. Eichards was denounced, Mr. Martin was sarcasti- cally called "Tilton's spy," and Mr. Tilton him self was declared to have failed to give more than a qualified denial of the very point in Miss Turner's evidence which it was most vital to his case to contradict. Judge Porter lauded highly the manner in which Miss Turner had borne the cross- examination of Mr. Fullerton and Mr. Beach, and the general character of her testi- mony. With great effect the orator exclaimed, " She to-day stands proud and erect, while he," pointing at Mr. Tilton with a contemptuous look, and speaking in a harsh voice, with scornful emphasis, " slinks from the gaze of manhood and of womanhood !" J udge Porter made a powerful appeal to the jury at this point, asking the jurymen if they " beUeved this to he an honest man," and turning toward Mr. Tilton he exclaimed, with fierce inten- sity, "Hollow, treacherous, false, cowardly, base!" The testimony of Henry C. Bo wen was taken up near the close of the session, and Judge Porter imitated the manner in which Mr. Bowen had testi- fied, putting his own interpretation upon Mr. Bowen's expressions. THE PROCEEDINGS-YERBATTM. MR. POETER'S SUMMING UP CONTINUED. The Court met at 11 a. m., pursuant to adjournment. Mr Porter— If the jury will pardon me one moment : T have been treated so Mndly through the trial by the gentlemen of the press, your Honor, that I feel bound to say to them that the difficulty which they have in hearing me is due to my physical condition. Unfortunately, be- fore the commencement of the trial, I was attacked with a difficulty of the lungs, from which I have not yet fully recovered. It is my endeavor to be audible, and if any of the gentlemen will be kind enough to remind me when I drop my voice so as to be inaudible, I will take it as a favor instead of a criticism. A GLANCE AT MR. TILTOM BETTER DAYS. Gentlemen, you cannot appreciate the feeling of earnest gratitude that a lawyer has when he is en- gaged in a cause that is close to his heart, and defending a man whom he believes to be innocent, to see through the long, tedious, protracted hours and days of this dis- cussion, the ktadness with which you listen, and the at- tention you give even to words as feeble as mine. I need say no more. I am not in the habit of making profes- sions. I have only to say I thank you from the bottom of ^ECMUB TBlAJj. my heart, and shall ask of you the continuance of the same indulgence. In reading one of these letters yesterday a passage es- caped me for which, when I came afterward to see what I had omitted, I felt rebuked, and you will pardon me for returning to that letter now. It is that of Mrs Tilton, written on the 8th of March, 1868, and which seems to me to let in a flood of light upon the antecedents of these parties, and upon the interior of that household. " Nm^sery." Ah ! what is there to a woman's heart that is so near as the nursery, in which she exercises her min- istrations of loVe to the children of marriage, and not ie Turner, he gires a qualified denial as to the last of these occur- rences, and the rest he leares undenied, acknowledged, confessed. He may bring a thousand housekeepers whom he can confuse in tfce recollection of dates ; contradict by proxy what he dares not contradict -with his own oath. Yon may be sure that when a fact is within the personal knowl- edge of Theodore Tilton, ana that fact presses like a spear iato his heart, it will not go undenied if he can help it. Again, by what strange accident was it tha', if these in- cidents never occurred, when 3Irs. Tilton, in the Fall of 1870, to recrmit her health goes to her old friend, Mrs. Putnami, at Marietta— Mrs. Tilton, to whom Bessie had never breathed a syllable of this fact, a fact which she had kept not tnly froHi her but fr«ia. every h i. .la n ?r MR. FOBTSR. 583 being do-wn to that hour— Mrs. Tilton had al- ready told Mrs. Putnam of these incidents^ and enabled Mrs. Putnam to question Bessie in re- gard to them ? How happened it that if these were lies, Theodore Tilton had told them to his wife, and his wife to Mrs. Putnam, and it was- through that -wife and that friend that Bessie Turner first learned that when he entered her room on those two oc- casions it was -with the intention of lea-ring her deflow- ered and debauched? Again, as my learned associate suggests, it is in proof that Mr. Tilton -was told that Bes- sie Turner had so stated the fact to Mrs. Tilton, and he never denied it. Is this a lie or the truth ? If it is the truth, who sinks— Theodore Tilton, or hi^ pure and lov- ing and loyal wife I ! Judge ^Teilson [to Mr. Porter]— Is it agreeable to su3- I pend the argument now 1 Mr. Porter— Yes, Sir. Judge Zs'eilson [to the Jury] — Please return at 2 o'clock^ The Court here took a recess until 2 p. m. THE AFTEEXOOX SESSION. The Coim met at 2 p. m., piu^siianr to ad- joummenr. Judge Xellson— Any of the gentlemen connected -witiL the press who have not yet given their names for thls^ book -will find it at the Clerk's desk : If yon -win try and. remember it. THE COXTEADICTIO^S OF BESSIE TIHRXEE. ^Ix. Porter — If it please tlie Court : TVTiile my friend is marking some particular passages to which. T desired to refer, gentlemen, I -will allude for the moment to the evidence which has been resorted to for the pur- pose of shaking your confidence in the testimony of Miss Turner. Curiously enough Joe Richards reappears in this record, the same man who. at the time of the proceeding before the Church Committee, wanted to put the sister, who came from the same womb^ in a false attitude, by going before that Com- mittee, and pretending that from solicitude for her. and in her interest, he would not testify to the truth; the bastard, reared under the maUgn influence of Henry C. Bowen. tutored by Theodore Tilton, his brother- in-law, capable of coming to this stand and making a the- atrical exhibition of himself, which nobody could have devised -without the aid of Theodore Tilton's acquaint- ance with the histrionics of all shain : this man is repro- duced upon the -witness stand, and instead of swearing to those confessions which, it was said, he had -withheld on the occasion when he came here first, and which were heralded in the newspapers as to be making their appear- ance in the course of the rebuttal, we find him coming tO' the rescue of Theodore in his warfare -with his servant and his waif. He is to contradict her ; he is to sho-w you that Bessie Turner should be tossed ouJ 584 TEE TILTON-BEEGHJEJB TRIAL, of the Court-liouse as UDWorttiy of belief "wlieii she crosses tlie track of. Tlieodore Tilton. Well, wliat is her story? Why, she swore that she went to see him at the Evening Post building on the 14th of December, and told him on that occasion of the indignity Theodore Til- ton had offered to her, told him when there was a fitting occasion, told him when Mrs. Tilton had been driven from the shelter of her husband's roof, by indignities to which even she could not submit. And what is his story ? Does he deny that she told him what she said ? Not a word of it. But he says, " She did not come to the Evening Post building to tell me of it." Well, now that proves, not that Bessie Turner was wrong, T)ut it proves that either she or he was wrong, and leaves the question unsolved, and a question wholly immaterial, because it is not of the slightest ac- count whether it was at the Evening Post building that she told him of this, or whether it was elsewhere. But they, "knowing the tenderness of this man who complains when he comes before you as a witness upon the stand, that his tesTimony if he only swears to what he knows, won't hurt his sister, but if he could only connect it with hearsay, which he knows is not evidence, it might— this man now says, " Well, I can't deny that she came and told what she said she told me. But, gentlemen, please be tender-footed in the questions you put. If you will put this question, whether she ever told me that he attempted to commit vio- lence upon her, I can say she did not, either at the Evening Post building or anywhere else." And ac- cordingly they put that question, and he goes off the stand exultant, for he has been able to give that sister a stab under the fifth rib ; he has been able to gratify his honored friend, Theodore Tilton ; he can commend him- self to the regards of Henry C. Bowen, and there is no enemy of Henry Ward Beecher or Elizabeth R. Tilton but what will give him a cordial grasp of the hand ; for, though he did not know much, he swore to the best of the little knowledge he had. And you have one other who is brought as a witness in order to overturn this girl. Who is that? Why, A. B.— There ought to be a C there, and they should run through the alphabet until he got down to — I believe there is no cipher at the end of the alphabet ; there ought to be, for such creatures as he to end their names with — A. B. Mar- tin, Tilton's spy. Now I have a respect for Frank Moul- ton, Tilton's minion, but none, none for a miserable spy, sent from his house to the Ovington's to eavesdrop and bring him report ; sent to find out what is going on; sent to talk with his wife and report to him ; ready whenever the occasion calls, to do his little all in the ser- vice of Theodore Tilton, in his fight with a woman ; ready to meet that woman, to fawn upon her, to pretend to be her friend ; ready when the time comes, if it be needful in order to raise an issue with Bessie Turner or with Gen. Tracy— ready, if need be, to swear walls where carpenters never reared them, to bring into protected shadow a piazza which was in the blaze of a torrid Sum- mer sun ; ready to do anything he could in the service of a man to serve whom is too degrading foi endurance. For I venture the prediction that even that Frank Moulton, who has been the instrument of his devices, his stratagems, his fraud, and his conspiracy against Henry Ward Beecher, will in due time, as he deserves, be cursed and kicked by the man who dedicated him to his use. [Sensation.] But tliis man Martin tenders his services to swear down Bessie Turner, and what does he swear ? Simply f a.lse swear- ing. He swears that he was for hours eavesdropping at a window where Gen. Tracy and Miss Turner are repre- sented as in conversation, and broiling in the sun, with Mrs. Ovington, to the end that he might perform the miserable and degrading service to which he had been assigned by Theodore Tilton. Gentlemen, we have one more witness, and that is Theodore Tilton himself. These are the three. Why, gentlemen, Tilton is not in a condition to undertake the job ; it is too large for him ; he has too much on his hands. Theodore Tilton. A. B. Martin, and Joe Richards setting themselves up to overturn that Bessie Turner who was a match for the most brilliant cross-examiner in America, who put William Fullerton at bay and compelled him to call upon the most splendid advocate now living in this or in any land, to come to his assistance in a fight with a girl ! fSensation.] The girl who can stand fire against William Fullerton and William A. Beach need fear noth- ing from Joe Richards, even with Theodore Tilton as hia right-hand and A. B. Martin as his left-hand supporter. Her testimony stands admitted by himself; her testi- mony, as she gave it, commended itself to your con- sciences and intelligence. You believed it then; you believe it now. It is in harmony with the letters I read to you yesterday and this morning; it is in harmony with all the revelations we have of the interior of that house- hold; it is in harmony with what you know of the char- acter of Theodore Tilton, when we find this man, at the close of her testimony, makuig one last attempt to injure that girl in your estimation by asking her whether she had not been refused reinstatement in the institution in which she held (woman as she was) a professorship of character and position in the department of music; and when you saw them elicit, as they knew they could, the reply that, although the President of that in- stitution retained undiminished confidence in and respect for her, yet the libels published by this man had made her name so notorious that she could not earn bread in an honest employment ; when you have that commentaiT" upon the spirit in which Theodore Tilton dealt with the adopted daughter who was loyal to the wife of his bosom, you need no more, no more to determine whether she or he is the most eu titled to your credit and re« gard. SUMMING UP BY ME. FOBTJSB. 585 MES. TILTON'S EETURN FROM MARIETTA. Why, gentlemen, there are some things the mere narration of which carries to the conscience and understanding absolute conviction of their verity. There Is no girl of 22, there is no woman of any age— there is no man of 22, there is no man of any age— who could invent, if they were false, conversations like those she has detailed to you, that occurred on the part of Theo- dore Tilton, and under his own roof. She unconsciously presented the very figure of the man who testified hefore yo^^ when she was absent, and he had your ear. You could see reproduced in her narration the same dramatic attitudes, the same stilted display, the same lofty and magnanimous sentences, the sudden changes, from lofty dignity to gentle, tender con- sideration, which were exhibited there. Just take any one of those relations. I would like that interview, be- ginning with the significant intimation at his own table to Mrs. Tilton and the daughter who loved her, that a lunatic asylum shadowed Itself in the distance before her. These people, Mrs. Tilton and Bessie Turner, had come home from Marietta— Bessie to the disgust of Tilton and of his housekeeper, Mrs. Tilton not to the satisfaction of either. She comes to her own house, when her husband hoped she would have remained longer away, and when he had made arrangements that suited his convenience, and did not require her presence ; but he meets her with a carriage and takes her home. At breakfast she finds Miss Susan B. Anthony her guest, and the head of the table, where she was in the habit of sitting, occupied by Ellen Dennis. Gentlemen, some of you, perhaps all of you, are mar- ried men. Would n't it somewhat excite the surprise of your wife, if on her return to your house from a journey for the recovery of her health, when she came back, to find her place at the table was occupied by one socially her inferior— a domestic in the family quietly reproach- ing the harmless and simple attitude of the misti-ess of the house ? Miss Ellen Dennis is in the place of Mrs. Tilton ; Mr. Tilton is there. Here is that woman to whom he wrote those love letters, whom he called " my dear angel," whom he expected to love not only through time but through the eternities ; this woman whom he so idolized, and she quietly takes her place by the side of Bessie Turner, and in her own house assumes a subor- dinate position even to Miss Susan B. Anthony. That is the morning. We come to noon- to the dinner. Miss Anthony is gone ; Miss Dennis remains. " Mrs. Tilton took her seat"— I read from page 476 : Mrs. Tilton took her seat at the table beside Mr. Tilton, and the moment she sat down she began crying, and Mr. Tilton was very polite, saying, "My dear, won't you have a bit of this or, " My dear, won't you have a bit of thati" and she was crying so she could hardly answer him ; the tears were ruuning down in her plate, and she excused herself and got up from the table and went into the front parlor, and sat down and played some plaintive little air on the piano. Does it happen to any of you to remember any incident in your early days between brother and sister, or hus- band and wife, or even father and child, when a svidden estrangement left the woman to the resource of her sex 1 Ah ! those tears that in deep emotion womanhood can- not restrain ! With touching appeal, by some plaintive melody associated with earlier days of love, she thinks she may touch the heart that is rising against her in anger. This poor woman dried the tears, could not re- strain them, excused herself and left, and she remem- bered that man as he was in his earlier days, and she went to the next room and touched the keys of the piano, and thought that there were some old notes in those melodies that would throb even in his cold hea.rt. Not so, not so. After she had left the table, Miss Ellen Dennis looked at Mr. Tilton and said, " What a strange woman Eliza- beth is! What is she crying about? Anyone that has such a devoted husband, a nice home, and everything heart could wish for— T think she Is a very singular woman." Mr. Tilton never made her an answer, but he leaned his face on his hand, and said he, " Bessie, my dear, don't you think Elizabeth is demented 1 " Demented ! demented 1 That don't mean much as it is uttered here, but oh, I tell you that when a cold and ex- acting husband appeals to a competent witness to know whether the poor and helpless, motherless, friendless, defenseless woman, who had no protector in him, and none elsewhere, when he asks a question, " Don't you think Elizabeth is demented ? " it means something ; and that girl knew what it meant, and knew it well. He says : " Don't you think she acts like a crazy woman 1 '* Said I— I looked him steaclily in the eyes— said T, " No, I dont ; but T wonder that you have n't driven her in the lunatic asylum years ago I " And when we come, gentlemen, as we shall presently, to the time when he makes her lie for him, remember who it is that does it. It is the man who told one that he knew would tell her that he doubted her sanity ; it is the man who told one who he knew would tell her that a paU hung over her, more terrible than death, and that it de- pended on him whether that pall should close her oflf from the light of day. These are no unmeaning words. They come from the heart. Ellen Dennis knew right well what she meant when she said, " This is a very singular woman." He knew right well what he meant when he said, " Bessie, my dear, don't you think Elizabeth is de- mented? Don't you think she acts like a crazy woman ?" And Bessie knew what he meant when she made that reply, which struck right at the heart of a purpose too plainly revealed at one stage of these proceedings ; and it well might make that woman shudder and fear in the presence of this man. And now let us go on with what follows. What did Mi-. Tilton do then? He immediately rose. Thus Bessie's answer was not at all satisfactory. 586 THM TILTON-BEEGREE TRIAL. He looked very white and very angry, rose from the table, then went from the dining-room into the hack par- lor, and from there into the front parlor, the two being connected by folding doors, and he tried to shut the fold- ing doors. _ THE STORMY SCENE IN THE PAELOR. What for? What was there in a wife in tears, and playing a plaintive melody upon the piano in his own parlor, which required those doors to be closed 1 They would not shut tight ; there was a little crack in them. He seemed to be working with the key— he was working with the key; and he then went in, and I heard the two parlor doors, it was not these folding doors, shut and lock. Q. The other doors % A. Yes, Sir. Now, gentlemen, the curtain rises upon a scene one of the saddest, one of the most meinorable, that has ever been exhibited in a court of justice. Let us look at that scene as there described. I read from page 477 : I stood at the folding doors ; they were open on a crack, and I saw Mr. Tilton right over near Mrs. Tilton, with his flst going this way very emphatically, and talk- ing very angrily, and when I heard him say that " You have brought that girl on to use against me, and, damn it, she shall leave this house—" Bear in mind, gentlemen, that that is the girl who he says was sent away, lest she should be used against Henry WardBeecher; it was his tender solicitude for the pastor of Plymouth Church that induced him to send her away to the West ; she had casually heard the story of the se- duction by the reverend debauchee, and on his account, not at all on Mr. Tilton's, she had been sent out West, a suitable retraction having been obtained from her through the intervention of Mrs. TUton, so that there was no longer danger to him. And yet you see he tells his wife, "You have brought that girl on to use against me." Why? How? He tells you it is all a lie about his having ever oftered indignities to her. How was she to be used against him ? When Bessie Turner showed him by her answer at the dinner table that she would not be used by him, he at once made up his miad that she had been brought to be used against him, and she was to be held responsible, and Bessie Tnrner was to be turned away. It excited tne girl. I opened the door and entered in. Said I " Theodore Tilton, this is not the first time I have heard you swear- ing at your wife, and you shall not damn her for my sake." Gentlemen, the only reproach against this girl is that she has been trained in the purity which characterizes Elizabeth R. Tilton. She has not the attractions to win Theodore Tilton. She would not make a fit subject of a Woodhull biography. She has lived on until early womanhood, and yet she was able to make the proud challenge on the witness-stand, when she was asked whether she had been turned away from some place for lying: Nobody ever charged me with falsehood but Theodore TUton. They have had the opportunity suice of making search. David Dows has been here. They have had access to the proprietors of each of the establishments in which she attempted to earn her livelihood. They have had accesft^ to Joe Richards even, to A. B. Martin ; they have had access to the spies ; they have had access to the men who- were ready to yield themselves to base uses, and no one human being dares come to testify against that girl, to- one word impeaching her purity of character, for truth, or her integrity— not one. Gentlemen, it may seem strange to you that the girl whom Theodore Tilton exalted in depriving her of her position at the Pennsylvania institution of learning be- cause he had rendered her infamous before judicial in- vestigation—it may seem strange to him that, after judi- cial investigation, she to-day stands proud and erect, while he slinks from the gaze of manhood and of woman* hood. Let us go on with this dialogue. " He said, ' leave the room,' Said I, ' I won't leave the room.'" That is a courage that don't belong to girls, pure girls, well-trained' girls, unless under circumstances that touch their inmost womanhood. This girl, if she had been alone and acting in her own cause would have shrunk in terror from the man. But she stood there with the courage of a lioness because, feeble as she was, she was defending a pure and abused woman from a tyrannical and cowardly husband. That lifted her heart and strengthened her arm and nerved her with courage. It is only a pure woman who can do that. You remem- ber in your early reading the old story of Una, with her milk-white lamb, walking from land's end to land's end, fearless, unguarded, and alone. It was the courage of virgin purity. It was the courage of a pure heart, which is not cowed by brutal cowardice. In the cause of tliat adopted mother, whom she loved, she was ready to con- fi-ont this man, to confront him fearlessly, and to stand by the woman whom he wronged. I will not leave the room, and I will stand by Mrs. Til- ton if I die in the attempt. He then gave me a blow that hurled me to the opposite side of the room, and I fell, striking my head violently against the door. He came forward, perfectly bland, you would think nothing in tlie world had happened, so composed and so calm, '* Why." says he, "why, Bessie, my dear, you tripped and fell, didn't you?" I turned round to him and said, "Theo- dore Tilton, are you a fool, or do you take me for one f Gentlemen, was that invented? Is there the art In woman or in man that could invent that story ? Doesn't it bear the very impress of truth upon its front? Isn't it characteristic of the man ? Q, What took place then? A. He then changed the subject entirely. He said, sitting down in a chair, " Oh,. Bessie, my dear, it is no wonder my gray hairs are going down in sorrow to the grave.*' You remember the last appeai'ance he made upon this, nnd I suspect upon any stage. He told you Bessie Turner lied, for he had no gray hairs then, and yesterday after- noon I read you <» letter in which he wrote to his wifa SUMMING UF BT MB. POBTBB. m In 1867 about ttose gray hairs tliat had come up in the eleven and a half years of their married life. Gentle- men, he don't contradict this conversation. He has had the opportunity. They confined the in- quiry to a single thing said. He denies that sin- gle thing; and the circumstance upon which he rests his denial is the fact that he had then no gray hairs. True, they were gray in 1867 ; but they had re- tm-ned to their natural color in 1870 ! He says, taking out his handkerchief and wiping his eyes, " No, my dear ; you are mistaken in the woman that you place so much confidence in." Mrs. Tilton Poor creatiire ! don't you pity her as you see her there, sitting at that piano-stool, paralyzed, no longer able to touch the keys, witnessing this scene between this man and that girl, and then hearing this mock heroic address % Mrs. Tilton then got up from the piano-stool and said, " Why should not Bessie place confidence in me ? She has no confidence in you. She has no protector in you. You oftered to ruin her." When and how did she know it ; who told her ? Bessie Turner did not tell her. She told Bessie Turner. How did she find it out ? She looks this man in the eye and says, "You offered to ruin her." He then stood up, straightened himself very straight, and put his fingers under his coat this way ; said he, ''Why, my dear, did I ever attempt " Imagine the scene ! Just that mock solemnity with ■which he stood there and talked alternately to Mr. Evarts and to you— the same thing which he practiced on that girl he practiced on you twelve ; and he thought it would succeed. I would like to have him now look at the twelve, and point with the fijiger on which of the twelve he supposed such an attempt would be successful. He thought it would succeed with Becsie Turner. It did not even with her. She was not an idiot. " Bessl, , my dear, did I ever attempt in any word, shape or form to ruin you, or to take any improper liber- ties with you ?" Said I, "Yes, you did. You remember the time you was talking about affinities, and the time you lifted me out of my bed and carried me into yours ?" Oh, my dear, you are excited ; you are laboring uivler a false — mistake." "No," said he, sitting down in the chair ; said he, " The fact is this, EUzabeth is so in the habit of having men fondle her bosoms and her legs that she judges me by herself." He then got— turned over to the side of the room, and said, " Do you see that red lounge ! Time and time again have I seen Elizabeth and Henry Ward Beecher having sexual intercourse on that red lounge," and not only the red loimge, but he spoke of the chair. Mrs. Tilton looked very earnestly at him, and said, " On, Theodore, Theodore, how can you tell that child such base lies 1' He then asked me if I knew what sexual intercourse was —-what sexual Intercourse meant ; and if I did not he would tell me. The last words he said were that " red lounge had been consecrated to their sexual intercourse." Now, there was one scene. Is that truel Is that in- vented ! Is it more than likely that the scene is true which he dares not to deny 1 Have you a doubt that it occurred % Did any human being Invent it 1 Docs not nature, does not truth, speak out in terms no juror can mistake ? Is it for such a man that you are called upon to render a false verdict against an innocent minister of God ] Is it for such a man that you are to lay your hand upon the throat of the woman he has betrayed 1 I appeal to you, man by man, as honest men, answer me now, as you will answer on one day when from the answer there is no escape— do you believe this to be an honest man ? Is he the man on whom you will stake your reputation among men— your immortal souls— hollow, treacherous, false, cowardly, base ? I am not talking to blocks of wood, but to mortal men with immortal souls in them. I demand your verdict ! I am glad to learn from my associate (Mr. Shearman) what I had almost overlooked, that even Theodore Tilton dared not to pass this whoUy uncontradicted ; that he had such a sense of shame that there was at least a quali- fied contradiction ; that, while he had his hand in, he tried at least to make an issue on which he could stand before you. Gentlemen, you have seen the man, and you have seen the girl. He is swearing to what ? If I read his complaint, it is for money. If I listen to his counsel, it is for revenge. If I read his complaint, he is endeavor- ing to make, by his oath through your instrumentality, his title good to $100,000— more money than he and Moulton and Beecher, by putting together all their joint goods, could raise on the earth. If he is swearing for revenge, Bessie Turner is not. She swears neither for money nor for ven- geance. She swears in the interest of truth and for the protection of a woman whom she knows to be inno- cent. WTiich will you believe ? You have your choice. If there be one man among your number who on such an issue would sympathize with Theodore Tilton against the girl he sought and failedto betray, his vote doesn't belong to us, but all the rest do. And because I believe he can- not point his finger to such a man on that jury, I know your verdict will be one of acquittal before you leave your seats. Let us proceed with the rest of that interview that day— a memorable day. Mrs. Tilton has taken refuge in that room where the bedside was worn by the knees of prayer, a room too familiar with sorrow and with woe. Then he came to me and said he wanted to see me, Mr. Tilton did, and he took me in the second story back room, and related this story over and over again about the lounge and the chair, and added that not only with Mr. Beecher had she done so, but mentioned three gen- tlemen's names in connection with Mr. Beecher. * * * Mr. Bates, Dr. Carroll Dunham, and Mr. Ovington. * * * * He said that little Paul that was dead was Mr. Beecher's, and that he didn't claim any of his children but Florence, and that Mr. Beecher preached to forty or twenty of his mistresses every Sabbath, naming two ladies in the congregation. In the course of that conversation, passing over other matters, he said : That his mother had laid her hands on his head and blessed him when he had told his mother this, and she 588 THE TILTO^-BEECHEB TRIAL. had said, "Theodore, what a magnanimous man you have heen!" Don't you think after all that the girl's was the better commentary? She says : " I said I didn't believe there was one word of truth in it, that it was all wicked lies." I think the girl's discrediting the fact showed more saga- city, though less kindliness, than the mother's benedic- tion upon the man who invented these fearful and wicked falsehoods. Had you ever happened to hear the term " sexual in- tercourse " before the conversation that you speak of in the parlor ? A. No, Sir ; I never heard it before in my life. Of course not. Your daughter of that age has never heard it. It is a thing that is to be found only in the vocabulary of free-love and its disciples. At the saloon of " Madam Roland " in New- York they talk to you of sexual intercourse and sexual relations. Theodore Tilton will talk to you of sexual intercourse and sexual relations. Frank Moulton will report to you conversation after con- versation of Henry Ward Beecher, running through four years, in which a man who never uses any such expres- sion among decent people is represented as constantly talking to him about his sexual relations with Elizabeth R. Tilton. MES. TILTON DEIVEN TO HER MOTHER'S HOUSE. Well, gentlemen, suppose we panse here; what do you think of the corner-stone on which your verdict is to rest ? Who is to be believed— Tilton or the adopted child ? Which will you trust 1 If you have no other evidence, and are left even in doubt— doubt is ac- quittal. But you do not doubt. No man who heard this evidence doubts, not even Theodore Tilton. If there is any man in this room who knows how false a verdict would be in his favor, certainly no man knows it better than he. But is Bessie Turner corroborated or conflrmed ? Do not these writings confirm her? Don't the admissions of Tilton and of Moulton, oral and written, by word and by act, through four years, confirm her? Does not the cor- respondence I have read to you, showing the bestiality of the man, confirm her? Does not the oath of Henry Ward Beecher confirm her ? Does not the character of the wife and the character of the clergyman confirm her? Do not his antecedents, his writings, his speech, his charac- ter as developed to you even upon this witness-stand, all condemn him and confirm her? Gentlemen, there is much, very much that I could say and ought to say, and am reminded by my associates that I should, but there are certain things we know, and I know that you do believe that girl and do not believe her maligner. There is, however, a single thing, with reference to which I ask you to indulge me, an Interview which is de- scribed on page 479. This is a memorable interview, memorable for him, memorable for Mrs. Tilton, memora- ble for Bessie Turner. Now, acts are more significant than words. What v/as the result? Mrs. Tilton had gone up to her own room. After a season of weeping and of prayer she had gone to her couch, between two of |j her children, when at last Bessie was relieved from this painful interview in which a young unmarried girl was compelled to listen to an explanation of what sexual inter- . course meant in a private colloquy with Theodore Tilton. | She goes to Mrs. Tilton's room and tells her what had | transpired. What does that poor broken-hearted woman \ do 2 She rises from her bed— but no, let me give it in the ; touching language of the girl : i; if Mrs. Tilton never said a word; she rose, dressed her- \i self, put on her waterproof cloak, went down the basement way (it was then one o'clock), and stole very softly out the basement way. She didn't put on her shoes until she got down to the basement. I wanted to go with her and she would not let me. She went around to her mother's. Q. Did you put on your shoes ? A. No, Sir ; she would not let me go with her ; I wanted to go with her, and she |k would not let me. I locked the basement door after her. |i * * * I went to bed with the children. * * * The next morning we went around to Mrs. Morse's ; Car- roll, Alice and myself went around to Mrs. Morse's. Gentlemen, while you each, in your house that night, that Winter night, were housed under your own roofs, which sheltered a loving and a chei-ished family, how little either of you thought of the scene that was going on within a few blocks of you, and under the roof of a jj man upon whom God had conferred gifts of a lofty | genius, and upon whom his fellow-men had heaped praise and honor and benefactions ; how little you thought that imder such a roof a man who was worshiped as this man was had within him a cold and flinty heart, that would offer such mdignity to the wife who worshiped him, that could so malign her under the only roof she could call her own, that it would induce even such a woman— sick, feeble, broken-hearted— to steal in her j stocking-feet down stairs and go out alone in the Winter f night to find a refuge from the cruelties of her "pro- tector" under the roof of the mother whom he has pro- nounced a murderess in purpose and a maniac in intel- lect. These are scenes which, thank God, are not often repeated in civilized society ; but the marvel is that the | men who are the actors in them dare to come into a court f of justice and press into their service our honored and upright magistrates, and the jurors whom the law con- strains to sit in judgment even upon false accusations. BESSIE TURNER INTERCEDES FOR MRS. TILTON. There is one more singular incident to which ; I ask your attention. Now, you remember that this girl I in all her testimony showed that she cared no more for j Henry Ward Beecher than she did for you or for me, no more for him than she did for Theodore Tilton. Hers was the loyalty of the child to the mother. It was the SUjniiyG UP BY MP. POBTEB. 589 loyalty of love and gratitude to Elizabetli E. Tilton. Slie "would not turn lier hand to save Henry Ward Beectier Irom destruction. She ^ould nor tarn her hand even to destroy Theodore Tilton ; lout that poor, grateful girl ■would go to the stake, would encounter penal- ties such as you and I "vrould shrink from, in the spirit of a lioness, in defense of the woman whom she knows to l3e innocent, and knows to be her benefactress. It is not of such stuff false wit- nesses are made. Xow, listen to another part of her nar- ration. Mrs. Tilton had come home faint, sick, heart- broken, almost hopeless. While she went to her usual refuge, the companionship of her children, and the en- treaties which she uttered from her bended knees to her Father in Heaven, this girl goes down to make one appeal in her behalf to the man whose heart she thought could be touched. He cam^ . I asked him if I could see him a. little while. He came into his room in the second story back room, in his room, and I shut the door, and told him that Mrs. Til- ton was very sick. You remember that this was after Mrs. Tilton had been flroimd to her mother, had been speaking of her condition and of her hopelessness— nay, not her hopelessness but her Aope— that through the troubles which she was penetrat- ing then she was to be restored to the companionship of this little Paul whom he professed to love, but bastard- ized after he buried him ! I told him that Mrs. TUton was very sick, and had sent around when she was around to Mrs. Morse's that she was going to die, and that her mother must not feel troubled that she was going to her home ; she had only one home, and that was in Heaven ; she would see her little children, Paul and Mattie, and that her mother muse not sorrow for her, and I asked him please to be very kind to her, and not scold her any more and make her cry, and I then told him what the doctor in Marietta had said, that these swooning at- tacks that 3Irs. TUton had had he was afraid— he feared that she would die in one of them, and he didn't think she would possibly survive her confinement, and I felt very badly. I felt as if Mrs. Tilton was going to die, and I plead with him, with tears in my eyes, and I asked him If he would not be Mnd to her. He said there was noth- ing the matter with Elizabeth, that she was as well as ever she was, and that the way she was weeping was perfectly natural to her. I said 1 didn't think it was natural for people to cry all the time unless they had something to cry about. He said Elizabeth was as well as ever she was, and that she was not weeping because she felt so bad— becatise of her bodily health, but she was weeping for her sin with :Mr. Beecher, that that was what made her cry. Q. Did you mention anything m that conversation about an occurrence connected with a letter of his while you were in Marietta ? A. A letter. Q. A letter that she received from Mr. Tilton % A. Yes, Sir, I took one letter up. * * * I told him that I had taken a letter of his to : Irs. TUton— up to Mrs. TUton in Marietta, and she opened the letter and read it— seemed to have read it through, and she turned perfectly white and feU very heavily to the floor, with the letter grasped in her liand. Q. Did you tell him what followed then ? A. I told hira that she fell to the floor and fainted, and I went and caUed ]\Irs. Putnam and she came up, and then she caUed Philip, the colored man, and he lifted Mrs. TUton in bed. Gentlemen, I don't care to go further with this narra- tion. It is not good for us. There are certain depths of dishonor and degradation the very contemplation of which sinks and demoralizes us aU. The furtlier you go in the investigation of this man's Ufe the slimier the traU that you recognize with every footstep of your ad- vance. I leave this branch of the case. BESSIE TUENER'S DISCLOSUEES. I come now, in the order of important events^ to the disclosures made by Bessie Turner on the 14th of December, or thereabouts. At that time Mrs. Tilton had been so outraged that she had made up her mind she would permanently avail herseK of the shelter of her mother's hotise, and yet she sought to take counsel of her friends, and Bessie Turner and her mother were the two friends who were the nearest to her and who knew the facts, and Bessie Turner conferred with those who were ignorant of the interior relations of this household, and we have seen with what effect. She went to Mrs. Bradshaw, an exceUent woman, one whom we were told was to be a witness to prove the guUt of Mr. Beecher, but who not only proved that there was no acknowledgment of guilt by him, but even proved, by the letter which was introduced in evidence, that Mrs. TUton never— never confessed even to her, her most intimate friend, the slightest deviation from absolute loyalty to her husband. Mrs. Bradshaw differs from Miss Turner in her recoUection upon a single point. Bessie remembers that she talked with her, and in respect to the indignity which Mr. TUton had offered to her, but does not remember that she remembered the brutal charge Mr. TUton had made in this interview against Mr. Beecher. Mrs. Bradshaw's recollection is that it was at that time she heard it. The question is utterly unimportant in any aspect of the case. Which of them is right is immaterial. Each has stated according to her recoUection the f aet that there was an interview. The fact that Bessie Turner went there for the purpose of complaining of Theodore TUton, the fact that she went there for the purpose of enlisting Mrs. Bradshaw on the side of Mrs. TUton in justifying her ia separation from her husband, as to this there is no shadow of doubt ; but the diary of Mrs. Bradshaw con- firms Bessie's narration. Now, Bessie swears also that she went to Mr. Beecher. To him she told, not what had been said about her, fior of course maidenly modesty and reserve would have deterred her from that, but she pleaded the cause of Mrs. TUton, and wanted him to come and advise with her. More, Mr. Beecher swears that she told him of these indecent approaches which had baen made to her t>7 Theodore Til- 590 THE TILTON-BEEGHBB TBIAL. tou. Mr. Beeclier swears tliat he communi- cated them afterward to Mr. Bowen. Mr. Bowen began by denying, but ends by admittmg them ; and, to put the matter beyond any question, Mr. Tilton calls Mr. Bell to the stand, and proves by him a most important conversation, which places it beyond all doubt that Bessie Turner's statement is true, and that the state- ment of Mr. Beeoher is also true. [To J'udge Neilson.] I will ask my friend Mr. Shearman to read the passage, if the Court and jury will allow me. Mr. Shearman— Mr. Bell's testimony is as follows {reading] : Mr. Beecher stated to me that he had been sent for by Mrs. Tilton to consult in regard to the position of domestic affairs in her own household ; that she had left her husband and was then at Mrs. Morse's, her mother's ; that she was in great trouble and great anxiety ; that the conduct of her husband had been in a great many ways very severe, very cruel, and everything but what a— I was going to say, a decent man's conduct ought to be to a woman ; he stated that Mr. Tilton's conduct in regard to other mat- ters, in regard to licentiousness, was very low ; he stated that he had been called upon by a young girl— he did not mention any name — a yoimg girl, who had been In Mr. Tilton's family ; she had related to him circumstances oc- curring in the family, in the household of Mr. Tilton, which were exceedingly licentious ; he stated— I presume I need not go into the circumstances of that statement ; I have suificiently indicated what it was ; he stated that at last Mrs. Tilton had been forced to fly from her home ; that she had done so, and had gone to Mrs. Morse's ; that she had sent then for him to advise with him as to what course she should pursue ; that he had consulted Mrs. Beecher on the subject, and then they thought— both thought— that it was better that they should mention the fact to some member of the church, so that they might not go on in the matter without the whole church being ignorant of these proceedings, or what advice they might give— might tender to Mrs. Tilton; they had therefore called for me, not so much to take my advice, as to inform me of the facts that were occurring, and inform me of what advice they proposed to give, if any, to Mrs. Tilton. He asked me then— he said then that he proposed to hand the matter over to Mrs. Beecher ; that it was a matter that a lady could manage better than a gentleman, and Mrs. Beecher intended, by his suggestion, to go and see Mrs. Tilton the ngxt day. The question was particularly as to what advice Mrs. Beecher should give to Mrs. Til- ton. I don't know whether from Mrs. Beecher or from him, the question came up about a permanent separa- tion, but from one or the other that suggestion was made, of a permanent separation between Mr. and Mrs. Tilton, and Mr. Beecher asked me what I thought of that. I said in answer, '* Of course, nothing else can be possible ; it is impossible for Mrs. Tilton to live another day with Mr. Tilton on such facts as you have presented to me." Then Mr. Beecher asked me if I thought it would be weU to call In any of the ladies of the church ; I am not sm-e whether deaconesses were mentioned then, as I am not quite sure that we had them at that time, but it is clear in my mem- ory that he did ask me if the advice of any of the ladies of the church should be called for, or that the matter flhould be handed over to the ladies of the church— any of the ladles— to manage. I said, unquestionably not; it was a matter of great delicacy, it was a matter far more easily managed by a few than by many, and it would be exceedingl ," harmful to bring it into the church, or even to hand it over to any ladies unofficially, and that I was certain that the best management of the case would be to have it left in his own hands and those of Mrs. Beecher. I may add that the note furnished by Mr. Bell showed this interview was on the 15th of September. Mr. Beach— I object to your arguing here. Mr. Shearman— I was only giving the date, as you brought it out. Mr. Evarts— Mr. Porter can state It. Mr. Beach— Yes. MR. BOWEN'S TESTIMONY. Mr. Porter— We eome next, gentlemen, to the testimony of Henry C. Bowen. It is a little curious that wherever we find Bowen appearing in this case he seems to give to it a fresh and peculiar interest. He is the next actor in this drama. We should not have looked for it. What has he to do with the matter ? He has no admission to the interior of the house of Henry Ward Beecher, and just as little to the interior of the house of Theodore Tilton, and yet wherever events come to thicken Henry C. Bowen is there. Of his testimony I shall speak with kindness and forbearance. It would be inhuman to do otherwise. I cannot but remember the bullets which he has received from the beginning of this trial on the part of the friend to whose res- cue he has come in his extreme desperation. I refer for a moment to some of these comments of which Mr. Tilton, after a manner peculiar to himself, introduces not only our witnesses, but his own, to the favor or the censure of the jury, as he feels disposed. This is the Hemy C. Bowen of whom Tilton in one of the exhibits which is before you writes, " Bowen lifted his hammer and with an unjust blow smote asunder my two contracts." Again, " The public little suspects that this act of his turned on the fear to meet the consequences of horrible charges which he made against Henry Ward Beecher.'* In the course of one of these exhibits he speaks of Bowen's assassinating dagger drawn against Mr. Beecher. In another portion of the same exhibit he says, " Bowen charged Beecher with the most hideous crime known to human nature." Then Tilton assigns, as the reason for not making public his written denial of the charge of adultery between Mr. Beecher and his wife : " I would put my old friend Bowen to a serious risk of being smitten dead by Beecher's hands." How far Bowen would deserve his fate I cannot say, but I know that all Plymouth Church would hound him as a rat. In his let- ter of Jan. 1, 1871, he arraigns Bowen as a slanderer and a libeler. He charges him with duplicity and treacli- ery, and describes Bowen's face in the last interview as livid with rage, and his violent words as still ringing in Tilton's ears. You may judge of the estimation in which Tilton and his counsel held their case when Sr2121iyG VP BY 21E. FORTEB. 591 ther fhoueM its necessities demanded ot rliem I that they should put Henry C. Bowen on the wit- ness stand to speak for them. And to show what— wh at 1 That Beecher didn't slander Theodore Tilton to Henry C. Bowen— that Beecher did nothing tending to the removal of TUton from his connection witli The In- dependent. It is hut just to Bowen to say that he showed a noble zeal to swear all he could in favor of the party who called him. That it was not from love of Theodore Tilton I am persuaded. That it was not hatred of Hem-y Waixl Beecher we all knew, for he worships at Plymouth Church. It must have been from the pure abstract love of truth. [Laughter.] Well, what is tie truth as he tells it I His memory is viciously accurate in his denials ; ■but it is singularly lax in taking them back on cross- examination. " :Mr. Beecher never advised him to tiu-n Tilton out of The lyidej^eyident ? He did not. Mr. Beecher thought he did. He did not. Mr. Beecher didn't tell you anything against him? Xo, nothing. Oh, he did talk generally against him. What did he say about him ? Well, it was nothing except some lirrle matter of fornication and adultery ; it was nothing seriotis. What was it he told you? Eeally, I don't remember. I remember generally ; he really didn't think T'lton was a very good man, but he knew nothing particular against him, or, if he did, he didn't tell me, or, if he did, I forget what it was he told me. He talked with me a half hour or three-- expression — as, for instance, the allusion she im- putes to him about those gray hairs, and he thinks that by the suggestion of a circumstance which will render the thing improbable he gets over the effect of it, and damns the witness. "I had no gray hairs"— forgetting the letter that he had written, in which, three years be- fore, he had complained that he had gray hairs. AgatD, we find, running through the whole thread of this conspiracy, the same devices, in the cunning papers which were prepared from time to time by him, copied by Moulton, submitted to Mr. Beecher, in order to induce him to give countenance to their statements, overlook- ing these petty points thrown in, to which importance might be given afterward. Now, his dealing in this case with Mr. Beecher and his testimony. How is he to deal with it ? " Here is Bowen. What can we prove by him 1 In the first place, he is Beecher's enemy. That is one good point. In the next place, it can do him no good in this case to swear against me, for I am done. I am no contributor of The Independent, and whatever his feel- ing may be toward me, Bowen's interest— that which touches the tender nerve of the pocket — Bowen's interest is to see the man go down who ediis The Christian Union. What can we safely ask him? Now, there is no doubt that he told this story about Bessie Turner, but there is one thing which Henry C. Bowen will never do. He will never swear himself into a scrape, if lie knows it. I'll prove by him that Mr. Beecher did not advise my admissal from The Independent. That I'll do." " Well, but," says Brother Morris, " Beecher don't swear that he did." " No matter for that ; it is a good enough issue, Sam, for the jury." " Well, but we've got to meet Beecher's own tes- timony. What he swears to is, that he told Henry 0. Bowen that you were an immoral man, that you had offered improper overtures to your adopted daughter." " Touch that lightly," and they did. " Mr. Bowen, did Mr. Beecher advise you to dismiss Theodore Tilton from The Independent and The Brooklyn TJnioyi 1 " *• Positively no." " Did Mr. Beecher mention the name of Bessie Turner 1 " " No."^ And so on with a series of questions which might be supposed by a person who had not heard Mr. Beecher's testimony to be aimed at something that had preceded, but every question tendering a false issua upon the facts, save one, and that is, where was the interview ? MR. BOWEN PRESENTS MR. TILTON'S LETTER. And there Bowen was material. It was at Deacon Freeland's house. Now, gentlemen, that would be all very well, if, after a direct examination, there were to be no cross-examination, but we find Mr. Bowen on his cross-examination compelled, by my learned associate, to admit that Mr. Beecher did, whether the interview was at the one place or the other— Mr. Beoolicr did tell him of matters that were new to him, in respect to Theo- 594 THE TlLTOl^-BEEOREB TBIAL. dore Tilton ; that Mr. Beecher did arraign Mm for private immorality with women ; that Mr. Beecher occupied half an hour in giving details which had now escaped his recollection, and in regard to persons whom, as he did not then know, he did not now remember. So that upon the only point upon which his testimony was material, Henry C. Bo wen, instead of contradicting the editor of The Ohristian Union, confirms him, and that confirmation is made still stronger when we come to the report he made that night on his return to his own house, to his associate editor, in which he recounted the transaction to Eggles- ton, as Mr. Beecher, five years afterward, recounts it to you, and without comparison of notes. There is, how- ever, in. this connection, a matter that should not he ovei'looked. Mr. Bowen undertakes to contradict Mr. Beecher as to the locality of that con vers ation. It is ut- terly immaterial for every purpose in this cause, except as a simple means of ascertaining the truthfulness of witnesses ; and it strangely happens that Mr. Beecher stands corroborated, even in that regard, not only by the affirmative evidence, but by the circumstantial evidence, which to an intelligent mind is more satisfactory and conclusive even than affirmative evi- dence. Where was that interview ? Take Tiiton. What had Bowen promised him? He would take that note right up to Mr. Beecher's and present it immediately after the interview. What more do we hna ? It was in the afternoon that the promise was made. What more 1 It was in the afternoon that the promise was fulfilled, even Bowen being the witness. Why not go to Mr. Beecher's 1 Bowen either meant to be true to Tilton, or to be false to him. In either case his road lay right straight to Columbia Hights. If he meant to betray him, as Frank Moulton told him, the moment that he stated that he had seen this letter, he went armed with that. It was to secure an alliance with Beecher ; and no grass grew beneath the feet of Henry C. Bowen on that winter day, as he was rushing with this important message to cut the bond of friendship between Beecher and Tilton, and to form that bond of friendship which was to be so valuable between Beecher and Bowen. If his purpose was hostile, Henry C. Bowen is not the man who, when he is in pursuit of an enemy, and has with him a weapon of death, seeks needless witnesses. He went to the house of Henry Ward Beecher intending, as Tilton did, to stab him to the heart. He did not want Deacon Freeland by, nor any of his household. He went to deliver a simple letter, the delivery of which would, if Beecher was a guilty man, paralyze him upon the in- stant. If Henry Ward Beecher had been guilty with Theodore Tiltou's wife, as he would have you believe, and that message had been brought to him by the hand of Henry C. Bowen, his bitterest enemy, have you any doubt what would have been the eflfect of it 1 Bowenhad none. Gentlemen, when Bowen started on that message he did not know what the truth was. Of course he did not supx)!)Si adultery, because Tilton had not charged that ; but he charged that gidlt that was just as fatal to a minister of the Gospel ; he charged improper and dishonorable proposals by a clergyman to a communicant in his own church. Bowen did not know whether it was true or false when he went to the interview. When he gets there he hands Mr. Beecher the letter ; Mr. Beecher opens it, reads it, aud thrusts it into his pocket. Now observe. Bowen had no interest in the matter. How did it concern him ? Be has delivered the letter and the old dominie put it in Lis pocket. He has no end to gain ; he has no doubt about dismissing this man ; he told him on Monday he Wi.s going to dismiss him ; he doesn't want to know any tiling more of mischief against Theodore Tilton ; he lias heard enough already, and knows him to be a scoundrel, and he is going to act upon ir. And yet Bowen teUs you that after that letter was put iu Mr. Beecher's pocket, he says to Mr. Beecher : " Whttt about that letter ? " " That letter ? Why, Tilton is crazy." That settles the question with Bowen. " This '..i one of Tilton-s lies ; there is no truth in it." If this m;!ii were guiltjs such a message as that would startle hi in a od blast his very eyeballs, as they read it ; but he is as tool, as calm, as indifferent as if it had been a message from a maniac in a mad-house ; and the only commentary he to make is, " Why, the man iG crazy." Well- why didn'S Bowen go away ? His errand was accomplished ; he car- ried the letter, he delivered it, and got his answer. Way didn't he go? He forgets ; his memory is treacherous. Somehow or other he stays, and somehow or other, as he admits, he gets to talking about Theodore Tilton. Somehow or other he does tell Mv. Beecher that since he dismissed him from the editorship, and has retained him only as contributcT", he keeps getting from all quarters, admonitions agai^jst his retaining him even in connection with The Brooldija Union and the correspondence of The Independent. Wudt then ] Now he has certainly got through with his erraur.. Why doesn't he go % He doesn't. He stays. He thinks iJ< did not ask any questions, but he does remember theie was talk, and what the talk was he doesn't remember, ex- cept that the talk was by xMr. Beecher and about Theo- dore Tilton, and that that talk related to Tilton'a iui- moralities, and that something was said about those im- moralities in connection with a person in his own house. Now, gentlemen, you have the accoimt of each. Which is most probable, Bowen's version of it or the ver* sion of Mr. Beecher, so far as they differ ? It is true that Bowen was in the habit of having frequent meetings with Deacon Freeland on business ; but we find, when we come to call Deacon Freeland to the stand, that there never was but one meeting between Henry Ward Beecher and Hem-y C. Bowen at his house, and that in the begiu* Ing of the year of which this was the end. Which will SDMMIJ^G UF BT ME. POBTEB, 595 yo i T^elleve, Bowen, or Beeclier and Freeland ? Am I right at)out tlie circumstance? Frank Moulton made a memorandum that afternoon at 3:45 p.m.: "T. T. com- mimicated to me 4116 fact ttiat lie liad just sent to Henrr Ward Beeclier, by Henry C. Bowen, a demand that be quit the City of Brooklyn." Bowen is mistaken about his sending his son at 2 o'clock to make an appointment that afternoon with Deacon Freeland for a meeting with Beecher. At 15 minutes before 4 o'clock Theodore Tilton got to Frank Moulton's, and Frank Moulton made this note, feeling the importance of the occasion; and Bowen himself admits that the last thing done at that interview was to deliver this very note to him for transmission to Mr. Beecher. Which is right ? Connect this with the subse- quent report of Eggleston, and you will see that, even if Hen ry C. Bowen had had the courage to make an issue with Henry Ward Beecher, it would have been an issue which would have cut him down, but he dodged it. Not go when it comes to the others. In regard to Tilton, there is no dodging the issue. Tilton had sworn before you, again and again, and on this very trial, that on the 26th of December, 1870, he sat secure in his own position, connected with The Independent and with The Brooklyn Union, and with a salary of $15,000 a year ; that he had nothing to tempt him into a contro- vej sy with Bowen, nothing to tempt him into a warfare with Mr. Beecher, nothing to tempt him to get up an ac- cusation which would enable him in such a warfare to bring Beecher over to his side and to use him as against Bowen. ^ THE FATEFUL ACT OF SENDING THE LETTER. But Henry C. Bowen is made, in the hands of Fiovidence, the unwilling means it may be, but still the etiTCtual means, of strildni>- out the corner-stone from Ijeueath this conspiracy. And you are enabled to see, first, that the man who so swore is a perjured liar ; and, se:-cnd (which is moie important), that on that secular Christmas Day of 1870, Theodore Tilton had received right in the forehead a blow which put him to his best eucleavors to save not only his fortune but his reputation and his all. He had been warned by one that day (who, if w e can trust his own description, was " as cunnin;u% as releatless, as remorseless as an Indian") that he was to fall as he did before the year went out. Now., we can understand, gentlemen, why it was that Frank Moulton and Theodore Tilton were as close to- gether as two interlocked snakes through that week. Now we can understand why it was that Henry Ward Beecher was the subject of these unexpected and perhaps unwelcome attentions fi'om Bowen on the one hand and Mescis. Tilton and Moulton on the other. An event, in which he had no concern, had made him a person of great I Itt :-*:"wr> in the estimation of both these parties. Bowen says' lie went to Beecher, and he admits that he told Mr. Beecher he was his friend. Mr. Beecher be- lieved it, as he believed it when Frank Moulton told him that he was his friend. Now, bear in mind, gentlemen, that this was a warfare in which Theodore Tilton, who shows scruple nowhere else, would be little likely to be scrupulous. He was not scrupulous ; and you have noticed one thing in the reading of this correspondence, as well as in the side revelations of this cause, that whenever Theodore Tilton was in trouble there was a little woman under his roof who was in deeper trouble. Was he reproached abroad for in- fidelity to the marriage vow % He came home sad and sorrowful, and she saw in his face the visage of the Redeemer bearing the burden of her sins, not his. Does Hem-y C. Bowen turn upon him and say, " The time has come when you must fall, but for this week the ax shall be suspended V The poor little woman in Liv- ingston-st. is the one who is held responsible, even for tliat. Is there a controversy between him and Mrs. Beecher at an earlier period, when she believes him to be treacherous to her husband, as treacherous to all else, the poor little woman in Livingston-st. takes the blame, and is permitted no longer to enter the house whose threshold he cannot cross. We find, too, that week, that Moulton, the restless intriguant, the born diplomatist, who believes that the highest diplomacy is the highest culture of the art of lying and deceit, he is busy. Plenty of occupation now. And these men gather together and form a plan of that campaign, which is to result either in the destruction of Henry C. Bowen or in the downfall of Theodore Tilton. That was the controversy then. As to Mr. Beecher, he was regarded merely as an important neutral, who should be turned into an armed auxiliary, and w^ho would be the auxiliarj^ of the one if he was not allied with the other. But the fight was betweeu Tilton and Bowen. Field Marshal Moulton is in chfj^rge of the campaign. "Theodore, you need allies." "What ally?" "You sent a note to Henry Ward Beecher ; Henry C. Bowen was cunning. You signed it. He didn't. Suppose he delivers his note and makes peace with the man to whom he de- livers it, and leaves you to prove your case. What then ?" " I have no case. If Bowen abandons me I have given to Mr. Beecher the power to ruin me. That peremptory demand, published in The Brooklyn Eaple or read at a Friday night lecture-room, that insolent de- mand to Henry Ward Beecher would blast me forever." " Something must be done, Theodore ; something shall be done." " Well, what can it be ? If Bowen fails me, if he doesn't furnish the proof that there was some good cause for my charges, I am destroyed." "Have you no charge of your own, Theodore." [A pause.] "There was an old letter my wife wrote me some years ago, tellina: me that one night when Mr. Eeecherwas at my house, as he was going away 596 THE TILTON-Bl lie said, 'What a pretty house this is 1 I ^slillived here.' I told her when I came home that man meant something by that. She denied it. But I have never been satisfied about it, and I believe, to this day, that he meant an improper approach, an overture to her of inde- cent communion with him." " That is it. Where is Eliza- beth?" "Sick." "None the worse." Now, I do nol; go into details ; I don't know what they were ; you don't. But we both know results. We know that here was a necessity of silencing Mr. Beecher ; here was a necessity ascertained, even Tilton admits, the next day, for he says then Bowen threatened to cashier him. There was a ne- cessity that something should be done that should turn Mr, Beecher against Bowen, something that should bring Mr. Beecher to the right hand of Tilton, and enable him to cooperate with Moulton in reinstating Tilton in The In- dependent, or providing for him otherwise. What happened ? Now, I do not want, at this moment, to go on with the testimony in this immediate connection. I would rather call your attention to a little document some distance re- moved from this, which Theodore Tilton got up with the aid of his friend Carpenter, in the name of Elizabeth R. Tilton, and in her handwriting, on the 16th of December, 1872, to be shown to the Rev. Doctor Storrs with a view to the action of a Congregational Council. Let us get Tilton's own version of what was the probable subject of these interviews that week at Mrs. Til- ton's house. The document begins in this wise, or rather contains this sentence. After allusion to the alleged communication to her husband of the fact in July, 1870, that Mr. Beecher had solicited her to be a wife to him, together with all that this implies, comes this striktag fact— here you have Theodore Tilton's ver- sion of the matter six montns afterward ; that, you ob- serve, is in December, 1870—" My husband felt impelled \)j the cii-cum stances of a conspiracy against him, in which Mrs. Beecher had taken part, to have an interview with Mr. Beecher." Ho wis this? There was then in this last week of 1870, between Christmas and New- Year's Day, a conspiracy against Theodore Tilton in which Mr. and Mrs. Beecher were actors, in which Mr. Tilton was to be a sufferer. What was that conspiracy that this woman was made to believe in, and to cei-tify to? Why, it was to have him turned out of The Independent and The Brooklyn Union. Mr. and Mrs. Beecher had been the advisers of Bowen. Bowen himself admits that he was referred by Mr. Beecher to his wife, and that he saw her, and there learned the contents of the letters written by Mrs. Tilton to Mrs. Beecher, or Mr. Beecher, from the West. That was the conspiracy. Then you perceive that the instru- mentality that they employed was the threat of Bowen, the advice of Mr. Boecher, the information from Mrs. Beecher, to convince this little woman that there was a purpose on the part of Bowen and Beecher and Mrs. ECREB TRIAL. Beecher to destroy him and her, and that, for the pur« pose of his and her defense, it was needful to have some charge against Mr. Beecher which should paralyze his arm and convert him from an enemy into a friend. And that is the full, the clear, the sufficient explanation of the letter which he extorted from her on the night of the 29th of December, and which was made t]:e occasion of the interview of the following day. Without going further into detail, gentlemen, I am content to submit to your iudgment whether it is not perfectly apparent that Theodore Tilton, on the Monday of that week, felt that his destruction was imminent, that it was to come at the hands of Bowen, that Bowen had entrapped him into making a charge against Mr. Beecher, under the false promise that he would sustain him in the charge and furnish the proof, and had then taken that charge to Mr. Beecher, and made it the occasion of putting him, Tilton, in the power of Mr. Beecher, so that he could destroy him, even if Bowen did not. He felt that that letter written to Mr. Beecher was a letter of destruction to him, unless he had some means of reclaiming it from Mr. Bowen's hands and putting Mr. Beecher himself in terror for his own reputation. Now, let us look at the acts of the parties. If Mr. Beecher were guilty when he received that letter of the 26th, you know what he would have done. He might not have left Plymouth Church ; Le might not have left the City of Brooklyn. But, if he did not, the first thing he would have done would be either to write or appeal orally to Theodore Tilton. THE WALK TO MR. MOULTON'S. My friend Judge Morris says that Heniy Ward Beecher is a coward when he is in the wrong. All men are. Why was this man calm, fearless— fearless though threatened by a relentless enemy ; fearless though the message was borne by an enemy almost equally re- lentless? Why was he fearless? He goes on with his duties of the week. He seeks neither Mr. nor Mrs. Theo- dore Tilton. The Friday night comes, and he meets the congregation that as'sembled there to join him in wor- ship. Every duty of the week is discharged as usual. No, not discharged, for on his way to that place of wor- ship, or just as he was leaving for it— enter Frank Monl- ton ! He, too, had found his way to Columbia Higbts, and for the first time in his life, in the storm of that Win- ter night, Frank Moulton crosses the threshold of the pastor of Plymouth Church to say to him: "You cannot go to your accustomed meeting; you must come with me, for Mr. Tilton desires to see you." "What is it about?" "He wiU teU you." They walk down together, and then occurs that dialogue.. "Bowen is a very treacherous man, very treacherous to you, Mr. Beecher, very treacherous to Theodore. Bowen can not be trusted." "What does Theodore want of me?" "He will tell you when you get there." "How it snows to-night." " Bowen is a very treacherous man " SUMMWG UP I "Cutting wind this," says Mr. Beeclier. "Did it ever oeciir to you, Mr. Beeclier, wliat a treaetierotis man ^Henry C. Bowen is 1" " Almost there. It snows very hard to-night." " Mr. Beecher, what a treacherous man Henry C. Bowen is." Now, gentlemen, isn't it just as ^a]pable as if it had been put in that hold and naked iorm that on that night Frank Moulton took Henry Ward jBeecher down to Theodore Tilton, and carried him after- ;ward up into that room with a view, not to Beeclier's de- stmction, hut with a- view to the destruction of Henry C. Bowen, or to the reinstatement of Theodore Tilton in the throne from which he was to he cast down ? That was the case. You do not expect in midnight arrangements like those that we can show you just what were the particular means these men used, and the particular purposes they had in view in this, that, or the other arrangement. But we know that they made all work together like the machinery of a watch till it should produce the one result, and they brought that machinery to hear so that Henry Ward Beecher from that time for the next three years was as completely under their control as the hour hand of the watch is under the coutrol of the mauufactiu-er who put together the ma- chinery that made it. They were practicing upon a true hut simple-hearted man. They were practicing upon one accustomed to tonfide in his fellow men. They were practicing upon one sensitive to every thought of dishonor, one full of generosity, o*ie who, in another line of life, like Mrs. Tilton, was always ready to take reproach upon himself, always ready to give health, and strength, and vigor, and hope, and prosperity to another. Let us look for a moment hack to that night of the 29th when this woman is made to give a letter to Theodore Tilton, which shall enable him to procure an interview -with Henry Ward Beecher. Now, the fljst thing that wHl -arrest your attention is this. How does it happen that a husband who has been dishonored, finds it nece3sary to resort to this strategem in order to get an intervliew with the man who has dishonored him 1 Why had he any- thing to do except simply to write to Mr. Beecher if Mr. Beecher were gviilty : "Sir, your criminal relation with my wife has come to my knowledge. Action must be taken, and at once. I will see you here at 8 o'clock this evening. If you need any asr.u-ance of youi- personal safety, I give it to you ; but it is necessary for your sake and for mine that we should have a few words together." Would not that have brought him 1 Yes, if he were guilty, but not if he were innocent. Suppose he had written, " Henry C. Bowen charges you with preaching to forty mistresses in Plymouth Church. He told it to me confidentially fifteen years ago, and has repeated it a hundi^ed times since, in as many confidential conversations. He told me so while you were his chief editor and his dependence. He "Was charging you with adultery when, if the rhargc waa believed, it destroyed him and his Y ME. POETEE. o'97 paper. He charged you with adultery at the time when you were a favored inmate of his own family. He charged you with adultery when you pronounced the funeral sermon over the remains of hii? dead wife. He pronounced you an adulterer when you were baptizing child after child ia the name of the Father and the 8on and the Holy Spirit. Come and see me." Do you think Mr. Beecher would have come ? There was but one person on earth who could write that which would bring Henry Ward Beecher to an interview with the man who had sent him that daring and insolent message on the 26th of December, calling upon him to quit his church, his chosen city, and his country. Who was that 1 Ah ! that poor unfortunate woman. And how easy it was to convince her that there had been a con- spiracy. "Yesterday, my wife, I had $15,000 a year, which was sufficient to provide for us, and at least for our legitimate child ; to-day I am told that that is gone, and whom do you think it is gone through 1 Henry Ward Beecher ! The same man who but ten days ago, with the aid of his wife, advised you to separate from me and re- main with your mother ; that is the man who has now turned upon me; that is the man who has deprived me of my liveUhood and my hopes. I fear I am in his power unless I can have an interview with him. Unless I can have an inter%i.ew with him— zt-'i^A him, all is gone. How shall I get it ?" Why, she knew Mr. Beecher a great deal better than he did. " Just simply send word to him that you want to see him, and he will come. You don't need any letter from me." " Oh, no ; but I must have something to threaten him with." " No threat would bring Henry Ward Beecher. Just send word you want to see him, and he will come." And you remember, gentlemen, that it turned out so. He did come. Though we got this letter for him, and supposed that this man would not come to see the person who had offered him that indignity, Moulton, who had it in his pocket, never had occasion to use it. A message with a threat that night would have prevented him from coming. I don't know that it would if it had come in the form of so cruel a threat as an unjust accusation by this poor woman. They thought they needed it. It is so certified in the paper TUton took to Dr. Storrs, in- the handwriting of hia wife, and which he pretends was manipulated by Car- penter instead of himself. Well, they got it. How ? Bessie Turner teUs you. lilrs. Mitchell, the nurse, tells you. They tell you of the consultations that occurred be- fore it was obtained; they tell you of the close-drawn curtains around that bed ; of the doctor's precautions with a view to her singular weakness and debility ; of the nurse's own fears on the 29th that she might not sur- vive even until the following day. Moulton is there ; Tilton is there ; the nurse is turned out ; Moulton goes away so that he shan't be a witness of what transpirea ; Tilton goes in and the letter is obtained, and a consulta- 598 TRE T1JjT0N-Bj tion occurs the next morning between him and Moulton. At night — night — night, just about the hour when the prayer-meeting is convened, Moulton goes to Mr. Beecher, and he is taken down for the purpose ot this Interview. I do not propose to deal with that interview, gentlemen. That falls within the province of my learned friend, the senior counsel. PRESUMPTION IN FAVOR OF INNOCENCE. But I do propose to make one or two sug- gestions bearing upon another point, that grows out of what I have already said. Gentlemen, if there were a shadow of truth in this story, do you believe that Henry Ward Beeeher, when he was consulted as to a separation between Theodore TUton and his wife, would have sent that wife to his wife to tell her story 1 Now, that is a question that is addressed to your intelligence and sagac- ity. Is it in accordance with the ordinary course of hu- man affairs? Are you ready to believe it? Innocent, nothing more natural. Guilty, it is utterly, absolutely in- credible. Another question. If it were true, as a matter of fact, that on the 3d of July Mrs. Tilton came down from the country as a volunteer to confess to an unsus- pecting husband that she had been guilty of adultery, and with her pastor, do you believe that Theodore Tilton and she would have slept together that night, the next night, the next night, the next week, the next month, the next six months, the next twelve months, the next four years. Again; if, on the night of the 3d of July she had come and told such a story of her pastor, do you believe, when he afterward was in her house in the month of August, when she was sick, and by her request they had a private interview together in her hed-chamher, if he and she were guilty, and she had confessed her guilt and been his accuser, to a man of the vindictive malice, of the ter- rible power of hate of Theodore Tilton, that she would not have given him one solitary word of warning ? Do you believe that for six mouths after that she would have permitted her husband and him to meet in the streets of the City of New York— nay, at his own house, which Mr. Beecher might at any moment have incautiously entered, and without knowledge that this man held in his hand the power of life and death over him? One more question, out of order of time, and yet within the range of topics! If it were true that she was a confessed adulteress, and that he would live with her for four years, writing and receiving letters like those which have been read in your hearing— if this were true, and the time came when they were finally to separate, to whom would you look for the sepa- ration ? Would you expect the injured husband to drive forth the wife, or would you expect the criminal wife to leave the innocent husband ?— leave him, not to join the paramour ; leave him to live alone ; leave him to depend upon the charity of those who owe her nothing ; ECHJEJE TEIAL, leave the man to whom she should look for support, and trust herself to strangers ? Here it is toe guilty wife that turns her back upon the ionocent husband and will not return ; the guilty that won't forgive the innocent ! Again; there is another of these questions which arises out of the incidents of this case, and has a pe- culiar significance. We have all known something, seen something, heard something, and read something of the history of our feUow-men in ancient and In later days. Where, until Theodore Tilton set the example, is the ui- stance to De found in the whole world's history of a hus- band who had forgiven his adulterous wife, who had had children by her, who professed to love her, taking from her a certificate in writing that she was a prostitute? Mark you, gentlemen, this man never did ; but he swears that he did ; and it is because I wish to expose the false- hood of his oath that I ask you the question. He did take from her a false certificate not reflecting upon her- self, but accustag another. He took from her a false cer- tificate that Henry Ward Beecher had made to lier ind-cent proposals. But he tells you that, though he had forgiven her, thou.gh he had pledged himself never to injure the man who had wronged him, though the world did not know of his guilt or of hers, though even the adulterer did not toow of his exposure, yet he, wiio needed no further assurance of his own dishonor, cnlled upon his wife to wilte a certificate for Frank Moulton, that she had been prostituted and debauched ! It is ut- terly incredible. The man has done mean things, and base things, but that was so mean and so base that he would have revolted from the attempt. But he did get a certificate of another kind— that was a letter. It was a letter addressed to him ; it was a letter, not of confes- sion, but of accusation. It was a letter accusing Mr. Beecher of having made indecent proposals to her. Now, have we proof of that? In the first place, gentlemen, xre have the most explicit and conclusive evidence of it in the fact that that document, important as it was, was the subject, the night after it was writ- ten, of a most memorable conversation between Theodore Tilton and Henry Ward Beecher, of which both have given full and minute description at different times, on different occasions, to different parties, and la entire harmony— both agreeing that that document was nor a confession of adultery, both agreeing that it was a charge of improper solicitations. Mr. Beecher gave it to you on this stand, in all minute particulars. Theodore TUton, in December, 1872, according to his own confession, and with the aid of his own notes made at the time, and the phonographic notes of the conversations cotemporaneous with it, gave a written statement, which was not con- firmed by Mr. Beecher, was not accepted by Mr. Beecher, which when read to Mi\ Beecher aroused his indignation because of its perpetuating that indecent charge of inr decent proposals. Now, gentlemen, the same man who then wrote a state-^ nient of vrliat was in the paper tLat slie j-igiied on tlie night of the 29th, swears now that that statement was a ' cciifession of adultery. That night, he said in that state- i ment— he said the language of the paper was : " Mr. j H. W. Beecher, my friend and pastor, solicited me to he a j ■wile to him, together with all that this implies and he j says that statement, when made to him on the night of j the 30th, ]Mr. Beecher repelled with a royal negative, j But, gentlemen, we have hetter evidence than that of what was in that paper. Whatever the paper was, the original was in Frank Moulton's pocket. The copy was in the hands of Theodore Tilton, and he pretends he destroyed the cop3' that night. Ah, but lie did not destroy the inefiaceahle memory in the mind of Henry Ward Beecher of the contents of that paper. He said, " Mr. Beecher, if you distrust it, n.y house is but a few squares off; go down, ask Elizabeth, and she will confirm it." MES. TILTON'S EETEACTIOX. He went. He asked. Slie coufirmed the fact that she had made the statement. She admitted its falsity. She recognized his appeal to her, and recalled the falsehood ; she traced with her own hand in writing the revocation of what she had written, and in that revo- cation, made by her, the ivrifer of the paper, made to Mr. Beecher, the person charged in it, she recites the charge, and recites it as a charge of improper solicitation : Wearied with importunity, and weakened by sickness, I gave a letter inculpatins: my friend, Hemy Ward Beecher, under assurances that that would remove all difficulties between me and my husband. Pointing, as you perceive, gentlemen, to the same con- spiracy alluded to in the subsequent letter to Storrs. That letter I now revoke. I was persuaded to it, almost forced, when I was in a weakened state of mind. I re- gret it, and recall all its statements. E. E. Tilton. Then, feeling that she had not made it sufficiently, and iiankly, and explicitly, but only in generalities : I desire to say explicitly, Mr. Beecher has never offered any improper solicitations, but has alwa\-s treated me in a way becoming a Christian and a gentleman. Now, gentlemen, that paper, whatever it was, was con- fessedly in existence all through 1871. Whatever it was, it was confessedly in existence duilng a large part of 1872. It was the only paper on the face of the earth that charged Henry Ward Beecher with adultery. If The charge was anywhere, it was there. There was the man who sought to fix upon him adultery. There was the man who was, throagh 1871, insinuating to his coulideiitial friends, and to those whom he supposed to be the ene- mies of Mr. Beecher, that he had committed adultery. Tliere was the man who hirted and would like to desti-oy him. There was the man who threatened the exposure of the " Apology," who threatened him with the exposure of his own letter— not to his face, but to others. And yet to no man on the face of the earth did he ever show a paper signed E. R. Tiiton, charging Henry Ward I Jii?. FOEIEB. 599 Beecher with adiutery. liloulton, \rho has not hc-itated' to say that he would take Henry Ward Eeecher's life, if he could do it with the concurrenceEof a single person — Mouiton, who has sworn in the spirit of a fiend — Moulton does not pretend that he ever saw in any paper, any- where, a statement by Elizabeth E. Tilton, that Henry Ward Beecher had committed adultery with her. Tilton tells you that that paper was in Moulton's keeping. If it was in his keeping, do you believe he did not read it ] Do you Delieve that if he did read it, he forgot it ? The paper, he says, is destroyed. When destroyed t After the $7,000 was obtained from Bowen— not- before. Was that important paper destroyed with- out even keeping a copy of it ? And if a copy was ever taken, where is that copy? Even Tilton does not undertake to swear to you what that paper contained, except by implication and characterization. He calls it a confession. Moulton calls it a confession, or rather they make Islx. Beecher call it a confession. A confession of what i Where is the paper ? Where are your short- hand notes of iti The man who, when 3Ioulton came in fi'om a visit to Henr:\- Ward Beecher, proceeds at once to enter the conversation in shorthand for future use — did that man neglect to take a copy of the most important paper that ever was written in connection with this con- troversy] And Frank Moulton, you remember, stated that :Mr. Beecher was fool enough to think after the " Tripartite Agreement" and the contemplated btuning of the papers, that that " Apology" was burned^ "I was no such fool." he says, "as to biu-n that paper. If I btirned it, Beecher might turn upon Tilton and rend him." But the same man, who was not such a I'ool as to btu'n the Apology, tells you that he wa- such a fool as to burn the- confession — the confession made by one of the actors in it. Gentlemen, there never was such a confession — never. That paper was an accusation. It was for a pur- pose ; it was thought by them that they could get Mr. Beecher to an interview witliottt the use of that paper. He came readily, cheerfully. He met Theodore Tiiton.. Tilton amazed him with his accusation. He denied it^ Tilton referred him to the wife. He went down. He- found her condition. He made his appeal to her. She said, " I accused you. The accusation is false. I recaE it." He left her. The next day he was told that the- woman who had made the false acctisation, and who had retracted it, had recanted it, and that was his condition, on that memorable 1st of January. 1S71. Well, on thatr day— I will pass over aU intermediate — on that day what is the condition ? THE PEOCUEIXG OF THE APOLOGY. Xot stopping to refer in detail to the conver- sations of the 30th or of the 31st, we come at once to the occasions when Moulton tells us the Apology was writ- ten ; and tinder what circttmstances was that written I I 600 THE T1LT02^-B -will only allude to that now in brief, and tor the purpose of introduction to another conversation. Tilton had as- sured Beecher in that interview on the night of the 30th of Decemher that Mrs. Tilton's affections had heen alien- ated from himself,- and had heen centered in him, her pastor, as the central and supreme t)eing. This to JBeecher was a great surprise. He was charged with hav- ing interfered in Tilton's family affairs, and advised this very wife, whose affections were so alienated, to leave her husl)and forever. That was true. He was told that he and his wife had made charges aerainst the moral character of Mr. Tilton that were hase and wanton fabrications. He didn't know but that was true. He was told more. "My wife charges you with soliciting her to personal dishonor." That he knew was true ; but then came the challenge, and then, to his utter astonishment, came the conference of the 30th. On the Slst, after that retraction has been obtained, Moulton comes to him and demands that the retraction be returned. " Why should I return it ?" " It was a mean thing." " Why mean to vindicate my honor from a false accusation." That paper does more. That paper intimates that Theodore Tilton coerced his wife into making an accusation, and on looking at the paper it turns out to be true. She then stated it. " Wearied with importunity," and almost forced, she had been led to makethe retraction. " But that is not all, Mr. Beecher. What good does that do 1" " Why, it, at least, is to vin- dicate me and my memory. If I die, from the assaults that may be made upon it— due to myself and to my own honor— due to the honor of my family that it should be preserved." " But, Mr. Beecher, of what value is that paper to you? The same woman can renew it again to- morrow. Besides, you don't know Theodore Tilton. He has a great many good pointS; and a great many weak ones ; his temper is ungovernable, but you appeal to his magnanimity, to his generosity and good feeling, and he is one of the best fellows in the world. I know him from boyhood. All you have to do is to meet him in a spirit of frankness, and do what he wants, and you will find that he will not only not pursue this con- troversy with you, but he will be the best friend you have on earth. He hates Bowen, but he really loves you. What you have to do is to make peace in this matter." Next day he comes to him, and that is the occasion of the apology, and talks the matter over. There are only one or two features about that that I want to call your attention to : that on that occasion Moulton devotes him- self to establish to the satisfaction of Beecher, first, the entire and absolute innocence of Theodore Tilton. "Why," says Moulton, "you know how treacherous Bowen is. These stories started with Bowen. There has been something to confirm Mm, but that grows out of that mad woman, Tilton's mother-in-law. Why, Beecher, you know what Mrs. Morse is. There is where this trouble originated. She, no doubt, really believes Tilton WECEEB TEIAL. to be one of the worst men in th 3 world. If you were to credit her stories, you would believe he was the veriest adulterer that roamed the fi-ee pastures of Brooklyn. But there is nothing in it. Then, as to Bessie Turner. Why, Bessie Turner is his adopted child. Theodore loves feer, and he would no more think of wronging her than you would of wronging your daughter, Harriet Leo- ville. As to Bessie, undoubtedly there were those little fondling carresses, which she would never have thought anything more of than any daughter, any school girl, except for Mrs. Morse ; but Mrs. Morse put it into her head that it was Tilton'a purpose to destroy her, body and soul. There is nothing in it." " Well, but, Moulton, Mrs. Tilton herself talks about Theodore. She told Mrs. Beecher so and so ; she told me so and so about him and his irregularities." " Why," says Moulton, " there is nothing in that. Don't you know women like Elizabeth Tilton ? Have you not seen enough of them to understand them ? She is sick ; she is fanciful ; she is easily influenced by her mother ; she is nervous ; she is half the time in the family way ; she has trouble with Theodore ; she has trouble with her own childi-en, and the whole of It is that the poor woman doesn't know which end he stands on half the time. Why, her mother comes and makes her believe anything. Then Theodore comes, and he makes her believe anything. The woman means no harm, but the truth about it is, Beecher, she is perfectly crazy about vou." "Why, I never saw any evidence of that." " Why, Beecher, she loves your little finger better than she does the whole body of Theodore Tilton. And you see, this woman, whose stories about Theodore you credit, is just as ready to charge you, yourself, with an act of personal dishonor. You go to her and she retracts that ; then Tilton goes to her, and she retracts the recantation. You see the ground has all slipped from under you." "Well," says Beecher, " I had no suspicion of this. I believed what I heard,, and repeated it to Bowen. I tola him what Mrs. Tilton told my wife, and what Bessie Turner told me, and I told him this man was so tainted he really ought not to be connected with this paper. Well, you see just where it is. You slandered Theodore. You have done him a great wrong. You have got Mm turned out of The Independent. Formal notice came la«i night. Here is a man who was in the receipt of $15,000 a year from those two papers, and he is tm-ned out, and by your slanders ; when, if vou had iust come and asked him, he would have explained the whole thins,' to you, or if you had come and asked me. or any friend of Theodore's ; and then you turn on him, and, yielding credit to two gossiping women, you have desti-oyed Theo- dore ; you have destroyed his reputation ; you have destroyed Elizabeth ; they have an unhappy home; you have been the means of breaking them up, and now what you have got to do is to join hands with me, and in some way or other must fully reinstate Mm." Now, it SrJJMIXa UF BY ME. POBTUE. 001 wr<5 in just that condition fhat Mr. r* ^-elier finds liimself entering on tlie year 1871. Is tMs true 1 Now as to that Bessie Tiu-ner matter I can very readily understand ; I don't kuow anything ahout the girl; the story was prob- able enough, but very likely that is the true origin of it. it may very well be that Mrs. Morse turned the story into the girl s head, that she means mure than she did. " Mrs. Tilton— in view of her charge against me, it is perfectly evident she is broken down ; she is crazy ; Ifhere is some- thing wrong about it. I ought to have been on my guard about it. If it is that I have really been the occasion of breaking up his family ; if I have slandered Theodore Tilton, who was for so many years my friend ; if I have brought discord into the house of one of my own congre- gation; if I have permitted this poor, broken-hearted woman to fasten her affections upon me to her own de- struction, and the destruction of her household, and my own peril, what have I to do by way of reparation V Now, gentlemen, these are things not to be talked about. We feel, we know how it would have affected even us, and we are hard men of the world, accustomed to battle with life, to look things in the face, not treated as clergymen are, who are flattered by women and praised by men ; who are ad- mired and loved ; who are sm-rounded by friends, and whose enemies are kept at bay ; who are unused to the warfare of life, and who, when trouble comes, are so per- fectly unprepared for it, unless it be that order of war- fare for which they are better prepared than we. When these things happea, what should we expect of them 1 Now, let such a complication of affairs surround a man in our profession, of matiire years, accustomed to affairs, fearless, self-reliant, resolute, ready for peace but equally ready for war, calm, self-possessed. What then? Sup- pose any such attempt were made upon a man like my friend, Mr. Beach, you could see that eye of his flashing with the fire that would not be content until it was seconded with a blow. But just look around this audience and say whether you cannot see, even from where you sit, men of the world- men of character 1 You would be exceedingly discon- certed. You would feel that this was a serious matter. T^Tiat shaU I do 1 Whom shaU I talk with? My wife? What ! Talk to my wife about being charged with dis- honoring another man in his marital relations ! No, no. My friend 1 What I Call upon him. teU him that I oc- cupy the ignominious position of being accused by a wo- man, and a respectable woman at that ! It is very easy, gentlemen, for us to see now what we would have done. It is not quite so easy to know what we would Have done. But it is difficult to see, not vmat we would have done, but what any other man would have done. There are twelve of you. One woidd go one way; another, another; perhaps no two alike even among you twelve. How would Henry Ward Beecher act ? Well, if we had in oui- midst about 12,000 Htnry Ward Beechers, we should have the means of judg- hx^, because we could judge by the way one acted of how the others would ; but we have no more 12,000 Henry Ward Beechers among us than we have 12,000 Theodore Tiltons among us. [Laughter.] They are men greatly Tmlike, as opposite as the poles, but they are men, each of them, who have few parallels, and you cannot say with absolute certainty that because you know how Gen. Tracy would do, or how Mr. Shearman or :\tr. Howard would do in such circumstances, you are not sure that Beecher or Tilton would have acted in precisely the same way with either of those gentlemen. And yet it seems that there is some sort of Procrustean bed which every Beecher must be made to fit, and Theodore Tilton fixes the dimensions of the bed. Whatever Theodore Til- ton would have done under those cii'cumstances, unless Beecher did it, Beecher is guilty. Well, gentlemen, what did he do ? That is the first thing. Did he write any- thing ? Yes, he wrote something ; not much— not much. All that he wrote that day was, not those three sheets- Frank Mouiton wrote them. The only lines Henry Ward Beecher wrote, so far as we know, on the 1st of January, 1871, are these : " I have intrusted this to Mouiton in confidence. H. W. Beecher." That is the record of that day. Does that mean, " I, Henry Ward Beecher, debauched Theodore Tilton's wife ?" It don't say so, does it 1 Now, the man who took that paper, and cherished it, kept it in his tin box, secured it in his safe, carried it along in his pocket, showed it here, there, and everywhere, had it photographed, used it as a weapon, used it for the desti'uction of Tilton's enemy — that man had something much better than those two lines. If Theodore Tilton tells the truth, all he had to do was to feel in that pocket and take out a paper signed by one of the most respecta- ble women in Brooklyn : " Henry Ward Beecher com- mitted adultery with me on the 10th and 17th of October, 1868, and was in adulterous intercourse with me from that time during the period of 16 or IS months;" and yet they would have you believe that, having evidence like that, they needed this, and having no evidence but this, they burned that ! * A CORRECTION OF THE RECORD. Mr. Beach— It is about 1 o'clock, and 1 want to di'aw attention to a certain matter. If your Honor please, in the report of the argument made by Mr. Porter on yesterday, it appears in his commentaries upon the letter of the 31st of February Mr, Porter— That must be wrong. On the 31st of January, 1868. It is the letter which commences, " My dear husband, I have just returned fi'om Mattie's and saw your bust," &c. My friend Por- ter comments upon running and interrupted Q.uotation3 Se£ page 578. 602 TRE TILTON-B from tliat letter, and tMs paragraph appears in the re- port of The Tribune : And she, appealing to that earlier image, to that purer man which she, in her woman's simplicity, descrihes as *' yom' former loveliness," says : " Though I, by my indiflference and coldness, and re- buMng of your sins, have brought you to abandon the Savior whom we loved, to go after strange gods and strange women, yet I can accept that destiny, even with- out the fori,iveness of God, if it will only restore you, my beloved husband, the husband of my youth, if it will re- store you to your former loveliness, and reconcile you to that Being who is the God of your children and mine, and to Whom we must look for mercy, for forgiveness, for salvation." That appears in the report, Sir ; and I think is properly by the publisher put in the report as a quotation, be- cause my friend thea follows in apparent quotation with the language : " Then again, returning to that spirit at which the world scoffs," and correctly quotes from the letter. It was an inadvertence. Sir, into which my learned friend fell. There are no such expressions in the letter such as are here assumed to be given ; and it was imdoubtedly intended, on the part of my learned friend, as a paraphrase of the sentiments of the letter. T called the attention of Mr. Abbott to the circumstance, and he very kindly referred me to the original letter, and says that the passage should not have been printed as a quota- tion, that it is a mere statement, in substance, of the spirit of the passage, derived from the act of reading por- tions of the letter which had before been made by my friend ; and I make this statement for the purpose of pre- venting such misapprehension in regard to the true lan- guage of the letter. Mr. Porter— I am obliged to my friend for mentioning it, for my eye happened to fall this morning upon an entirely different passage in another paper, in which I found that I was made to impute to Mr. Tilton language which I was using myself ; and also, on another occasion, where language which was really used by the writer of the letter seemed to be my own. But every one under- stands how utterly impossible it is for the reporters to know at what precise point the speaker stops reading and proceeds to talk. I think the jury throughout are able to distinguish ; but my voice being in a condition in which it is even difficult for them to hear, they cannot be at the same time looking up to see when I am reading and when I stop reading. AN ADJOUENMENT TO MONDAY. Mr. Evarts— I have asked my learned friend and associate, Judge Porter, how he feels in regard to strength. The sudden heat, as your Honor will feel, and I hope permit us to feel, is somewhat debilitating, and Mr. Porter does not feel so adequate as to proceeding after recess as to make him wish to proceed, unless your Honor m^ght think it wholly unreasonable on our part to adjourn, it being the last day of the session, until Mon- lEGREB TRIAL. day. How inconvenient that will be to any one else T don't know, but every one has been very obliging on the part of the opposing parties, and your Honor has always been, and the jiu-j^ have rJways been, and we must sub- mit to your Honor in this case. The heat is excessive, and Judge Porter feels that he should like the recess, ii your Honor will give it for those two hours. Mr. Beach — If your Honor please, I have resigned my- self to the fatalitiefe of this case, and wherever it drifts I have to go with it, and must bear all the pernicious con- sequences of its tedious prolongation. I know how difficult it is to speak consecutively for several days, and I realize the fact that this sudden but agreeable change in the weather has made it still more oppressive to do so, and if my learned friend, Mr. Porter, feels the slightest inconvenience from the continuance of his argument, although I deprecate unnecessary prolongation of this trial, I must certainly assent to every desire he may inti- mate in that direction. Judge Neilson— Then, gentlemen of the jury, we will adjourn until Monday morning at 11 o'clock. WHEN THE END MAY BE EXPECTED. Mr. Beacli— I would like, if your Honor please, if it would be convenient to my learned fi'iend, that he should give us some intimation as to the length of time he will occupy. We had an intimation from my friend, Mr. Evarts, and I believe it was submitted to your Honor, that they would probably occupy five de va in tiie summing up of this case. I do not mean to say. Sir, that your Honor ought to exercise your discretionary power in the limit of this debate ; but in consequence of a mis- understanding in regard to your Honor's views, whidi occurred earlier in the commencement of this case, tho arrangements upon our side were so made that the dutj' of submitting the case on the part of the plaintiff has devolved wholly upon me, and it seems to me, therefore, (as I certainly shall not at- tempt to discuss this case to the extent wbich both my learned friends will occupy), that there ought to be some reasonable limitation to the extent of this discussion. I am very sure that I shall not be obliged to trouble your Honor more than a couple of days, and we have already occupied three days— two days and a half, and I think it is due to us that we should have some intimation as to the close of this discussion on the part of my learned friends. I certainly feel that it is a very imequal discussion, with my two distin- guished friends occupying so much time, with their gi-eat ability, as they are to be met only by what little I can say on behalf of the plaintiff". Mr. Evarts — I can assui-e my learned friend that we do not take the same view of our opponent that he is pleased to express, and we certainly have no very gi-eat disposi- tion to congratulate ourselves upon our ability to cope with him. I tlunk, so far as the question now ai'ises, I SVJIMIXG VP 1 ean faiiir promise that tlie t^o iiours tliat are nos^ given by Torir Honor, and -^vitli the concnrrence, I hope, and the inaulgr-Tiee of the jury, vrtll not procrastinate the close of 3Ir. Porter's argument beyond that time, that no additional lenrth of time in his argument vrtll arise from those tvro hours being omitted. I think I can fairly promise that. Beyond that I cannot go. Mr. Beach— Well, that gives us no idea whatever of the length of time which my friends ask for the discussion of this case. Your Honor is very well aware that, by the rules of court applied to ordinary litigations before it. but an hour or two hours in courts in. banqne are asked or permitted a coujisel for the discussion of the most im- portant cases. I have not supposed your Honor would make any arbitrary limitation restraining cotmsel in debate of this case, but it has reached now a position where it seems to me we ought to have some rntimarion, liberal, as to tbe time which is to be occupied on the part 01 the defense. Judge Xeilson— It would be very desirable certainly, and would be, perhaps, convenient to you. I have the impression— I don't know where I got it — that Mr. Evarts might occupy next week, and, for fear that I may have committed a mistake. I wrote to a friend in the country, who was very anxious to hear :Mr. Beach, and stated to him that ]NIr. Beach's time to begin his argument would be the week after next. 3Ir. Evarts— I will add to that, that I refused to make an appointment for the end of next weelc, because it would deprive me of the pleasure of hearing Mr. Beach's response. I have reserved next week. A very important engagement was offered me at Washiugton, which would take me away from this trial. 3Ir. Beach — My friends are very gracious and compli- mentary indeed, but I don't get any satisfaction on the main point. We don't even get the assurance from my learned fri?iids that they will close in the coming week, and I think we are entitled to it. Judge Xeilson— I think I will answer for them that they will close next week. I think I will see that it is done by ^iaturday. Mr. Evarts— Or even Sunday. Judge Xeil-on [^o the Jurors] — Well, gentlemen, we • Trill separate now until ^londay morning, at 11 o'clock. The coui-c tiiei-L-upon uu^oumed until 11 o'eiock Monday. r JZ"i?. POET EE, 603 EICxHTY-mTH DAY'S PROCEEDIXGS. JUDGE POETEE'S AEGUMEXT XEAELT COM- PLETED. JUDGE PORTEE'S OPrS'IOX OF MR. MOULTOX'S RELA- TIOXS TO THE CASE— MR. TIXTO><" DECLARED TO BE THE MASTER AND MR. MOUETOX THE ^ILS'IOX— THE LETTER OF C0XTR1TI02^ ANALYZED— MODES OF EXPRESSION DECLARED TO BE UXLEEE THOSE OF MR. BEECHER— SEVERAL FAMOUS PHRASES ASCREBED TO MR. TTLTOX'S RHETORIC— IVLRS. MOULTON'S TESTIMOXY reviewed — SHE IS DE- CLARED TO HAVE SWORN FALSELY ON ACCOUNT OF HER HUSBAXD— EVIDENCE OF OTHER WIT- NESSES TOUCHED UPON. MoN^DAY, May 24, 1875. Judge Porters address was marked l)y the same ] general characteristics as on the preceding days. He was forcilDle and denunciatory, but at the same time argumentative, and on no occasion has he suc- ceeded better in holding the interest of the audience and the jurors. He is seldom interrupted except by occasional suggestions from ]Mr. Shearman. Once to-day Mr. Shearman caused a laugh by suddenly jumping up, wb en Judge Porter was in the middle of a sentence, catching the orator by the arm, and whispering in his ear. Judge Porter had slips of the printed testimony pasted upon sheets of paper, from which he freciuently read extracts in the •♦urse of his argument. The current of invective in Judge Porter's speech was partially turned from Mr. Tilton to Mr. Moulton to-day. In analyzing the Letter of Contrition the lawyer, in a manner, contrasted the two men. " Tilton,-' he said, '"'is a man of real ability. Iris of the rhetorical order, it is true ; but as a rhetori- cian and a writer Theodore Tilton to-day stands one of the foremost men on this continent. Frank Moulton"— with a contemptuous manner and tone— " he struts in borrowed plumage, and makes the most of it." ]Mr. Tilton, and not ]Mr. Moulton, was de- clared to have been the master from the beginning. An elaborate verbal analysis of the Letter of Contri- tion vras entered into by the orator. The fact that ill the sentence. " I can ask nothing,"' &c., there is a lilotted " t " at the end of the word " can " did not escape the lawyers notice, and he made use of it as an argument against the probability of ^Mr. Beechers having been the author of the letter. "I can't ask nothing" was. he said, an expression which a man trained in lett-ers like ^Ir. Beecher was incapable of making. Tlie argument was that ^Ir. Moulton had 604 TRE TILTON-B written tTie words, and Mr. Tilton liad run his pen tlirougli tlie superiiiioiis "t." In the same careful, scrutinizing way. Judge Porter went tlirough the letter, bsising argu- ments on the most unexpected suggestions. The expressions, " paroxysmal kiss," " nest-hiding," " the brink of a moral Niagara," etc., were analyzed, and declared to be like Mr. Tilton's mode of writing, and not like Mr. Eeecher's. Mr. Beecher did not ex- press himself in that way, said Judge Porter. His sen- tences were full of thought, and not mere sounding rhetorical expressions. There was much fine sarcasm in the manner in which the orator described the at- tempts that, he said, had been made to ascribe the origin of the phrase " nest-hiding" to Mr. Beecher. Speaking of Mr. Beecher's Life of Christ and of Mr. FuUerton's remark about the possibility of Mr. lil- ton's writing the life of Judas Iscariot under certain circumstances. Judge Porter exclaimed, " We might have suggested whether if Frank Moulton had hap- pened to be one of the Twelve, Judas Iscariot would have pocketed those 30 pieces of silver. He spoke with great severity of the alleged pressure brought to bear upon Mrs. Moulton to make her swear falsely. Her story of what she had said to Mr. Beecher in the way of censure of his conduct, and advice as to what he should do. Judge Porter declared to be improbable, and inconsistent with her character. A stir ran through the audience when the orator with intense earnestness exclaimed, " That story would never have fallen from her lips, if God had not visited upon her the calamity of binding her— I hope not beyond this life— to a man like Frank Moulton !" The testimony of Mr. and Mrs. Ovington, of the colored witness Gray, of Jackson S. Schultz, and others, was touched upon. Judge Porter commented in severe terms on Mr. Moulton's alleged threat to ** make it hotter than hell" for a person who should testify against him, ,iad on his expression about shooting Mr. Beecher. Portions of the report of the Investigating Committee were gone over toward the close of the afternoon session. THE PROCEEDmGS— YERBATIM. MR PORTER'S ARGUMENT CONTINUED. The Court met at 11 a. m., pursuant to ad^iournment. Judge Neilson— If any of the gentlemen connected with the press have not yet signed theu' names in this hook, they will find it with the Clerk. There are only 80 names as yet, and that seems to be only a part of the number. WEOEEB TRIAL. Is the editor of The Toronto Globe here, and of The Bangor Commie?', who were here on Saturday, and who would he in again t I would be happy to see them at the inter- mission. Mr. Porter— Ip it please tour Honor— Gentlemen OF the Jury : I can give you at least the assurance that whatever of yom^ tmie I will take will be so much with- drawn from that which would otherwise be used by Mr. Evarts. Our arrangement upon that point is definite, and while I would most gladly have left the whole of the rest of the argument to him, he feels as I do, that it is due to him, in view of the extent of his labors in previous stages of the cause, that I should so far, at least as I can consistently with my own waning strength, relieve httn in turn from the heavier burden of the mere details of the argument. He is unavoidably detained to-day, and I shall therefore he under the necessity of occupying to-day at least, but I hope that he will be able to take my place in the morn- ing. PECULIARITIES OF THE LETTER OF CON- TRITION. At the tune of the adjournment 1 was ad- verting to the paper once known as '* The Apology," re- cently as the " Letter of Contrition," for even m so small a matter as nomenclature this case has been constantly growing. It is a very curious paper. My friend. Judge Morris, is absent, and I have not, therefore, the ori^nal, hut if the jury wUl be kind enough to look at the imper- fect and reduced photograph it will serve suflaciently to ex- plain what I desire to call their attention to. [Mr. Torter here handed to the jury TZie G'mpMc reproduction of the letter.] You will be struck with one thing in particular in connection with that paper. It is the first instance, probably, in all your observation and experience of any human being writing a letter to him- self. It is not possible. Moulton says it happened. I don't know but it did. Another extraordinary feature about this letter, that the man who writes a letter to him- self addresses himself as "My Dear Friend Moulton," a somewhat exaggerated form of expression, it would seem, for a man to apply to himself, and arising out of a friendship then of 48 hours' dm^ation. Another noteworthy feature in the paper, and that is that it purports to begin and to end with a declaration of the trust which this scoimdrel betrayed. *' In trust with F. D. Moulton." " I have trusted this to Moulton In confidence.'^ Another noteworthy feature of it is that if Henry Ward Beecher dictated that letter, word by word, from Alpha to Omega, as Moulton deliberately swears, it is the only paper he ever dictatefl, and contains the only sentences he has ever uttered since he came to man's estate, that were not even common, good, grammatical English. How did it happen that this man, a master in every in- tellectual department, an orator who, if he were in a SUMMING UP I mad-liouse, would still be elociueut, comes the moment he ?ets Into the presence of hi3 " dear friend Frank Monlton," to he a pnling school giii, who can't write his mother tongue ? There is another still more noteworthy feature of this letter in connection with the evidence of Frank Moulton, and that is, Henry "Ward Beecher di- rected him to write it, and dictated every word of it, heard Moulton read every word of it, approved every word of it, read it through himself, and then when Moulton asked him to sign it, did not sign it. "Why not 1 On his explanation it is perfectly ohvious why he should not sign the paper. On Moulton's how is it comprehensible that the man who was the author of the letter, who in- tended to write it, who dictated it, heard it, approved it, refused to sign it, and puts in the corner, for no purpose of disguise, for it is his own handwriting — puts a certifi- cate at the end of that paper, " I have trusted this to Moulton in confidence." Why, gentlemen, every one of you know how that was done. Then that tea hell rang and Frank Moulton gathered together his sheets; he eays, " You had better sign this." " "Why, certainly not ; it is not my letter." "Oh, well, it will do better with Theodore. Put something; just state that you trust this to me in confidence." Anything to get his name there. Moulton saw that he had his confidence and wanted his name. He saw that he trusted him, and he wanted him to certify that he was trustworthy. He knew what he had written there, Beecher did not. And he knew what he wanted written there, and Beecher wrote it. The one confiding as Othello, the other treacherous and snakelike as lago. AN ESTIMATE OF MOULTON'S ABILITIES. In tliis connection, gentlemen, permit me — for I cannot dwell on these topics, and this more particularly belongs to the department assigned to my senior associate —permit me in this connection to allude to another feature in this case. Frank Moulton is a sham from the beghining. Theodore TUton has given him the reputa- tion of being a literary man. He has given himself the reputation of beiag a man of large and boundless wealth. He has acquired the cheap reputation of generosity by telling people what he would do in the way of munificent gifts if time and tide permitted. Tilton is a man of real ability; it is of the rhetorical order, it is true, but as a rhetorician and a writer Theodore Tilton to-day stands one of the foremost men on this continent. Frank Moulton~-he struts in borrowed plumage, and makes the most of it. In the course of this verj- con- tro^^ersy he acquired a reputation very unmerited, and he little understood when G-en. Tracy and I were ex- amining him the effect of the answers he gave ; and the man who went from the stand advertised as the cham- pion witness of America had no thought that he had been scuttling his own ship through the 14 days he was upon »^ne stand V ME. POETEE, 605 MR. MOULTON'S LITERAEY PRODUCTIONS THE WORK OF OTHER MINDS. On the simple point of literary ability, will you bear in mind, gentlemen, that Frank Moulton con- fesses that those letters which he wrote to IVIr. Beecher, and which were afterward published in The Graphic ro- mance, and ia every newspaper in the la,nd, and which were so much admired as specimens of sharp, keen liter- ary point and spirit, were copies from Theodore Tilton'* drafts ; that when they were not copied they were dic- tated to him ; and when there was real dictation, gentle- men, you don't find this kind of dramatical blander which appears in this apology. When there was real dic- tating he wrote English, and masterly English, for it was the English of Theodore Tilton. To those two statements which were put forth to the world, which have given him, I might say, not merely an American but a European reputation for malignancy, for bitterness, for adroitness, but also for a high order of literarj" ability, he is compelled to confess that each of them, from the first word to the last, came from the pen of a celebrated American statesman, and that they were the result of two weeks' labor at Narragansett by him- self, by Benjamin F. Butler and their associates. "Why, the very letters that he wrote to Henry Ward Beecher, speaking of Theodore Tilton as an absent man, to whom he was under honorary obligations, which would not per- mit him to return to Mr. Beecher his own property, nor even permit him to look at it ; one of those letters was written by Beniamtn F. Butler, and the other by Theo- dore Tilton. The very sentence in which he tells him on the 5th of August that he will see Mr. Tilton, and en- deavor to procure his consent that he (Beecher) may see his own documents, then in the hands of Frank Moulton, was penned by Theodore Tilton. TILTON THE MASTER, NOT MOULTON. Moulton has attempted to convince yon through the whole of his testimony that he was the mas- ter and that Tilton was the minion. Not so, not so. Til- ton was master from the beginning. It was in his dia- l»olical reign that all these crafty devices wrought out with the skill of an artisan bred at Vulcan's forge. It was he, he who gave direction to Frank, and Frank Moulton's talk about his grinding Theodore Tilton to powder, and his being ready to smite him to the earth if he attempted to crucify Henry Ward Beecher, is the talk of the braggart, and the pretender, and the liar. I have said, however, that there were other circumstances in this case to which I ought to advert, for the purpose of enabling you to appreciate this apolo.gy. Of course, it is not of the slightest moment to the issue whether or na Mr. Beecher is guilty of adultery if Frank Motaton be the finest scholar in the land or an ignoramus. He is neither. It is significant, however, in another a8i)ect, so that you may read and understand the man. 606 THE TILTON-B. COUNTERFEIT PHRASES IMPUTED TO MR. BEECHER. Grreat mischief has been done to Mr. Beecher everywliere by tlie publication of letters in wMcli lan- guage is imputed to Mm of an extravagant and sensa- tional character, and sucli as he never employs, and everybody was at once prepared to say tliat inasmucb as Mr. Beecher is a man of strong and vehement expression, that is Beecher. Gentlemen, do you suppose that if a scoxmdrel wants to forge your name, he won't malre it as much like your genuiae signature as he can. Do you suppose that a man of the brain and the craft of Theo- dore Tilton when he was undertaking to prepare a way for destroying his enemy would not see to it that there should be every work of likeness at least that he could devise. Now observe. The declarations that are attributed to Mr. Beecher by Tilton, by Moulton, and, I am sorry to say, by Mrs. Moulton, all bear the stamp of Theodore TUton's mint. You remember that significant word *' paroxysmal," whicli to this day furnishes occasion for those who are unfavorably disposed to Mr. Beecher to Impute to him a base and an infamous crime ; and yet it Is a part of our public history that that " paroxysmal kiss " was never heard of from the lips of Mr. Beecher save by two men— Theodore Tilton and Francis D. Moul- ton. In the first place the expression itself is absolute nousense, and one of which Mr. Beecher is utterly inca- pable, but it is none the less Tiltonic ; and there is the difiference between the man of brains without heart and the man of brains with heart. When Beecher speaks, he speaks at once from the fire above and the heat withni, and everything that he says comes leaping, living, burn- ing from the heart ; but the sham man, who thinks all there is in words is the sound of words, uses these incongruous, unfit forms of expression, and gives to them the ouire signifleance that he desires them to take. For instance, on that night, that snowy night, Mr. Beecher is said to have taken occasion to deliver himself in this -wise to a man who until that day had never crossed his threshold and to a man whose threshold he had crossed for the first time that night, not in answer to a question, a purely voluntary thing on his part: "I stand on the brink of a moral Niagara." Now, that is Theodore Til- ton ; it is not Henry Ward Beecher. Do you thrak Henry Ward Beecher would talk about a moral Niagara any more than he would about a moral haystack or a moral swamp 1 1t is not the man. With him words have meaning ; they are alive; there is thought la them; there is significance in them ; there is coherence in them ; but with Tilton " the brink of a moral Niagara " brings to- gether incongruous ideas which to him have a rhetorical charm, and tuey are put Into the lips of Henry Ward Beecher as his language, instead of the language of Theo- >dore Tilton. I might multiply these illustrations, which IFJOHEB TEIAL, are to be found running through the testimony of Tiltoa himself, and Moulton, and of Mrs. Moulton, imputing language to Mr. Beecher such as he never did and never was capai»:e of using. It is against the moral const itn- tion as well as the instinctive good taste and good sense of the man. Now, that " paroxysmal kiss " was a lie, and you know it cost Moulton $5,000— just that single lie ; and yet you take up a country newspaper that hap- pens to be hostile to us to-day and it will talk to yon about Henry Ward Beecher's " paroxysmal kiss," of the woman whom he attempted to ravish. THE EXPRESSIONS IN THE CONTRITION LETTER. Allow me now for one moment to read this paper, and see whether you believe that a man like Henry Ward Beecher, deliberately dictating word for word, wrote such sentences as these : "I ask through you Tlieo- dore Tilton's forgiveness, and I humble myself before him as I do before my God." "My God," as if he kept a private god of his own, and set Tilton and that god side by side, and he kneeling alternately before the one and before the other. Mr. Beecher uses strong, earnest blazing, glowing thoughts and words, but he never talk^ like that. Mr. Beecher, at least, would have known, if he had been capable of writing such a sentence as that, he would have known better than to end it with a comma, and to continue it in these words : " as T do before my God, he would have been a better man in my circum- stances than I have been." Which ? God or Tilton ? The immediate antecedent is the Divine Being Himself, There is an absurdity in this that carries in itself abso- lute conviction that this is the work either of a bungler or a knave. " I can "— " can't now, do you believe, geatlemen, that Henry Ward Beeclier ever found occa- sion to say " I can't ask nothing ?"— that is the way it was originally written. I might do that, for I am care- less iu my forms of speech ; I am not a trained rhetori- cian; but Theodore Tilton can't do it, Henry Ward Beecher can't do it, Judge Neilson can't do it, my friend Mr. Beach can't do it ; it ig a form of expression that can- not pass his lips. Why, just as impossible as for a vet- eran to run away before the battle. Men who are trained understand what they are trained to. They maintain their position. Men who are trained in letters understand the use of language. " I can't ask nothing except—" Now, that "t" is blotted out. Do you think Frank Moulton, who made the mistake, discovered it? Not a bit. I will tell you whose hand it was that ran the pen through that "t"— I don't need to. "I can't ask nothing except that he will remember all the other hearts that would ache—" Now, you can see that if Henry Ward Beecher began such a sen- tence it would have an end somewhere ; it would not be cat right off in that way, chopped off like half of a child, leaving the other half to represent the whole body of ^. SUJUIING UP BY MR. PORTER. 607 That is not tlie vray. You liave seeu tliis man ; you kno^v him ; you have listened to him eight or ten days ; you have lived mth him; you know his way of talking. " ' I will not plead ' — that wont do ! That wont do ! He must have said something more than that— what was it ?" " I really don't rememher, Tilran." There is the thing itself ; [handing the letter to the jury], and when Tilton came to read that : " That wont do !" Oh ! " ' For myself ' "— "'I will not plead for myself'— that is it." So, that is written. Well, of course, Frank was there ; the pen and ink there. They would have you suppobo that there was no pen and iuk anywhere except at Henry Ward Beecher's, and that that could never have heen written unless it was written there I It is enough for my pur- pose that even there he had to correct it. If he did it on the spot, it shows the work of a hungler, it shows that he did not write from the dictation of Henry Ward Beecher. Agatu, "I even wish that I were dead." "Even"— that presupposes something. What does that "even* refer to? Any intelligent scholar will say to you that the man who wrote that did not understand language; or else, that there is an omitted ?e-ntence ; there was something that preceded it. " I even wish I were dead. But others must live and suf- fer. I will die before any one hut myself shall he incul- pated." And yet hoth these men swear that this was an admission of adultery; that Frank Moult on took it as such ; that Theodore Tilton understood it as such, and that a man who intended to admit that he had committed adultery does it ta this way— "I will die before anybody but myself shaU be incul- pated." It is unilateral adultery. Tilton don't do things on the Divine principle; he rejects that as obsolete. When He created human beings, even the inferior ani- mals, " male and female created He them." But here is a case of male adultery. What a foolish thing it was to create Eve at all, wasn't it ? Adam could have been the progenitor of all the posterity that has sprung from both, according to the theory of Tilton. You perceive, gentle- men, that the verv language which is here employed ut- terly excludes the idea that Henry Ward Beecher was confessing adultery, even if this had been his writing instead of the writing of Frank Moulton. "All my thoughts are running toward my friends, toward the poor child lying there and praying with her folded hands." Now, observe whom this is to. Frank Moulton represents this as being in a letter to him who had declared that night that he was a heathen, that he cared for none of these things. He represents Mr. Beecher as saying to him, "All my thoughts are running toward that poor child lyiug there, praying with her folded hands." 1 have n't a doubt that Mr. Beecher did, in the earnestness of his solilocLuy and his self-reproaches, speak of her. But you see that this man has merely caught detached expressions. He had be^^n an adrairer of Theodore Tilton, had been worsniping him aU his 'Jfe, from the time they were at school together, and " folded hands" seems to him to be eloiuent, and " lying there" was elo(iuent, and " sinned against" was eloquent; and all these phrases seemed to him to be iust the thing that Henry Ward Beecher should write, and that other men should give him credit for. " She is guUt- less"— an adultery in which the adulteress is guiltless ! Sinned agam^t, bearing the transgression of another. Her forgiveness I have. I humbly pray to God that He may put into the heart of her husband to forgive me." Gentlemen, you can look at that [handing it to juryj. And then I will ask you if in the mind of one man on that jury there remains a doubt that that " it" was put In afterward at the instance of Theodore Tilton, who saw that it was necessary to make sense. Look at the ink. Look at the hole in which it is crowded. " I humbly pray to God that He may put it into the heart of her husband to forgive me," and then follows, " I have trusted this to Moulton, in confidence. H. W. Beecher" — reading it continuously — ^it keeps right along. He signs it. Of course you will see the manner in which the signa- ture is attached to the bottom. Gentlemen, I have perhaps detained you too long on this subject (although that is a question which will >;e discussed by Mr. Evarts). It seemed to me so palpably absui-d to suppose that the man who swore that that pa- per was dictated word for word by Henry Ward Beecher, and that he read it, and that he afterward signed it, could be believed ! The paper itself, supposing him to have been capable of writing it, does not convict him of adul- tery; it is inconsistent with adultery. But I use it for another purpose. The man who swears that Henry Ward Beecher wrot€ it lies. He is an untrustworthy witness ; he is not to be believed ; he is not to be believed when he swears to that ; he is not to be believed when he swears to any fact in regard to which his oath is opposed to the oath of an honest man, "XEST-HIDIXG" DEFrNT:D. As illustrative of the same kind of trickery, gentlemen, which runs through the whole of this case, and which has led really to a great deal of public misap- prehension, let me refer for a moment to the letter of May 3, 1871, page 84. Now, please to remember the cii-cum- stances under which ]\Irs. Tilton writes this letter, or note, to Mr. Beecher. He was her pastor. She knew that she had made a false accusation against him ; she knew that, although she had retracted it, yet she had be€n in- duced in another form to repeat the aose of making Elizabeth more cheerful, and inciting her to do more for the purpose of making Mr. Tilton's hume ene such as should encourage Mm in Ms "work and iiterarj- pui'suits. "January 20th, _ 1872 "—remem- ber tMs ^-as a letter not intended for pu"!> iication ; it "was a private commimication by the pastor to the penitent ; it was the commtmication of a man who, Avhlle he wi-ote it, knew that the greatest wrong he ever fcTifFered trom this woman was a wong that came from her troubles, but one who forgave her, and loved her, and pitied he:— whose writing at the instance of her own husband and by the persuasion of Frank Moulton, of this note, is now sent out to the world as a clandestine and adulterous correspondence. "Xow, may the God of peace that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus CMist, that great Shepherd of the sheep, tMough the blood of the everlasting covenant, make you perfect in every good work to do His will, working ia you that wMch is well and pleasing in His sight through Jesus CMist." This is my prayer day and night. This world ceases to hold me as It did. I live in the thought and the hope of the coming immortality, and I seem to myself most of the time to be standing on the I edge of the other life, wondering whether I may not, at j uny hour, hear the call to " Corue up hither." i I slnll be in New-Haven next week, to begin my course I of lectitres to the theological classes on preaching. I My wife takes boat for Havana and Florida on Thurs- ) day. I called on Wednesday, but you were out. I hope I you are growing stronger and happier. May the dear [ Lord and Savior abide with you. Very truly yours. ! Now, that letter, written in the spirit of the purest j Christian love and Mndness, containing no single word of reproach to the lady from whom he had stiffered so fear- ful a wrong; that letter is now distorted into a letter between an adtilterer and an a Julteress for the purpose of making an assignation for the next week. Gentle- men, there is one very simple answer to that. It was not written to say, " Come, for I shall be at home this week; my wife is going on Thursday." That was not it. It was not, " Come when my wife goes, for I shaU be at home tMs week and gone next week." The letter is written on Saturday, and the next week was the week, not when he was to be at Ms house vacated by his ^-ife; the next week was to be the week when he was to be gone aU the week and Ms wife part of it. And yet this is called a letter of assignation : There is sometMng so cruel in this endeavor, by contrivance, to prejudice the commmiity against aniimocentman ! They knew of course; j they understood it ; but it is so grouped, in their presen- ; tation of the case, with circumstance and suspicion, as to lead you to believe that this innocent act of a CMistian clergyman to a parisMoner, at her own instance, was reaUy an attempt on Ms part, even imder all that had passed, to make with her an assignation of infamy at Ms own house. Well nu',v, men who are capable of using for such a purpose such a letter, are men whose oaths you cr.nnot trust, vrhen they, uishonest, accuse an innocent woman and an honest man. You remember, gentlemen, the publication of a letter that I .'ead to you the other day, in a forged and fabricated form, where the very im- putation she makes upon him, of infidelity to her, is con- verted by forgery into an admission of her guilt and a declaration of her infamy. THE THBEATEXEP CAED. My friend Abbott lias jiist called inv atten- tion to another fact which is ecLually characteristic of the action of Tilton and Z^Ioulton. We have here a card pre- pared by Mr. Tiltun for publication, intended for iTie Brooklyn Eagle — or rather intended for blackmail pur- poses, but ptu'porting to be intended for The Brooklyn Eagle. TMs is the card wMch they threatened to publish after Mr. Wilkeson had published the " Tripartite Agree- ment." Now, if any man on earth knew the terms of that "Apology," Theodore Tilton did, didn't he? Yet here he appends tMs paper as the statement of Mr. Beecher. He purports to give a copy of the Apology, mutilated, of course, for notMng passes tMough Tilton's hands withotit more or less mutilation ; but the point to wMch I wish to call your attention is there. [Showing the paper to the jury.J The paper is signed " H. W. Beecher." He has represented Mr. Beecher as signing the letter; and the memorandum, " I have trusted this to Moulton in confidence," is put helow the signature instead of above it. Look at it. I presume that the jury can all see it. There [indicating] is the memorandum at the top, and then the signature, " H. W. Beecher." Now, in order to get at the look of a veritable letter from Mr. Beecher he puts the " H. W. Beecher" there [indicating] ; he leaves tMs memorandum below the name, after the name instead of before it. Of course he suppresses the fact that this paper is in Frank Moulton's handwriting; and of course he does not disclose the fact, wMch was admitted, how- ever, to Gen. Tracy, and proved also by Mr. Beecher, that that paper was merely Frank Moulton's minutes of the conversation. THE ORIGINAL FORM OF THE CONTRITION LETTER. I omitted, when speaking of the " Apology," to call your attention to one other feature wMch is per- haps worthy of notice. When, before, in all your obser- vation, did you ever see a man writing a letter to another person, and adding a certificate at the bottom, " I have intrusted this " to that? person. One of you has occasion to write a letter to Austin Abbott. You write it. If it is confidential, you say, " confidential" at the top, or at the bottom, and that is all. But would not Mr. Abbott or any one else be very much sui-prised at receiving a letter, un- signed, with a certificate at the bottom, " I have in- 610 TEE TILTON-BEEGEEE TRIAL. trusted this to Abbott in conflaence "—a letter to Min- selE ? Now, I know, gentlemen, that others entertain a different opinion, but for myself, my belief is that every word above " I ask," in that paper, was put there after Moulton came away. I do not believe that it was a letter at all, when he wrote it. I don't be- lieve he wrote those words in Mr. Beecher's library. Still, it is possible that he did. But when you come to look at the scrawling manner in which this is written, it is very easy to see that, beginning to write it in this way as a memorandum, he afterward thought it was better to give it the form of a letter. Now, Mr. Beecher never saw that paper fi-om that time, and certainly did not see its contents at that time. SEASONS FOR DISBELIEVING MR. TELTON. It is desirable that you should keep constantly in view that this suit is not by Frank Moulton. It is not by Mrs. Moulton. It Is a suit brought by Theodore Tilton, who alleges that he has been wronged. Of course, I shall have occasion to speak of the testimony of the two wit- nesses on whom he relies, but if I can satisfy your con- sciences and your judgment that Theodore Tilton, who makes the accusation, is a liar, that he does not believe and never did believe his own accusation, that whatever other people may think, he knows it to be false, and that he has attempted to palm that falsehood on you by his own deliberate and corrupt perjury, then you will not stop to inquire whether these other people tell the truth. It is utterly unimportant by what cunning device he has succeeded in creating the honest impression, or in procuring the dishonest statement, which may seem to be corrobora- tion of his own. This issue is between Theodore Tilton and Henry Ward Beecher, and I propose to hold him to it ; and, when you are satisfied that his accusation is false, it will not take you long to dispose of the testimony to which he resorts by way of corrobatiom Now, on that point we have two very opposite views of Mr. Til- ton. My friend Beach, in the course of one of the inter- locutory discussions of this case, tells us that Theodore Tilton stands a prominent and an eminent leader of the Christianity of the age. Well, you know something of him now— more than you did when my friend made that address to you, and I ask you where is it that he is leading the Christianity of the age % It is to the saloon of " Madame Roland" in New- York ; it is to the foot of that ladder described in the Woodhull biography, extend- ing from her to heaven, on which the angels of free love were ascending or descending, as the case may be. It is such " leaders of Christianity" that demand of you a ver- dict that shall strike down the veteran whose hairs have whitened in the service of his Master I My friend Judge FuUerton also takes occasion, in glorifying the " Wood- hull Biography," to describe Theodore Tilton, who wan the champion, who was so devoted to the intoicsts of Henry Ward Beecher, the alleged paramour of his own wife, as to hasten to encounter Victoria Woodhull, "a lioness in the way," as my friend called ]:o';; who was 80 generous and magnanimous to his enemy as to devote himself to the task of " extracting tiie teeth of this dangerous animal, and to substitute tlie kindly purr for the wicked and threatening growl." You recognize the language of my learned friend, which I have given to you as used by himself. And my friend in commendation of that holy zeal Theodore Tilton had to save the pastor of Plymouth Church, says, " I suppose that if to accomplish that object, Mr. Tilton had been called upon to write a glowing eulogy upon .Tuda^ Iscariot, he would have done it, and it would have re- ceived the defendant's blessing." Whether Judge Fuller- ton was right or not, as to Mr. Beecher, you may judge from the fact that Henry Ward Beecher was then engaged in writing the life on earth of the Re- deemer whom Theodore Tilton disowns, and whom Judas Iscariot betrayed. Doubtless, if Tilton had undertaken the work suggested by his counsel, Judas would have been made to shine with all the luster which, in that other biography, was made to encircle the brows of Victoria Woodhull. Certainly he was well fitted for the work that his counsel proposed for him ; the man who volunteered on that witness-stanrA to describe Frank Moulton, the " mutual friend," as (I use his language) " the successor of Sir Philip Sidney in all that is noble, manly, and magnificent in friendship." In language equally glowing he could have described the traduced Apostle as the mutual friend of an earlier day. But in view— I use his language again— in view of " the genius for administration and great courage of thought and action," which he swears are the characteristics of Moulton, he might perhaps have suggested to him, whether, if Frank Moulton had happened to bo one of the Twelve, Judas Iscariot would ev^er have pocketed those 30 pieces of silver. I tell you, gentlemen, when men talk about being biographers of Judas Iscariot, it shows the estima- tion in which the coimsel holds his client. He could not suppress his own conviction of the character of that client. I have used, and shall use, strong language, in this case. It is not my practice. In the ordinary course of our profession the cases are very rare in which we are justified, still more rare in which we are compelled by a stern sense of duty, to speak of dishonest mesi as they deserve. But tjiis is no case for compromise. If Theo- dore Tilfcon's accusation is false, if he has suborned his wife to make a false accusation, even without oath, if he has made use of a villain in Frank Moulton for the pur- pose of doing the common work of both in the destruc- tion of a pure and a good and an honest man, we cannot speak of them except as they deserve ; and whUe I know that much that I have said and more that I shall say will give pain to my client, who enter- SDMMMG UF B tains more charitable Tie^^rs of all tliese parties than I do, I cannot but believe that you in your hearts feel that it is essential to the protection of innocence hereafter against kindred conspiracies that scoundrels like these, when they endeavor to force honest men into their ser- vice, shall be met in a spirit worthy of the occasion, and that there shall be an admonition to men hereafter who engage in enterprises like this ; that it is i.ox in a court of justice that swindling, coiispiracy, aud perjury are to be countenanced. Now, If you wanted a simple test, in any ordinary case, of the questioti whether a witness was to be believed, would not the first inquiry that would occur to your mind be, is he impartial? is he disposed to tell the truth 1 Is he unbiased % Tilton tells you that for four years he was a Uar. Moulton tells you that he was a liar for four years. But they say they are teDing the truth now ; and because you believe that they then lied, he insists that you shall be- lieve tliat they now tell the truth. Well, if it were a mere question of the value of a rail-fence ; if it were a question merely of a right of way, you might be disposed to accept the testimony of witnesses, even under such circumstances ; but when they ask you, on testimony like theirs, to take their avowal that they are liars and the truth is not in them, and then ask you to strike down an honored fellow-citizen, wnose life has been in the full blaze and splendor of noonday, and BO far without spot or blemish, then I ask you, then, are you going to say that you will admit the oaths of these two liars as agamst the oath of an honest man. But there is more than this. They say they lied then because they had a motive to lie ; but they teU the truth now be- cause they have no longer a motive to lie. What motive th&ii to lie? Moulton says he lied from consideration and tenderness for Henry Ward Beech er. Til ton says he lied from tenderness and delicacy to his wife. Well, motives may not be striking and obvious, and still they may exist. The friendship and devotion of Francis D. Moulton to Henry Ward Beecher, you remember, grew I out of the fact that Mr. Beecher had debauched the wife of his most intimate friend. And the tendeniess and del- icacy of Theodore Tilton toward this woman was the ten- derness and delicacy of a man who wrote to her years ago about the Eedeemer whom she loved, in the terms that I have read to you here ; it was the tenderness and delicacy of a man who coidd say, in the presence of a young girl, that he was the father of but one legitimate child ; a man who could bastardize his own dead boy to gratify his malignity, his cupidity, or his revenge ! But we liave something more. We have from both these men admissions of a degree of present malice which would indiice you to reject their oaths under any conceivable circumstances imless you believe they falsely accused ihtmselves Y ME. POETEE. 611 AUSTIX ABBOTT'S SEEYICES PRAISED. Often, gentlemen, the great work the results of which are recognized by all men are credited mainlj' to those who are the least deserving, and my friend Ab- bott win pardon me for saying at this moment that rf your verdict shall vindicate Henry Ward Beecher from this foul charge, not even my friend Shearman, with all his devotion and ability ; not even Gen. Tracy, with a chivalric fidelity that lias ennobled him in the estimation of his brethren here and everywhere, and has made us love and honor him; not even the splendid abUity of my senior associate who is to follow me, will have contrib- uted as much to that result as one [turning to Mr. Ab- bott] whose voice you have scarcely heard from the com- mencement of this trial, I desire to avail myself, as I am compelled to do. and as Gen. Tracy was from time to tune, of his researches and his groupings of this evidence, for the purpose of bringing to your minds facts which should be controlling and vital in the discussion of this case. Now, let us take some of these declarations which characterize these two men. MRS. MOITLTON'S DEXLWCIATION OF MR. TILTON. There is one, which may be among those handed me by my friend, but which I noted myself, and will first refer to, one which struck me because of its source, Mrs. Moulton, in her testimony, lets drop two very significant facts, and certainly she was no friendly witness to us, Mrs. Moulton says she told Mr, Beecher in July, 1874, speaking of Theodore Tilton, " I thought he was treacherous ; I told htm that I thought Mr. Tilton was filled with revenge and anger against him," At page 734 she admits that she told Tilton to his face that he was a villain, and would betray her husband as he had Mr, Beecher. Gentlemen, when, even from the roof be- neath which this whole accusation had its origin, the roof of Francis D. Moulton, you get such declarations cropprug out, what do you think of these men ? Was that woman deceived 1 She is now here swearing In the interest of the villain and the traitor whom she is compelled to admit she then denounced. Let us take the declaration, for instance, of Mr. Tilton which is proved by Mr, Storrs in July, 1874, at Mr, Os'ington's house, after his wife had left him, IVIr. Storrs says "the conversation on that point was that his wife had left him, and he said that he had not said anything about it, but he thought he must now smash Elizabeth and Mr. Beecher," These women-smashers come into court and ask twelve men to help them to smash the woman ! MR, TILTON'S EKMITY FOE MR. BEECHER. Take the occasion of the interview with Mr. Wilkeson, and we find what his trouble was. Not thai Mr, Beecher had committed adultc-ry. He said that Mi. 612 IRE TILTON-BEECHEB TRIAL. Beecher had not come to Ms lielir— this was in 1872— and that he was a man of such power that he could with his little finger have lifted him up out of his trouble, but that he had lain on the sidewalk in Brooklyn, crushed and ruined by Bowen's treatment of him, and in consequence of it wrote the memorandum and those two papers— there was his trouble, and the injury done to his reputation ; that Mr. Beecher, who with his little finger had the power to lift him up and reinstate him, had passed him by indifferent and had not helped him, but had left him lying there. Moving across the room back and forth in great excitement, he said he would pursue Henry Ward Beecher to the grave. That he may do, but can he call upon you to help him hound Mr. Beecher into the grave? Is this the kind of a plaintiff who presents his case before this eminent jurist and before you. claiming that he is entitled to occupy half a year of your time in order that he may be reinstated in respect to the pecu- niary losses he sustaiued by making use of the reputation of his wife, the legitimacy of his children, and the char- acter of a Christian clergyman as the means of rein- statement 1 Again, in speaking in reference to a clause in the ** Tripartite Agreement," the precise words he uses in a portion of that interview were : " I wiU never sign any agreement which wiU prohibit me from pursuing Mr. Beecher— from pursuing Henry Ward Beecher." He need not have been scrupulous about it. He may sign forty agreements ; he was always signing agreements and always breaking them, but he seems on this occasion to have been punctilious, and for once he was unwilling to sign an agreement, although, as matter of course, no matter what form it assumed, it would have been broken lust as readily as it was. His business and his life have been in undoing what he did, in violating his pledges of honor, in breaking all obligations, in promoting his own Interest at the expense of aU mankind, and his vanity and lust at the expense of aU women. Now, take the testimony of Jackson S. Schultz. Ob- serve, I have given you. so far, the testimony of Mrs. Moulton. If you believe her description of Theodore Tilton, what is his character, what is his oath worth 1 I have given you the testimony of Samuel Wilkeson. If you believe that, what 18 his complaint — what is his oath worth? Now, we have the testimony of Jackson S. Schultz : I asked him distinctly about whether he charged any criminal relations with his wife. He told me then — he spoke of the Plymouth crew, and said that he would blow the roof off that concern. Q. Did Tilton say to you in that conversation, in substance, that he could and would blow the roof off unless they came to his tenus and settled with him on his terms? A. Well, I don't say those exact words, but the substance. He said that In substance. And this man has the impudence to complain when he is chiiiged with being a blackmailer. What has he been doing but blackmailing for years, living on blackmail, in- dulging his own lust on blackmail, taking blackmail in the form of benefactions, taking it in any form in which it could be got, ready to take it as a mendicant, ready to take it as a beggar, ready to take it by contrivance and fraud, and give it that character of spoliation well described by him when he tacked on Bowen's check the memorandum: " Spoils from new friends for the enrich- ment of old." And, bitterly as he hated this reverend defendant, bitterly as he hated that Plymouth crew, de- tei-mined as he was to blow off the roof from Plymouth Church, it was only conditioned unless they came to Jis terms and settled with him on his terms, and this is the man that tells you that he didn't want money, and tnat when Fr .uk Moulton took $5,000 and put it aside in portions of $1,000, $500, and $300 ; when Frank gave him that money he always closed his eyes, threw his face upward and put it in that pocket, and don't know whore that money came from. There need be no record of that transaction. I don't wonder that Gen. Tracy said on one occasion, when Franklin Woodruff talked with him about this matter : "We Won't discuss the question aa to whether Theodore Tilton knew where that money came from." It don't need much discussion. Why, one of the leading merchants of this continent, a man of as clear integrity as any man who ever sat even upon the bench, swore Theodore Tilton told him that he woul I blow the roof from Plymouth Church imless Plymouth Church came to his terms, and on those terms appeased his wrath. I think Mr. Beecher was right when he toLI Mr. Redpath, and he is not* a man that speaks against any one : " Mr. Redpath, Theodore Tilton's griefs are those which money will assuage." It was when money no longer assuaged his griefs that other means must be resorted to, and they were. MRS. BEECHER'S DISTRUST OF MR. TJLTO^S'. Now, take the testimony of Mr. Ovingtou. No one can doubt Mr. Ovington, though he is not, Uke Prank Moulton, an oUy witness ; he is a bimgling wit- ness, easily confused, and they saw it and took advantage of it and confused him; but he is a clear-headed, intelli- gent, honest man. While you admire the adroitness by which an honest man can be got into confusion, you at the same time felt while he was testifying that you would rather have the moral character of the witness than even the adroitness which was able to confound huu and confuse him. I have more respect for Edward Ovington than I had even for the gentleman who was examining him, and he was well worthy of respect He is relating the conversation of Mr. Tiltou when he foUows Mrs. Tilton to Mr. Ovington's. He said : " Mr. Beecher never loved any other woman as he loves Elizabeth ; Mrs. Beecher ho never loved." I am sorry to say, geutlemen, that that noble woman had much to do with this calaiulcy. xi.U hkU- iustiucts cirly SUMMI^'G UP £ tangiit ner that this man was untrustworthy, and, as he has told you, for years and years he never crossed that +lu-e3h -»ld, and he could have told you why. Theodore Tilton would never have made, I believe, those charges against IVIr. Beecher, except tov his hatred of Mrs. Beecher ; it was the original moving cause, and it was the same kind of hatred that the snake that is trodden on has for the man that treads it down. He saw that she read him and distrusted him, and despised him, and he hated her and all her belongings from that time on. But, now, his pretext is that Mrs. Beecher he had never loved, Mrs. Beecher made his home a hell. Ah I it is a hell to which he would very much lilie to obtain access. It is a hell which would be much more agreeable for him to enjoy than the Heaven in Liv- ingston-st. Of coui'se I do not allude to the particular in- mates of the house, but a home of purity and harmony and love is a home that any of us might worship, and no man more than Theodore Tilton ; but the day has passed for him on earth to hope for any such result, for there is not a woman on earth who reads the story of this trial that would trust herself beneath the same roof with him ii he had over her the power of a master or a husband. "Why don't he come forward and help her? He is a coward and a poltroon. I would not treat a ^i^TSia^Jk so "Who would give me all a woman can give. Why does he let her let the only cool rooms in the house to boarders i'* :me. tilton thinks me. beecher should support mrs. tilton. Now, gentlemen, you thought, and I did, at an early stage of this trial, that we had got Theodore Tilton to the lowest depth of degradation, but we had not. Here he brings it. Now, observe his tenderness and consideration to his wife EUzabeth. She has taken refuge in the house of her friend, Mrs. Ovington, who has told her that she is welcome as an inmate of that house, she and her children, as long as they livC; and he goes there to drive her away. He makes this declaration, my friend Shearman tells me, before she was there, so that he had not the excuse that he did it in anger, and it was in consequence of this declaration, and it subsequently coming to her ears, that she did leave on the 11th, but for my purpose the illustra- tion is the same. I say you have a man professing to be tender and delicate to his wife, who has made up his mind to injure her with his old friend Ovington, and with Mrs. Ovington, by going in her absence and Ijdng about her. Not saying it is tnie, and in terms, that she had been guilty of adultery, but saying that Mr. Beecher loved ■^'^r as he had never loved his own wife. Then, following it up wilh the contemptible suggestion that Mr. Beecher ought to pay the expenses of his and her establishment, and contribute enough for her to live on without letting lier rooms to boarders. Any husband and a father going to i neighbor, and in the presence of another husband and r ME. POETEB. 613 another father, and in the presence of an honored matron, saying that his wife prostituted herself, that Mr. Beoeher has prostituted her, and that he wants money. Why, is there a depth to which humanity can descend that is baser than this 1 This is sworn to by Mr. Ovington. This is sworn to by IVIrs. Ovington. Theodore Tilton has been recalled to the stand, and dared not deny it. That is one 01 the admitted facts in this case. Again, Mrs. Ovington says : " He said Mr. Beecher is a coward. After Elizabeth had given all that a woman can give, or the best — I don't remember the exact expression — how did he treat her ? He should have come forward Uke a man and helped her, but he allowed her to rent the only two cool rooms in the house to boarders. I would never have treated a lady in like manner that had served me as Elizabeth has Beecher, or has given herself to Beecher." Now, take his declaration in the presence of Gray. You bear in mind now that I have confronted him with wit- ness after witness, merchants, men of position and char- acter. We have confronted him with Mr. Ovington and his wife. I now confront him with Gray, spoken of on the other side as a negro, and subject to that imputation, but I don't think there is one man of your number but would rather sleep under the same roof with that boy Gray than with Theodore Tilton. I don't believe there is a man of your number who would not sooner trust his word, his honor, or his oath. Q. Now, do you recollect of hearing any conversation between Mrs. Woodhull and Mr. Tilton in respect to Mr. Beecher's name long before the occurrence of that speech \ A. I heard them talking about his presiding at the Steinway HaU lecture. Q. W6ll, Sir 1 A. I don't know what they said, but they were always talking about him, and I heard Mrs. Wood- hull say- Mr. Beach— One moment. The Witness— That he had better preside at that meeting. Q. Who had better I A. Mr. Beecher ; that he, :Mr. Beecher, had better preside at that meeting, or that she would make it hotter on eartli for him tStan hell was below. Q. Did Mr. Tilton make any reply to that 1 A. He said, *' he has got to preside ; he will do it, and I shall go ever to Brooklyn to see about it." Q. You are now giving Mr. Tilton's language 1 A. Yes, Sir; as he went out of the door his arm was half round her waist. OTHERS OF MR. TILTON'S THREATS. You may take Theodore Tilton among Chris- tian and decent people, and you iind his malice ventiag itself there. Take him with respectable ladies, and he will pour it upon them. You go even to those resorts in which he found greater pleasure, and even there you find the language the same. Wherever he went he carried with him the hatred of Henry Ward Beecher and of Plymouth Church. Wherever he went he carried the same spirit and menace in respect to his own wife ; the same spirit of cupidity, of malice and revenge. 614 TEE TILTON-BMECBER TRIAL. Again, in conversation with Mrs. Ovington, after the publication of the Bacon letter, Mr. Tilton says it was now his time for action, and he proposed to light it out from that moment ; various expressions of that kind. Figures of battle-axes and swords, and he would not sheathe his sword until Mi'. Beecher went down. He may throw away that sheath ; he will never have use tor it. In another conversation with Mr. and Mrs. Oving- ton he says : I shall be the Samson which will destroy the temple. I w*l pull down the pillars of the temi)le, and althovigh Mr. Beecher and my family are crushed, he shall be crushed with me. Again, in the testimony of Mrs. Ovington • When he greeted us on the piazza he spoke of Mrs. Til- ton, and said: "Lib is a trump, isn't she? I hear she spoke well before the Committee— that she made a favor- able impression ; but it is fiction, all fiction. I, too, could come before the Committee and weave fiction." When he spoke of the fiction, I think it was, he said : " Elizabeth will lie for me. She would tell any number of lies to clear me. She loves me. Even if I were on trial for the Nathan murder, and she had seen me commit the act, do you think that she, if called upon to testify, do you think tLatshe would tell the truth and have me convicted? No, she would not." Said he, "Would you?" Said I, " I can hardly imagine such a case ; but, Mr. Tilton, they are not parallel cases. If my husband was guilty of the murder, and an innocent man was on trial for his life, and about to be convicted, and I were caUed upon to testify, I believe that I should have to tell the truth, even though it convicted my husband, rather than that the innocent should sufter." Q. What did he say to that? A. Said he, "No you wouldn't— no you wouldn't." Q. Mrs. Ovington, what else did he say on any topic ? A. He said, " Mrs. Tilton has only done the duty of a wife in coming forward and lying for me. If I committed the Nathan mui-der," etc. You observe this man thinks that one of the uses of a woman is to lie for her husband, with or without oath. That is a part of the teaching of that school of which Theodore Tilton claims to be the head. I hope he has not made Mrs. Moulton a disciple ip that school. ME. MOULTON'S THREATS AGAINST MR. BEECHER, Now, tlie testimony of Moulton, "Beecher is a liar and a libertine." This is the spirit in which this man comes to this Court to swear away the reputation of a pure womjm and an upright man. There is his photo- graph, made by himself and for you. The man who uses such foul, base language, and yet pretends that all this while he was the friend of the man in respect to whom he used it — can you trust him? He tells you that Mr. Beecher trusted him, and he broke faith. He tells you that whoever trusted him he brolc^, faith with. He ad- mits he broke faith with Theodore Tilton. With whom has he kept faith? And it is this man who don't trust himself, whom his wife don't trust, whom even Tilton don't trust— is h« to command your trust and confidence, and upon an issue like this ? Now, Mr. Storrs says (we have his testimony) that Mr, Moulton said to him, speaking of Mr. Beecher : •* Beecher is a sneak and a liar, and if he said so, damn him, I would shoot him— I would shoot him." The man who said that was the same man who went out on the 1st of January, 1871, to make two calls, one on a woman and the other on a clergyman, and carried a pistol for his protection, I am wrong as to the date. It was the day before— Sat- urday. A man who is such a coward that he needs a pistol in his pocket to walk down to the house of Theo- dore Tilton in order to get from his wife a letter that would enable him to call upon Mr. Beecher ; such a coward that when he goes to Mr. Beecher he wants to impress him with a sense of peril by showing him he has a pistol, although there was no occasion to use it, that is not the kind of man that had better talk much about whom he is going to shoot down. But, there is this that does appear, that Frank Moulton, if he told the truth, had in his heart this purpose— for this was after the breach —had in his heart at that time the spirit which would have been miu-derous, but that his neck did n't like the noose. The man who is only restrained from murder by fear of the gallows is not a man to be trusted by twelve sworn jurors. Observe, I don't believe that it was any more than idle bravado, but the man who talks about assassination is a man of a low order of moral instinct. Let no man, let no woman, let no child trust him. Above all, do n't trust his oath ; above all, do n't trust his oath against his enemy. Again, in the testimony of Mr. Storrs : Mr. Moulton bade me the compliments of the day, and explained why he sent for me, and laughed, and said he didn't know as I would come to see a blackmailer, and went up stairs. Said he wanted me to tell my brother that he must not sign the Plymouth Church Committee's report. He said that Mr. Beecher had confessed his adul- teries to htm. An honest man would have stopped there, wouldn't he ? He knew himself ; he knew he was not an honest man, and therefore he adds, "And I can prove it." Mrs. Moulton had been brought to the point. Judge NeUson [to Mr. Porter]- Mr. Porter, oan ycu suspend your argument now ? Mr. Porter— Certainly ; can I close this sentence ? He said he was going to drive Mr. Beecher out of Ply- mouth Church, and out of Brooklyn. Judge Neilson [to the Jury.]— Gentlemen, get ready ta retire. Please return at 2 o'clock. The Court here took a recess until 2 p. m. THE AFTERNOON SESSION. The Court met at 2 p. m. pursuant to ad- journment. In another of these interviews Mr. Moulton imc#n- sciously daguerreotypes himse]f in the language w bicb he applied to an honored and venerated clergyman, ia SUMMING UP BY MB. FOBTEIL 615 describing him, to a mem'':er of his o^pm church — and vrho loved him as a brother— as " a liar and a sneak." " Honor thy father and thy mother, that thy days may he long in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee," the only commandment -which the Red: mer said ■was CO' 1 with a promise. The spirit of reverence for age— it extends not merely to the parental relation, hut to every other relation, and a man like Theodore Tilton or Francis ^Nloulton, in speaking of one who is honored, not ovlW at home, but abroad, whom all the world reverence, undertakes to talk of Tiim as he would of a street black- guard— "a liar and a sneak." And I am glad to inter- mingle these men, gentlemen, and their utterances, that you will see that you might transfuse the blood of Moul- ton into Tilton, and it would hardly disturb a throb of a rulse. You might change the current which throbs m Tilton's heart and put it into the bosom of Moulton, and it would find as black a resting-place in his heart as it has when it finds its home in his own. There are things which little, base, contemptible men think deceive man- kind. If Henry Ward Beecher had fallen ; if it were true that that great man had disgraced his lineage r.nd his posterity ; if it were true that a man so proudly gifted of God, and so much honored of men, had under a temporary influence, yielded and fallen, acknowledged, known of all men, there would be just two classes, men of the baser sort who would rejoice, and to your heart, and to his, aye, and to the heart of each of these his counsel, would have come a feeling of sadness that they could scarcely overcome ; but the Moultons and the Til- tons on a false accusation rejoice, when they can find some one whose confidence tlisy can shape in the man who is performing the holy ofBces' for three hundred, six hundred, nine hundred, twelve hundred families of Brooklyn. These men think that a lie well stuck to is as good as the truth; that if they can double the lie or treble the lie and bring people to attest what is false, it is CO impose upon the jury. You look at them as they come one by one ; you meet them eye to eye, and you form your own judgment of the character of the men, be- fore, upon their testimony, you condemn the chara<3ter of others. MES. MOULTOX'S ADYICE TO ME. BEECHER TO CONFESS TO HIS CHURCH. EYen when a woman, a mother, a wife, who has just turned the border of young womanhood, tells you that she, a lady reared in a house of gentle blr - 1, taught to revere God, to love virtue— when she tells you that she, girl as she was comparatively, calmly looked an old, gray-headed man in the face and said to him : " Sir, "^ou have lived four years "—and this in her own house, unvier her own roof, to an American gentleman, aside from his being a clergyman—" Sir, you have added to your original crime four years of lies and ; : jury. How have you the impudenje to expect me to coi-ie to I Plymouth Cuurcu and commune with yci ? I can hear you preach: commune wich you? you, an adulterer — you, a criminal; commune with you, a liar and a perjurer ! I can't do it. But I wiD. tell you what to do, though I wont : go down to Plymouth Church, stand there and say, ' I eome polluted, covered all over with lep- rosy; I come with the dishonor of myself and my family, to make proof of it to you; I am a liar and a perjurer ;' Emma Moultun said to me this afternoon, ' Sir, you are a beast, with whom I can't commune ;' she told me in her own house that if I would only come here and say to you women, men, children, that the pastor of Plymouth Church is an adulterer, though she can't forgive me, Ply- mouth Church will." And Frank Moulton, on that memo- rable 1st of June, 1872, pretending now that he knew this man was a hypocrite, a seducer, a har, and a Uber- tine, ^v^ote to him : "Go to your own church and tell the whole truth, and all Plymouth Church, and aU mankind will stand by you ; you can stand before the world." Now, gentlemen, these ear-marks are ear-marks of probability that you cannot reject. If I were to come before you, and lifting my right hand in the presence of the living God, were to swear that since I left this court- room my filend Beach and I had gone into a household in this city of Brooklyn, and that there by common con- sent between him and me, your girls who rose this morn- ing in honor had fallen, ruined, you would say, " Either Porter is infamous or he is a liar." You would not be- lieve it ; you would know that it was a lie; even although I involved myself in the accusation you would know that it was false. Xow, when a lady, an American, of edu- cation, of culture, of character ; a lady who would scorn to be rude even to a stranger that was within her gates ; when she is made by her husband to 1 tell you the story that she looked on this gray-haired man and talked with him of adultery, as if it was her daily pastime ; told him of perjui-y, a man who had never taken an oath in a court of justice ia his life ; talked witlL him of living on lies and perjury; when she was brought ; here in order to prove that he had never lied about this i matter, and had been confessing all the while his guilt — ' gentlemen, you don't need to know more about her than i she tells you. You feel as I feel that that story would ; never have fallen from her lips if God has not visited, upon her the calamity of binding her here— I hope not beyond this life— to a man like Frank Moulton. Well, now, gentlemen, this is a mere episode, my allu- sion to her, and is out of its order ; but I call your atten- tion to it in order to show how it is that men who medi- \ tate murder, men who speculate on the ctuestion whether I they can safely take human life because they hate an I enemy, men who talk about their wives lying for them, j men who talk about sexual intercourse, right in the j heart of the City of Brooklyn, in one of those princely I mansions where you would expect culture, refinement^ 1 religion, and decency. When you get into such houscs^,. THE TILTON-BEEGEEE TRIAL, -and find siieli teacliings and siicli urterances as these, you can understand how it is that woman in her weak- ness can hend where man in his strength cannot stand. Let us see what thesf! men were in the hahit of talking-. Teke this man, Moulton, who wants you twelve to be- lieve his oath, who has the etfrontery to look you in the eye, and say : " I ask you to believe me, because I have sworn in the presence of Almighty God." Why, here is his language to Herman O. Armour, at page 148 of the third volume. This is the man who appeals to the courts, to the administration of justice. You will see liow he talks to witnesses ; you can imagine how he would talk tojurorsil he had your ears. Here is a gen- tleman who Is stating a fact within his own knowledge. Trank Moulton endeavors to iatimidate him from enter- iQg a coxirt of justice to swear to the truth, because it is convenient for Moulton to swear to a lie : He said he would make it hotter than hell for me or anybody that testified against him. Hotter than hell ! Are the relative degrees of heat the subject of discussion in that household in Remsen-st. 1 Is there a household inhabited by a respectable family where the women talk of sexual intercourse with clergy- men, where the charge of perjury is made by the lips of womanhood, where the men talk of making it hotter than hell for any man who fulfills his duty and observes his oath ? Are you to expect from such q^uarters honest, fair, unbiased evidence? To return once more to Mr. Moulton, to show that he is no unworthy consort and minion of Theodore Tilton. He said he was going to drive Mr. Beecher out of Plymouth Church, and out of Brooklyn. Who is this man who undertakes to say who shall live ia Brooklyn ? Is it by his mercy that you hold your place here ? Is there a man who has risen to that power and position in Brook- lyn that because he happens to be an employ6 of Theo- dore Tilton, and can always command the benefit of his -unscrupulous craft, that then he can order men, not merely out of Plymouth Church, but out of Brooklyn % But we know where he learned the lesson, because you heard this man volunteering to say, as he sat upon that stand, in answer to no question, at least so far as the concluding clause of it was concerned — you heard him say, " I threat- ened to drive Henry Ward Beecher out of Brooklyn, and I will." Did it occur- to him that it needed each one of those twelve to help him to do that? He thought that with the assistance of one of the ablest advocates this country has ever produced, that with the aid of Frank Moulton as a witness, and of Emma Moulton as a witness, it depended on his mercy who should be driven from Brooklyn. He forgot that it needed more than a " Tripartite Covenant " for that, and that that covenant could not be executed until each of you twelve was man- sworn before God. That is what was needful, and no man should be worthy of belief who, on the witness «tand, undertakes as a volunteer to defy the altar of jus- tice itself, to defy the ever li\'ing God in whose name lie is giving evidence, by saying, " I wiU drive him from Brooklyn." Here is one of those passages which Ulus- t^^ates the spirit that was constantly breakmg out from Theodore Tilton without regard to the sanctities of this tribunal, even when he sat upon the witness stand. " Mr. Tilton stated that Mr. Beecher "—this is m the testimony of Charles Storrs— " Mr. Tilton stated that Mr. Beecher said he humbled himself before him as he did before his God, and says he, ' And he shall.' Mr. Moulton returned and said to him, * What have you been saying here?' • Oh,' said TUton, ' not much of anything, but I said that Mr. Beecher said that he humbled him- self before me as he did before God, and I say he shall.' " MR. WOODRUFFS TESTIMONY. Nay, more, gentlemen ; to show you how an evil man corrupts other men. Take Franklin Woodruff, a man who wUl have occasion to mourn as long as he lives the fatal mistake he has made in allying his for- tunes on this trial with this conspiracy ; a man meaning well, hurried along, carried by Tilton's craft and force of will and the plausibility and cunning of Moulton, until [turning to Mr. Abbott]— let me find Mr. Woodruff— not an original party to the conspiracy, with no animosit.v toward Mr. Beecher, but poisoned, imconscious of the work that virus was making witliin him : Did Mr. Woodruff say to you, " I will show you a letter which, if published or shown generally, would drive him out of Brooklyn 1" A. He did. Q. Do you recollect Mr. Woodruff, at such an mterview, saying to you, " Is it best for us to drive Mr. Beecher out of Brooklyn or not 1" Even Franklin Woodruff is made so far to forget the decencies of respectability that he puts it as a cool ques- tion to one of the clearest headed and ablest of that splendid band of New-York merchants who have given us so much of our prosperity, and to whom we are to look in the f -ature for so much of the growing strength, and glory of the country, to a man of unimpeached honor, of clear intelligence, a friend of BenryWard Beecher, and true and noble in. every relation of life, inheriting a princely fortune, and earning one, showing by his generosity, Ms manhood, hia fidelity in all relations, that he is tnls^ worthy and can be trusted in all conceivable cir- cums.ctuces- Franklin Woodruff is brought lo say to such a man, " Is it best or not for us to drive Henry Ward Beecher out of Brooklyn?" Has it ever occarred to you, gentlemen, during the progress of the trial, that you were here by the permission of this man ? I see among your number gray-haired and honored citizens; I see men of strength and character; I know by reputation those whom I do not know otherwise; I know the strength of the men before whom I stand, and yet I ask you is there one of you who can rally aroimd him such a phalanx of friends as are always ready to come to tke SUMMING UP I ret-'-ue oi: Henry Ward Beecher fi-oni a false accusation 1 Is it not fortunate, gentlemen, that instead of striking at Inm, lie did not strUre at me, or at you 1 Tiie very egotism of the man betrayed turn. He struck at one who, if he would not defend himself, would be de- fended by others because they knew him, and they loved him ; but it is a dangerous lesson to teach to the criminal classes, no matter how high or low, that by any conspir- acy, for the purposes of defamation and accusation, any man can be struck down as guilty when he is innocent. And yet this same man, FrankUn Woodruff, would have you believe, against the oath of Benjamin F. Tracy, that he understood the charge to be adultery, at as early a period as when he had the interview with Tracy, with -Moulton, and with Tilton ; he, even as late as this, and ia the same conversation in which he showed his malig- nant animosity and his piu-pose and will to drive 3Ir. Beecher from Brooklyn, told South wick, in answer to the direot question, that Mr. Beecher was not charged with adultery. Do you believe John C. Southwick, or do you believe Francis B. Moultou I MOEE ABOUT MR. TILTOX'S A^sTMUS. Gentlemeii, I have been alluding to tlie ani- mus of Mr. Moulton. But Moulton is not the plaintiff. I come back to Theodore Tilton, the hinge of this con- spiracy. Now, in regard to him there is no concealment, no disguise. I have made many notes which I have been compelled to discard, Srst, because when I came to look at them they were too cold to express the strength of my own con\-ictious, and, second, because if I were to go over those notes I should protract my argument until yoiir patience would be wearied, and my strength would be exhausted. But occasionally there is a passage with which I must trouble you. Here are some extracts in regard to Theodore Tilton that enable you to see the character of the man. He is talking about Sir. Beecher. I vv^n bring some of these things together, for though he intended merely to give you his idea of Mr. Beecher, he was involimtariiy giving you the means of judging of Theodore Tilton. "I always regarded him as big boy" —that is, speaking of his earlier recollections—" I was very little more than a boy myself." Then came the very natural question by my friend Mr. Evarts. " He had the free, frank, ingenuous spirit of a boyi" There Tilton saw his opportunity. " No." Q. What, not frank, not ingenuous ? A. No. Q. You don't mean that he was a disingenuous man ? A. With a craftiness Q. And you meant to describe a crafty man by repre- aeniing him as a big boy 1 Theodore didn't quite like the look of the quesiion in that form. He thought a moment and brazened it thiough. '■ Yes," says he, " the craftiest people I have ever known have been boys, newsboys for instance." Now he meant you to understand ihat Le thought, and at that time Henry Ward Eoeclier was, a crafty, design- r MB. POBTEB. 617 ing, dishonest man. And almost in the nest sentence h3 came back to it : "Iloved him next to my own iather ;" and within two or three pages, " In those early years ilr. Beecher was my man of all men." Now, this lie that was thrown by way of parenthesis mto his testimony was be- cause he saw an opportunity to make a hit at Mr. Evarts. There was the cross-examining counsel, and he put a quafel-ion, and ii gave him an opportunity to give a thrust at Mr. Beecher, and he thrust it in. But it was a lie. He afterward in effect admitted that it was a lie. lu was merely to serve the purpose of gaining an apparent advantage over the counsel who was examining him, and there was no stage of his examination at which he was not quite ready, whenever the opportunity occurred, to thrust a dagger into Mr. Beecher under the cover of a question put by his counseL We have another little touch which is illustrative of the character of the man, in the account he gives of the church missionary discussion in Plymouth Church in. 1859. He would have you understand that he had ob- tained a gfcat victory at that early age over the leading orator in America. He suppresses the little circumstance that the church went with Mr. Beecher unanimously. But the newspapers went with him— and the newspapers that went with him wer» the newspapers in which he wrote. But Mr. Evarts asked him, " On the whole, Mr. Tilton, you felt that at any rate intellectually you had the advantage in the discussion 1 He folds his arms : If I should say I overmatched him in that struggle it would be immodest ; if I should say I had not I should he." That is a veijr serious dilemma for Theodore, who never liea and never boasts. In the " True Story " there is a little clause which has some signiticance. By the way, there is a great trouble about this man's nomenclature. The " True Story," he says, was a lie, and he don't really understand how it got that name, forgetting the fact that he himself at an earlier period of the examination had called it the " Trae Story." But that was before Redpath's notes of it were resurrected ; that was when he supposed it had gone to the ashes and could never be reproduced. But when the '* True Story " reappeared it was not a " True Story" at all. It is a horse of an entirely different color. WeU, in that he says : During the Summer and FaU of the year 1870 I spoke of the case to a few friends, exhibiting more an^er than charity toward Mr. Beecher, though to Mr. Bowen, whose two papers T was then editing, I was silent, unwilling to add any fuel to his tudignation against the man whom he seemed preparing to destroy. What ! you call to the stand a man whom you swear to have been a conspirator against ]VIr. Beecher years and years ago, and in whose presence you chose to be silent lest it should add fuel to his flame and should burn and destroy Henry Ward Beecher ? Again : There came from WasLiugton a story, traceable I 618 TUE IILTON-B. fenow not to ^hom, tiiat Mr. Beoclier preaclrod every Sunda v to a dozen of Ms mistreeses. Well, now, I can tell Tiieo lore wliere that came fmm, and I can tell him on the authority of Frank Moulton, for Frank swore that before the breach of 1870 Theodore Tilton personally cold him that story that Henry Ward Beecher preached to a dozen of his mistresses in Ply- moutl^ ©hurch. I asked Mr. MouJton whether he believed it. That was a question he was not quite prepared to answer. He took time for deliberation "—Curia vult ad- visa "—I came to the conclusion on the whole I did not; I could not." Well, that shows, you perceive, two things : First, it shows that this man, pretending to be a friend of Henry Ward Beecher, pretending to be covering him, and shielding him from the calumnies of Mr. Bowen, was himself, to his most intimate friend, asserting a lie so absurd and palpable that Mr. Moulton himself is com- pelled to admit that he believed that Theodore Tilton lied. And the judgment which he formed of him then, I think you will form of him now. Again, if he had made the proposed resignation— that is, on the 31st of May, 1873— Moulton swears Tilton said he would shoot him on the street. Tilton swears that he so told Moulton. Mr. Evarts asks Mr. Tilton : Q. Did you mean what you said? A. I did. Q. If Mr, Beecher had signed that paper, would you have shot him on the spot ? A. I presume I would. Now, bear in mind the occasion of that resignation was this, that Theodore Tilton threatened to publish a card which was shown to Mr. Beecher, containing what pur- ported to be an extract from this " apology ;" that he purposed in that way to destroy his reputation as a man fit to be in the pulpit, and Mr. Beecher under those cir- cumstances said, " If that card is published, Frank Moul- ton, there is my answer to it— I resign the pastorate of Plymouth Church. I have sought as long as I could to avoid this issue ; I have adopted, acquiesced in, all your plans and devices. They all come to naught. This war has got to be fought through. I know what the effect will be on Plymouth Church ; there will be three parties there— the wedges which will be driven in will split that fabric asunder ; the church will be destroyed with me. It shall not be destroyed ; I resign my pastorate of Plymouth Church and then I fight alone. You know how I have loved that church. You know what I have done to avoid that issue. You know that it was not a pleasant thing to go home to my wife and tell her that I was charged with adultery, or that I was charged with improper overtures to a matron. You ]cr w it w.is not a pleasant thing to me to go to my friends in Plymouth Church and say to them: *I am charged, falsely indeed, but by a respectable woman of ray congregation, witb an act of infamj-- and dishonor,' ; nd while I have acted upon yom* counsels and those of your wife for the purpose of averting such an issue, I see that therr, no irust to be uut in Theodore TUton. I will "ilECHER TEIAL. I save my church. 1 will stand alone and I will fight alone' This very man, who was threatening to publish a card m order to blast the character of Mr. TJeecher, says : " If he publishes that resigaation, I will assasstuate him," anct he has the impudence to stand in the presence of the- Chief Justice of this tribunal, with his lips fresh from the Book of God, in the presence of twelve honest and swom jurors, and say that "if Henry Ward Beecher Lad signed a paper which it was his perfect right to do. I would have assassinated him." Is it on the oath of an assassin that you woiJil destroy this man's character? And is he who swears that nothing saved him from executing his threat except the fact that Mr. Beecher did not publish the resignation— is he at liberty to say, " Am I any the less an assassin because I am not ia fact, though I was in intent 1 " Nay, more ; go back to an earlier period, on the after- noon of the 26th of December, 1870, after the pretended pledge he had given to his wife never to iajme Mr. Beecher, while, as he pretends, he was still prcsperous, stin in a leading position in connection with two of the prominent papers of the country, in the receipt q1 $15,000 a year, and, as he pretends, without the sUghest reason to suppose that he was to be removed fi-om that position ; he writes to gratify a man whom he had denounced before as a treacherous conspirator, he writes at the request of that enemy of Henry Ward Beecher a letter calling upon him " for reasons which you axphc- itly understand to quit the ministry of Plymouth Church and to leave the City of Brooklyn." " Mr. Tilton, wliai did you mean ?" His answer is, " I meant to stab huu to the heart." Of course there he did not mean literal as- sassination. But there was a fiendish malice which, without further provocation upon the part of Mr. Beecher, with nothiiq: to excuse it, led him, as -le hinipeh avows to entertain the fiendish malice which should lead him, for the gratification of Hemy C. Boweu, to strike a death-blow to one of the foremost men of the age, I give him the benefit of another statement — it is con- tradicted and it is false, but he is not at liberty to allege it. In his account of the interview of the night of tLe 30th of December, 1870, he says he used to Mr. Beeolier this language : " I have hitherto spared your life when I had the power to destroy it. I spare it now for Eliza- beth's sake." It is false, but it is Tilton. He said noth- ing of that kind to Mr. Beecher, but it comes out of his heart now, and it was in his heart then. He meditated a murder when ho swears that that idea was in his mind. It is not enough for him to glorify himself on his mag- nauimiiy to get rid of the cfTcct of tlie fact that he delib- erately meditated the murder of an unarmed clergyiuan. Avithout evea having made an accusation. SUMMING UP BY ME. PORTEB. 619 THE LETTER TO THE FRIEm) IN THE WEST. If }-o;i want to see what a perfect &ham the man is you need only look ab Ills letter to tliat man of straw, " The Complaining Friend," wMcliwas not "written for publication, but which has been unearthed in the progress of this investigation. :>Iv. Shearman— The " Friend at the West." Mr. Porter— The " Friend at the West." There he talks in his usual self-glorifying and swaggering strain— If you think I do not bum to defend my wife and little ones, you know not the fiery spirit that is wi thin me. He expresses his profound aclmiration of his own mag- nanimity in keeping hig wife's innocence of adultery, for tiiat is all there was of it, secret in Ms own breast, lest his uery spirit should shoot forth in his own language, "lite a thimderbolt, through other hearts." This magnanimous man would "vindicate his wife's innocence, but he was afi-aid if he did it would wound the feelings of Mrs. JBeecher, and of his friend Henry C. Bowen. That miser- able false pretense is deliberately penned by him and laid *way in Frank Moulton's tin box, to be produced here- after as evidence of Theodore Tilton's magna"aimous na- ture. It proves more, and I shall have occasion to refer %o that letter presently. Among the multitude of these things that I have noted from time to time duriug the progress of the trial there is one that I will detain you "with just for a moment, be- "sause it is so illustrative of Moulton's opinion of him. That he thought that TUfron was slippery and unreliable, Is apparent from an innocent statement of his which wUl be found in exhibit 81, I think: " I want to have Tilton in writing on this subject ; I want him to commit himself to somebody." Why, did Frank Moulton know him so well he could not trust him '? Xobody could trust him. Moulton did not. And the difficulty was that nobody could trust him any better when he was in "writing than when lie was not. He signed the " Tripartite Agreement " and tore it. He gave a pledge to his "wife and broke it. He gave pledge after pledge to Mr. Beecher and broke them all. He was principally engaged in making and breaking coveiaants and continued it through the whole period «f the four years. But, gentlemen, I have got to pass over that. I must call yo"LU- attention a little more particularly to that letter of the " Friend in the West." It is at page 157. I attach very little importance to any of Theodore TUton's writings intended for dress parade- those that were to be put in the newspapers. He says he lied in them all, and I have no doubt he did. But I as:aeh— and have a right to do it— the greatest importance to those writings which were not made for the public, hut were laid away as records of the truth in his own vault, and which he refused to produce, and of which he refused the benefit either to ins wife or his friend. Hei-e is a letter bearing date the 31st of Deeember, 1872, beginning of com^se, as usual, with a sham—" My dear friend: I owe you a long letter." [Turning to Mr. Til- ton.] " Who was it ?" " (:!oiild not remember." " vra^ it anybody 1" "Could not remember." To Frank Moulton — " Who was this complaining friend ?" "I don't remem- ber." Well, whoever he was, he had a name, had n't he ? What occasion was there in a paper that he was not to give to the public at all in concealing the name ? It was a sham. It was a thing used like these papers that were got from time to time, under one pretense and another, from jVIt. Beecher to be used in the future for the purposes of the conspiracy — vengeance and black- mail. But the man— the man is so addicted to lying and deception that he . lies even when he is alone, in his own private diam^, in his own books and papers. " I am unwell, and am a prisoner ia the house"— that is on the 31st day of December, 1872. And you know that happened to be a very active day with him. For a man who was a prisoner and in bed at his house, he was very husy about the streets of Brook- lyn on that day. I am unwell, and a prisoner in the house, leaning back in leather-cushioned idleness, and "writing on my chair- board before the fire. Perhaps you wonder that I have a fire, or anything but a hearthstone broken and crumbled, since the world has been told that my household is ia ruins. And yet it is more like your last letter— brimful of love and wit and sparkling like a fountain in mid"winter. He was writing this for posterity. The letter " Brim full of "Wit," who -wrote it '? The fi'iend at the West, whose name he has forgotten. Nevertheless, you are right. I am in troublo, and I hardly see a path out of it. It is just two years ago to- day—this very day, the last of the year— that Bowen lifted his hammer, and with an unjust blow smote asunder my two contracts, one "with The Indejiendent, and the other with The Brooklyn Union. The public little suspects that this act of his turned on his fear to meet the consequences of horrible charges which he had made against Henry Ward Beecher. I have kept quiet on the subject for two years through an unwillingness to harm others even for the sake of righting myself before the public. But having trusted to time for my vindication, I find that time has only thickened my difficulties, untU. these now buffet me like a storm. You know that Bowen long ago paid to me the asses- sed pecuniary damages which grew out of his breaking of the contracts, and gave me a written vindication of my course, and something like an apology for his. Thia statement, so far as I am concerned, is final. But Bowen's assassinating dagger drawn against Beecher has proved as unable as Macbeth's, " to trammel up the consequence." I see the letter is too long to read ; and I "wiU only ad- vert to some of its topics. In that letter, not "written as a lie for the public, but as a written confession in the secret archives of Moulton and Tilton, he denounces Bowen and Woodhull as the traducers of Beecher and the successive authors of the horrible charges against him. It is there that he declares, as if he were the first discoverer of the fact, that the tongue is a wild beast which no man can tame. QUO THE TlLTOy-B He cienounces tbe Woodliull lett-ir — I use Ms lan- jtrua^*— as an " unholy Ibusiuess," deuies tliat he " had a conspirator's hand," and says, " I am as innocent of it as of the Nathan murder." He says, " It is hinted that the libelous article was actually written hy me ;" and then pleads an aillbi on the day of the publication, and adds : " I did not know of its existence till a week after it had convulsed all my city and family." But he is not quite content to leave his defense on an alibi. He remembered, perhaps, that on the 4th of November, 1872, on leaving Concord, N. H., and in the presen'ce of Edward J. Wright, he stated that he had seen the Woodhidl & Claflin publication, and feared for its effect on his wife's health. He remembered, too, when he wrote this letter on the 31st of December, 1872, that not only did Mrs. Woodhull quote him and Moulton as among her informavits, but that he himself had repeat- edly urged her to publish the scandal that Summer and Fall. It did not then occur to him that he might get Stephen Pearl Andrews to come to his relief by swearing he put some finishing touches on it after he went to New-Hampshire. So, quoting this alibi, he pro- ceeds in his letter to essay to pitch the story of the Pantarch overboard by saying that " in the Spring of 1871 Mrs. "Woodhull poured into his ears"— I use the lau,:2,uage of the letter— " almost the same identical tale which she printed a few weeks ago." That is just what oui' witnesses say, that she " poured it into Tilton's ears" and theirs. Tilton says in this letter, " I was toiling like Hercules to keep the scandal from the public." Well, gentlemen, has not the evidence shown where it was that Hercules Tilton toiled ? It was in that salon of " Madame Eoland," and in her bed-chamber where Lizzie Giles admii-ed the pro- portion of the youthful Hercules in stockings, and put his shoes fiom off his feet because the weather was warm. That is all. Like Hercules, he accomplished the task he undertook to do. In due time the Woodhull scandal ap- peared, as he iaitended it should. It appeared, too, very properly, on the day when Tilton could prove an alibi in Concord, in the capital ot one of the States of this Union, vv itliin 12 hours by rail, and within 10 minutes by tele- graph of the City of New- York, a city of newspapers, a city of telegraph-poles; and Theodore Tilton would have you believe that after that Woodhull scandal was pub- lished, and was telegraphed all over this country and iibhorred, Theodore Tilton, the subject of the scandal, remained in professed ignorance of it for an entire week. Do you believe it ? When Mrs. Woodhull libeled his wife, the agreeable remedy Tilton found was to make love to Mrs. Woodhull. [Laughter.] But the course of true love never does run smooth. THE "TRUF- STORY." Tliis woman, so innocent, so pure — white angel of light— while she was pouring into his ears these DEGREE TBIAR beastly accusations against his wife, suddenly becomes an angel of darkness when she proposes to deal in like manner with other men's wives with whom Theodore had peculiar relations. When the "Tit for Tat" article is threatened, Theodore turns in disgust from the white angel of light, and he would have you believe that he nevermore even entered her presence. He proceeds to say in this letter : Nor was it till after I had known her for a niMnber ot months, and when I discovei-ed her purpose to libel a dozen representative women of the suffrage move- ment, that I suddenly opened my eyes to her real ten- dencies to mischief, and then it was that I indignantly- repudiated her acquaintance, and have never seen her since. Charges against his own wife brought him to Vickey's saloon,' and in his stocking feet; but charges against hia other female frii^nds wounded his delicacy, and he left her with burning indignation and went to Concord, N. H., and then, to his utter consternation, she publishes, not the " Tit for Tat" article, which he did not want her to publish, but the libel upon his own wife, which he did. The same identical tale, to use his own language, which she had poured into his ears that Spring, and which he had been toiling like Hercules to prevent. Now, what was this unhappy man to do 1 He had been carefully considering this question from the 5th of November, when he came back from Concord, to the Slst of December, the date of this letter. He was in a very delicate condition. Mrs. Woodhull was a lady. Of course he could not contradict a lady, and especially a lady who, in the libel on his wife, cited him as authority for the accusation. That might endanger himself. That might endanger the other female friends who might be hurt if the " Tit for Tat " article should be published. He was at his wits' end, and he proceeds in this letter to explain the extreme delicacy 'jf his position. His wife innocent. Mrs. Woodhull a libeler. Four tendencies to mischief that had led him scornfully to repudiate her, but could not contradict her. " What to do in this emergency (which is not clearing, but cloud- ing itself daily) I have not yet decided. What I co^dd do would be to take from my writing-desk and pub- lish to-morrow morning the prepared narrative auct vindication, which, with facts and documents, my legal advisers pronounce complete." That is what he could do, Why didn't he 1 That was the " True Story." But what had this man to do, then, with counselors and advisers f He had one attorney, Moulton. [Laughter.] But Moul- ton had got his money. Who was the other i He was on that stand, and dared not say that Mr. Tracy was the other. Benjamin F. Tracy never touched your palm as a client. He has sworn it, and he dare not deny it, and must not assert it now. No, if he had counsel, gentlemen, it was the counsel who thought it well to publish his wife's letters, but I don't believe that at that stage of the case even Judge Morris was brought into the case. SUMMING UF BY MB. FOBTEB, 621 The counsel and advisers I have no doubt -^ere Francis D. Moulton, and the man wlio -vsT.-ites statements for him. I do not ^ow at wliat stage of tlie matter it was tliat Butler came in. Dq-wti to this period I don't find any counsel, any attorney, and adviser, except Francis D. Moulron, as hefrween him and Theodore Tilton. This he says would explain and clarify everything. That is the "True Story," undouhtedly. "Both great and small, in- cluding the Woodhull episode, but which is a minor part of the whole case, but if I publish it" — now, observe. There is something which prevents him from publishing it. If he publishes it, it will vindi- cate the honor of his wife. If he publishes it, it will brand an atrocious and a foul conspiracy. If he pub- lishes it, it will vindicate those children whom the fiery spirit within bim was burning to defend. If he pub- lishes it, it wiU vindicate the pastor of Plymouth Church. But there is something which prevents. What is it ? "If I publish it I must not only violate a kind of honor- able obligation to be silent which I had volun- tarily imposed upon myself, but I must put my old friend Bowen to a great risk of being smitten dead by Beechei's hand.'' Theodore Tilton's wife is innocent, and his children are legitimate. But he permits her piu'ity to be questioned, and their legiti- macy to be questioned, because of his tenderness to Henry G. Bowen ; and he says, " If the world knew the ti'uth," not that it would blast Henry Ward Beecher, but that it would enable Henry Ward Beecher to blast Henry C. Bowen. Here we have it. His wife, pure, loyal, un- stained with dishonor. Her vindication prepared com- plete within three feet of the chair where he was writ- ing; the charge false, needing nothing but simple denial; he has made the denial; the truth is that she is innocent ; it is true of Mrs. WoodhuU that he has used her and needs her no more ; he has no other wife to libel and destroy, but there are the two difficul- ties : one is that he has a private compact which he has made with himself— observe, not with his wife, but with himself —that though his wife was publiclv aocnsed on his authority by name, he would leave her undefended before the public, but he would put her vindication in his writing-desk. And why? Not because he loved her less, but because he loved Henry C. Bowen more. If the truth were known, it would acquit Mr. Beecher as -weUashis wife. Ah! there was the rub. Well, why should it not 1 Why, he teUs us. If the truth was known it would kill my old friend Bowen. It would expose him to be smitten dead by Beecher's hand. Plymouth Church would hound him as a rat. So we have in Tilton's own hand, over his own signature, a deliberate statement, which he admits in the postscript he had read to his wife, pro- nouncing the charge of Mrs. Woodhull of adultery be- tween Mr. Beecher and his wife a UbeJ and a lie : declar- ing that he had prepared and deposited in his own writ- ing-desk his own vindication of her purity and her honor; that his only reasons for not publishing were, first, that he would rather not on his own account, and, second, that if the truth were known, and Mr. Beecher exon- erated, it "Would enable him to ruin Bowen. THE " SHOET REPOET." GrentlemeD, I pass now to another of these recorded declarations of TlLton. I refer now to the short report, which appears at page 131 of the first volume of the evidence. After Mr. Beecher's return from Peekskill on the 13th of July, 1874, after Tilton's Impudent mes- sage by Redpath sent on Sunday, the 12th of July, that the charge against ^Nlr. Beecher was to be changed to one of adultery, a charge which Eedpath swears he did not believe when Theodore Tilton made it, nor at any time since; after this, as Moulton and Tilton both admit, this pretended cuckold comes into court flourishing a pare of antlers that don't belong to him, and asking you to tip them with gold— this cuck- old sends by the hand of Moulton to Henrv Ward Beecher a short report, such as he wants the Committee of Ply- mouth Church to sign. This report, unlike the long re- port, has been introduced in evidence by him, and to you, written by him as a declaration of the truth, written by him shortly before the 13th of July, I think on the 8th or 9th of July, and submitted by him to Henry Ward Beecher on the Tuesday following that Stmday, and which, for the first time he sent the message, that charge which had hitherto been one of improper solicitations, was now to be changed to one of adultery : " The Committee appointed to inquire into the offense and apology by Mr. Beecher alluded to in Mr. Tilton's letter to Dr. Bacon respectfully report: That after exam- ination they find that an oflense "— and what else ?— " of a grave character was committed by jMr. Beecher against Mr. and 3Irs. Theodore Tilton, for which he mad^a suita- ble apology to both parties, receiving in return their for- giveness and good will. The Committee further report that this seems to them a most eminently Christian way for the settlement of difficulties, and reflects honor on Blithe parties concerned." There is the recorded judgment of Theodore Tilton a^s made upon the 13th of July, 1874, and which he asks you now to falsify. Observe, gentlemen, if you please, that there is no imputation in this report of adultery. On the contrary, the unnamed offense is stated to be one against Mrs. Tilton. Tilton certifies that the offense was one for which an apology was suitable reparation. He certifies that it was an offense against Mrs. Tilton which oaUed for an apology to her. What! A para- mour apologizing to a mistress for eighteen months of adulterous intercourse la mutual prostitution ! But, more, the cuckold husband and debauched wife unite In accepting the apology, and the betrayed and dishonored husband certifies his good wiU to the clerical debauchee, and in his own handwriting, Theodore Tilton, knowing then every fact which he knows now, asks a committee THJb] TILTON-BEECHJEE TRIAL. 622 •f the leading citizens of Brooklyn to certify tliat sucli a foul and infamous transaction reflected honor on all the parties concerned. These are the ideas of truth and honor entertained by Theodore TUton and Francis D. Moulton. On the Sabbath before Tilton had sent his threat to Eedpath to change the charge to adultery, Moulton had sent his own false and treacherous message that Tilton was enraged with him because he loved Beecher as much or more than he loved Tilton, and that he, the mutual friend, stood ready with Ms well ground battle-ax to smite either to the earth that should attempt to crucify the other. This is the precious document of which Theodore Til- ton was the writer, and Francis D. Moulton the bearer to the interview between Beecher and Moulton on Thursday the 14th of July, after Mr. Beecher's return from Peeks- Mil. Now, observe gentlemen, I have no idea that Theo- dore Tilton or Frank Moulton for one moment contem- plated the final adoption of any such report. They had another object. But it does not lie in the mouth of either of them to say, " We forged a lie for the purpose of de- frauding and misleading Mr. Beecher." They were both treacherous. They intended to deceive Mr. Beecher, and to entrap him, in the statement he was about to make to the Church Commit- tee, into the use of language corresponding to that in this report— that is, that he had, it is true, committed an offense without defining it. They expected that they would entrap him into the use of language in that statement which they could con- strue into an admission of an undefined offense, and then turn and rend him, as turn and rend him they could, because if they could get him to admit an offense, and leave it to them to define it, they could define it to be adultery, and bring Mrs. Moulton to the stand to aid them in so defining it. Moulton, with his usual plausi- bility, succeeded in deceiving Beecher. Mr. Beecher was glad to accept the assurances of Moulton and of Tilton as sincere. Moulton testifies as follows, at page 130, Volume I. : Q. Did Mr. Tilton present a proposed report for the Committee to make 1 A. Yes, Sir. Mr. Tilton did, and I submitted it on the first interview of the week of the 12th to Mr. Beecher. That was the week commencing on Sunday; the date of the first interview was elsewhere fixed ; it was on the Tuesday following. I told htm I thought I could Induce, or I would try and induce Theodore to withhold the statement he was pre- paring from the Committee. Q. And you showed him then, as I understand you, Mr. Tilton's proposed report for the Committee to make 1 A. Yes, Sir, I submitted to him a paper which Mr. Tilton had prepared, and had expressed his willingness to abide by it before the Committee. Now, Tilton admits that he wrote this and the proposed long report, and sent them both by Moulton to Beecher, « use his own language, said that " I would be satis- fled with either." Mr. Beecher, with his usual confiding frankness, and relying on Moulton's good faith and Til- ton's pledge, resolved that he would make a statement to the Committee which should take the whole blame on himself ; make a clean breast of it so far as he was con- cerned, and exonerate Tilton from all censure. He stated that purpose to Redpath on the 14th, and carried it out on the 15th by that eloquent statement submitted to the Committee (which appears on page 892, in the second volume of evidence) in reply to the request of the Com- mittee for a statement of his relations with Mrs. Tilton. That statement he read to Moulton. That statement he presented to the Committee. It dealt gener- ously and magnanimously with Tilton. But, as usual, Tilton proved false and renewed his threat of the 12th, which he followed on the 20th, to change his accusation to one of adultery. Mr. Beecher had redeemed his promise to Moulton and to Redpath to exonerate Tilton ; but they were foiled m their purpose to obtain from him an admission before the Committee of an imdefined offense which they might afterward, in the light of the Bacon letter, construe into a confession of adultery. True, he admitted his offense, but he specifi- cally defined what it was. That was not what they had coimted on. But Tilton forgot, when he was writing this report, that he was making a report against himself admitting the falsehood of his meditated charge of adultery. THE "LONG REPORT" FOR THE COMMITTEE. Now, let us look for a few moments at the long report, which went at the same time. That is the one which Tilton says he and his wife had both agreed on ; that he dictated it, and she wrote it off. It was thought that would certainly bring Mr. Beecher. In that report Mr. Tilton admits the falsehood of his accusation. With the shortsightedness and shallowness which so often betrays men who plume themselves on their cunning, he supposed that, inasmuch as he was writing a report for other people to sign, it had no operation until they did sign it. He did not know that in judgment of law, as well as of any man of ordinary intelligence, what a man writes for another to sign is evidence against himself of the truth of what he has recorded. His coimsel vmder- stood it better than he did, and when they came to see this long report, although they had it marked for iden- tification, we could not get them to introduce it in evi- dence, and we were compelled afterward to introduce it in evidence ourselves. They saw the effect of it. That re- port contains many matters of significance, and I really think, gentlemen, that I shall not be asking too much of you to allow me to read it, for it is not long. Here is the verdict rendered by Theodore Tilton before ha called you to the box. False, I admit ; for in the sense in which lie uses the term " f ffense," meaning by it improper solicitar tions, it is not true that any such oftense was comTi'iftod SUMMING UP BY ME. FOETEB. 633 -It Is not true -tliat any sucli solicitations were ever made by Henry Ward Beeelier ; but tbis report sbows tbat tbat was wbat Tilton bad charged bim with, and that that was the offense, and the only offense, that Til- t^n bad imputed to him. The undersigned, constituting the Committee of Plymouth Church, to whom were referred certain recent publications of Dr. Leonard Bacon and Mr. Theodore Til- ton, hereby present their unanimous report. Allow me to say, gentlemen, in passing, that the paper which has been called the " Letter of Apology" or the " Letter of Contrition" is embodied in the Bacon letter ; not of coiu-se honestly ; of course it is garbled ; every- thing that comes from Tilton in the whole conrse of this matter bears that mark ; but there is what purports to be the apology signed by Mr. Beecher, leaving out what Tilton thought did not help his purpose, but putting in all that could by possibility damage Mr. Beecher. I caU your attention to that in this view. They say that apology means adultery. That apology was before this Committee. Now, we will see whether Theodore Tilton thought that apology meant adultery. The Committee sought and obtained a pergonal inter- view with each of the three following-named persons, to wit : Mr. Tilton, Mrs. Tilton and the pastor, all of whom responded to the searching ciuestions of the Com- mittee with freedom and candor. Documents, letters and papers pertaining to the case were carefully consid- ered. A multiplicity of details, needing to be duly weighed, occasioned a somewhat protracted investiga- tion. The Committee hope that the apparent tardiness of their report will be compensated to the parties by rec- tifying an erroneous public sentiment under which they have all suffered misrepresentation. Theodore Tilton, EUzaueth E. Tilton and Henry Ward Beecher. I. The Cumriiittee's first interview was with Mrs. Elizabeth R. Tilton, whose testimony was given with a modesty and touching sincerity that deeply moved those ' who listened to it. Her straightforward narrative was an unconscious vindication of her innocence and purity of character, and confirmed by evidences in the docu- ments. She repelled with warm feeling the idea that her husband was the author of calunnnious statements against her, or had ever treated her with other than chivalrous consideration and protection. She paid a high tribute to his character, and also to the fortitude with which he had borne prolonged injustice. I should have felt that perhaps it was in bad taste for Theodore to write for somebody else to sign a glorifica- tion of himself, but perhaps he was right, for, after all, I believe that Gen. Butler, over the signature of Francis D. Moulton, took occasion to certify in respect to himself what reaUy was a very welcome assurance to the public, that he had been all through this matter a peacemaker and desirous to hush up the scandal, and accordingly pre- [ pared these two published statements which appear in * the name ofrFrancis D. Moulton. II. The committee further find that Mr. Tilton, in his relations with the pastor, had a just cause of offense, and 1 liad received a voluntary apology. Mr. Tilton declined i to characterize the offense for the following reasons : j First, because the necessary evidence which should ac- company any statement would include the names ol persons who had happily escaped thus far the tongue of pubJic gossip. Who were they 1 Next, that the apology was designed to cover a com- plicated transaction, its details difficnlt of exact or just statements ; and last, that no possible good could arise from satisfying the public curiosity cox this point. IVIr. Tilton, after concluding his testimony, respectfully called the attention of the Committee to the fact that the Clerk of the Church had spoken calumniously of Mr. Tilton during the late Council, and had since nnqualifiedly con- tradicted and retracted his statements as untrue and im- just, and he (Mr. T.) requested the Committee to ratify and confirm thac apology, making honorable record of the same in their report, which is hereby cheerfully done. That was my Brother Shearman. The offense that he committed was that he really believed that this man was insane. I do not ; and he does not now. The retraction, however, is before you, and its terms are very different from what this paper would indicate. He disclaimed having used the language that was imputed to him, and Avas wilting for the sake of peace to make a concession to a degree that I thini has strained his conscience ever since. III. The Committee further find that the Rev. Henry Ward Beecher's evidence corroborated the statements of Mr. and Mrs. Tilton. He also said the church action of which Mr. Tilton had complained, had not been inspired by the pastor, but had been taken independently by the church ; that the public impression that Mr. Tilton had been in the habit of speaking against him was unjust to Mr. T., and was owing mainly to the unwelcome intro- diuitionkito the church of charges against Mr. T., by a mere hanriful of persons, who, in so doing, had received no coimtenance from the gi'eat mass of the congregation, or from the pastor. He said that the apology had been invested by the public press with an undue mystery ; that, after having been led by his own precipitancy and folly into wrong, he saw no singularity of behavior in a Christian man (particularly a clergyman) acknowledging his offense. He had always preached this doctrine to others, and would not shrink firom applying it to him- self. You will bear in mind, gentlemen, that before this pa- per was proposed by him, Mrs. Tntonhad already testified before the Committee to her innocence and Mr. Beecher's, and that testimony was to be confirmed and corroborated by the evidence of Theodore Tilton and of Henry Ward Beecher, and the Committee were so to certify. The Committee, after hearing the three witnesses already referred to, felt unanimously that any regrets previously entertained concerning the publication of :Mr. Tilton's letter to Dr. Bacon should give way to grateful acknowledgments of the providential opportunity which this publication has imexpectedly afforded, to draw forth tie testimony which the Committee have thus reported in brief, but in sufficient fullness, as they believe, to ex- plain and put at rest forever a vexatious scandal. The Committee are likewise of opinion, based on the tes- timony submitted' to them, that no unprejudiced court of inguiry could have reviewed this case, as thus presented in person by its principal figures, without being strikingly impressed with the moral integrity and elevation of char- acter of the parties; and accordingly the Committee IMM TILTON-BEECREE TBIAL. cannot forliear to state tliat the Reverend Henry Ward Beeclier, Mr. Tlieodore Tilton, and Mrs. Tilton (and ki an especial man»er tlie latter), must and should receive the increased symj)athy and respect of Plj^mouth Church and congregation. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE " LONG EEPOET." Here we have, gentlemen, the written faM- fication by Theodore Tilton, put forth by him on the 14th of JultTj three days after his wife had left his xoat forever, two days after he sent his threatening message by Red- path •f an accusation of adultery, which six days after- ward he renewed before the Comnuttee. Now, this paper, written by him the preceding week and submitted to Henry Ward Beecher on the 14th of July, brands Theo- dore Tiiton as a double-tongued liar. Observe, he spe- cifically refers in this paper to his letter to Dr. Bacon, in which he had published the so-called apology. If that apology ever meant adultery it meant adultery then. Yet he -certifies here that it did not mean adultery. He says "the apology was designed to cover a complicated transaction, its details difficult of exact or just statement." Was the adultery of his wife with Mr. Beecher a complicated transaction ? If that was the offense and it had been coniessed by Mr. Beecher what need of detail? If he had debauched Til- ton's wife, why was it unjust for Tilton to state it ? If the " apology" meant adultery, what does Tilton mean by certifying that Mr. Beecher has suffered misrepre- sentation ? H-e had. But the misrepresentation was in imputing to him improper proposals to Tilton's wife. What does Tilton mean by certifying to the modesty and touching sincerity of ]VIrs- Tilton, and to her unsullied innocence and purity ? Tflton had already given public notice in the newspapers that within ten days he should put before the Committee Ms sworn statement. In thi^ report he makes the Com- mittee certify that he, Tilton, had been examined before them and had responded to the searching questions of the court with freedom and candor. Did he mean then to make that sworn statement a lie ? Which is false, the written statement of the 14th, that Mr. Beecher and Mrs. Tilton are innocent, or the written statement of the 20th, that they were shameless, exposed, and confessed aclul- terers % The hour of 4 o'clock having arrived, the Court ad- journed until 11 a. m. Tuesday. NINETIETH DAY'S PROCEEDINGS. JUDGE POETER'S ADDRESS UNEXPECTEDLY PROLONGED. A LARGE AUDIENCE EXPECTANT OF JUDGE PORTER'8 PERORATION AND MR. EVARTS'S OPENING— JUDGE porter's INCREASED EARNESTNESS IN ARGU- MENT—HE DESIRES AN EXTENSION OF THE COURT SESSION TO FINISH HIS SPEECH— AN AD- JOURNMENT HAD AT THE REQUEST OF A JUROR WHO WAS UNWELL— rJUDGE PORTER FURTHER REVIEWS MR. MOULTON'S CHARACTER AND HIS CONNECTION WITH THE CASE— GEN. BUTLER'S INTERPOSITION COMMENTED UPON — *IE AL- LEGED LETTER OF RESIGNATION ANALYZED. Tuesday, May 25, 1875. Judge Porter opened to-day with, a contmna- tion of tSie analysis of the report for the Plymouth Committee, prepared by Mr. Tilton, and sub- mitted to Mr. Beecher. TMs be declared tc be a written reaantation by JNir. Tilton of the charge of adultery. Mr. Moulton came in once more for a share of denunciation. Judge Porter reviewed his character and his history briefly, and ref eared to the termination of his connection with the house of Woodruff & Robinson, intimatisig that Mr. Moul- ton's friends had ceased to trust him. Some very cut- ting remarks were made about Gen. Butler's relations to the case. Tbe orator declared that Gen. Butler, not having been accepted as counsel for Mr. Beecher, bad become the adviser of Mr. Moulton, and had been the real author of the papers put forth in the name of Mr. Moulton with the intention of striking down Mr. Beecher. Judge Porter exclaimed, with ill the force of gesture and passionate utterance that he possesses, " And when that blow fell, though no an- swer came, another paper appeared over the name of Francis D. Moulton, who took the credit and the honor of it, but devised by that dexterous and keen intellect which was equal to all the vicissitudes of the war, and which never failed, whether in the ad- vocacy of a good or a bad cause, until now." The letter of resignation was reviewed to-day very much in the way in which the letter of con- trition had been gone over on Monday. This, the orator said ironically, was another specimen of Mr. Moulton's literary ability. The sentence, "I ten- der herewith my resignation of Plymouth Church" was ridiculed. "A past»r of a church," exclaimed the lawyer, "who did not know enough to write English for even four lines!" The charge of blackmail formed the main topic of SUMMING UP 1 llie latter portion of Judge Porter's address. He de- clared that Jyir. Tilton and Mr. Moulton were both blackmailers, and that the charge had never been abandoned by the defendant's counsel. The black- mailers, he said, had shifted their object. At first Mr. Tilton's desire was to be reinstated in his posi- tion on The Independent. The alleged improbability and inconsistency of any other explanation of the conduct of Messrs. Tilton and Moulton than that they were levying blackmail, formed the general thread of the argument on this subject. THE PEOCEEDINGS— YERBATTM. MR. PORTER'S ARGUMENT CONTINUED. The Court met at 11 a. m., pursuant to ad- A)urnraent. Mr. Porter— If it please tour Hokoe— Ge>'tlemen OF THE Jury : It gives me more gratMcation even than (t can you, to know tliat at some period in the day, at least, my learned friend is to follow me ; but it has heen deemed advlsal3le that I should ptu?sue, to a certain ex- tent, a branch of the case to which I have given more particular attention than he has, for at least a portion of the time. MR. TH^TON'S RECANTATION. You will remember that when we adjourned last evening we were considering the effect of that report drawn l>y Theodore Tilton in the week commencing on the 5th of July, 1874, and submitted by his direction and authority to Hemy "Ward Beeeher, with the pledge that that report was one upon which they could agree in their testimony before the Committee, and in the findings to be rendered by that Committee. You probably retain freshly ki recollection the terms of that report upon which I was proceeding to comment, and I resume at the point at which I left the analysis. Why is it that in that report, recorded by the hand of the man who claimed that he was the victim of a libertine, and speaking of the paper which has been put forth here as a confes- sion of adultery, Theodore Tilton certifies that that "Apology "had been invested by the public press with an undue mystery ? What mystery is there in adultery 1 The public press that had invested it with that mystery was the press that was as much set in motion by Theo- dore Tilton as if he had stood under the beck and man- date of Victoria C. WoodhuU, and himself had set up the type on which appeared the charge of adultery against his ^ife and Henry Ward Beeeher. If Mi\ Beeeher was an adulterer, why does Tilton certifj' in this paper that his own testimony before the Committee, and the concur- ring testimony of his wife and Mr. Beeeher, as well as the documents, letters, and papers pertaining to the case, have put at rest forever a vexatious scandal ? You will ?r MR. PORIEE, 635 [ recognize, gentlemen, my purposed repetition of the points which T was considering yesterday, with a view that you may now retain the connection as I proceed to comment further upon the report ; and once more, to borrow what I have already said to you, above all, if lie believed, as he now pretends and swears, that Mr. Beeeher had debauched his wife— tkat Mrs. Tilton had polluted their marriage bed— how could he ask a committee of Christian men, as he does in this paper, to certify to the moral integrity and elevation of character of the adulteress and her paramour ? This, gentlemen, is the written recantation by Theo- dore Tilton, in his own hand, on the 14th of JulV; 1874, of the accusation of adultery which he made to Redpath on Sunday, the 12th of July. Mrs. Tilton is not the only member of that household who has had occasion to re- tract false charges ; and when he rebuked his wife for retractiag a charge that was false, may I not ask you to rebuke him for retracting a charge which was equally false, and then having the effrontery to come into a court of justice and renew it. He cannot plead that the recan- tation was a lie. He is the plaintiff in this suit. He cannot ask you to declare the accusation to be true which 10 months ago, in writing, he confessed to be a lie. No man can ask a jury to sustain a charge the falsity of which is shown by his own voluntary, deliberate, written confession. I have said that he could not plead that this recantation was a lie designed to protect his wife, for although it vras written before she left him, he sent it by the hand of Frank Moulton to Henry Ward Beeeher three days after she had renounced his protec- tion and bid him goodby forever. When this paper was sent to Mr. Beeeher by the hand of his minion, Mrs. Til- ton was living under the shelter of the roof of the friend of her early days, Mrs. Edward J. Ovingtou. He had followed her there. He had there made his base and infamous charge to those beneath whose roof she had f ovmd a new home. He cannot plead that he falsi- fied his accusation from tenderness to Mr. Beeeher. He swears before you that from the 26th of December, 1870, he cherished in his heart that feeling that made him even then intend to smite Henry Ward Beeeher to the heart. No; the accusation of Sunday was false. On Tuesday he retracted it. He knew it to be false. He confessed the falsehood, and by that confession he is bound. Nay, more, gentlemen, by that confession you are bound. MRS. MORSE DESCRIBED. In passing from this branch of the case, per- mit me to allude, for a moment, to a lady whose name has been malignantly traduced, in, your hearing, in writ- ing and on oath ; but I think no man will hold her in lower estimation in view of the fact that the man who traduced and vilified her is also the traducer of the wife of his bosom and of her honored pastor. Tilton had the same opportunity ia respect to the mother of his wife 628 77/ A TILTON-Bj which he has used so unscrupulously In his evidence to blac ken her, on oath and in writing, for the purpose of at- taching taint, dishonor, and infamy to the name of a woman who had no protector, and was therefore the lawful prey of the chivalrous leader of free love. That Mrs. Morse has led an unhappy life, that she was cursed hy the alliance of her only, her beloved and her idolized daughter, with one who had no more sympathy with her than he had with the swine upon the sides of the mountains, that the domestic difficulties in that household shattered her health and even affected her un- derstanding, that they have thrown her into a nervous condition alternately of credulity and unbelief, which have led her to say things which have been injurious to others no less than to herself, and to her own child, is all due to Theodore Tilton, the man who had the effrontery to say in the " True Story " that a woman whom he admitted to be one of the purest in heart, one of the most fascinating in manners and address, and one of the most brilliant intel- lectual women whom he had ever met, was at heart a murderess. It was a calumny as vile as any of those which have ever been coined by the man ; and you who know something of Brooklyn, something of the ladies of Brooklyn, something of the estimation in which charac- ter is held here, will not be surprised when I say what is known to you, but is not known to the public, that the woman whom he defames, commands in this community a degree of respect, even in her mis- fortimes, which Theodore Tilton will never command from this hour, either in this city or any city or refuge on earth. In one of those letters written by her in the ex- cited, nervous condition, to which she was driven by his dastardly charges against her daughter, which she accepted from him without inquiry, and which she felt carried with them the dishonor of her own house, no less than the infamy of the man who claims to have been himself a participant in the offense— she does write in one of these letters to Mr. Beecher, which was sub- mitted to him and his friend Frank Moulton in consulta- tion, by Mr. Beecher, for an appropriate answer, and the answer to which was given by him in the terms they prescribed— in that letter she says, speaking of Tilton, ad- mitting aU he says to be the invention of his half drunken brain, still the effect upon her is the same ; he is doing all he can to kill her by slow torture. And yet these eager fishermen, whose nets were ready for whatever could be found floating in the water, catch at this, pre- serve this letter, which has been submitted to them in order to enable them to judge best what was to do with this nervous and excited woman— this letter is preserved as one of the muniments of title to the $100,000 which Theodore Tilton claims to-day in a court held by the Chief-Justice, and in a court in which you sit as jurors. If there can be anything more dastardly than to deal •with a woman, a mother, alone, unprotected, feeble in 'i^EiJHER TRIAL. health, driven almost to madness by her love ti her daughter and the cruelties of her hus- band—if anything more dastardly can be conceived than the calm and cool preservation for the day when money can be made out of it, of such a letter, and its introduction on the stand even by the man who, in his malignity to Mrs. Morse, was oa^ pable of swearing she was a murderous maniac, you may conceive of it ; I cannot. It is in keeping with the character of the man, who 'n another of his moods, and in speaking of that imholy, wicked libel, penned by tke hand of Stephen Pearl Andrews, but conceived m tlw brain of Theodore Tilton, and melted through the sieve of the Woodhull : " When I was doing my best to sup- press one earthquake, that is, Bowen's slanders against Mr. Beecher, Mrs. Woodhull suddenly stood before hie, portentous with another." This suppresser of earth- quakes asked, "What was I to do? I resolved at ail hazards to keep back the new avalanche until I could securely tie up the original storm." This sup- presser of earthquakes and of avalanches, titis tyer up of original storms, was holding back avalanches, suppressing earthquakes, and tying up storms, all of his own creation ; toiling like Hercules to suppress a slander, and aU he had to do was to keep closed those Apollo-like lips, which his wife, Elizabeth Tilton, even to this day worships. But the tongue is " a wild beast which no man can tame," and the first use he made of those lips was to send out that wild beast to rend where it would, to destroy everywhere. Gentlemen, it is against such men as Theodore Tilton that the world has a right to Claim the interposition cf courts of justice. If the spirit which he has exhibited in this case be permit- ted to run rampant, men, like wolves, will devour each other. With all the extraordinary power of condensation which characterizes my friend Mr. Shearman, the dire<^t contradictions to this oath, each contradiction em- braced within the measure of two lines, covers all those sheets fholding up to the jury several sheets of legal cap.] I shall not touch them ; and in them is not included one word of the contraaictions by his own writings; not one word of the contradictions by Henry Ward Beecher and Benjamin F. Tracy. They are the con- tradictions on vital and material points of the foremost men in Brooklyn and New-York, of women of undoubted purity and reputation. They stand, each and every of the thirty-five, front to front and oath to oath, looking Theodore Tilton in the eye, and appealing to that God whom they respect, but whom he doesn't respect, for the truth of their denials to the falsehood of his utterances upon the stand. MR. MOULTON'S ATTITUDE TO THE CASE. : Gentlemen, I have incidentally alluded, in passing (although as yet I have failed to give much iit- I tcntion to him), to Mr. Francis D. Moulton. I am deeply sr^imya vf by jif. fobiee. 627 impressed vrlth ttie feeling that I do injustice to you and to the cause in giving him more than a passing notice. The issue here joined is benveen Theodore Tilton and the man he accuses. If Tilton is a false accuser, you need go no further in this case. If he is untrustrworthv and rot- ten, heart, brain, bone, and marro"^, no ^messes whom he can call -will reinstate him in the judgment of an hon- est man. And vet, because I regai-d Francis D. Moulton as a dangerous man, as the tvpe of a class of dangerous men, I feel that I should be wanting in the discharge of my professional duty if I did not, at least briefly and cur- - Illy, call your attention to some of the more marked : - rures of his evidence, in order to enable you to apply your more unbiased judgment, your cooler understand- iug, to these facts, and determine whether, even if Fran- cis D. Moulton were the plaintiff instead of the witness, he stands any better in your judgment than the man he served. In the first place, I recall your attention to tlie fact that two years ago tMs man occupied a very different po- sition in this community from the position which he oc- cupies to-day, even before your judgment is pronounced. Two years ago he was a leading member in one of the first commercial houses in this beautiful and prosperous city. Two years ago lie was at the head of a family hon- ored by its alliances ; high in social position ; worthy of confidence, respect, and regard. To-day Francis D. Moulton, through some cause which he faUs to explain, stands alone. That areat house has met with the disas- ter which was threatened to Plymouth Church ; its roof is gone. And although there is another roof which still - :.ields a firm of the name, Francis D. Moulton doesn't find sLelter under it, and the men who have passed judgment upon him, and have executed that judgment, are the men who know him better than you or than I do. Cer- tainly he has not left that firm for lack of administra- tive genius and ahiUty. if Theodore Tilton is to " e believed. He has not left that firm for lack of kindly -ling on d commends him- self to his parishioners by breach of trust and foul adul- tery ? Is h.e a man who beUeves that hypocrisy at the altar will commend a gray-haired man to the confi- dence of the men, the women, and children to whom he speaks from Sabbath to Sabbath, whom he con- signs to the baptismal font, whom he hands over at the altar, man to woman and woman to man, whom he commits to the grave — does he believe that i Did he on that first day of June believe that of all the eminent men in Christendom, Henry Ward Beecher stood infamously pre-eminent as a man who preached from Sab- bath to Sabbath to 40 of his own mistresses, as a man who had grown from youth to age, growing rotten day by day, as a man who had been steeped in hypocrisy from the beginning, to whom no ties or obUgatlons were sacred, who could go from the communion table to the adulterous bed, and administer the rites appropriate to each, to the. same woman, who trusted him and who loved him. He swears to you now that he knew on the day when he penned this letter, and knowing that, he says to him in writing, produced before you, the same handwriting with the "Apology," but dictated by another man — "You can stand it if tlie whole case were published to-morrow." Gentlemen, this man spoke the truth, but if he did, what he uttered on this witness stand was a fabrication and a He. " You know that I love yoiL" Frank says he is a heathen. There was one who was not a heathen, who was addressed by one who spake as never man spake, " Simon Peter, lovest thou me V '• Lord thou knowest that I love Thee." Can you conceive an antagonism stronger, more terrible than the spirit in which Simon Peter, the true and faithful apos- tle, who once faltered from fear, but never from failure of love, and the same utterance when it came from the calm, cold blooded, treacherous man who was capable of going to the house of a woman to get a letter, and to a clergyman to get the fruits of the letter with a pistol in his pocket, both unarmed. May God bless you." And in what form was the blessing of God to come ? We have it here ; it was when the same hand that penned that letter was laid upon that book in attestation of the truth of the charge that Henry Ward Beecher was an adulterer, and that he knew it on the day when he said, "You, the trust-betraying, hypocritical adulterer— you c-an stand it though you come before the whole world and say, ' I come from a debauch with one of my com- municants;'" the same hand that wrote these words " You know that Hove you;" the same hand that was lifted in the solemnity of a mockery to God, May God bless you, the hypocrite and adulterer I " THE TILTON-BEECEEE TEIAL. GEN. BUTLER'S PART IN THE PLAY. I am taxmg your patience too long. I pass over mucli whicli I intended to say. The bare skeleton of wliat I liad proposed, if filled out, would weary you and me and all. But liere and there permit me to touch a single point which I think is worthy of your attention. J have alluded to one eminent for his services in the field, for his skill as a diplomatist, for his power as a politician, and for many qualities that command admiration, and some perhaps even, with near friends, that make a man aflfectionately beloved. And yet, by one of those singular fatalities which attend men of genius, it rarely happens that a conspicuous case is presented which involves a great man and which is likely to move communities, that the name of Benjamin F. Butler does not appear in it ; and although this may be an exception, there seems to be an unfortunate peculiarity, which in the past has, through no fault of his own, made him the de- fender of those who did not command the confldenee and respect of their fellow-citizens. Frank Moulton was early brought into relations with this distinguished man. Through difiiculties between his own firm and the Government, as the evidence shows, that firm was involved in the defense of suits, the prosecutor in which— or, if not the prosecutor, the relator— was a name somewhat memorable, that of the informer Jayne ; and Benjamin F. Butler was his counsel. His Honor, and I am inclined to think very properly, in reviewing it, although I thought otherwise at the time, excluded the evidence which would have enabled you to under- stand more about that case than you now do. But two or three things cropped out In Moulton's cross-examina- tion which it is useful to remember. Vital interests were at stake. He was prosecuted by one of a class who are known to be merciless. The informer was represented by counsel who never spared, even in warfare— who was not likely to spare in peace. Oddly enough, it happened that the relation of these parties was changed, and the hostility which was indicated by that litigation resulted in a lasting friendship between the informer and the counsel of the informer and Francis D. Moulton. I do not know how this happened; I only Ivnow that the friendship was so devoted that the time came when Moulton was in trouble, and this friend, without fee or reward, and after consultation with Moulton, ten- dered his services— to Moulton ? No ; to Moulton's enemy and victim. The friend of Mr. Moulton was recommended to Mr. Beecher as his counsel, and with the assurance that he could carry him through without regard to the facts. Mr. Beecher did not know Butler, and was labor- ing under the false impression that though Butler was a man of great ability he was not the counsel whom the pastor of Plymouth Church should select to represent him. At any rate he failed to make that selection. But there were three other men, each of whom, whatever Prank Moulton and Theodore Tilton thought, he loved and honored— my friend Hill, the brother of one whom I was long associated in life in another city, a the very name wakes up in me, as it does in the heart my friend Mr. Beach, remembrances of honor, ration and love— Gen. Tracy whom they struggl in vain to separate from Mr. Beecher by threat, by stratagem, by fraud and by peijury— Thomas 6. Shear- man, who, from the hour he came into this case, has held them all at bay. 'Hiese were the men Henry Ward Beecher was disposed to trusty and to throw himself, when the time came, upon the protection of the beaeb, and upon the vindication of a jury. But Gen. Butler, not being accepted as the counsel of Mr. Beecher, becomes, on the same liberal terms and without fee or reward, the adviser of Francis D. Moulton. We have conclave after conclave, not only by day but by night, at the Fifth Avenue Hotel, at that house in Remsen-st. where this false accusation had its origin, and the end is that Fran- cis D. Moulton, in due time, appears as the author of one of the most adroit and able papers which had ever been published in this country, which was intended to Ml Henry Ward Beecher at a single blow. And when that blow fell, though no answer came, another paper appeals over the name of Francis D. Moulton, who took the credit and the honor of it, but revised by that dexteroia and keen intellect which was equal to all the vicissitudes of the war, and which never failed, whether in the advo- cacy of a good or of a bad cause, until now, and now it has failed, and through you. Then came that vindica tion, full of hate and malignity, full of cunningly de^ vised falsehood, for which Gen. Butler is not to be responsible, for vioulton furnished the materials, which has left a record producing an impression upon the country that nothing but your vindication can wholly efface. I MR. MOULTON'S CONNECTION WITH WOOD-i RUFF & ROBINSON. I I must hurry on. Gentlemen, it was said of the great naturalist, Agassiz, that if you would give him a single bone of any animal of which the race was ante- diluvian and extinct, by applying to it the powers wMcli God has given to man and which science has developed, from that single bone he could reconstruct the cutire animal. In men of the Moulton type there are so many bones that I cannot take time to deal with each, but I wUI take a single bone here and there to enable you to see whether you can reconstruct the animal of which that is a vital part. This man is either a true man or a liar. Which t Take a single illustration, which occurs to me at the moment without referring to my notes On the brief cross-examination which I was permitted to make of him, and which I was compelled to abandon on account of .the then condition of my health, I took occasion to ask him how long he had been a member of the Ann oi Woodruff & Robinson, and whether that was a permanent SUM3IING UP BY MB. PORTER. connection. The question ^as asked at random, for in- formation upon a fact as to which I waa myself ipiorant. With some hesitation he acknowledged that he was no longer a member of the original firm in all its branches of ousiness, but there had been a subdivision of the business, and he was now, and had been from the Ist of January, a member of the mercantile department of that business, which was subordio»te, as distinguished from the other, which was connected with the great commercial pros- perity of your city. I asked him whether that was a per- manent connection. It was — a connection of indefinite duaation. " Is no time fixed for its dissolution ?" "None." Now that was a matter of comparatively minor impor- tance ; but this man thought it important to conceal from you the fact that even his own partners had laid their hands upon him. He deliberately swore (and the examination was midway in January) that on the 1st of January there had been a separation of the two branches of the business, and that from that time he had been 'a member of the firm of I "Woodruff & Robinson, in a continuing partnership of in- definite duration, and there it stopped. That was true or false, and whether true or false he knew. It so hap- pened that when Jeremiah P. Robinson was brought by them to the stand it occurred to that clear-headed and far-sighted lawyer, who seems by intuition to know even ; the truths which are unrevealed, to ask Mr. Robinson the iiuestiou when Fi'ancis D. Moulton ceased to be d member of that fii-m. This witness, you wiU remember, is the uncle of Mrs. Moulton ; this is the old partner of Franklin Woodi'ulf; this is the man who comes to swear to all his conscience wiU per- mit, in aid of this controversy— which involves the honor and the reputation of Ms nephew, the husband of his niece. But he is an honest man. " Our partnership ceased on the 1st of January, in pursuance of an agree- ment made something like a year ago." The time has significance, gentlemen. If you remember, that was about the time when the last of the blackmailing at- tempts were being made. It ceased then; to take effect at a future day. The day came, and at the instance of Moulton, the day was postponed. Finally came the 1st of January, and with that Jeremiah P. Robinson and his partner would no longer consent to be linked with this man in their general business, but, at his solicitation (and you have no doubt it was in view of this trial, which it was then thought would be concluded within a month), there was an extension of the time of the final dissolution in respect even to the mercantile branch of the house until the let of February, and Jeremiah P. Robinson swears that they had entered on the 1st of January into a formal agreement that from and after the 1st of February that partnership, in aU. its branches, should be forever at an end. Which of these two men lies ? No man who knows them both will doubt that it is Francis D. There is one bone of the animal. 629 Moulton HOW iVIR. TILTON BEOUOBT MR. BOWEN TO TEEMS. Theodore Tilton and Francis D. Moul- ton have in almost every conceivable fown taken the opportunity of their testtoiony on this stand to convey to you the impression that the claim of tihe $7,000 against Bowen was one which Bowen never denied. Why % Because they knew that right behind the admission of his denial lay the clew to the original conspiracy and the design of blackmail. What ! Henry C. Bowen, who lives in a palace, who is not the editor, but the owner of one of the great religious papers of the country, a man of affluent fortune, whose good name will not permit him to refuse the payment at an honest debt, summarily turning a man out of his em- ployment and then defying the contract to which he had alfixed his signature, and which was in the hands of his adversary— Henry C. Bowen, waiting for a pros- ecution and resisting that prosecution and hold- ing off year after year, refusing to pay the claim ! It needs explanation ; it finds it. When the time c:>raes that The Golden Age can no longer float without $7,000 to float it, then comes that black- mail card, purporting to contain a charge against Henry Ward Beecher which would involve him in dishonorable propositions to one of his own communicants. Theodore Tilton makes his way down Broadway, and by a provi- dence not of God, but of one of those spirits who are above God, by a happy conception, thinks he will go up stairs and see his old friend, Sam Wilkeson, and by the merest accident, when he got there, he drew out of his pocket a well-worn galley-slip containing a libelous letter from Theodore Tilton to Henry C. Bowen, which must ruin one, and might ruin both, and said, " This man owes me $7,000, and won't pay it. Justice must prevail though the heavens f aU ! I am sorry to say, Sam, I have got to publish that paper." He knew W^ilkeson as weU as I do— better than you do; and let me say to you, gentlemen, that among all the charac- ters who have appeared in this drama there is none more worthy of note and re- membrance than Samuel Wilkeson, one of the most brilliant and extraordinary men whom it has ever hap- pened to be my fortune to meet, and the more bi-illiant and the more extraordinary, because the warmth of his heart is equal to the clearness of his intellect ; a man who never was capable of a meanness, whose whole soul is intoned with honor and chivalry, who naturally abhors and despises men like Tilton, who naturally clmgs to and honors men, in the variouf* walks of life, who command the respect and the admiration of their countrymen— men like Henry Ward Beecher, men like William M. Evarts, men like the honored Chief-Justice of this tribunal. My TRIE TILTON-BEEOHEB TRIAL. old classmate and Judge FuUerton's old classmate in col- lege, Samuel Wilkeson, looking at Theodore TUton and reading him through as thoroughly as if he had created him, says : " Theodore, it is not possible you are going to publish a paper like that." "Justice I justice I Henry C. Bowen won't pay me the $7,000 that he owes me. He has no defense. I have sued him ; hut I have no confi- dence in the courts of law. That letter will bring him." Well, though it might not bring Bowen, he knew per- fectly well that it would bring Sam Wil- keson, before whom at once rose a vision of those ideas that would arise in the mind of an honest man and an earnest friend. " What ! are the tidings to go to the honored wife of the pastor of Plymouth Church that her husband has been guilty of adultery, and that he ravished Miss Proctor, or some- body else, so many years ago 1 Is the word to go off on the wings of the lightning and through Chrastendom that Henry Ward Beecher has, for the period of 10 or 15 years, been devoting himself to open libertinism, and that tha* Plymouth Church which has been thought among men to be worthy at least of some regard is merely an assigna- tion house of debauchery 1 Theodore, Theodore, you are wrong. If Bowen owes you that money, he must pay it. Leave this matter in my hands. I will see the friends of Mr. Bowen and Mr. Beecher, and will bring that to a sud- den terBiination. If he owes you that, it is yours and he must pay it." He makes his way across the river to that clear-headed old merchant, Mr. Claflin ; he goes to that strong-headed, bright-brained man, Mr. Sage; he passes over to Mr. Cleveland, and to Mr. Storrs ; to the men who, he knows, would give, give, give of their substance to the extent of half their fortunes to save the man whom they honor, trust, and love. What was the result 1 Theodora says : "Why, Sam, I don't know what providence it was that brought me here, and brought this paper her©. You take it. Do with it what you wUl." Wilkeson did ; and within the compass of a single week there was an arbitration, at which the friends of Mr. Bowen and the friends of Mr. Beecher were together, at which all defense was waived, at which a tripartite agreement was signed, which would have bound any one but a bar- barian. All three signed it ; but two of the three have forgotten— Bowen, honestly, but simply from the infirm- ity of a treacherous memory ; Tilton, honestly, but simply because there is nO money to be gained now by admitting it. Of course, they have forgotten it ! And yet they signed it, and Theodore Tilton went away carrying with htm the $7,000 that oould be got by no other process ; and, in his exultation, in handing it over to Franklin Woodruff, who he knew would communicate it to Francis D. Moulton, he enters upon the back of that paper, in his own acknowledged handwriting, "Spoils from new frieuds for the benefit of old." They call Frank Woodruff to the stand to prove that he has forgotten it, and don't know what that meant Theodore comes to the stand ; they don't ask him if he has forgotten it. Moulton comes to the stand ; they don't ask him if he has forgotten it. Does any man doubt, in view of the revelations of this trial, that that $7,000 was money which never could have been recovered if Bowen had proved the facts which have been proved on this trial 1 If Theodore Tilton, professing to be engaged la the enterprise of conducting a religious paper, was at that time unworthy of the employment, unfit for the vocation, bringing disgrace upon his employer and upon the very journals with which he was connected, it was a breach of the implied warranty in law that every man makes when he undertakes, for a salary, to perform a service* the warrantg^ that he is fit for the service. I call your attention to the fact that Moulton, as well as Tilton, on the direct examination, took great pains to show that there was no defense. TUton professed even to have for- gotten that he brought the suit. My friend, Mr. Abbott (who is a sort of bank upon whom any lawyer may ever draw), hands me a citation from the evidence (Vol. 2, page 673): I told him that Mr. Bowen said that he never had re- ceived any such letter as that Jan. 1, 1871, and that he had not said the things that were stated in that letter,, and that Mr. Bowen said he felt he did not owe him any- thing, and his lawyer had told him he didn't owe him. anything. He didn't ; but he paid him $7,000, and Theodore Tiltoil gave Ms judgment, when he recorded, in that paper that he thought would never see the light, that that $7,00^ was spoils obtained from the new friends of Plymouth Chui-ch, by the aid of Theodore TUton, for Frank D. Moulton, and for the benefit of the old friends, Moulton and Tilton, who had played ball at school together. WHY BESSIE TUENER WAS SENT WEST. Again, another bone of the animal. It was important for them, if they could, in order to avoid the charge of blackmail, to make this jury believe that Bessie Turner was sent away out of pure benevolence on the part of Tilton and Moulton to save Henry Ward Beecher; and Moulton in his testimony teUs us that Tilton thought Bessie Turner was a dangerous character to have about. " I told Beecher that Mr. T. could not afford to pay her expenses ;" and he got Mr. Beecher, on that pretense, to pay them. Mr. Beecher was in no danger from Bessie Turner. You have seen her on the stand. Do you be- lieve that Bessie Turner was the girl to prove disloyal to that mother whom she so idolatrously loved, that she would go and circulate the slanders of Theodore Tilton, which she had denounced even to his face as infamous fabrications and wicked lies? No; but Theodore Tilton remembered the scene in her bedchamber; j Theodore Tilton remembered the occasion when she, in the sound sleep of young girthood, was carried before she had awakened from her bed to his, and though no harm ■was done bevond that, lie knew that was not a good thing to put in the biography of Theodore Tilton when it should hereafter come to he puhLUhed among men. And the mean contrivance of these two men first to get from her, through Mrs. Tilton, whom she loved, a seeming retrac- tion of the charge against Theodore Tilton, and then to represent that she was sent away to conceal the adultery of Mrs. l^lton with Henry Ward Beecher. THE " CLAXDESTIXE"' COERESPOXDENCE. Again, this man Moulton produces before you certain letters, which he calls " clandestine letters," from :Mrs. Tilton to Henry Ward Beecher, and to those letters he, like his friend Butler, seeks to give a lascivious and base interpretation. Xow, gentlemen, there is a little fact which you will remember— first, that Frank D. Moulton came into possession of the " clandestine" let- ters, which had arrived during his absence in Florida, by Henry Ward Beecher delivering them to him. What sort of clandestinity is that in which the adulterer deUvers to the next friend of the husband of his paramour the letters which are to be the witness of the adultery ? That is s'gniflcant enough, and characterizes the baseness of these men. But there is more. One of these letters was in its envelope when it was offered on the witness-stand. The envelope— the letter was marked, the letter was read in evidence, when my friend Mr. Evarts fljsed that eye which sees clearer than that of most of us upon the point significantly appearing on that envelope— that it was ad- dressed to Mrs. Tilton, care of Theodore Tilton, 174 Livingston-st., Brooklyn, and sent by maU. Axe clandestine letters sent by an adulterer to an adul- teress to the care of the husband, and to his own dwell- ing, and through the public mail 1 And yet those men were capable of attempting to mislead you into the belief that these letters were clandestine, and as soon as 31r. Evarts had fixed his eye on that point, my friend Judge Fullerton, quicker than Lightning, said: "This letter doesn't belong In that envelope ; we will produce the envelope that belongs to this after dinner." We called for the envelopes. The envelopes never came — ^never came : are not here now, and you know why. Adulterers don't correspond with adulteresses through the public mail, and address their letters to the care of the husband of the woman they attempt to dishonor. o ^ BEECHER'S LETTER OF RESIGXATIOX. Allow me to allude for a moment, because I forgot it yesterday or on Friday in touching on this point, to that Letter of Resignation, which is a specimen of Frank Moulton's literary ability. He represents Henry Ward Beecher, a master of the English language, writing a letter filled with bad spelling and bad punctua- tion, addres&^ to his church, and vs^hich he knew the next mominf would be in every newspaper that was in r PORIEB. 631 telegraphic communication on this continent, and Henry Ward Beecher, according to Frank Moulton, writes : " I resign Plymouth Church." A pastor of a church who didn't know enough to write correct English even for four lines. Of course you know that there is not a clergy- man on this continent but would say unhesitatingly that was not his. "I tender herewith my resignation of Ply- mouth Church." Well, that is very much like standing on the brink of a moral Niagara," or accomplishing a rape through a paroxysmal Iriss. [Laughter.] I tender herewith my resignation of Plymouth Church. I have stood among you in sorrow for two years in order to save from shame a certain household, but since a re- cent publication makes this no longer possible, I now resign my ministry and retire to private life. That was the manner in which he proposed to strip for this fight. Let Plymouth Church be saved, then Henry Ward Beecher is ready to meet his enemy ; then even the hounded stag is ready to turn at bay and bury his antlers in the bowels of the men who pursued him. But, you see here how this whole case is made up of a fabric of lies, interwoven with each other by ingenious artists, but it has been so appointed in the Providence of God that aU the devices have failed, and none more signally than when, as ia this case, they weave the devices, and then seek to transfer the parentage of them to another, because at the time he breaks loose from them all, he denounces and rebukes them and says, " My friend Moul- I ton, all these devices have failed. Let us meet the truth manfully." He still trusted Moulton. Oh, how feeble was the reed on which he leaned. Ism, MOULTOX MAKES A SLIP OF THE TOXGUE. Again, I only allude to tills as one of those little things with which the whole testimony of Moulton bristles. Moulton professes to have been a gentlemau of manners, culture, of education, and even of some liter- ary reputation, a hospitable host, a man of the world, a member of a large commercial house, and yet this man gravely tells you that on the night of the SOth of Decem- ber, the first time ever he or Beecher crossed each other's thresholds, he and Beecher had a confidential conver- sation about Mr. Beecher's sexual intercourse with the wife of Moulton's friend. Again on the 31st; again on the Ist of January; again (to the 2d of January, when Mr. Beecher was receiving a multitude of Xew Year's calls, again on the 3d of January, on the 7th ; and so running on day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year, to 1874. and all this time, in all their conver- sations, a clergyman apparently clean, not presump- tively dirty, of good manners, of good culture, himself the son of a clerg^Tnan, the husband of a respectable woman, a father and a grandfather, walks down from Ma house on Columbia Heights to 174 Livingston-st., and the man who started a gentleman arrlYes a brute, and 633 THE TILTON-BEECEEB TBIAL. immediately begins talking to Frant Moulton about his sexual intercourse -with Mrs. Tilton, and by one of those odd fatalities by which Providence enables honest men to distinguish between the falsehoods and the truths uttered by rogues, almost in every instance in his first report of the conversation, he represents Mr. Beecher as saying, " My intercourse with Mrs. Tilton— my sexual intercourse with Mrs. Tilton." Now, you will bear in mind, gentlemen, that dm^ing all this period Mr. Beecher and Mr. Moulton were writing to each other, at least Mr. Beecher supposed Moulton was writing to him, when he was merely copying the letters Theodore Tilton wrote through Moulton; but they had not the effrontery even in one of those letters to utter one word of the crime of adultery, of sexual intercourse, and why 1 These were confidential notes, to be seen, as Mr. Beecher had a right to suppose, by nobody but the man to whom they were sent ; yet in all of them there is the language of the poor, humble, but faithful. Christian clergyman, and he is writing to Frank Moulton in the language of a gentleman and a clergyman, but the mo- ment he goes down to his house he begins to talk to him in language such as is never heard under a respectable roof even if there are no ladies tnere, and why? If on that night Henry Ward Beecher bad confessed adultery, do you think he wouldn't suppose that Frank Moulton would believe it without his repeating it again, and again, and again, every time he went beneath that roof? Why, that is like Moulton's account of the conversation with him on the subject of Bo wen. "Beecher, it is a bitter night ; don't you think Bowen is a very treach- erous man ?" When he goes down to Mrs. Tilton's he says : ** It is cold to-night. Is not Bowen very treacher- ous?" Just the same thing about sexual intercourse. Why, gentlemen, would two libertines talk together in that way % And yet this is the story, garnished by the art of Tilton, the treachery of Moulton, and the skill of Butler, until at one period half mankind believed that these lies had some truth beneath them. It shows that though there is a great power in falsehood, there is a mightier power in truth ; it rises above it. " Let Truth and Falsehood grapple. Whoever knew Truth to come to the worst in a fair and open encounter," to quote once more the language of John Milton. MRS. MOULTON'S INTIMACY WITH MR. BEECHER. Again, I must overleap these barriers, and confine myself to only a few presenting themselves here. Here is one upon which my eye rests, to which I attach a word as a note, that you will pardon me for calling your attention to. This man, Francis D. Moulton, who pro- fesses to have believed Henry Ward Beecher was an adulterer, a hypocrite, a debauchee, a liar and a libertine, this man he takes into his own house as a bosom compan- ion; he tells, to his own wife the story of Beeoher'a in- famy; he tells her that he thinks it will promote he social position if she can only be hail fe low well met with a clerical debauchee. H has Henry Ward Beecher's portrait tak^n from the wa' of the pretended cuckold and carried down to Clinton-st and hung in the parlor of a virtuous woman, in the sigh of his only boy, to be seen there by Theodore Tilton, who looks at the man who dishonored him every time he en- ters the room. Nay, more ; he commits this man to the charge of his wife when he must leave. He gives the adulterer access to her bedchamber. He permits tbe adulterer to kiss her lips every time he opens their dooi, and in his presence. She forgot it. She remembered the one kiss which she could give with a stab, being on the last occasion that she ever looked upon the face of Henry Ward Beecher until she looked upon it here, but the rest she forgot. Mr. Beecher swears to you that whenever he entered that house he saluted her, and she him, with a kiss, and in the presence of her husband. She is recalled to the stand, or, if not formally recalled, they tell us what they propose to prove by her, and we admit it, but there is no denial of that. Francis D. Moulton is recalled to the stand, and although Henry Ward Beecher had sworn that as often as he had visited her, whencTer he crossed that threshold Mrs. Moulton saluted him with a kiss in the presence of her husband. Francis D. Moulton does not and dare not deny it. Of course not. A father dare not deny what his own ma- ture boy .would know to be perjury before God. Theodore Tilton, who was there at many and many meetings, and could have denied it if it were false, dare not deny that the wife of Frank Moulton saluted the adulterer of Plymouth Church with a kiss in the presence of her husband and without rebuke. Put these things together ; what do they show as to the man— I am not speaking as to the lady now— what do they show as no the man, as to the truth that lies behind and beneath all of these developments ? THE CHANGING OF THE CHARGE. I must hurry on. Let me caU your atten- tion, before I proceed to the particular question of black- mail, to a little thing illustrative of the treachery of Moulton. Of course that he doesn't deny. Although Til- ton suppressed it In his garbled and false co^y of the " Apology," yet when it came before the world they could not expunge the fact that it began with a declarar tion of trust and ended with a declaration of trust, although the trust was broken and betrayed. But, let us look a little at Frank Moulton (and I do not pro- pose to take him in order now, but lust casually, aa things occur to us)— just take one single interview. It is a memorable one. It is on the 12th of July last It is Sunday. Bedpath Is there. He is going up on other business to Mr. Beecher. He receives certatQ meMftge*. SrMJJ[iyG UP BY MB. PORTER, Now, gentlemen, if it were true that for tliree, nay for fooi- years prior to tliat Sabbath day every time that lie went to the house of Frant Moulton he talked to him about his sexual intercourse with Elizabeth E. Tilton, and when he did not find Mr. Moulton at home told Mrs. Moulton about his sexual intercour.se or his crime with Elizabeth E. Tilrou, and, not satisfied with that, thanked Franli Moulton for telling Woodrufi:'; thanked Frank Moul- ton for telling Robinson ; thanked Mrs. Tilton for telling another Eobinson about his sexual intercourse, and he said he was glad of it, because it enabled him to talk with them easily and pleasantly. L^aughter.] If it were true that all through this period these foul epithets were thick in the air of Moulton's parlor, were snuffed by his wife, were inhaled by his boy, were overheard by his servant; if that was the atmosphere of that house, if they aU knew it ; if, besides that, they had ]Mr. Beecher's written confession that he had com- mitted adultery in Frank Moulton's safe, iMr. Beecher's letter repenting of his sin in Frank Moul- ton's tin box, Theodore Tilton within telegraphic call to come and say that Henry Ward Beecher had been an adulterer for forty years, what need was there on that Sabbath day to send up to Henry Ward Beecher a special message to say to him that the charge was to be changed ? " Redpath, tell him from me that I am going to ciiars-e him with adultery." "Jfo, no," says Moulton, ** don't tell him that. Tell him that yesterday Theodore Tilton was so angry with me because T love him that he was ready to smite me, and tell him that I stand be- tween them, and that if either of them, Beecher or Tilton, shall dare to attempt to smite the other, I will crucify him." That is the story this man would have you believe came from him, with a knowledge at the time that he had only to ring the bell and call in the wife and ask her, " How many times has He^iiy Ward Beecher confessed to you that he was an adulterer ?" who had only to unlock his safe and take out the " Apology," which he calls a confession of adultery ; who had only to go to Theodore Tilton and call on him to unearth that paper, a copy of which he showed on that 30th of December to Henry Ward Beecher, and which he says is destroyed, but which he showed to Mr. Belcher nine months after its destruction, and said the original was then in the hands of Frank Moulton; thjit paper which, if produced, would blast and brand this prosecu. tlon— that paper which, according to his own version of it in the " True Story," was a charge merely of improper solicitations and not adultery, and which, being lost, they can now represent as a confession of adultery m order to smash the woman and crucify the man. Well, now, on this Sunday, which was a busy one, Gen. Tracy was called. There was consultation. Ben.iamin F. Butler was in consultation. There was a war of •trategy. Mr. Beecher was not altogether in his own liands. They told him: "Don't trust Shearman: we can't have anything to do with him. Don't trust Tracy. Coiumimicate with him thi-ough us, and authorize us to tell him yo^x are guUty. Authorize him to make admis- sions for you, but do n't talk wath him. If you talk, the public will know. The true policy is silence. Let me, Frank Moulton, manage it all." But that Sunday there had been a conversation with Gen. Tracy, in which he says : " Moulton, there is a difficulty about this matter. Frank, if you are going to change this charge and make it one of adultery, adultery is crime. Beecher has got to defend that charge. He has got to state the truth. If it was not adultery, there is of coiuse no harm in money having passed, but if it is adultery the world will want to know why it was that you got $5,000 from Henry Ward Beecher and applied it to the use of Theodore Tilton." The indignation of Moidton! "Did Henry Ward Beecher tell you that ] I will grind him to powder. I will deny that. He had no business to tell you that." " It was not ho that told me." " Who did tell you?" "I don't like to say." "You must tell me who told you that ; I insist upon knowing." After some hesi- tation Gen. Tracy thought that, perhaps, he ought to, because otherwise Moulton would be under a false con- clusion. " Well, it was Frank Woodruff, and he -told me the day you got the money. He told me that you had re- ceived $5,000 ; that you had not taken it in a check ; that Beecher had to go the bank and draw it in bills, and that you received the money." " He had no business to tell you that. Now, let me say to you, Beecher must not state that. He must deny it. I shall deny it." H— m, h— m, is that all f Why, no ; he goes to Frank Woodruff, and arraigns hiTn for telling Gen. Tracy about the money. He says : " Frank, it was not the $5,000 I told him about ; it was the $500 that you. gave on one occasion for the sup- port of Tilton's family." " Why, that is n't in the ac- count." "WeU, it was that $500 ; I didn't tell him about the $5,000; Tracy is mistaken." And so we have cropping out the fact, which Mr. Beecher himself had. forgotten, that at an early day there was a $500 transac- tion irrespective of either of these that have been dis- closed to you, imder which certain scratchings and in- definite memorandums are found in Frank Moulton's books. There was another transaction of the same kind. But, you see, there was trouble. Frank Moulton was ready on Saturday to come out and accuse Mr. Beecher of adulter^*, but on Sunday he thought better of it. Things must be manipu- lated and arranged first. Tilton says : " Redpath, tell Beecher that I am going to change the charge to adultery." "ifo, no; you are not; I stand between you and Henry Ward Beecher," and then Eedpath says after that interview they went off together to another room to prepare Frank Moulton's first statement. Now, observe, that is as early q.% the 12th of July. That first statement prepared by him and Tilton, he showed it to Traoy. It I 634 TRE riLTON-Bh cliarged adultery. That statement was so modified (and afterward at a mucli later period presented) as to liold back the charge of adultery, because what they wanted was to get Mr. Beecher on record first before he got the documents, and then come upon him with these papers which they thought he had in great part forgotten, and then they would be able to give a coloring to them all, which they could supplement with their own oral statements and condemn him hopelessly ; but it was still the part of Moultonto play the mutual friend. "Tilton is angry with me because I tell him that I love Beecher at least as well, if not better, than him." Now, even that big boy almost opened his eyes when Redpath brought him that message. Redpath says he told him, " Beecher, The- odore Tilton is a scoundrel ; he is rotten." "But, Red- path"— and he says Beecher put the question to him in- terrogatively—" Redpath, Frank Moulton is friendly to me really, is he not V " Undoubtedly," says Redpath. Was there ever a case in which there was cooler blood and more slimy treachery than that of Frank Moulton ? Yv^hy, he and Theodore Tilton were engaged in making out this very charge of adultery, in sending this word to Mr. Beecher, and in order to have him puf in a state- ment which would be open to their conjoined assault and enable them to crush him. Mr. Evarts— It is about 1 o'clock, if your Honor please. Judge Neilson [to the jurorsj— Please return at 2 o'clock, gentlemen. The Court then took a recess until 2 o'clock. THE AFTEKNOON SESSION. The Court met at 2 p. m., pursuant to ad- journment- Mr. Porter— Gentlemen, there is a single point in the mrvltitude of those which I had noted in connection with the testimony of Mr. Moulton to which I wish to call your special attention, relying in the main upon your memory of his general testimony, unaided by any sugges- tion from me. I allude to it because it is one of those little significant ear-marks of falsehood or of truth, as the case may be, which enable you to judge of a great many other matters in regard to which the proof may be indistinct and obscure. You remember that I alluded this morning to the extraordinary fact that an American gentleman and merchant, a man of social position and literary pretensions, who, ac- cording to his own theory, knowingly, deliber- ately, designedly delivered over to the companionship of his wife an infamous, hypocritical debauchee ; that he should have hung in his own parlor a portrait which did not belong to him, and that portrait the counterfeit sim- ilitude of such a debauchee. I say it to the credit of the manhood that is within him, that he himself saw even, in the evidence, and without the aid of the sugges- tion of adverse counsel, that it was a feature of the case which called for explanation, and when Frank Moulton JKfJEEK TRIAL. wants an explanation, it is always forthcoming, if he can give it, and if all other explanation fails it will be found in a ready forged lie. And he t«lls us, in order to explain the fact that he had the picture of an adulterer hanging in his parlor, for every guest to look upon, as an ornament of the drawing-room at which a virtuous woman presided over the hospitalities of his house, that though it was there, it was oidy for a little while ; that it was only after the adulterer repented ; that it was not in 1871 ; that it was only after he and his wife had become accustomed to the idea of the companionship of a liber= tine ; and he deliberately swore before high Heaven that that portrait never hung in his house until his removal to Remsen-st. in May, 1872. It is said that liars should have more than the faculty of invention ; they should have good memories. He had forgotten that in his presence Theodore Tilton, for another purpose— May, 1871, I should have said— Theodore TUton had, for another pur- pose, already sworn, in the bitterness of his animosity to Mrs. Morse, that that portrait was taken from his house in the Fall of 1870, to the house of Frank Moulton, for the purpose of preserving it from the threatened violence of this crazed woman, a s he i)leased to call her. He swore to that, believing that it had not been contra- dicted by Tilton, for that seems to have escaped his at- tention, and he swore undoubtedly in the belief that ui a matter of such minor importance there would be no wit- ness to contradict him ; and yet this falsehood, uttered by him at the close of the trial, on his return to the wit- ness-stand for the purpose of contradicting one of oar witnesses— this falsehood was nailed to the counter two witnesses, both speaking, from absolute knowled and both fixing the fact that that portrait hung in hi parlor in Clinton-st., in the Winter before his removal to Remsen-st. One was the owner of the house of which he was a tenant, who saw it when he went there to collect his rent; and the other was the usher of Plymouth Church, that church which he hates, and which he would imroof if it lay in his feeble power; but he then, as the friend of Henry Ward Beecher, sat through long hours by day and by night, watching over the sick-bed of Francis D. JMoulton, while he lay hovering between life and death. The falsehood itself is comparatively unim- portant, but oh, what a revelation it is of the character of the nest in which such vipers are bred I Foolish, little serviceable in the cause, invented by a cunning and plausible man as the circumstances that would give to the truth the false complexion of a lie. ME. MOULTON TURNS UPON MR. BEECHER. Gentlemen, I shall deal no more itli this man, except in another relation. I had prepared notes for the purpose of analyzing his evidence ; but it runs through days and days, and it would be, perhaps, to you a most weary recapitulation. You remember its geiicral effect; but my observation of jurors has been that they SUMMING UP BY MR. POBTEB. 635 form their Judgments of a man ratlier iDy tlie apparent sincerity of Ms utterance and the probable credibility of Ms narration tlian by tbis minute analysis, wMcb taxes 80 wearily the time of a court and tbe patience of a jm'y. But I must advert to one aspect of tbe case in connection vritli Mm before I close my argument. What is the pre- text of this man as an apology for his betrayal of trust, Ms falsehood to honor ? On the 13th of August he said Henry Ward Beecher, in a public statement, alluded to the fact that he had received for Theodore Tilton money exacted l)y him in the interest of Tilton, and for the pur- poses of blackmail. Gentlemen, it is as false as any utter- ance that ever fell from those smooth and oily lips. If you will remember the first day of his examination, you will recall the fact, which was still further pressed upon him dm-ing my absence in the continuance of that cross- examination by my friend. Gen. Tracy, that even by Ms own concessions he had betrayed that trust, in the inter- val between the 13th of July and the 4th of August, deliberately, without motive, without provocation. On the 24th of July, Gen. Tracy, in behalf of Mr. Beecher, called upon Mm with a written note, in Mnd and cour- teous terms, from Mr. Beecher, saying that the Church Committee were waiting for his statement, and asMng the privilege of looMng at the documents wMch had been left in Ms hands for the purpose of keeping them safe IE an occasion should arise for their use. When Gen. Tracy came to present that demand he re- fused to receive it. Why ? When Gen. Tracy pressed the demand and insisted upon Ms reading the letter of Mr. Beocher, he said : " I haven't time to answer it." When the demand was still further pressed by Gen. Tracy, who read tMs man through and through, he says : " I cannot furnish to Mr. Beecher these papers; they must be secure." " Do you mean to say. Sir, that you suppose that Henry Ward Beecher and I are not safe custodians of these papers 1" " No, but I am going to Narragansett, and besides, Gen. Tracy, it is not honorable on my part, to Theodore Tilton, to let Mr. Beecher see those papers." "Why not?" "They are origmal papers." "Why, Mr. Moulton, they are origmal papers of which the copies are ciiculating all through the continent They are original papers of which Theodore Tilton has published the copies, so that they have run from State to State through the Union. What Mr. Beecher wants is to verify the copies by the inspection of the originals. He don't know what he has written ; he has left them in your hands In trust ; he asks to look at them." "I don't think it would be honorable to Theodore Tilton to let Henry Ward Beecher see what I have never let .Theodore Tilton see." "What! You didn't publish 'them?" "No." "Who did?" "Theodore Tilton." " Where did he get his copies ?" I don't know." " Did he get them from you ?" " No." " Who else has had the papers ?" " I don't know how he got them. I sternly refused to let him make a copy of a single paper, and honor calls upon me to refuse it equally sternly to 3Ir. Beechei'." " Why, the originals wUl be safe if you will let me take copies." " I don't know." " Why, there is your own clerk ; let him make copies, so that Mr. Beecher may see the whole of the papers of wMch you published what purport to be extracts." " Gen. Tracy, I am going to Narragansett. I haven't time." The General, lawyer-like, sits down and writes a note, asking il he will allow Mr. Beecher to have copies made at his expense, and by Tilton's clerk, to the end that he may be enabled to speak of these papers, of wMch garbled extracts had been given to the public by Tilton, but of wMch Mr. Beecher wished to give the whole. " I haven't time. I am going to Narragansett." Now, if Moulton could not trust his own clerk to make copies of papers that he had in his tin box and Ms safe, there was, perhaps, reason for the refusal. What was there in those papers that needed the shelter of darkness instead of the blaze of light? Gentlemen, the man who wasjustonhis way to the cars for Narragansett had ia his pocket, the pocket which contains a pistol when he goes to a woman for a letter, to a clergyman for a paper —he had in his pocket those papers, to exhibit them to BenjamiQ P. Butler— who was no " Mutual Friend," to whomBeecher had never authorized him to show them— to be woven by Gen. Butler into spider's web wMch should entrap the fly of Plymouth Church. This man whose honor would not permit Mm to give to Mr, Beecher copies of his own papers, wMch had already been published by Theodore Tilton, had them here [placing Ms hand on the breast pocket], to deliver them to a man who, what- ever may be his claims upon public consideration and regard, had no claims upon Henry Ward Beecher, except those of rejected addresses and unrequited love ; and he says to Gen. Tracy, " I won't read your letter, and I ask you to take back the letter to Mr. Beecher," and he pro- ceeded on his way. This man, then professing such friend- sMp for Henry Ward Beecher, who had never wronged Mm, goes to Narragansett, hatches Ms plot, perfects Ma libel, goes home with his statement, arrives here on the mormng of the 4th of August, finds another letter from Mr. Beecher, dated on the 28th, asking him if he won't give to Mm the letters he held ia trust for Mm, at least to give them to the Committee, and writes to him— no, not writes to him, but copies what Benjamin F. Butler had written for Mm: ME. MOULTON EEFUSES MR. BEECHER AC- CESS TO THE PAPERS. Observe, the voice was tlie voice of Jacob, but the hand was the hand of Esau. The man who pur- ports to write the letter is Francis D. Moulton— the man who dictated it was the Esau of Massachusetts. No. 49 Remsen-st., Aug. 4, 1874. Mr Dear Mr. Beecher: Ireceived your note of July 1 24, informing me that you are making a statement and THE T1LT01^-BEE(JREE TBIAL. 636 need the letters and papers in my hands, a id asking me to send them to you for the purpose of having extracts or copies made from them, as the case may be, that you may use them in your controversy with Mr. Tilton. I should he very glad to do anything that I may do, consistent with my sense of what Is due to justice and right, to aid you ; tout if you will reflect that I hold all the important papers intrusted to me at the desire and re- quest and in the confidence of both parties to this un- happy affair, you will see that I cannot in honor give them, or any of them, to either party to aid him as against the other. Gentlemen, suppose, in an undue confidence in me, you should appoint me your executor or trustee to loolr after the interests of your daughter and your son ; and there coming up afterward a difference between that daughter and that son, when one of them comes to me to demand access to the papers in which their father's will had given to r^ie the instructions which, should be my law, I should coolly turn upon them and say, " I am nothing but a trustee ; you cannot see yoirr father's will ; it would be a breach of honor on my part. I hold these papers In trust for the man whose bones are moldering in the ground, and not tor the benefit of the living beneficiaries created in the trust." You come to me ; two of you have entered ihto a contract ; leave with me that contract in trust ; you afterward come to me as the depositary of that contract and say, *' I want to see this paper of which I kept no copy and which I left with you in trust." I say, " I hold it in trust for both parties, and yon cannot see it imless your adversary shall consent that you may see it." "Why, my adversary has already seen it, and has put a copy of that contract in the hands of a lawyer who is to-day prosecuting me for its enforcement ; and it is a false aad a forged copy of the contract, and I want to look at the origmal." " I have taken advice of Benjamru P. Butler of Massachusetts, and, according to his ideas of honor, you have no business to ask me to see the copy. I don't know how the other side obtained their copy; I am a man of honor." " I have not given," he proceeds, " or shown to Mr. Tilton any documents or papers relating to your affairs since the renewal of your controversy, which had been once adiusted." He had not ? But if he had not given them to him, some ministering angel who wrote a legible hand had. Who carried the key of that tin box ? How did Theodore Tilton get those copies 1 What was this sense of honor that would permit one man to have what he pleased of them, and which would refuse it to the other ? I need not tell you how deeply I regret your position as foes each to the other after my long and as you, I have no doubt, fully believe honest and faithful effort to have you otherwise. Oh, how that impressed Gen. Butler ! The honor, the fidelity of this mutual friend ! And he gives utterance to it in those eloquent and breathing words of his, that bum as they breathe. I will sacredly hold all the papers and information 1 have until both parties— (Avhich being interpreted means until Theodore Tilton)— shall request me to make them public, or to deliver tiem into the hands of either or both, or to lay them before the Committee, or I am com- pelled in a court of justice to produce them No blackmail, gentlemen ; of course he did n't contem- plate a suit at that time against the man at whose feet he was fawning, whom he was fiattering to his face, from whom he was taking, day after day, certificates that he could use thereafter against him to show that he was a God-sent messenger of love. to produce them, if I can be so compelled. " My regret "—I wonder whether that means Moiiiton's regret or Butler's regret— Butler, the discarded lawyer, or Moulton, the mutual friend ! My regret that I am compelled to this course is softened by my belief that you will not be substantially injured by it in this regard, for all the facts are, of course, knowu to you, and I am bound to believe and assume that in tli6 statement you are preparing you will only set forth the exact facts ; and if so, the documents, when produced, will only confirm, and cannot contradict, what you may state, so that you will suffer no loss. When I examined Mr. Moulton about the entries of the blackmail in his books, he said, "I ought to have the privilege of looking at my books," and I gave him till fae next day. If I had consulted Benjamin F. Butler— if Mr. i Beecher had accepted his services, and he had sat by my side, he would have said, " Tell him, ' Mr. Moulton, you are at no disadvantage without your books. I regret very much that jow cannot use them, but my regret is soft- ened by the fact that if you state truly what is there re- corded, it won't hurt you, but if, which I cannot believe, you lie, it is very proper that the books should be left be- hind in order to convict you of the lie.' " That was the method of reasoning adopted by the mutual friend and the rejected counsel, as commending itself to the sense of honor of conscientious men. even at the very time they were contemplating bringing this proceeding into a coint of justice. If, on the contrary— which I cannot presume— you de- sire the possession of the documents in order that you may prove your statement in a manner not to be contra vened by the facts set forth in them to the disadvantage of Mr. Tilton, I should be then aiding you in doing tliat which I cannot believe the strictest and firmest liieud- ship for you calls upon me to do. With grateful recollec- tions of your kind confidence and trust in me, T aw very truly, yours, F. D. MoULTON. MR. BEECHER'S ANSWER TO THE REFUSAL Down to that moment Henry Ward Beeclie trusted him as I trust your Honor, as I trust each of yo' twelve whom I have known over five months, and in eacl of whom I recognize that integrity of person which cor viiH CM me that you are upright and honest men. Bu when that letter came, this man whom Judge Morris call a coward, this mnii who had been threatened witli charge that should destroy him, this man no longer a SUMMING VP BY MB. POBmB. 637 peals to Mm for sympatliy or regard, but in tones of earn- est manliness he replies, and I may be permitted to read you Ms reply. F. D. MouLTON, esq.Sir : Your letter bearing date Auffust 4, 1874, is tMs moment received. Allow me to express my regret and astonishment that you refuse me permission even to see certain letters and papers ia your possession, relating to the charges made against me by Theodore Tilton, and at the reasons given for the refasal. On your solemn and repeated assurances of personal friendship, and in the unquestioning confidence with wiiich you inspired me of your honor and fidelity, I placed rji your hands for safe-keeping various letters addressed to me from my brother, my sister, and various other pai'ties ; also memoranda of affairs not immediately con- nected with Mr. Tilton's affairs. I also from time to time addiessed you confidential notes relating to my own self, as one friend would write to another. These papers were never placed in your hands to be held for two par- ties ; they were to be held for me. I did not wish to sub- ject them to risk of loss or scattering, from my careless habits in the manner of preserving documents. They were to be held for me. In so far as these papers were concerned, you were only a friendly trustee holding papers subject to my wishes. And as my friend Mr. Abbott suggests he don't go to Narragansett to take counsel of Benjamia F. Butler, but the moment he receives tlie letter wMch shows to him that he is in the coils of a serpent he answers it upon the instant ; he preserved no copy ; we were compelled, from them, under the exaction of a subpena and the power of an oath, to compel the production of tMs letter in or- der to ascertain even what Mr. Beecher had written. And they could not refuse it, for they had admitted its receipt. Do you suppose that Hem*y Ward Beecher then thought that instead of answermg his trusted friend, Francis D. Moulton, he was writing to the man who had already recorded his name in history, that he was writing to one of the ablest publicists of the age, that he was engaged in correspondence with a man whenever spared an enemy, however faithfully he may liave served a friend ; that he was engaged in a contro- versy with Gen. Benjamin F. Butler of Massachusetts, who stood behind this nlan and dictated what he had written. But how does he deal with It ? Is he a guilty adulterer, stricken down by the charge ? Frank Moulton, who tells you that he had over him the power of life and death ; Frank Moulton, whose wife could consign Henry Ward Beecher to infamy ; Frank Moulton, backed by Theodore Tilton, who hated him as he hated his God ; Frank Moulton, who loved nothing that belonged to him, who hated even the very wife of his bosom, who hated, even the very boy whom he had once for false pretenses professed to serve- but I cannot talk with patience of such things. Do you believe that he was a guUty man ; that the moment he found that this man was false indignantly took his stand : " Sir^ I trusted you as a friend. I recognize you now as an enemy. I placed a confidence in you which you did not deserve. I look upon you now as you are. I state my rights ; I appeal to any sense of honor that may remain witMn you. I know my appeal will be in vain, but it shall be made, made fearlessly." Was that the language of innocence' or of guilt ? If it were true that he was an adulterer ; if it were true that tMs very man was at that moment the custodian of a paper in which Mr. Beecher acknowledged adultery ; if it were true that again and again, through those long months and years, he had occupied himself under Frank Moulton's roof in declaring that he had sex- ual intercourse with Elizabeth Tilton, if he knew that Mrs. Moulton, a respectable communicant in his own church, had heard his confession, would that have been the tone of Henry Ward Beecher's answer % Butler was not there. He had been left either at Narragansett or New- York. Here was a letter that needed an answer. It needed an answer, too, that could be used afterward in a court of justice. Frank Moulton was not the man capa- ble of writing it. Theodore Tilton is sent for, and he is at hand. MR. MOULTON'S ANSWER TO MR. BEECHER. Through the long watches of the night of the the 4th of August these men concocted the answer which they thought afterward might impose on a Court and a jury, and here it is. The hand is the hand of Tilton, but the voice is the voice of Moulton. I read to you only a part of Mr. Beecher's letter ; with a view of saving your time I will read to you only a part of Theodore Tilton's reply : You are incorrect in saying that Mr. Tilton has had access to my " depository of materials ;" on the contrary, I have refused Mr, Tilton such access. During the prep- aration of his sworn statement he came to me and said Ms case would be incomplete unless I permitted him the use of all the documents, but I refused ; and aU he could rely upon were such notes as he had made from time to time from writings of yom-s which you had written to me to be read to Mm, and passages of wMch he caught from my lips in shorthand. You may remember that among the questions I put to him when he was upon the stand, was whether he had read those to him, and whether Theodore Tilton had taken notes in shorthand, and he swore he had not. He has an excuse for tMs ; it was Tilton that wrote this, not he ; Tilton confessed what Moulton denied. Mr. Tilton has seen oMy a part of the papers in my possession, and would be more surprised to learn the entire facts of the case than you can possibly be. And the man who wrote that sentence is Theodore Til- ton. I won't dwell on it any longer, THE CHARGE OF BLACKMAIL REAVOWED. Grentlemen, these were two blackmailers. I have noticed with what formality it has been annoimced that the charge of blackmail has been in this case with- drawn, that Mr. Beecher disavowed it. Why, gentlemen, no man who understood the facts of this case has ever TEE TILTOJS-BEEOHER lElAL. doubted that this was a case of blackmail. Men hesi- tated to say it, as we always shrink from severe accusa- tions of that kind until the proof is too clear to resist the light. When my friend William O. Bartlett of jTew-York, one of the clearest and ablest men at the New-York bar, whose reputation as a lawyer is less than it would be except for his reputation as a literary man, which rises even above it— when this case was stated to him he at once pronounced it a case of black- mail. And he was right. I regret that his other engage- ments have prevented me from having the benefit of his services, as well as those of my valued and honored asso- ciates of this case, because he would speak with a direct- ness and power in characterizing it that I cannot com- mand. But can you doubt that it was blackmail, and trom the beginning? Not from the beginning as against Mr. Beeoher— in the beginning, Bowen ; in its prosecution, Beecher; in the end, Plymouth Church and the friends of Mr. Beecher. As long as the money came the charge was held back. When the money failed then came the charge. But do you believe that the gun is not loaded before it is fired ? Do you believe that the cart- ridge and the ball find their way into the weapon before it is discharged by accident? These were men who meant business from the beginning. It is entirely true that their purposes shifted as their de- vices shifted, from time to time, according to the exigen- cies of the occasion, but all through ran the dark thread of conspiracy, which you can trace back from this very hour to the hour when, on the secular Christmas of 1870, Theodore Tilton stood before Henry C. Bowen, arraigned for immorality, and threatened with discharge. Men are often misled by the ambiguity of terms. What is black- mail? In a strict and technical sense this is not a case of blackmail. Fortunately, such cancerous conspiracies as this have been so rare that our language does not furnish terms to characterize with definite precision the peculiar infamy of the actors or the vile instrumentali- ties they employ. It is only by proximate terms that such men and such means can be portrayed. The word blackmail in its primary sense imports contributions made by honest m^nto the confederates of rogues, to avoid threatened pUlage and depredation. In another sense it imports the extortion of money whether from the guilty or the innocent, by threats of injurious accusa- tion. Webster defines the term thus : 1. A certain rate of money, coin, cattle, or other thing anciently paid in the North of England and South of Scotland to certain men, who were allied to robbers, to be by them protected from pillage. 2. Extortion of money from a person by threats of accusation or ex- posure, or of opposition, in the public prints. THE EEASONS FOR CHARGING BLACKMAIL. Technically, the moneys obtained by Moul- ton from Mr. Beecher do not fall within either definition. They were frankly and freely given, and not to an avowed confederate, but to a professed mutual frien They were obtained not by open menace, but by the cunning and treachery of a smooth-tongued confidence man. Mr. Beecher was made to believe a lie. Moulton persuaded him that Mrs. Tilton had made him the object of an undue and idolatrous passion ; that Tilton really believed that Mr. Beecher had estranged her love ; that the stories Mr. Beecher had repeated to Bowen were the imfounded calumnies of gossiping and half-crazed women, and that he had been by these means and by his too ready credulity, the instrument of stripping Tilton of $15,000 a year and destroviug the peace of his family ani blasting his personal reputation and his prospects of edi- toi'ial success in after life. If he was made to believo these things, had he done no wrong ? Was there nothing of which he ought to repent ? Is it nothing to have slan- dered a man who he is assured is innocent ? Is it nothing to have alienated the affections of a true-hearted and loving wife ? Is it nothing to have bias tell the prospects of father and mother and children, and brought the one to shame and dishonor and the other to poverty and destitution i You know that he had done neither of these things, but he was made to believe that he had done them all. It is only this investigation that has unearthed these facta which will blast the memory of Theodore Tilton now and in all future time. Mr. Beecher was made by that plausible Frank Moulton, who deceived even you oy his plausi- bility, through many days of his examination, who deceives every man that comes in contact with him until he has the means of see- ing what lies beneath that smooth and glossy surface- Mr. Beecher was deceived by him into the belief that he had been guilty of these great wrongs. And they took great care that he should not be undeceived. They said to him : " Slander of a clergyman is like slan- der of a woman. A clergyman who is not above suspicioti is lost ; the woman who is not above suspicion has gone already to the grave. It is due to yourself, it is due to Elizabeth, that no human being silall know these matt r- except us. She charges you with this." Oh, you can see how cue oily tongue of Moulton moved— ' she charges you with this, Mr. Beecher; she charges you with it ; she loves you in her heart— in her heart. You think not. I know it ; I know it. She loves your little finger more than she loves the body of Theodore Tilton. Don't go near her. It will only kindle the flame to a brighter heat. Don't talk to others. If you trust your dearest friend, you involuntarily trust his wife, who trusts her friend, who trusts her neighbor, and all trust the community. Don't you go with that story to Benja- mia F. Tracy. Tracy will know it, and so will Tracy's wife. Don't you go with it to John L. HilL If John L. Hill knows it, he la faithful to you, but Plymouth Church will knovs^ it. Ti-ust this whole matter to me, Mr. Beecher. I beli ' I SUJJJUyG VF 1 you to be innocent, but you Lave clone Theodore Tilton great wrong. Trust it to me. I know the man. He lias infirmities; lie is jealous ; when he is aroused his pas- sions are unsoyernable ; but leaye it to me, and I will control them. If all else fails, I will grind him to pow- der. But what you have to do is to deal wirh him in his own spirit. He is a magnanimous man ; he is a generous man ; take the whole blame on yourself, and he will 'for- gixe you, and be a warmer friend than ever he was be- fore." Under just such influences as these Islx. Beecher was led first to feel the deepest anguish and remorse at the ^^ong of which lie hajd been the unconscious instru- ment, and then to express, in the warm and hurning lan- guage of a large and generous heart, the regret he felt at the wrong, even to Theodore Tilton. But, to proceed. Moulton held Beecher in this position, and lie knew it. The inciuiry is, how he used his power oyer him and how he intended to use It, Isow, if we regard the term blackmail in its moral sense, there is no room for dispute that Francis D. Moulton was a blackmailer. If he lielieved Henry Ward Beecher to be an adulterer, as he now falsely pretends he did, all men will agree that he was a black- mailer. What ! Adultery, and money paid for it, and no blackmail ! He admits that he told Beecher of Theodore Tilton's threats. Is the extortion of money- hy threats not blackmail? He admits that he obtained the money; he admits that he gave it to Mr. Tilton ; he admits that he concealed the fact that he received it ; he refused to take the $5,000 in the form of a check to his order, be- cause that would expose his agency in the transaction. He exacted it in bills, and concealed, even on the books of his firm, as he himself admits, the fact that the money came from Mr. Beecher. He broke into a violent rage when Gen. Tracy incautiously al- luded to his knowledge of the fact that Tilton had received the money. He denounced Mr. Beecher for disclosing it to Mr. Tracy, on the false assumption that Mr. Beecher was Gen. Tracy's informant. When he found that his partner Franklin Woodruff was the man who had disclosed it, he denounced Woodruff to his face for betraying him to Tracy. Mr. W^oodruff afterward came to Gen. Tracy to reproach him for telling Moulton of this harmless and innocent fact. Why all this wasted rage if there was no blackmail 1 He went further; indeed you yourselves saw Francis D. Moulton, in your presence, in communication with the then examining counsel when he questioned Gen. Tracy as to this interview with Woodruff, and as to what he called Gen. Tracy's apology for betraying the secret of black- mail. If Moulton was not conscious that he had obtained this money from Mr. Beecher by treacherous cunning and contrivance, why did he object to receiving it in the form of a check to his own order ? Why, after the Inves- tigating Committee was called, did he warn Mr. Beecher, through Gen. Tracy, that if he ever » aid anything aboixt 1 that 85,000, h-^ should deny that he ever received iti Why did he tell G^n. Tracy, on learning that he knew it, that Mr Beecher must deny it, and that he himself should deny it 1 Why, after he found that G«n. Tracy would not advise Mr. Beecher either to deny or to suppress the fact in his statement, and after he found that Franklin Woodruff had disclosed the fact imprudently to Gen. Tracy, did he attempt to soften 3Ir. Beecher's statement of the fact ? What did he do? All the appeals of Gen. Tracy to his manhood and his honor to suppress the infamous state- ment whicb had been prepared at Narragansett fail ; but in view of the fact of blackmail, he came to the conclu- sion that after all it was better to suppress that state- ment which had been the labor of two weeks' parturition, and to publish a short statement which Mr. Beecher should think under all the circumstances was satisfac- tory, that Mr. Beecher had committed an of- fense, but it had received a suitable apology ; that the offense was not of such a character as to involve his honor or his purity as a man, and that the church should dismiss the inouiry. But, mark you, the man who put in that statement to mislead and entrap Mr. Beecher had in his pocket the other statement, prepared \ffr him- self and by Gen. Butler, charging Mr. Beecber with adul- tery, and containing the documents to whicb lie had refused ]Mr. Beecher access ! Again, when he finally pub- lishes his own statement, be pretends in it that he has made no change in it, even to the extent of a single word, since it was originally written, before he introduced the other statement ; but you can judge of the probability of the pretense from tbe fact tbat in its published form there was a reluctant and enforced admission of the pay- ment of the money, with a lame and impotent attempt to explain it as a little private roguery of his own— for the benefit of Tilton, it is true, but without a thought on the part of Tilton that the money came from Beecher. And yet, that Theodore Tilton— who never suspected that the money came from Mr. Beecher— finds his way, on the next Lord's Day, just before the services of Plymouth Church, to the comer of Columbia Higbts, near to the house of Mr. Beecher, puts his arm within Mr. Beecher's, and proceeds to say to him, how he, Theodore, loves him; and within a few weeks after, even by his own concession, he has laid on the stand of Plymouth platform, where Mr. Beecher is to meet it at tbe opening of the service, the message, " Grace, mercy, and peace. T. T." But, of course, he didn't know where this $5,000 came from ; and it was a mere speculation of Frank Moulton to re- imburse himself for his benefactions to Tilton, and he and Beecher had agreed that Tilton never should know anything about it. Doubtless Tilton thought that this $5,000 in greenbacks coming down upon a parched and thirsty land, came down from Heaven, that it was brought down upon that ladder de- 640 THE TlLTOJ^-BEh'^lHER TRIAL. icribed in his Biograpliy of Mrs. Woodliull, by one of the descending angels of free love, and who very naturally had committed the precioizs charge to the hands of Frank Moulton as messenger. Or perhaps he thought it a gift brought hy the hand of that child mentioned in the Wood- liull Biography, of whom Theodore Tilton, over his own signature, certiflea that the Avoman in the free love man- sion had raised a child from the dead ; though he did not believe that Lazarus was raised by the Redeemer of man- kind! Wherever the $5,000 came from, Theodore would not give a note for a dollar of the amount. He could not trust even the chivalrous Moulton with his note for the first thousand dollars of the money ; he sends back Moul- ton's check scornfully, with the message, " I cannot bor- row what I cannot repay." Moulton, deferring to the sensibilities of his friend, sends him back the check, and the man who refuses to give a note for the money pockets the check, and appro- priates it to his private use. Of course Tilton did not know wnere the money came from. It would not have been respectable to know. Certainly not, if he believed it to be bed-money for the use and occupation of his own wife ; and even then he contemplated, I have no doubt, in his own heart, the future charge of adultery which has culminated in this prosecution. It would have been still less respectable if he knew it had been obtained by cunning and treacherous contrivance Irom an in- nocent, warm-hearted, and generous man, who be- lieved that he was repairing a wrong lie had imcon- sciously committed in the wreck and desolation of a family bound to him by ties so sacred as the connection with his own cherished church. If Moulton and TUton did not regard this money as blackmail, why did they both cower and shrink in dismay when the fact came to be known that they received ib ? If it was not blackmail, why were no entries made by either of them of the sources from which it was received % If it was not black- mail, why do they retain' the money to this very hour ? Theodore Tilton and Frank Moulton can find the means to carry on this expensive and burdensome prosecution, but never to this hour has it occurred to either of them that they should return the money which was obtained by false pretenses and fraud. On the 2d of Mny, '74, Tilton had the eflfrontery to write a letter to Mr. Beecher from The Golden Age oflBLce, which I will ask your permission to read. You see there are always two Tiltons. The one chivalrous and mag- nanimous, who scorns all that is mean, who stands in the presence of this age and of all the future generations of history and of the world here and of the world above, expecting all men and all beings to unite in admiring him. The other Tilton is the man who receives $5,000, puts it in his pocket, and does not know where it comes from. The other Tilton is the man who when Bessie Ttimer has the boldness to rebuke his insolence to his poor wife dashes her against the wall, and then turns and says, *' Bessie, my dear, did you slip and hm-t yourself I" [Laughter.l Now, here we have the other Tilton, and I want to pre- face it with a single remark. That accoxmt which Frank Moulton produced, and over which he was so triumphant on the stand, and which was commented on in the news- papers as so triumphantly vindicating him against the charge of blackmail, shows that on the day of the date of this letter from Theodore Tilton to Henry Ward Beecher, Theodore Tilton drew $250 of that $5,000; but it un- luckily happened that it was the last draft but one made upon the dying ftuid. It happened to be at the very time when he was engaged in his attempt to get up this new journal in New- York, of which Henry Ward Beecher was to be the editor, of which Frank Carpenter was to be the manager, of which IMoul- ton was to be the business man, and of which Theodore Tilton was to be the correspondent at a salary of $10,000 a year, until he could take the chief editorship. That was it. It was the time when Claflin, and Southwick, and Cleveland, and Sage, and the other friends of Beecher were called upon to unite in this grand, new enterprise, which was to give to Henry Ward Beecher a higher repu- tation in the world at large even than all the services which he had rendered in obedience to his Master's com- mand. But he must keep his record all right; and we find produced this letter written. Observe, he is ready to receive money from Jackson S. Schultz; he is ready to receive it from Southwick ; he is ready to re- ceive it from Claflin, and wanting to receive it from Cleve- land ; wanting Plymouth Church to pay it, saying that imless Plymouth Church comes to his terms he will blow off its roof. But this honorable man, who has an alterna- tive behind, to wit, an action against Henry Ward Beecher for crim con. with his wife, writes to him this letter, which can be kept in readiness, and which was read by my rhetorical friend. Judge Fullerton, in such a manner as almost to di'aw tears from the eyes of every man who heard it. " The Golden Age. May 2, 1874. Henry Ward Beecher "—men of true dignity, you know, reject titles. True, the world would have said " the Reverend Henry Ward Beecher ; " but that would be a concession which the blackmailer could not brook. Henry Ward Beecher. Sir : I have just this morning learned to my sur- prise and sorrow that F. B. Carpenter, whose good-wiU toward both you and me is unquestionable, has con- sulted you concerning the use of your money, influence and good offices for the enlargement of the capital of The Golden Age. Mr. Carpenter mentions to me also your saying to him that under certain conditions, involving certain disavowals by me— referring, of course, to the Woodhull matter, for he must disavow Free Love and all that kind of thing— involving certain disavowals, a sum of money would or could be raised to send me, with my family to Europe for a terra of years. Now, mark you, not only had no such proposition been SUjlMiyG CP J made by the friends of Mr. Beeclier, but aU Frank Car- penter liad attempted to that end had utterly failed. Theodore Tilton himself had l.een arraigned at the Union Club by men of character, who had been his former friends^ as a blackmailer, and the question was submitted to arbitration as to whether he was or not. Of course it is time for him to put matters right. Of course you need no assurance that such an applica- tion or suggestion Is wholly unauthorized by me, and is inexpressibly repugnant to my feelings. The occasion j compels me to state explicitly that, so long as life and j self-respect continue to exist together in my breas*:, I shall be debarred from receiving, either directly or indi- rectly, any pecuniary or other favor at your hands. Oh, at your hands ! It must come through Claflin, it must come through South wick, it must come through I Schultz or Cleveland, some of these other gentlemen. " I cannot receive money from Henry Ward Beecher ; r.ot I." The reason for this feeling, on my part, you know so well that I spare you the statement of it. If it had been Moufton, he would have said, " Why, Beecher, you know it is because you and Theodore Tilton's wife had sexual intercourse together. Beecher, do you remember you told me on Monday, and you told me on Tuesflay, and you told me on Wednesday ; you told me in January and in July ; you told me every month of the year for four years ; every time you came down, fear- ing I had forgotten it— you told me you had sexual inter- course with Elizabeth E. Tilton." Tilton is more deli- cate ; he believed in generosity. I need not state what is the reason why I cannot receive money from you, and you must send it through Claflin or Southwick, and it has got to be done soon, too, for the fund is nearly out." ' This is May 2, 1874; and the next month comes the Bacon letter. , PROMISES JVIADE IN THE PLAimFFS OPEN- ING NOT FULFILLED. My friend Shearman calls my attention, as illustrative of the point I am on, to page 677, second volume. This is the testimony of Charles Storrs : I asked Mr. Tilton— says I, "What is the matter with C aflin r' Says he, " ^Tiy ?" Says I, " He didn't seem favor- ably disposed to the project, and rather talked against it than for it." Mr. Tilton says, " Claflin had better look out ; perhaps something can be said about him." Well, when Theodore Tilton comes to say it, he had better find other witnesses than Frank Moulton and his wife to carry through the charge ; and, let me tell htm, after the developments of this trial, even though his friend Butler should tender his services to his friend Claflin as his adviser, he will have a decided preference lor Benjamin F. Tracy and William M. Evarts. The Bcheming and shallow brain of this man advised what doubtless seemed to him and Moulton a cunning expedient in writing this letter to Mr. Beecher. It would serve to repudiate the ac-t of his agent, Carpeu- Y Mli. FOETEE. 641 ter, if his negotiations fail. It would iiuicken Mr. Beeeher to aid these negotiations by inducing his friends to ac- cede, unconditionally, to Mr. Carpenter's demands, and to enable Tilton, if they faUed, to put himself uiion the lofty ground that he never could accept an:\'thing at the hands of Heni-y Ward Beecher. Tbe eflLTontery of the blackmailer, gentlemen, is curiously illustrated by the fact, admitted 03- Moulton in his cross-examination, and without appreciating its damning effect upon him- self, that on this same 2d of May the draft was made upon that very fund to which I have already re- ferred, and which was succeeded by a draft exhaust- ing the fund. And, in regard to Mr. Carpenter, gentle- men, I desire to call your attention to the fact that in the opening of this case, my friend Judge Morris distinctly announced to you that he should prove by Frank Car- penter that Henry Ward Beecher confessed to him his adultery with Elizabeth E. Tilton. The platatiflfe closed tlitir evidence, but the busy agent of Tilton was not called. We closed ours, and they went through their evidence, still Carpenter was not called. Moulton came back; Tilton came back; Stephen Pearl Andi-ews was brought; everybody was brought that could be reached. You saw Frank Carpenter in court hovering on the con- flues of the ground. This man, the only impartial man who ever pretended that Henry Ward Beecher made such a confession dare not appear. Why not 1 If this is not a manufactured case, how does it hap- pen that the only disinterested witness by whom the assertion was to be proved is not willing to confront a jury with his oath % And the same counsel indicated to you in his opening that al- though :Mrs. Bradshaw might not be able to prove the confession of Hemy Ward Beecher, she would at least prove the confession of Elizabeth R. Tilton. Of course it would have been illegal, but, strangely enough, in the com-se of their evidence they called her to the stand and introduced in evidence a letter written by her to Henry Ward Beecher, in which she says, with all the woman's fervor of her soul : I do n't believe the infamous charges of Theodore Til- ton against you, and Elizabeth, his wife, has never con- fessed to me that you offered her an indignity. Moulton don't fail; Tilton don't fail; Mrs. Moulton is here. How does it happen that the witnesses whom the public were led to expect are not here ? If it were true, if a respectable and leading artist in the City of Brooklyn had from Henry Ward Beecher such a confession, do you suppose he would not have been on that stand, the man who was willing to run as an er- rand boy in behalf of Theodore Tilton ; and to circulate calumnies against Mr. Beecher in the clubs, who has been even here,— why is he not there ? The accusation is false. He did not swear to it, because it was not true, not, however, because the other side did not mean to prove by him that it was true. Again, 642 THE TILTON-BEEGREB TBIAL. I st.buiit tliat the blackmail purpose of these proceedings is still further illustrated by the fact that appears in Moulton's testimony at page 256 of the first volume, that on the 26th of tJi® same month of May, and just before the appearance of the Bacon letter, Moulton and Tilton put their names on the back of the last draft for the balance of Beecher's $5,000, and the further fact that on that date Tilton's account with the firm of Woodruff & Robinson was largely over- drawn. ^ THE ATTEMPT TO BLACKMAIL PERSISTENT. Have you ever doubted where that Bacon let- ter was written 1 Now, here, too, we have an illustra- tion of Moulton. Here Is the fact that The Golden Ape was then practically bankrupt ; that it was on the eve of being turned over to Clark aa a sinking concern ; that Tilton was then concocting the Bacon letter; that Moul- ton, as usual, was professing to oppose, but he and Tilton were engaged in concocting, in the hope of still bringing the friends of Beecher to contribute further sums to them under the name of charity. Moulton did not even then abandon the purpose in which for the time he seemed to be baffled. Even after the publication of the Bacon let- ter, with his usual smooth and oily duplicity, he pretended to Mr. Beecher to have been opposed to its publication, and he had the cool effrontery and indiscretion to tell Mr. Beecher that he, Frank Moul- ton, had offered $5,000 in gold to Theodore Tilton to sup- press the publication of that letter. Do you believe he ever intended to pay $5,000 in gold to Theodore Tilton for the purpose of serving Henry Ward Beecher ? Is that the man t This is the same man who obtained the whole heart of Mr. Beecher by saying to him on one occasion : " Why, rather than have a suit about this matter of Bowen's, which might by possibility bring in your scan- dal, I told Tilton I would pay him $7,000 out of my own pocket," and here he again tells him: " I offered Theo- dore Tilton $5,000 in gold not to publish this Bacon letter, this libel upon you." Did he think him a blackmailer 1 Is it to any but blackmailers that such oflfers are made 1 Of course he made no such oflPer, and you understand why the sugges- tion was made to Mr. Beecher. The difference was in the price. It was an intimation to 3Ir. Beecher that some other friend had better offer him $10,000, and the letter would then be suppressed. My friend Shearman calls my attention to a fact, which escaped my memory, that he followed it up immediately by telling Mr. Beecher : *♦ Why, you had better give him your whole fortune than have such a slander as this published." No blackmailer! Theodore didn't know this; he didn't hear it, and if the occasion came he would be ready to write to Mx*. Beecher a letter saying, " I have learned with great regret and sorrow that my friend Moulton has coolly proposed, in my interest, to ask you to turn over to me your whole fortune. I wish you distinctly understand that Mr. Moulton had no authority for any such proposition from me." The same game. It is the " panel" game which runs throug;h this case. I borrow the expression from my friend Mr. Evarts, as ap- plied to an earlier stage of this matter, of which I shall not speak, because I want you to hear him. Wby should Frank Moulton pay down $5,000 in gold from his own funds to save a clerical de- bauchee from the charge of playing the libertine witli Theodore Tilton's wife ? It was a bid for blackmail. It was cunningly concocted under the guise of the mutual friend, who would sacrifice all he had for the benign pur- pose of reconciling an adulterer with the husband of bis paramour, and that husband his closest and most inti- mate friend. If Moulton was capable of an act of such black and contemptible infamy, then I submit to you whether his fitting home is not in the lowest haunts of vice, and whether he should not recede from view, and from your honored Chief-Justice, with a brand upon his forehead which hereafter will protect honest men and honest women from contact with one so vile and dastardly. Do you doubt that the purpose of this man was blackmail from the beginning? Whoever else might doubt, Tilton perfectly knew. On his dismissal from The Independent he had no claim against Bowen which he could enforce if the actual facts were known, as they were then known to him, and as they are now known to you. iEven Moultou acknowledged the fact to Beecher, that Bowen charged Tilton with personal immoralities, which would bar him from a recovery under the contracts. Both Tilton and Moulton deny the truth of these accu- sations, but in the light of the evidence given on tliia trial there is no doubt of the truth of those charges, no doubt that Bowen, in fact, had a perfect defense. Neither Moulton nor Tilton dared to press the matter to an issue in the courts of law imtil they could secure alliance with Mr. Beecher's friends, which would enable tham to bring to bear a pressure which would make a resort to arbitrs*- tlbn safe, the thing which Mr. Bowen had proposed from the beginning. The first thing to be done was to convince Mr. Beecher that Bowen was his persistant slanderer, and his bitter and malignant enemy. In this they succeeded, but it took time. But when this was thoroughly ■accomplished, when Moulton had been enabled, by the aid of Beecher, to give the lie to his calumnies against the defendant, and to shake in the teeth of Bowen, as he says he did, the statement m his o\ni handwriting of every isv'^ue which he ever had with Henry Ward Beecher, Moulton still objected to arbitrate, objected even to bringing suit at that stage of the mat- ter, on the ground that Bowen ought to reinstate Tilton in The Independent. That was the original aim, as I have stated. But the scenes shifted, their objeetB changed, and their devices changed with the purpoaea they were intended to subserve, and the error or the SU31MMG UF BY ME. FOBTEB. 643 brood throTigliout the conspiracy is in assuming that men who c uspire in the beginning never change the purposes, the objects, and the modes to gain the ultimate end. Frank Moulton and Theodore Tilton fvould to-daj be very far Irom the enemies or ac- cusers of Mr. Beecher M fortune had favored them both, if Moulton had grown rich as fast as he wanted to, and if Tilton had been permitted to enjoy an income of $15,000 to $20,000 a year; but there are men who live not for others, as Henry Ward Beecher does, but for themselves. They had their common purposes to gain. Both of thefli were mean shams, who wanted to be thought real men. Moulton, who wanted the reputation of wealth and literary ability; Tilton, who wanted the reputation of being the most magnanimous man on the face of the earth, and the most indifferent to money, but with his pockets full. Mr. Beecher said, as you will re- member, " Why not arbitrate ? If. you don't arbitrate, why not sue?" Moulton knew what Beecher did not know, and that is, that Bo wen had a perfect defense; but to Beecher he pretended the time had not yet oome. ("To the jurors] : May I go on a little while longer % Judge Neilson— One of the jurymen has been complain- ing. I will hear you in the morning. fTo Mr. Jeflteys, one of the jurors]— Do you wish to ad- journ 1 Mr. Jeffreys— I would rather adjourn. Judge Neilson— Then we wUl adjourn. Return to-mor- row morning at 11 o'clock. The court thereupon adjourned until Wednesday at 11 o'clock. I NINETY-FIRST DAY'S PROCEEDINGS. j JUDGE PORTER'S SUMMING UP FINISHED. A juror's sickness delays the beginning of MR. EVARTS'S ADDRESS— THE COURT ADJOURNED WITHOUT AN AFTERNOON SESSION— THE CHARGES OF BLACKMAIL CONSIDERED BY JUDGE PORTER —IMPROBABILITY OF MRS. MOULTON'S TESTI- MONY CONCERNING A CONFESSION BY MR. BEECHER ASSERTED— WELL-KNOWN PHRASES ASCRIBED TO MR. TILTON INSTEAD OF MR. BEECHER — CHARACTER OF THE VERDICT EX- PECTED BY TELE DEFENSE. Wednesday, May 26, 1875. The crowded assembly of persons who had again come together expecting to hear Judge Por- ter close and Mr. Evarts begin his argu- ment for Mr. Beecher, was kept impa- tiently waiting for 20 minutes yesterday after the regular hour for opening arrived. Mr. Evarts first, and afterward Mr. Beach and Judge Porter, went around to th© left of the j my box and talked with one of the jurors, Mr. Jefeeys, who was suffering from some disorder of the stomach, which, it will be remembered, at an earlier period in the trial caused him a lit of sickness. The other jurors watched these proceedings with anxious faces. Judge Neilson was also consulted, and the words '* Another adjourn- ment" began to be whispered about the room, while many faces wore looks of disappointment. It finally came to be understood that Mr. Jefireys really felt unable to sit in the jury-bos, but that he had consented to remain until recess in order to give Judge Porter an opportunity to complete his argument. When the hour for recess arrived, Judge Porter's address having been completed, i\Ir. Carpenter, the foreman of the jury, addressing Judge Neilson, said that Mr. Jefireys felt unable to remain in the jury- box during the afternoon. Judge Neilson asked the sick juror if an adjournment until to-morrow would answer his purpose, and ho replied that it would. The court was then adjourned. Judge Porter began the closing portion of his argu- ment by a further consideration of the charge of blackmail. Mrs. Moulton's evidence about her alleged conversation with Mr. Beecher was also a principal topic for review. This evidence, the orator asserted, was improbable. The phrase " a section of the day of judgment," which IVIrs. Moulton tes- tified that Mr. Beecher used to describe her in her relations to him, was referred to with keen sarcasm by Judge Porter. "I am afraid," he said, smiling, and glancing toward Mr. Tilton, " that the author of that phrase was the author of ' paroxysmal kiss,' and ' standing on the brink of a moral Niagara.' " Mrs. Moulton's testi- mony on this point was reviewed, and analyzed, sentence by sentence. The tendency of witnesses to make honest mistakes, and to be deceived when they think they are sure of what they assert, was dwelt upon at some length, and considerations to be taken into account in weighing the testimony of ^Irs. Moulton were pointed out. When a few minutes be- fore 1 o'clock Judge Porter in a low, earnest voice said, *• Gentlemen I must close," there was a stir in the audience followed by dead silence. The orator then began the closing words of his address. He summed up, in brief, much of his preceding argument. "Moulton," he said, " the main prop of this prosecution, stands be- fore you confi-onting oath to oath men like Claflin, Storrs, Freeland, his own partner," &c. " In regard to Theodore Tilton," he added, " he has the misfor- 644 THE TILIOI^-BEECHER IRIAL. tune not only to have opposed his oath to that of Henry Ward Beecher, but on vital and material points, about which there can be no mistake, ne stands contradicted by 34 witnesses who have no interest in this case except the interest which be- longs to us all." The orator praised Gen. Tracy, thanked Judge Neilson for his kindness, and acknowledged the just- ness of his rulings, and declared his own reluctance to part with the case. Finally, addressing the jury, he spoke of their verdict. " The verdict," he ex- claimed, "is to be one which will gladden many, many hearts, a verdict which will illuminate Brooklyn Hights, a verdict which will send an electric thrill of joy through Christendom." THE PEOCEEDINGS-VERBATTM. ' ME. POSTER CLOSES HIS ARGUMENT. The Court met at 11 a. m., pursuant to ad- journment. Mr. Porter— If it please tour Honor— Gentlemen OP THE Jury : I am grateful to you all, l)ut especially to that member of your body who lias kindly consented to sit until recess to enable me to close my argument^ al- tliougli perhaps It may he at the peril of his own health. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE BLACKMAIL PLOT. As I have said, the first object of Moulton and Tilton was to reinstate the latter in Tlie InclejJendent. That f aUed. The Golden Age was started. By their adroit contrivances and appeals to the generosity of the friends of Mr. Beecher, they were led to contribute $6,000 of the $12,000 which was to be the capital of the concern. Messrs. Schultz, Southwlck, and others, set that enter- prise on foot. Mr. Tilton, after his connection with the Woodhulls, scuttled the ship which had been favorably launched. The debts of the concern came to be large ; its receipts were small. There was nothing before it, nothing before him, but disaster and bankruptcy. Tilton had sunk so hopelessly by his intermediate alliance with spiritualism and free love that it endangered even that portion of the fortunes of Moulton and Woodruff which they had embarked in the sinking craft. Of course they cared for no one but themselves, but caring for themselves they were from the necessity of their position compelled to protect all the subscribers who stood in a correspond- ing relation. To the end that they might be relieved from half their subscriptions, money must be had, and money was obtained. The idea of reinstatement in The Inde- pendent had been abandoned, and now the time had come to strike. Bowen must be reached. He was not a man of a conciliatory temper, and more especially when ix came to paying money that he did not owe. Other in- fluences must be brought to bear. These printed slips ap- pear, containing the letter of the 1st of January from Theodore Tilton to Henry C. Bowen, which if published to the world would leave upon him the impress of a foul and deliberate libelor. But it was needful that a pres- sure should be brought to bear upon Mr. Bowen beyond that, because the mere name of libeler was not enough to draw money from his purse when its strings were tight drawn. It needed the pressure of the men of strength in Brook- lyn. It needed the pressure of men like Storrs, men like Claflin, men like Cleveland, men like Sage. And how was that pressure to be brought to bear 1 Ah ! from the beginning that had all been provided for ; for the same letter which would blast Bowen as a libeler would also bring under a cloud of suspicion the honored name of the pastor of Plymouth 'Church. Then he finds his way to Wilkeson. Meantime these slips, printed apparently for publication, were not published; carried about; shown in privacy from man to man ; well worn, even when presented to Wilkeson. The type were distributed. They were slips for blackmail, and so intended from the beginning. And that pistol did not miss fire— it brought the money ; it brought not merely the money, but, in the language of Theodore Tilton, it brought the " spoils." Meantime $2,000 had been got from Mr. Beecher, under the pretense of Tilton's inability to pay the expenses of Bessie Turner. Five hundred dol- lars in bills, as Woodruff discloses, had been obtained for the purpose of contributing to the expenses of Theodore Tilton's family. Five thousand dollars had been obtained from Henry Ward Beecher by trick, by contrivance, by ap- peals to his generosity and his sense of having wronged this family. Five thousand dollars was obtained, and in bills, by putting a paper roof over the house in which Henry Ward Beecher, his wife, his children, and his grandchildren had their home. Then come the demands on Mr. Beecher's friends for more ; then comes the re- monstrance that this is blackmail; then comes the sug- gestion of Frank Moulton to Mr. Beecher, " I offered him $5,000 in gold, and it was not enough ;" then came the suggestion to which I referred yesterday, " Your whole fortune had better be sacrificed than have the Bacon let- ter appear." Now, gentlemen, I shall say nothing more on blackmail, except to recaU in this connection a circumstance to which I before directed your attention, that even after that, Theodore Tilton, denying the charge that he was a blackmailer, said to Jackson S. Schultz, " I will blow the roof from Plymouth Chuich, unless Plymouth Church comes to my terms." Plymouth Chiu"cb didn'r, and its roof still stands. Then came, even after the Bacon letter, for that too was a blackmail letter, although the type were not distributed ; it was a letter so shaped as to be consistent with innocence or guilt on the part of Mr» SUMMING UP BY ME. PORTER. 645 Beecher, to admit of either construction, and tlie faTora- ble construction was for sale. THE CAEPENTER CARD. After tliat letter, when Tilton and Monlton •were concocting tliis suit, wlien t2iey were conferring with Mrs. Moulton about testifying in this suit, tte Car- penter card is prepared. It was pressed upon Mr. Beeclier again and again. Gentlemen, this paper has fatal force when you come to consider the surroundings which point to the motives of those who originated it. Remember the situation. The " Tripartite Agreement" has been published; the "Bacon Letter" has been pub- lished; the "Bacon Letter" embodies a gar- bled copy of the "Apology;" it is before the world ; it means adultery, or it doesn't mean adidtery ; and the question is to be determined which it means. Upon the instant when that letter appeared, Henry Ward Beecher challenged the issue, called for an iUTestigation. Moul- ton remonstrated against his call for a Committee, be- cause it was a breach of faith. What, a breach of faith 1 Yes, for Henry Ward Beecher had pledged him- self to the policy of silence. You see there where the policy of silence originated. That pledge was exacted by Tilton and Moulton for their own purposes, and the moment that Mr. Beecher came out and demanded an in- vestigation he was charged with breach of faith and honor. And yet these men who thus construe pledges were the very men who had concocted that " Bacon Letter." Was that in accordance with the policy of silence ? Who had published the " Apology," the first words of which were, " In trust with Francis D. Moulton," and which was published without the consent of the ceshd qui trust f It was a policy of silence to be observed by Beecher and TO be trampled by them. He said the time had come when there must be investigation ; yet still deceived in Moulton, believing that it was Tilton who had overruled liim, that Moulton could not control him, he proceeds to call his Investigating Committee. Now comes the next device. Moulton swears that he and Theodore Tilton held a conference together ; that in pui-suance of that conference he, in Tilton's presence, dictated— of course you know what that means; it means that Theodore Tilton dictated— to Frank Moulton this card. Observe, gentlemen, Henry Ward JBeecher was guilty or inno- cent. Whether guilty or innocent he knew it. They tender to him this card; he refuses to sign it. They tender it to Gen. Tracy; he advises him to refuse to sign it. It is again and again presented to them and urged by Moulton. Mr. Beecher answered : "I can't sign it." "But Tilton has pledged himself that if you either sign that card or read it at Plymouth Chui'ch, so that it may end this in- vestigation, it shall end this whole matter forever." " I cannot trust Theodore Tilton." " Oli! but yovL can trust me. If Theodore Tilton doesn't keep faith with you I will griud him to powder ; I wUl stand by you from that time forever. I will bum that ' Apology,' and every paper I hold to which Tilton could resort for the purpose of impeaching your honor." What was it they asked him to sign? This paper dictated at Delmonico's saloon in New- York, at a conference between these two blackmailers, dictated in the presence of that Frank Carpenter who was to have been brought forward to prove confessions, that Frank Carpenter of whom Judge Morris said, in his opening speech, at page 55 of the first volume : But, gentlemen, we do not rest our case upon the testi- mony furnished by Mr. Beecher himself alone. We go further than that ; we will put upon the stand Mr. Car- penter, whose veracity, I apprehend, will not be ques- tioned in this court, and to him, we may say, Mr. Beecher made his confession. But, gentlemen, we shall not stop there. And he proceeds to state what else they will prove : that Frank Carpenter was the amanuensis of Theodore Tilton and Francis D. Moulton at that conference at Del- monico's ; and this is the card which they had cooked up for the purpose of entrapping Mr. Beecher once more into the admission of an undefined offense, so that they might afterwards come in and define it for him as adultery. If Beecher was guilty ; if he had lived a year and a half in adultery with one of his own communicants ; if he had polluted his own house and hers with debauchery ; if he had confessed it to Theodore Tilton face to face ; if he had confessed it to Frank Moulton month after month and year after year ; if he had confessed it to IMrs. Moulton again and again ; if INIrs. Tilton had charged it upon him and confessed that he and she had been guilty, and had made that confession in writing ; if he had authorized Frank Moulton to communicate the fact that he was an adulterer to two respectable members of his own firm ; if, more than that, he had authorized him, in a conference, to communicate that fact to Ben- jamin F. Tracy and to Benjamin F. Butler, or to Samuel D. Morris ; if everybody knew it ; nay, more, if he had acknowledged and ratended to acknowledge it in that " Apology," when he sees Frank Moulton ready to come out on his side, to bring his wife to his rescue and turn these papers to ashes, why is it that he refuses to sign this simple card 1 Let me read it to you. He was merely to stand up in his own lecture-room and utter these words : This church and community are unquestionably and justly interested through the recent publication by Theo- dore Tilton in answer to Dr. Leonard Bacon of New-Ha- ven. It is true that I have committed an offense against Theodore Tilton, and giving to that ofiense the force of his construction, I make an apology and reparation, such as both he and I declared full and necessary. I am con- vinced that Mr. Tilton has been goaded to his defense by misrepresentations or misunderstandings of my position toward him. I shall never be a party to the reopening of this question, which has been honorably settled as be- 646 ^RE TLLTO^-BEEOEEB TRIAL. tween Theodore Tilton and myself. I have committed no crime, and if- this Society believes that it is due to it that I should reopen this already too painful subject, or re- sign, I will resign. I know, as God gives me power to judge of myself, that I am better fitted to-day through trials and chastening to do good than I have ever been. The utterance of these simple words, dictated by Theo- dore, and by which Franli Moulton had pledged himself to abide, would have ended this investigation and would have prevented this action, as Mr. Beecher then believed, for he still trusted and believed in the treacherous Moul- ton. But he had lost faith, not in him, but in Theodore Tilton, and he meant to meet this Issue. There were three who knew he was innocent— Elizabeth R. Tilton, who might or might not be made to be one of his ac- cusers ; himself, and that God whom he served ; and his faith in truth, in innocence, and in right led this coward, as my friend Judge Morris calls him, to stand firm and erect and say, " Never I never ! that card is a falsehood. It is entirely true that I committed an offense against Theodore Tilton, an offense against him in slandering Mm, in making against him false charges which I believed to be true and repeated to his employer. It is true that I was the unconscious means of alienating the affection of his wife. But this implies more, and read in the light of the Bacon Letter, while it of course exonerates me from the charge of adultery made by the Woodhulls, it will lead ail mankind to believe that I did make improper proposals to that woman. I never did, and I will not say It." Is that the language of guilt or of innocence ? MRS. MOULTON'S POSITION. Gentlemen, in speaking of the testimony of Mrs. Moulton I should be wanting in the noblest elements of manhood if I failed to make every allowance, con- sistent with the innocence of my client, which the in- stincts of gentlemanly feeling or the broadest Christian charity can suggest. This is her due in right of her womanhood, even though her oath were a poisoned dag- ger—poisoned, not by her, not by her, but by her hus- band, to drive home to the heart of the pastor from whom she has often received the bread and the wine which typify the body and the blood of the Savior, through whose forgiving love you and I, unworthy as we may be, still hope for final salvation. This is her due, even if she really believed that the unreturned kiss which she says she gave to Henry Ward Beecher in the privacy of a lady's chamber, and in the absence of her husband, was given to a confessed adulterer, to a perjured hypocrite, with whom her conscience would not permit her to commune, and who frankly avowed his purpose in her presence that day or the next to commit self murder, a crime so odious to God that it was made the punishment of the betrayer of the Redeemer ; a crime so odious to men that it was punished by the Common Law of England by burial of the culprit at the cross-roads beneath the horses' hoofs, and with a stake driven through his body. Hers is the testimony of woman against a woman, one whom she admits she nev loved, one whom her husband hated, as he admits o oath, at least from the time of his return from Florid" in the Spring of 1871. Hers is the testimony of a woma against a clergyman to whom she continued to profess t' warmest frienship, even after, as she admits, it had be arranged between her and her husband, and without t' knowledge of Mr. Beecher, in July, 1874, that her tes mony was not to be given before the Church Committ' but to be kept in reserve for a contemplated suit at la then meditated by her husband and Theodore Tilt against a man they were still endeavoring to deceive a ensnare. I shall exercise toward her the forbearan due to her sex, a forbearance which she has not exercis to one whom she received under her own roof as honored guest, and to whom she accorded f a-^^rs whl virtuous women never accord to known and confess adulterers. It has been su2:gested by the enemies of m client that I have dealt discourteously with the perjure blackmailers who sought to destroy him. I appeal your consciences and the conviction of your understan ings based upon the evidence. If Mr. Beecher be a p- jured adulterer, as they would have you believe, and perhaps they themselves believe, I fully justify the bitt denunciations you have already heard from my frien Judge Morris, and those more polished but more dead" which you have already heard and will hear hereaft from my eloquent friend, the senior counsel for the pr ecution. If he is innocent these men are false accuse" If this is a case of conspiracy and perjury it would monstrous that a sworn advocate of the New-York B should hesitate in a tribunal of justice, and in defense" a non-combatant, to denounce guilt and to protect inn cence. But you will bear in mind that nothing I ha uttered in your presence even approaches in severity a bitterness the language which this cultivated lady swea she uttered beneath her own roof, to her own guest, her reverend and gray-haired pastor! Listen while read, and tell me whether in your own minds you do u know that she is mistaken as to the conversation she r ports; whether you don't know that it is impossible that lady 30 years of age, and bred in good society, coul stand in the presence of a gentleman whose hairs we gray, who already began to tremble and sway fi'om th influence of age ; above all, whether she could thus talk to such a man when she believed he stood within twelve hours of the judgment seat; when she believed he was capable of self-murder ; when she believed he was equal to perjury, to baseness, to breach of trust, to all that was foul and false and dishonorabie. MRS. MOULTON'S TESTIMONY ANALYZED. Let me read her account of what transpired in that interview and see whether it is language such as you would expect your daughter, your wife, your sistor. SUMMiyG- rP BY ME. FUEIEE. 647 or any respectable woman -wlioni you knoTr, tu address to ter own truest, and tliat guest on tlie edge of deatli : I stood "beliind "him and put my liand on Ms slioulder. and I said, " [Mr. Beeclier, if you will only go down to the churcli, Frank will go wltti you ; he will stand hy you through everything : it does not matter what comes to you he wiU always he your friend, and, no matter what comes, I will always he your friend if you will only go down to the chm'ch and confess, hecause that is the only way out for you ; I am convinced of that ; you can never cover such a crime as this and continue in the pulpit, except through a confession on your own part ; you have heen guilty of crime and you must take the responsibility upon your- self, and suffer the penalty." And hie said : Well, I never gather much comfort from you ; you are always to me like a section of the day of judgment." I am afraid the author of that phrase was the author of the " paroxysmal kiss" and the author of " standing on the brink of amoral is"iagara." Henry Ward Beecheris not the man who believes in splitting the Day of Judg- ment into sections. [Laughter.] That is one of the ideas of free love. And I said, " Well, I feel great sympathy for you, but I don't see how you can continue in this sort of life : living u lie ;"— [mark you, that is to dissuade him from eom- mining suicide]—" going into your pulpit and preaching Sunday after Sunday." I said, "I have never heard you preach, since I knew the truth, that I haven't felt that I was standtug by an open grave ; I cannot express to you the an.guish and the sorrow that it has caused me to know what I have of your life. I believed in you since I was a giri— believed you were the only good man on earth." What, not Frank ! Not Theodore 1 IsTo good man but Jlr. Beecher ? " ifow. It lias destroyed my faith in hu- man nature "—an interesting psychological fact; but it seems to me that she might have selected some other au- ditor for it than Henry Ward Beecher. *' I don't believe anybody," and yet she asks you to believe in her. " I don't go to church ; all my inter- est in the Church and in you is gone." This was the lady vho told him how deep a sympathy she felt for him a short time ago, while she was convinc- ing him thnt he had lived too long, and that it was time for him to die. " And 1 am sure I cannot respeet you unless you manifest to me that you are sincerely re- pentant by going down to the church and confessing your crime. It is very hard for ait, Tilton to be abused by your friends, and to be charged with treating his family ill— his unMnduess to his -^vife. while he feels that you are principally the cause of all his trouble. It is very hard for him ; it is very hard for all concerned If you are only a mind to take this case -into your own hands, you can settle it by confession. Your people will stand by you ; they believe In you ; they wiU forgive this one crime that you say "—and by the way, we have a re- porter here, a reporter, and a reporter to whom ! To Senry Ward Beecher, And of whati Why of what ' H-niy Ward Beecher had said to her. and whleii pre- j sumptively he had forgotten, and she therefore had to I repeat for him. They will forgive this one crime that you say you have committed, and which you have— which you say you have — sincerely repented of, and you believe you have been forgiven, and you feel that you are better able now, than ever before, to do great good in. the world, if you can only be allowed to go on to the end of your life without all the ; particulars of this case being made known; that is all j that you ask: and if the facts are to come out, you want I to go out of life : that you cannot live; that you cannot 1 endure it any longer; physically and mentally you are j worn out, and it is only with the greatest care that you I have been able to preach Sunday after Sunday, j And that is the report a lady gives of a conversation I which occurred, according to her account of it, IS months, \ two years, I know not how long ago, and of which she I took no memorandum, and which she in this wise repeats and commends to you for belief. I grant that she may believe it ; the question is whether you may not believe that she is mistaken. Don't y u really think that she makes about as poor a fist as a reporter of Henry Ward Beecher as h.er husband does % We have seen what sort of a reporter he is in the " Apology," and in the resigna- tion. You see what sort of a reporter she is in this por- tion of her examination. Again : He said he had n't any fear of death ; he rather longed for it as a release from all trouble and all the anxietv and all the anguish of mind and remorse that he had suffered and was suffering daily; expressed to me Ms great gratitude for my sympathy, A sTTnpathy wMch has been illustrated by the passage I have read to-day, wMch was illustrated by the passage I read to you yesterday, in wMch she says to this reverend man : You have lived four years an adulterer, a liar, and a perjurer. I do not use her language, but you will remember the general tenor of the expressions. :Mr. Shearman— Do you want the passage! [Handing book to Mr. Porter.] ^Ir. Porter — My friend calls my attention to the precise language [reading] : Xow, you haA-e seen, Mr. Beecher. how much better it would have been if you had taken my advice in the be- ginning, and made the confession to your church, and then you would have only the oilguial sin to answer for, and now you have four years of lying and perjury to answer for. He said, " I will never confess it." And she says he had been doing nothing else but confess- in g it for four years, A lady to whom I stand ra a very near relation called my attention to a passage wMch she casually opened in Shakespeare last mght, in '* Love's Labor Lost." I promised to use it tMs morning, n»t because I think it appropriate to Mrs. Moulton, fori have charity for her, but for the purpose of showing you how the great master of huaian nature looked upon a thing of tMs kind even when there was falsehood, and intended falsehood, where the wife swore for the husband : IBE TILTON-BFjEGHEB TBIAL 648 •* It is religion to toe thus foresworn, For charity itself fulfills the law : And who can sever love and charity ?" Oh ! I wish Theodore Tilton had the excuse to offer for his falsehoods here that they were falsehoods due not to cupidity, not to revenge, hut to love, faithful, honest, loyal, conjugal love. I wish Moulton could say that he could set up that shield between him and condemna- tion, that he swore to destroy H 'ury Ward Beecher not from malice and hatred, and batiied cupidity, but from honest and loyal love. THE CHARITABLE VIEW OF MRS. MOUL- TON'S TESTIMONY. But, gentlemen, in regard to Mrs. Moulton, I feel very differently. It is a subject on which I have reflected somewhat, and I desire to call your attention to what I believe to be true and just on CLuestions like this. There is a thread of truth through the whole of her nar- ration. There were conversations between her and Mr. Beecher. The virus of those conversations consists in transposing them from one period to another, in intro- ducmg into one conversation what belonged to another, in the substitution for harmless and innocent words, of "words like " crime," like " guilt." This, you will remem- Tber, is on her part a mere QL^estion of memory. "We have a maxim in the law that one eye -witness is better than a dozen ear witnesses, but even eye witnesses differ in the narration of what they have seen. No one sees all exactly as another sees it. No one re- members it even though he saw it, and accurately. The most expert artist cannot paint the face of his nearest friend from unaided memory. No two persons will give the same account of an accident of which both were wit- nesses. No two who happen to have been spectators will ^oncui- in their account of a street fight. No two com- manders ever agreed to the same description of a battle in which both were engaged. It has been said that if a Mind man were to ask a day laborer to describe a scene > be would get a very different description from what a poet or an artist would have given him of the same scene. The one observes what does not arrest the attention or impress the imagination of the other. A fortiori do these discrepancies occur in the description of scenes in the past recalled by fading memory. How the dis- crepancies widen in the memory of words after the lapse of years ! How widely would two men differ who should attempt, unaided by notes, to relate the language of a witness heard by both within ten days on the present trial ! How would the bias of each for or against the witness, or the party for whom he was called, give unconsciously a coloring to hiis memory of the language ! Few men can report a con- versation, even of an hour, accurately in the language of the parties, even the very day after it occurs. How dif- ferent vv^ould be the words ol the naiTiitive from those actually used ! how impossible to give the exact order of the conversation ! But this difficulty is immeasurably In- creased when the conversation is one which occurred a year, or two or three years ago. When it is one of many conversations with different parties relating to the same subject, how difficult to discriminate between the words spoken by one and those spoken by another I How muoli is this difficulty increased when the narrator at the time had no thought of ever being called upon to repeat the language! How difficult for an unbiased witness to reproduce the language after the lapse of years ! How much more difficult when the nar- ration is by one who has been since brought into rela- tions of hostility, and when the memory is prompted and wai-ped by those who are present at the time and inter- ested to color or pervert the import of one conversation! How easy it is to mislead a fading memory, by applying to one charge words used in reference to another ! How easy to mislead by connecting the words of one conversation with antecedent or subsequent utterances ! How danger- ous to rely on the memory of a few words in an hour's conversation dissevered fi-om the context, which would have explained them ; all the rest having faded from recollection ! We all know how much depends on accu- rate observation at the time, how much upon the inter- mediate events which have occupied the memory with matters of immediate and personal concern. How difll- cult it is to discriminate between impressions derived from one party and those derived from another ! How easily do our own memories deceive us as to remote trans- actions ! How uniformly do we find, if we refer to notes made at the time, that we have been misled as to import- ant circumstances we have ourselves detailed ! There is no faculty of the mind so imperfect, so liable to honest error ; there is none so easily affected by kindly feeling and friendly bias. Weak and fallible at the best, memory is easily warped by family feeling, by interest, or by prejudice. We know how easily the memory of honest men oftentimes misleads them into exaggeration. We see how often, by habitual narration, good and worthy men come to believe stories originally invented in pastime, and come to believe themselves even the heroes of inci- dents which were related to them of others, in the days of early boyhood, by the fireside. How often are we mis- led into statiDg as facts what by reasoning we are led to believe, mistaking conviction for memory ! How often do we find that witnesses perfectly honest testify to what proves to be untrue, from a failure to dis^iminate between knowledge and belief, between memory and con- viction ! All men are led by the daily experience of life to admit the infirmity of their memories, and yet in every specific instance the man who makes the admission relies upon his memory with the same absolute certainty as if it had never deceived him ! The best human memory rests on shifting sands, and all our observation teaches us that in nothing is it mora likely to deceive than in the reproduction of conversa- SVMMISG T'F BY MR. POllTEB. 649 tlons after an interval of a rear and after a change of re- lations. For instance, suppose tliat Mr. Beectier liad accepted the proposition of Francis D. Monlton to read that card at Plymouth Church, and they had hurned ail these papers, it would not have ended this scandal. Tilton would still have been behind; Frank INIoulton would still have been the witness ; and the same men who have published to the world that they held Henry Ward Beecher's written confession of adultery would then have sworn, the originals being destroyed, that the I word "adultery" appeai'ed in the apology; that the word '•crime " appeared in such a letter ; that the words "sexual intercourse " appeared in another. I mention this to illustrate how dangerous it is to rely upon the mere unaided memory even of a lady who I means to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but ' the truth, where the fate of a human being in the estima- tion of his countrymen, in the estimation of Christendom, for all time, depends on the shading of a word. Suppose Mrs. Moulton has, to the best of her ability, given you i what occurred between her and Heniy Ward Beeeher, I her mistake, honest mistake, destroys an innocent man, and enables a scoundrel to crush him. If I were driven to such a question (and I am not), and if we were to look to the antecedents of Elizabeth R. TiltoD, as she is de- scribed by the ladies who have been before you, by women of the rare accomplishments and intelligence of Mrs. OvingtoU; Mrs. Putnam, Miss Oakley, Miss Moore, and a series of others whom I have named— nay, looking at her as she is described by her own husband, looking at them as you see them in the correspondence which was published so shamelessly to the world, is there aught in the antecedents of Elizabeth R. Tilton that would lead you to think that she ^ould be more likely, after she had turned the middle age of life, to become suddenly an adulteress, than there is in the antecedents of Mrs. Emma P. ]Moulton to lead you to suppose that in a controversy between her husbaiid and his enemy, which she thought involved the ruin of the husband unless it destroyed that enemy, she should strain a point in a narration for the piu-pose of saving that husband, the f^th^r of her child, the fortime of both, their future prospects, theii- personal honor? There are several noteworthy features in her testimony One is the fact that, according to her own account, she was the zealous friend and partisan of the de- fendant, to whom she now imputes adultery, until Simaay, July, 13, 1S74, the day after Tilton and Moulton sent their contradictory messages by Redpath to IVIr. Beecher. I Another is the fact that on or before that day she was in consultation wK.h Judse Morris and Gen. Butler, and I that on that day, just one month before Mr. Beecher j made the statement of which Moulton complains, it was I arranered in her own house between her and her husband I that she should not appear before the Church Committee, j but that a suit for crim. con. shoiild be brought by Tilton ' against l\Ir. Beecher, and in that suit she should swear to his confessions to her, m order to convict him and Mrs. Tilton of adultery. You will remember that Moulton's first and only statement to the Church Committee was made on the evening of the 13th of July, 1874, and that that statement did not charge adultery. He comes from the house where he and she and their counsel had arranged that Henry Ward Beecher was to be prosecuted for crim. con., and goes before the Com- mittee to make a statement, in which he does not charge adultery ! That statement was concocted at Moulton's house that day. IMrs. Moulton lets us into an inside view of the consultation between the confederates who have , put a five months' mortgage on the lives of all of you twelve jurors. Messrs. Butler and Morris were, of course, mere legal advisers ; Tilton and Moulton were the responsible confederates. For the purpose of en- trapping Mr. Beecher they concluded to keep back Moul- ton's accusation of adultery, to make a short statement alleging only an indefinite offense, to draw out from Mr. Beecher an admission of an undefined offense, and then in Moulton's answer to define it as adultery, and fo"'- low it up with a suit for crim. con., l^Irs. Moulton being fully advised of their pur- pose and pledging herself to become their witness. Here is her account of it, given on the examination of her fi-iend and daily guest, Judge Fullerton, at pages 752 and 753 of the evidence. In the course of that exam- ination a phrase is elicited so characteristic that I cannot pass it by. It speaks character. It explains the fact, which you probably have observed, that, although all men, in the chivalry of manhood, are disposed to believe Mrs. Moulton if they could, no woman seems to believe her. Women know women better than we do. But this scoflfing sneer of the hostess to her guests—" Give the old man another chance "—is that the language of delicate sensibility, uttered by a lady, and of an old and honored clergyman % THE CONSPIRACY TO BEING A CEBI. CON. SUIT. There are other scenes which I must pass over, because I must finish soon. We see, at least, by her testimony that the conftpiracy to bring this suit had beer perfected on the 13th of July, a month before IVIr. Beech- er's statement. On her direct examination by Mr. Til ton's counsel, she confesses that on that day she told Mr. Beecher that if Tilton failed before the Committee * he would take his case into the court. Again, on her cross- examination, she confesses that she said to Mr. Beecher on the 13th of July, 1874, " H Mr. Tilton fails in this, he is going to take his case into the court :" and that Mr. Beecher replied, " He has no case to take into court." Again, at page 744, she confesses, in her examination in relation to the conspiracy to prosecute Mr. Beecher, a fact which shows that it had its origin even at an earlier period, and that she was personally informed of it by 650 TEE TILIOJ^-B. Tilton about tbe time of tlie Bacon letter, wMch was pub- lislied on the 21st ol Jnne, 1874. rEeadingl : Q. Can you give us any iaformnlLon as to Low long Idc- fore this you had heard fvom Mr. Tilton that he was goiag to have a suit at law with Mr. Beeoher ? A. It was not very long before. Q. Well, was it six weeks before ? A. I think the first that I heard was about the time of the Bacon Lettei'. So that we have the fact fixed by her evidence that gas early as June these two slippery rogues had concocted their scheme for the present prosecution; and while Moulton was urging Mr. Beeoher to sign the Carpenter card admitting an indefinite oflense, and pledging him- self to burn the documents which he and Tilton, in black and infamous confederacy, had already published broadcast through the land— at this very time they meditated this very action, and had conferred together as to the witnesses by whom they might maintain the claim, if they failed in their purposes of blackmail in the mean time. My friend calls my attention to the fact that at a later period in her evidence Mrs. Moulton testi- fies explicitly to something more— that Moulton is the man who, she thinks, also asked her to do it— "he said that with my knowledge of the case and of the facts from Mr. Beecher himself, I should have to go before the court, of course, and would be called as a witness." And this man, Moulton, then and long afterward, was writing those slimy professions of friendship to Mr. Beecher which have been introduced in connection with the re- plies of Mr. Beecher to show how he was deceived, and was expressing such fervent gratitude to the man who all the time was betraying him! I must, however, be permitted to say, gentlemen, though my opinion may or may not be in harmony with that of my honored senior associate, and though it may iar on the sensibility of my client, who believes Mrs. Moulton to be mere clay in the hands of the potter and innocent of intentional wrong, though that is his view, I cannot injustice to my owu conviction admit that a wit- ness who has sworn to what I firmly believe to be un- true is to be wholly relieved from censure, even though her memory was so warped by the force of conjugal love and the dominion of an ascendant husband as to bring her even to believe it to be true. For her, however, I have no word of reproach. Hers was a case of divided allegiance. Her fortunes and those of her only son were interlocked with those of the man who was capable of sending her agaiu and again to the mansion- of free love. Yes, again and again, Tilton and Moulton sent this re- spected and cultivated lady, sometimes with her husband's mother, sometimes with her own son, to bring the apostle of free love to the consultations of these mid- night conspirators. The messenger who did not revolt from an errand like this you will form your own judg- ment of, which should be both charitable and just. It is a strikingly significant fact, however, that though she remembers three or four occasions on which she visited I the WoodiUiU mansion, ouee with Theodore Ti;ton, on«,D with JTrank Monlton's motLu.!-. once with her own buy, she cannot remem'oer whether tlie three hours' ^ide back and forth was in either instance by nix'it or by day, nor whether she did or did cot, after either of those long rides, take the apostJe of free love home at the close of those memorable con- ferences to which she herself was not even admitted as a party. Again, it is worthy of special observation iu weighing the testimony of Mrs. Moulton that she frauk'y confesses that Mr. Beecher was not her original inroi-iii- ant in respect to his relations with Mrs. Tilton, whate\ ti they were: that it was from the false and treachery is Moulton that she received her first information, and tbat the only conversation she had with Mr. Beecher rested upon the assumption that her husband had stated the facts truthfully, though she did not tell Mr. Beecher how her husband had stated thein. She represented him as admitting what they, i a Jus absence, had stated to her, and this without iuToi mi pg him. of the specific and caliunnious information they had comnumicated to her. It is barely possible that slie was inuocently misled by them into the belief that Mx. Beecher had been gnllty of adultery. I can hardly believe it ; but, if you can, she is entitled to tbe beDofit of every possible doubt. One thing is, however, certain, whether her testimony be the invention of MoulCon, whether it be the result of fading, slippery, and trained memory, whether it be the result of honest miscoacep- tiou, or wJiatever it may be, it is met fairly and squarely by the oath of a man who is prepared to stand by it, not; only now but at the judgment seat. MRS. MOULTON DECEIVED BY BEE HUS- BAND. AQolher significant fact is that in her coQVcr- sation with Ml. Beecher she never, except on the oc<^a- sion to which I have already adveiTed, personally im- puted to him the infamous crime of adultery, and that when she did so it is inserted in a report of things said to have been told to her either by others or by him on some former occasion, and the former occasion upon cross-examination disappears. Let me agaia remind you that her statement is the information received, not from Beecher, but from others. Her language, at page 73!), is : He had been walking up and down the floor and seemed very much excited, and after a few moments' convtrsa- tion he took my hand and asked me if I knew any^ii 'ifi^ of this sorrow of his life. Q. Of this sorrow ot his life? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Well, what did you reply? A. I said T did. Q. What then did he say? A. lie said, "Then B'rauk has told you the facts, has he, in the case ?" I said. "He has." Q. And then you parted? A. I don't remember of anything more. " Frank has told you the facts!" He trusted Bank as a man of truth, and so did she. Frank lied to her as he had lied to Mr. Beecher. SUM21iyG UP B Passing over mucli ot wliat I intended to say li'om time to time, I cannot pass over it all. I desire to advert for a moment to tiiat portion of lier testimony in ^yliicli, on her cross-examination, slie interweaves a new version of what occurred on tliat memorable 2d of Jime, and in doing so interweaves the thread of ahsolute suicide ; Q. What did he say at tlds stage of the matter ? A. He - Vfi had ai^'.de np his mind, if Tilton published his Letter of Apology, to take his life ; that he had a powder < .: library table which he should take, and that he Avor.Ul pass quietly away without a struggle. Gentlemen, if this story was true, why have you beeu for nearly half a year prisoners of the law? What was there to prevent Mr. Beecher from committing suicide ? If he had meditated death and had provided the means, and those means painless, why is not Henry Ward Beecher dead? "^Tiy Is rhat powder still o:a his library table, ready for the use of his children and his granachiTdren % The occa^vlon for taking it was the threateued publica- tion of the Tei f er of " apology." The letter of " apology " was published. Tlie same woman who had sworn but a few pages before that in rue whole conversation there ■was not even an aiUtsion to the letter of "apology" seems to have overlooked the fact; tlie letter of "apology'* was published; the powder remains un- takcn; that sperifie. the price of which will be almost beyond measure, a powder whicli should produce pain- less and instant death, still lies there waiting for either of us to go and procure it. And yet this talk of suicide has rung through the land, stcd it never seems to have oceUi Ved to anvbodythat while Mr. Beecher has gone through darker days than those he still lives, a strong, healthy, fearless, ""iviug man ! T have said enough, It seems to me, to be able to safely leave the issue for yoa to deterroine wLeilier .the testimony of Francis D. Moultcn's wife, as Tou have heard it, and as you shall weigh it, should, in your judgment, outweigh the benign presump- tions of the law and Henry Ward Beecher's oafh of inno- cence. Gentlemen, I must close, and to do so I must discard the notes fiom which I intended to speak, for the time is already at hand, ar-d I feel that T have fc espassed too severely apou the condition of health of one of your numlicr. There is so much that I have left unsaid that I ought to say it now. I had intended and hoped that I should ha V e been able to present to you the contradictions of I'ranois T). Moult on. I have not the time even to go through the names. If Moultonis aahonest man, he is the most unfo; tunate of his cla^s. If he has on this trial been weighed in the balarcos against his fellow-citizens, whom j j-ou know and respect, T must believe that in your I judgmeut, as in mine, he has been found wanting. Moul- ■ ton, the main prop of this prosecution, stands before you coofrottting oath to oath men like Cleveland and Storrs, f our feeble nature. One would wish for a hundred eyes, to pry into every fold and crevice of this testimony, and draw forth aptly and in season every fact, when it was needed, and as it would be effectual. He would wish for a hundred hands, that now he could hold up the whole mass of it for its collec- tive power upon your minds; and then that hemiglt divide, distribute, (ftscriminate it, so that at some tiuger's end there should always be each topic, each passage, that could shed light or carry conviction. He would wish more than these aids of instruments, that perceptive force which could discern the merit and the efficacy of the vastly diffused elements of the proof, and by unerring magnetism draw forth from ah, missing no single needle from any haystack with which the field of the trial is strewn, when it was needed to scratch the face of any ugly falsehood or prick the pompous bubble of hypocrisy. He would -wish that he had that power of reason that could crush the obdurate mass of evidence, separate the ore, and then, by an intellectual alchemy, purge it of all the dross, and lose not one pennyweight of the pure gold of truth, but seize that, and that alone, as sterhng coin for your chculation. And most of aU. would he wish that moral power of dis- lUiatlon that could deal with the juices of this long fer- mentation, strip them of all discordant elements, r^eot SUMM1^G UP BY ME. EVABT8. 655 all poisonous oils, all corrosive acids, all heavy heat of passion and of prejudice, and present to you the i)Uie, invigorating wiiie of honest sympathy for human nature, of honeBt warfnth for human justice. And then he would wish for that greatest gift, eloquence— eloquence which, overleaping even the short circuit between the voice and ear, speaks out from heart to heart as face answereth to face, and, what a great thinker among mankind, Lord Bacon, has said is more than eloquence, discretion of speech, that no excitements, no perversions, no enlist- ments,no animosities should carry him beyond the duty to his client, to justice, to truth, to his opponents, and to you. THE DISTUEBING INFLUENCE OF THE CASE. If in a private cause, however momentous the interests, these seniiments and feelings may justly agitate the mind of the advocate, how much more op- pressive are they when the matter in hand has to do with great public taterests and strong popular passions, when the client has become involved in all the eddies and currents of controversy between men's opinions, prejudices, feelings, and in all the forms that make up the connections and the sympathies of society and of life. Why, it has been true in this case from the time that the scandal first burst upon public attention— it has been true ia this case that so far fiom the individual case upon its real facts, so far as the individual accused on his real character, so far from the connected culprit, the lady, being judged of by that measm*e that we wish to meet, that we may be so judged ourselves, they have been made the personalities and the names upon which all sorts of public controversy, of public con- tumely, of public discords, have turned. Questions of taste, of social ethics, of manners, of morals, of religious forms and of religious faith, as afltecting communities, cities, forms of communion, particu- lar churches, particular oircles of society, aU have been tossed about in endless controversy, in which these parties and the actual facts of their case have really formed but little part. Everybody has been trying every- body. Europe has been trying America. New- York has been trying Brooklyn. The other cities and the rest of the country have been trying Brooklyn and New-York, coupling them like Herculaneum and Pompeii and Sodom and Gomorrah. AU the scoffers and the infi- dels have been trying aU the Christians. The ancient f the infant, and the maternal instinct of joy SUMMING UP BY MR. EVARTS. 661 at a man-child begotten clui-ing the period of adultcvy, begin and end tliis domestic transaction. Aud wliat greater criminality is there that can he framed for those, even if the odious features of premeditated and prolonged seduction were excluded ; even if you found the parties involved by sudden temptation and by mu- tual attraction, and by overpowering propensities of evil ; it is wicked, wicked as it can be, wicked in heart, wicked in soul, wicked in hate to God, to society, to human na- ture, wicked in everything ; and that trait— that makes out the first substantive and principal crime. But all along there attend heavy shadows, deep stains of guilt, that give even new horror to this terrible accusation, even if kept within the sexual limits of fault. Im- piety on both sides, blasphemy, sacrilege, false witness, perjury— the whole decalogue is rent asunder by a woman that is most lovely and most pure throughout it all ; and the man who is through it all is now the greatest preacher of the Gospel of Love, the greatest defender of the foundations of society, the greatest cheerer and con firmer of the charities and beau- ties of the family relation, the readiest advocate of every- thing that is good, that is pure and of good report ; a man that, when you ransack his life by a cross-examination that entitled them to prove against him corruptions of any kind from Indianapolis down, goes from the stand unquestioned by audacious cross-examiners that did n't hesitate to ask old Oliver Johnson whether he did n't pick out a strumpet in Canal-st. and take her to a bawdy- house in Mercer-st. Now, you begin to see how, when a man begins by self-worship, as Tilton did— and which I shall show you is the soiu'ce of all his woes— when he finds no greater than himself, nothing that he can bow to with reverence and devotion— when he finds that, he comes to the conclusion, almost necessarily, and it overmasters his conduct and his speech that he can im- pose his law of human action, his law of human responsi- bility, his law of human duty, his tests of Intellectual fitness upon the rest of the world. And he then illustrates that short and pithy characteriza- tion of the quality of folly and of its extreme duration : " The fool saith in his heart there is no God." There is no moral government in this world that looks out for men. There is nothing that keeps society together but constables and jails and handcuffs. There is nothing that keeps virtue in women except imprisonment in harems, and eunuchs for the matron's care and duennas for the maiden's. This is the government of th« world that the doctrines and the propositions of this man's case must reduce you to, or else you must find ttiat while faith m human natui-e, and while humble dependence upon l>ivine protection remain, as they now are, the basis and the glory of our refined, free, yet virtuous and strict soci- etj— so long as that relation of man to man, and man to God, continues, the featiu-es of this case, moral, intellec- tual, aud, as I shall show you hereafter, even cii-eumstan- tial, charge an impossible crime against impossible com* ^liission. The Court here took a recess until 2 o'clock. THE CHARGE INCREDIBLE UNDER THE CffiCUMSTANCES. The Court met at 2 p. m., pursuant to adjourn- ment. Mr. Evarts— The increaibility of so flagrant and heinous an imputation upon two excellent people, as I am justi- fied in pronouncing both tJiese parties, irrespective of the imputation under consideration, was sought to be parried by this plaintiff, by certain qualifying elements in their crime which approved the act to the consciences of each. Well, there is another blow, not at these indi- viduals but at the schemes of morality, of religion, of the theory of conscience and of duty. Make it out once that good people can commit crimes and be good in doing it, and in their consciences approving it, and in the retrospect seeing no fault' in it, and you have proved the first darling proposition of the wicked, that the distinction between evil and good is mere matter of pretension and authority. Ah ! gentlemen, that is the final stage of dissolute immorality ta a man, in a city, in a community. When you have reached that stage you have exposed yourself to that final woe denounced in the Scripture, "Woe to him that calls evil good, and good evil." Why woe to him? Why, he insults the very majesty of heaven, he strikes at the very authority of the moral governor of the world. Good men may do wicked things ; bad men may do good things ; but woe to him that dra t\^s out of those instances and experiences of human nature the final insult to the Deity, that there is no distraction between good and evil. How can you renovate society that adopts that proposition ? How can you redeem an individual soul that accepts that proposi- tion? Now, they say that this lady never did anything wrong that she thought wrong at the time ; never did anything— Elizabeth never did— that her conscience did not approve. She was always pure-minded; she hadn't a carnal incltaation in her frame; she didn't think she had violated her marriage vows, and never discovered that she had committed an injury to her husband until she read a novel, in which there was no violation of marriage vows, and no adultery, and no carnal siu of any kiad, but an undij^e entanglement of the affections for a priest, and an interference with the supreme devotion to her husband in the management of the wife aud the household. Now, that is her notion of guilt, laid down for her by her husband ; her character now, after the act, as well as dm-ing the act, and before the act ; and she is a woman of strong mtellect, an admirable, aud a truthful critic, accustomed to the best intellectual society ; not frivolous and weak, not valuing men for their earthly distinctions, but for their high moral and intellectual characters ; condescend- 662 lEE TILTON-BF.ECEEE TIUAL. ingfcotliose of low estate; saving woruen at tlie 'betliel by the hundred from debaucliery and vice; bringing ber sheaves full of them to the Judgment Seat, that she has saved. Her husband did her the honor to thini: that she was still engaged in that Chiistian service at the moment he was giving his evidence. And then Mr. Beecher, he felt that if he had fallen— if he had fallen at all, as Mr. Moulton puts in a single passage I shall call your attention to critically— he thanked God, at least, that he had not sinned through lust; it was nothing but love— beiiutiful, chaste, elevating, purifying, solacing love ; and if there had been any sexual intercourse be- tween them, it was merely circumstantial, as it were— a mere emphasized touch of the hand and kiss of the lips- making their benevolence and good still more penetrat- ing to the soul, more gratefid to God. And then it was such a solace and a food to his mind, as Mr. Tilton reports it, and such a strength to him In his labors for the conversion of sinners! Well, he was an intel- lectual man. Tilton had at one time thought he was a man of gi-eat intellect, greater even than his own, but he had outlived that ; but still his strength was in his great moral qualities. There he was unsurpassed and unsurpassable ; there was his hold upon his worship- ers ; that is what led them from the true admiration of the greater intellect of Mr. Tilton. These great and warm sympathies with mankind, this magnanimity, this generosity, this boyish candor, and warmth and reck- lessness, this was what made Mr. Beecher greater than Greeley, and Sumner, and Tilton. Well, now you see you add one thing more to make this adultery that was without lust on either side, and that was this union be- tween a saintly woman and an apostolic man, without the least earthy sentiment, which has sometimes been supposed to infect marriage a little. All you needed was to give the sanction of religion and prayer to it, make it, so to speak, a sacramental adultery, in the pres- ence of God and the holy angels, introduced by prayer and terminated hy prayer. Ah 1 gentlemen, look at the folly of the weaving of this brain, that could expect his charge of adultery to be be- lieved, expect his charge of adultery to cease to be in- credible, only by the adultery being made immaculate, cease to be a violation of conscience only by its being a glorious exhibition of the power of himian love ; and I shall show you hereafter that they onl;^ could make the connection and intercourse possible by beiQg allowed to dispense vsdth all proof that it ever occmixjd, or legally demonstrable by throwing down all the rules of evi- dence that deny hospitality to charges of this nature, that come from the breath of the nostrils of men, of wit- nesses. Adultery, gentlemen, is a thing that touches the institution of marriage, and no consenting testimony of confessions ever can break the bond. Chil- dren, and children's children are interested, that their fortunes and their lutuie shall not be contaminated and despoiled by the vice in respect of truthfulness of any of their ancestors. Thexe must be a proof as against them, binding on them, by people who saw the conduct, the action, the communion, the oppor- tunity, the security, the subsequent evidence of the oc- currence; and then a court, and then a jury find that a fact has occurred to which the law imputes the conse- quences of the dissolution of the marriage bond; and though it sheds a tear over the innocent that are to suffer, it is a part of that moral government of the world in- tended to scoure obedience, to compel regard for chil- dren, for those we love, the law that if the father eats sour grapes the children's teeth shall be set on edge. And didn't this woman know that? and didn't this preacher know that ? Now, what is an occurrence that is against all human experience, and all natural laws, whether physical, or mental, or moral? Why, it is a miracle; that is what it is. That -is the defi- nition of a miracle. So this is a miraculous adultery, the like of which is described in none of the histories, or the symptoms of it given in any of the philosophies. Nobody can guard against this kind of adultery coming into their families, because it comes with the purest and best, who remaia pure and best all the while it is happening and after it is over. Well, miracles need a good deal of testi- mony. That is agreed, I think, from the beginning. Some writers thought that no amount of testimony could prove a miracle, because it accorded with human experience that man would lie, and did not accord with hmuan ex- perience that miracles would happen. Still that is dan- gerous gTound. All agree though, that for belief in a jniracle, you must have good testimony, enough of it, from pure lips, honest hearts, intelligent observation ; and when men have laid down their lives on that testi- mony, been torn by wild beasts, been roasted at the fires of martyrdom, pierced with arrows, slain in defense of their testimony and the truth, it is a miracle that men should go through the act, unless they testified to truth, and we believe their evidence. Now, ridentum discere verum quid vetat. We may some- times illustrate truth with amusement. Not very long ago Punch had a very pleasant colloquy and cartoon, showing a conversation between a ritualistic curate of the English Church and a Sunday-school boy, on the subiect of miracles. " My boy," says the clergyman, " what is a miracle ? " and the boy answered correctly, the first time, that he didn't know. " Well, my lad, if you should wake up in the middle of the night and see the sun shining, what should you say that was 1 " Says the boy, "I should say it was the moon." fLaughter.] "Well, but supposing a man should teU you that it was the sun, whit should you say then? " Says the boy, "I should say he lied." fLaughter.] Well, with dig-nity and emotion the curate proceeds : " Suppose I, that never tell a lie, should say to you that it was the sun, what should you say then!" " I should say that SUJijnXG UP 1 yon were clrunk." [Laughter.J Weli, no^v, that sliows hou- hard it is to prove a miracle. Well, noTV, liere we hare a ijlaziiag sun of adulteiy in the serene religious liglit of the most saintly characters, testifledto by witnesses ; and if you were asked, under these moral conditions of mii-acles, what criticism would be made upon the statement that this blazing sun of adultery was flaming out of the very her vens of religious purity, what would you say \ Why, you would say that it was the moon [laughter] ; that nothing inconsistent with chastity and piuitv- could display itself out of those heavens. Ah I but if Mr. Tilton comes along and says : " But if I, Sir Marmaduke [laughter], the husband of this pious wife, the friend of this apostolic clergy- man—if I say to you that it is the blaz- ing sun of adultery, what would you say then ?" I think you would say that he lied. And if Mr. Moulton, Sir- Philip Sidney [laughter], that never told a lie [laughter], he should say: "Eut if I, on the honor of Sir Philip Sidney [laughter] and my own combined— J say it is a blazing sun of adultery" — you would say that he was di^unlt. But Punches catechism has given out, and we hare another witness, " I, the wife of Sir Philip Sidney, I, the communicant of Heury Ward Beech- er, the sisterly friend of INIrs. Tilton, I say that 'it is the blazing sim of adultery out of these pure heavens." What would you say to that ? Well, politeness, even in a boy, would make him hesitate, but I think he would have to say (for he would not give in to the miraclr^)— he would say, " Well, madam, T think yon must have been sunstruck and don't know the moon from the sun." [Laughter.] Now, gentlemen, there is no greater contrari- ety Lu the propositions of the natural miracle and the sense • of the boy thus illustrated by a humorous Btory, than the contrariety between the firmament of the moral authority of this world fixed by the same Divlue hand that set the courses of the stars and divided the day and the night between the sun and the moon, discrimi- nated by as firm lines as this natural arrangement of the skies— j^st as impossible of derangement, just as much a final and fatal disorder as this transposition of the sun and the moon in their natural reigns, as fixed by the Au- thor of this material frame on which we live. Nay more. He who made these moral divisions meant that they should be more permanent than the physical frame, for He said: "The lieavens and the earth shaU pass away, but not one jot or tittle of my law shaH fail." Now, that is a respectable authority, and the date of the continu- ance of that law, and of responsibility under it, is so remote that it is not worth our while to run our heads against it. ILLOGICAL PROPOSITIONS IVLiDE BY THE PLAIXTIFF. Now, gentlemen, whenever you establish the pioposition that these breaches ot external morality I EVARTS. 663 that threaten the very fabric of society, the central point, the purity of the family, can occur without pre- liminary moral degradation and preparation — without being accompanied by an inflammation of the low desires and the tr^iumph of the flesh over the spirit— can be luacticed with the maintenance of all the active benevolences and th. exhibition of all the beautifid virtues of life, you have struck a blow not at IMr. Beecher, not at Mrs. TiLton, but at your own wives and j our own daughters. Why do you rear them in the distinction between the wise and the foolish vii'gins, if the wise virgins, with their lamps trimmed and burning, are to be left in the outer dark- ness, and the wedding feast closed against them? Why do you look at the growing beauty of the face and form, and feel safe? Because you observe and trust an equal flowering of the immortal spirit, and find that her mother's virtue shows itself in every disposition of the beautiful maiden; that she loves charity, seeks the lowly, teaches the ignorant, saves the abandoned, loves her father, loves her mother, loves her brothers, loves her sisters, has her hands full through days of constant and painful labors appropriate to her sex and condition, sleeps at night upon a pillow prepared by praj'er, and watched over by Him to whom the prayer was addressed. ■^Tiat are all these things to you if it is demon- strated by the verdict in this trial that there is no connection between the moral nature and the lewd, wicked, low, base prostitutions of the body ? And what do you think of your wives if, as you have watched them through 15 years of marriage and of duty, and found them to be (as you knew they were when you clasped hands with them at the altar) pure, noble, intelligent, discreet, wise virgins as you espoused them, and have found that they loved their husbands to idolatry, loved their children with a devotion for which there is no e^>i- thet and no comparison ? Who ever heard an illustration of a mother's love ? Nobody can give an equivalent for that. How often have other forms of haman affection been dignified by comparing them in power and intensity to a mother's love I But you find nothing to compare a mother's love to ; it is a prepossession that fills the heart, satisfies the mind, shows to the widest experience that there is nothing can be placed above it to illustrate it. If with all this, and with your daily observation of the course of life, the coming in and the going out of a woman, the correspondence day by day during your absences, you find out, some 4th of July morning, that a coui'se of temptation, of solicitation, of coarse and vulgar contact with the body, has prepared the way to a final adultery that has continued for sixteen months, would you not lose your faith in religion, your faith in women, your faith in society, your faith in human nature ? Why, all the while it may be going on in all our families, and nobody knows anything about it. TNTiat, shall we then discard aU this, shall we believe that these sins come 664 IHJ^ TILTON-B only by power against wliicli no morality can guard, tliat there is no necessary connection between character and conduct ; tliat these sins do not come from within, but that with all this purity they may arise. Character and fate, the opinion of society all crush you and yom- family. What will you believe? These idle and frivolous sugge.s- tions made by the oaths of Mr. Tilton and of Mr. Moulion, or will you look to higher authority 1 Now, there was once a great authority in this world whose brief sojourn In the flesh changed the nature of the world and laid the foundations of that religion which we all profess, and has redeemed man as an iudividual, raising him to glory ever since, and has redeemed society from the vicious influ- ences with which heathenism corrupted it, and raised it to its present elevation. It was said Him that he need- ed not, as we all need, as you need— that He needed not that man should testify of man, for He Icnew what was in man. Now, what does he say on this subject 1 For fi'om within, out of the heart of man proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, mm-ders, thefts, cov- etousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness ; all these come from within and defile a man." And that is the basis on which you rest the Christian education which is to preserve the chastity of your beautiful daughter against all allure- ments and temptations, and you watch to see whether in her conduct you find any beginning of uncertain steps outside the way in which she should go, and if you do not, but find that all her steps are firm in the paths of the Gospel, you have no fears. Now, it did not use to be 80 with women or with men. Are we to dis- card this life-giving, purifying, elevating sentiment on which our society has rested so \7ell and so long, which is to be extended by the benevolent labors of our missionaries and the generous contributions of all Christians of all creeds, for the help of a sinking world ? Are we to abandon these and go back to the old system of physical security % I should think not. I would like to see the men that would look their wives and daughters in the face and tell them that they must go back to the duennas for the maidens and to the harem for the married women. And, as we are not princes, and have no system in our equal society by which the fair and the beautiful are crowded into the possession of the princes and nobles of the world, whenever we under- take to lose our faith in religion and virtue, in the equality and purity of women, we shall have to adopt some of those associated forms of protection by which combined efforts may furnish adequate security. We shall have to have a Wife Deposit Company, where we can leave our wives during the day, and we shall have to have some patent contrivance of paramour-proof alarms by which we can be called to the rescue when the insidious imdermining of this external virtue (for there is nothing left in the world but external virtue) begins. EECREB TEIAL, LEGAI. ASPECTS OF THE SUIT. Now, gentlemen, this being the character of the crime, and this being the disposition, conduct in general and repute of the accused parties, let us see what the law requires to meet its exactions in reference to such a suit as this. And first, what is the nature of the suit i It is what is dalled, for shortness, a crim. con. action, by which an injured husband is allowed to seek a verdict of the jury, and as a consequent upon it, pecimiary damages for the invasion of his family, the sacrifice of the purity of his wife, and the destruction of the happiness of his household. The action is an anomaly offensive to our civilization, and grew up only under a peculiar condition of the English law in respect to divorce. Adhering to the strictness of the Romish Church, which made marriage a sacrament, and allowed it never to be terminated except by the highest religious dispensation, the English Church, the English nation maintained the indissolubility of the marriage relation for any cause but adultery, the highest power in the country being the judge of that ; in other words, an act of Parliament being necessary for the dissolution, as the flat of the Pope had been while he remained the spiritual head of all Europe. Now, Par- liament would grant this dissolution only for adultery, and it would require the proof of that adultery, not to be made in afiidavits and depositions, confessions and con- currence of wish and agreement, and failing to have it wrought but by public trial through the authentic and trustworthy mode of determining questions of fact by the verdict of a jury in a hostile, not collusive, suit, and in which the husband should have the means of drawing nn adverse party, the paramour, into the contestation, and then the rules of law, if your Honor please, in maintenance of this great policy of society that there should be an open proof in fact, and by confessions of the act upon which the marriage tie could be dissolved and the family dispersed maintained the proposition that confessions alone were not adequate for the maintenance of the issue, that the validity, that the security, that the purity of the marriage relation, and its maintenance m good credit, as an example to the rest, should not permit of mj destruction of it except by proof of the fact. Now, the nature of the act being secret, and the more elevated and civilized the society the more secret, proof of the actual, final guilty contact, as of the body of the crime, was not required, but proof of the body of the crime was required, proof of conduct, proof of disposi- tion, proof of adulterous purposes, proof of entangled affections of sexual purpose, proof of open or discovered behavior of some kind that showed the surrender of lust- ful desire and the prosecution of the purpose of its indul- gence, proof of the opportunity, by companionship, drawing them away from virtuous and honest haunts and scenes into relations which themselves carried im- putation of unlawful purpose, and of such length as gave opportunity, and under such circumstances of suih pos'.'d security aa rendered it jiiatly a conclu- sion that the adulterous purposes that had been manifested by previous external conduct and the -withdrawal from paths of innocent and open companionship into this or that situation foreign to the natural and moral relations— foUo-sving that, I say, opportunity of personal contact, "vrith secuiitj, or opinion of security, Avere adeouate substitutes, or adequate methods of proof of the body of the crime. It is a mia- tate to say that the body of the crime is not reciuired to be proved, in the same sense that the body of the crime is rei-iuired to be proved in all matters of judicial con- demnation. The distinction is that from the peculiar nature of the gaiilty act, the facts and circumstances of external proof shall be of that consistency and force and undoubtful conclusion as cany the secret act as the con- sequence of vrhat has been openly seen and proved. >'ow, these are the reciuirements of oru' lav,-. These facts thus proved, accompanying or supporting confessions — that is, confessions of the party implicated iu the suit (for confessions of one party do not affect or conclude in the least another) may make out an adequate ground for a verdict, provided it is made manifest to the concurrent judgment of all the Jm^ymen that the things proved are not reasonably com- patible with any other conclusion than that of guilt So- ciety, law, abhors this conclusion, and refi-ains from it except when, beyond all reasonable doubt, and in the varying minds of twelve independent, honest men no other result c^n be reached. More than in any other case the law fears here to strike iu the dark. It has made one great concession, that the mere act need not be proved, if you prove the approaches to the act by ocular witnesses. Beyond that concession it will not go ; more than in all other issues of fact, it is striking the absent and the Innocent ; it is injuriag society by aspersing and discom-aging the insti- tution of marriage; it is imsettling the faith oi man in woman, and of woman in man ; of x^arents in children, and of children iu parents ; and the law will not strike the blow In the dark. More than in any otlier case is the feeling of our humane law predominant; that it is better that ten cases of guilt should pass unpunished than that one of inno- cence should be condemned. In other cases the convic- tion of the innocent touches mainly him or her, but in this case it strikes the absent, and the infants, and wounds society in its tenderest point. Now, in this coun- try this action has never had any respectability about it. "Wjhy 1 Because the basis that made it respectable in En- gland was wanting : that is, in England it was a neees- Bary step in the vindication of the husband's right to have a divorce from the guilty wife, and the method of their law had provided this means of an open and an ad- verse trial ; but in our country, in our State, divorce has always been obtainr^ble, not on any lighter cause r ME. EYARTS. 665 than adultery, but upon an issue framed in an equity court, in which the husband and the wife themselves were parties, and the trial was between them, the man and the woman, and no crim. con. was necessary. And honest men never had a desire to pro- mulgate their shame, their wives' shame, their children's blight. It was only in the lower orders of society, where there was always a suspicion of speculation and money- seeking, that this action found any hold in this American society. And it has attracted the notice of political, moral, and religious thinkers in England why it was that these were felt to be most discreditable actions, no matter what their result or their justification in fact, and were wholly discarded in America, and they found out the reason, and they now have opened their courts of probate and divorce, equivalent to our equity juris- diction, to try the direct issue between husband and wife for a divorce. And what have they done \ They have said to these parties, '• If you don't want a divorce you can't have any action for erim. con.; that is abolished. If you do want a divorce you may also pursue the guilty paramour by joining him in the suit, and if you establish your right to a divorce you may have, as a consequence, a just judgment against him in the way of punitive dam- ages, but the money shall be secured to the wife so long as she remains penitent and chaste." Xow, that, that is the treatment of the question that belongs ^ro an intelli- gent moral commimity ; and I look, as a consequence of this suit, so rare in our experience, to see our Legislature purify otu' law and oirr courts in the same way. Xow, look you; a husband, although he has a guilty wife, cannot get a divorce from her either in England or here, if he is also a gtulty husband, and he cannot pursue the paramour in England for debauching his wife unless he can get a divorce from the wife ; and therefore a guilty husband does not find any encourage- ment for complaining that h.is wife has done an injury to him. Again, the law of divorce has always been pure. It has said, and insisted upon it, " we will allow no specu- lation on this subject at all, not an instant of it. If yon become possessed of knowledge of your wife's guilt, then show your respect for the purity of marriage, show your respect for yourself and your owm virtue, show your vindication of the institution of marriage by resorting openly to the law for relief; but if, irom pity, or from love, or from lust, you keep possession of the wife, one kiss after your knowledge closes your com- plaint. Condonation, by which a husband advised of the injury to his marriage-bed continues to cohabit with his wife, ends that business, and, it is supjjosedj keeps that secret." So you see, gentlemen, that there was not much basis for an action of divorce on the part of this plaintiff against Mrs. Tilton on any view of the facts of her conduct. He heard, it is said, a very long and mi- nute narrative, turned over in the bed and kissed his wife ; she became pregnant, and he lived with her four 666 TEE TILTON-BEBCBEB TEJAL. years. Now, gentlemen, nobody ever Tbrouslit a narra- tive of that kind into a court of justice since the world began until now, never— I mean among civilized, refined, and cultivated people. A LAUGH AT " BROOKLYN EPITHETS." Something has been said about the epithets that liave been applied to the parties and tbeir coadju- tors in this prosecution. Well, now, epithets spring from a generalization of facts, and never can be made until there has been a somewhat frequent or repetitious occurrence of the facts, in order to get a generalization out of them. There is not any epithet for this conduct whatever, for there has never been any other instance of it, never, never. If you look in your grammars you will see that is so. But aside from that, gentlemen, I should not think of bring- ing epithets to Brooklyn from New- York, for a good deal of trouble, I think, has come from these extravagant epithets that the Brooldyn people use. fLaughter.] They are very strong, and I think really that the best test for the public spfetytnat can be applied to our bridge between the two cities, whenever it is completed, will be to send over a preliminary train loaded ith Brooklyn epithets. [Laughter.] If the bridge can stand that it will bear any burden. But seriously, conduct like that of this plaintiff upon his own showing (and no man can complain of being judged out of his own mouth) Is not in need of any characterization. As Junius said once, with the pith that characterized him, such a char- acter as this plaintiflfs can escape censure only when it escapes observation. Now, it may not be pleasant ; men do not like— always like— to lie in the bed that they have made for themselves, and they sometimes, most unsea- sonably and at great inconvenience to others, try to find a softer bed. [Laughter.] But alas! in the search that this plaintiff may make to get out of this uneasy bed in which he lies, he has not the sympathizing follower with a pillow be- hind him that he had on those other occasions. fEe- newed laughter.] Now, gentlemen, if there had been no question in this case affecting a great character, in which there was enlisted the interest of every honest man and woman in Brooklyn, in the United States, in Christendom — I mean Mr. Beeoher— if the fact of his purity had not been the fundamental fact in this case, but the question had been, as it might have been, between Mr. Tilton and one of his neighbors of an equal importance in society, between neighboring farmers, or merchants, or lawyers, however reputable and however dear to them their credit was, if a plaintiff, against such a defendant, had brought a suit of this kind, the jury would not have sat five months, one month, one week, one day, upon his case. They would have said : " Well, if you could be so cool and quiet, so gener- ous and forgiving, so amicable in intercourse with the adulterer, and receive so many aids and favors from him. and above all if you could live with your wife four years, we do not see any good reason why we should trouble ourselves much about your misfortunes ; you have been tolerably patient under them, and we guess in the long run it will be as well for you and Elizabeth and the chil- dren that you should go on as you have begun,.tothe end." The plaintiff would be laughed out of court, and he would not have had as uncomfortable a record for the public in that short disposition of the case as the five months' protraction of your patience and of your in- dulgence has made for him here. Now, our learned friends understood this perfectly, and the odiousness of tacking a money verdict on to this action of this husband against this defendant, in respect to this distirrbance of his peace, if it were all believed, was so apparent that they early disdained that. Some more noble passion than the accusation of gain after this long patience was nec- essary, and my learned friends have found it in that very mild and creditable Christian virtue, revenge. Thi? is their language— not for money, but revenge. Well, I never knew a jury that would like to be made an instru- ment of revenge. If they were to heal an honest man's injury, they would do it ; but to help him to a revengeful assault upon another is not creditable. We pardon even the savageness of an enemy that, under provocation, takes vengeance in his^ own hands ; but we do not pardon much men who lend themselves as instruments to the vengeance of iniured parties— not much. If a man shoots an enemy for a great injury, sometimes he escapes con- demnation when strictness of law would take his life; but I think that if he hires another man to murder his en- emy, the hired assassin is not considered an institution of society whose neck is to be saved from the gallows. So here, if vengeance, if injury, if destruction is the whole motive and purpose of this suit, you wiU not lend yourselves to it. And you will understand that this is an issue in which the question is whether Mr. Beecher, who stood for this whole country in the hight and extremity of our perils and disasters against all England, and stood alone, and faced the frowns and jeers and " cat-calls" and " chaff" of great crowds of English gentlemen of the better classes, and faced them down in the name of the United States, who stood alone ta En- gland, and aroused, encouraged, developed, and amassed a power in our favor that no single mind or voice ever did since the world began— whether he is of that base, low, coarse, lewd fiber of soul and groBsness of body that wiU enable this aristocracy of England to return the triumph we have had to submit t» by saying, " You sent us the noblest, strongest, most cour- ageous, most adequate man, and subdued us, but you have discovered that his courage was not of the soul of purity fi-om love, from faith, from duty, but the mere ef- frontery of a voluptuary and an adulterer." Whether you are to say by your verdict this man, that, ever since this trial lias been progressing, has aat Ii» tSUMMISG CF BY M£. EYAETS, 667 your presence, tliat every stranger, liumijle or faiiiOLis, tliat lias visited the coui-t-room during tlie trial lias desired Ms acquaintance, tlie grasp of liis Land, tlie recognition of liis autograpli, tlie knowledge of Ids person as a man, tliat not only they hut you and all men should exclude from all companionship — or, I re- peat, hovrever lightly, hoTrever carelessly, hovrerer grossly people may talk ahout different forms of inconti- nence and irregularity, nobody can qualify, nohody can tolerate a premeditated and persistent seduction of a married vroman, and a continuous defilement of the niaiTiage hed. Ah! gentlemen, Tve must look this crime jn its face. Why, there is not a sailor in Wapping, vrtth a BtTumpet on either knee, badgered and beaten in the de- baiiches of long voyages and frequent ports, but that if a comrade should venture to suggest to him that he had seduced the daughter of an old shipmate, or the vrif e of a yoimg comrade, he vrould bury his sheath-knife In the heart of his accuser. There has never been a coarse and vulgar debauchee, voluptuary, that would flaunt his wealth and Ms vices in the face of our citizens here or in New-York, and ride the four-in- hand of his new riches packed with courtesans, the fact that one of his boon companions should accuse him of seducing the companion of his daughter, the wife of Ms friend who had been trusted to his care, but that would send.a bullet through the heart of his accuser. No, there are no coarse and vulgar voluptuaries, however lightly they may deal with incontinence, and however much they feel at liberty to poach on the manors that are not confided to their care, that either in practice or in accusation will tolerate any such charge as this that you are asked to bind by your verdict against Mr. Beecher, and your verdict for six cents finds it as mucb as if it was for $100,000. This is not a case in which, as in some of these libel suits, they don't want to hold that an editor has kept within the bounds of polite- ness, and they don't want to show that the plantiffs character was worth nothing. No, no ; the issue is a vital one ; your verdict is for the plaintiff or for the de- fendant. It passes upon this issue. There is not any other crime with which he is charged. There are no qualifying circumstances about it. If he is not guilty of all that I bave described to you, he is not guilty of any- ttmg. That is the plaintiff's own figuring of the dimen- sions, the Incidents, the traits ox the crime. THE CIRCUMSTAOTIAL EVIDENCE. We may consider onrselves prepared now to look at the question of cifcumstantial evidence, which may be very briefly disposed of. Now. what is ctrcum- etantial evidence 1 It is the evidence of direct witnesses to certain facts, which are thus directly proved, and from which, as definitely and accurately ascertained, you in- fer, within ■(■'.ii-'Tonr*' principles of reasoning, and by the ] rest of common sense, that what is alleged as the neces- sary conclusion from them is such necessary conclusion. I refer, if your Honor please, to an authority in oui' Court of Appeals : the case of the People agt. Bennett (N. Y. R., vol. 49, p. 144.) The principles of circumstantial evi- dence — In detei-mintng a question of fact from circumstantial evidence, there are two general rules to be observed : (1.) The hypothesis of delinquency or guilt should flow naturally from the facts proved, and be consistent with them ail. (2.) The evidence must be such as to exclude to a moral certainty every hypothesis but that of his guilt of the offense imputed to Mm ; or, in other words, the facts proved must aU be consistent with, and point to his guilt not oMy, but they must be inconsistent with his innocence. Accordingly, in reference to a case of tMs kind, where, under circumstances of lewd intercourse, parties at a tav- ern, much more at a brothel, are found to have been shut up in the same room, locked or otherwise secured ; and the preliminaries have been shown of engaged affections, of lewd desires, of adulterous purpose ; why, there is cir- ctmistantial evidence wMch justifies a conclusion that in this security, and these circumstances of seclusion, the act of adultery may have occurred, must have occurred. All these things are to be guarded. The cases are very careful about even such circumstances. But all agree, as indeed common sense agrees, that when there is no circumstantial evidence by extraneous witnesses, of ear or eye, of such relations, either tending to or presuming the act which makes the guilt, or afterwards wMch con- firms the character of the supposed act by subsequent lewdness and attempts to commit the act — where no evi- dence of that kind is present, that is the end of oiroum- stantial evidence. Now, gentlemen, the plaintiff has not failed to present proofs that should carry some conclusion of guilt from any delicacy, or from any want of research. He didnt hesitate to put the power of the law upon Joseph Eichards to make him come here and regret that he could not give you any valuable information. He did not hesi- tate, in Ms searcMng, when he brought from the wards of a pauper hospital a lying, drunken woman to say that she heard [Mr. Beecher say to Elizabeth Tilton : " How do you feel 1" and she replied: "Dear father," or "father, dear, so, so." [Laughter.] Well, I don't know— I should think " so, so/' at best, was an indifferent sort of feeling as compatible with a variety of tMngs besides adultery. They dont reject trivial tes- timony, because they brought Brasher to testify that, as he was going fisMng along one of the public streets, be- tween 7 and 8 o'clock in the morning, when the sun was sinning bright, he saw— would you believe it ?— in open day, as the approximate act of adultery, Mr. Beecher standing on the doorsteps, having pulled the beU, and waiting for someb ody to come to Mm. [Laughter.] Judge Nollson— We must have hotter order. I hAve THE TILTON-BEEGREB TlilAL. 668 Beveral very respectable people here wlio are not con- ducting themselves properly. We must have silence. Mr. Evarts— Now, this matter of Brasher— who was a well-known gentleman, whose whole demeanor on the stand before you is a very good illustration of the perse- verance, intrepidity, and indefatigableness of our friend Judge Morris m searching for evidence. Now, Mr. Brasher was a man who was well known to be very fond of fishing, and so fond of fishing that when the tide served, no matter what hour of the night it was, he was very likely to go a-flshing, and so he sometimes went at 2 o'clock in the morning, 3 o'clock in the morn- ing, 4 o'clock in the morning. Now, there goes around a story in Brooklyn that Mr. Brasher saw Mr. Beecher, either in coming out of or going in at Mrs. Tilton's house, when he was going fishing. "Well now, there is something— Beecher going there at 2 o'clock in the morning. Coming away at 2 o'clock in the morning— still more extraordinary. Either way about the same thing. Brasher is summoned as a witness here, with an immense flourish. He didn't know what he was to prove ; he never saw what he had to do with It ; but he had seen Mr. Beecher at that doorstep when he was going fishing, but the difficulty is, if the tide served, he went fishing at all hours. He would just as lieve go fishing at 8 o'clock as at 2, I think he would rather, and the only morn- ing on which he had seen INIr. Beecher in any vicinity to this door step was the morning when the tide served at 8 o'clock, and not at 2 o'clock, when he was going fishing. Now, you, of course, saw the predicament of our learned friend, if I may call him so, when this cap sheaf of circumstantial evidence, approximate act of unseasonable hour, of midnight prowling, scaling the walls that inclosed this beauty, and Brasher saying that at 8 o'clock he saw him standing there, that he remained there still while Brasher passed by, and showed con- clusively he was not coming away, and was waiting for the bell to be answered. Well, if he had been coming away it would not have been miioh; and what is more, there was not any evidence that Mrs. Tilton was In the house, or that Mr. Tilton was not in the house, or what Mr. Beecher went for, or anything else. Xbe ti*ouble was that the tide didn't serve for their evidence that day, and if the tide had served, why then he time of Mr. Beecher»s going and the tide for+= he fish ing would not have occurred, and time and tide wait for no man. JOSEPH RICHAEDS'S TESTIMOIST. Now, the value of Mr. Ricliards's evidence— is it anything ? and of all circumstantial evidence when pro- duced by a witness, to produce upon you the impression that would have been pi-oduced if you had seen the thing he speaks of. Now, there are two ways to find out what impression that would have upon yoix. One is the state- ment of what the thing was that he saw, and, second, the impression that is made upon him when he saw it, and as he saw it. Well, he makes the most unlucky prelude, for the great circumstantial evidence on which this case, so far as proof of the act is to turn, is that he begins by apologizing to the court, and the jury as part of the court, before he would tell what he saw, that he regrets to say that unless he is sufi"ered first to tell what he heard from other people about other matters, what he saw will prove to be of no consequence. Well, that is a very strange thing. I never heard of any witness— Witnesses ought to come free from bias. WTiat under heaven have they to do with what the impression of their testim ony W8s cr srcnidb They are called to state what they did see. The law don { allow anybody to state what they heard, and the poor man says, " Well, now, I am here, and I sup- pose, therefore, I am here for something, and really I shall make a fool of myself for coming here to say nothrag unless I am allowed to state the circum- stances that made me think there might be something in it." Well, we will dispense with that. Now, that is the first test, out of his own mouth, of what impression and weight and power there was as evidence in what he saw, and that is that there was not any. I don't tliink you need trouble yourselves much about what he saw, when he tells you there is nothing in it to begin with. Well, then, he goes on and tells it, and I don't know exactly the phrase, but he saw Mr. Beecher as he suddenly opened the parlor door, where Mrs. Tilton and Mr. Beecher were conversing, Richards knowing nothing of it, except, perhaps, he had been told they were down there — he saw his sister withdrawing from what I think is called proximity to Mr. Beecher— moving away fi'om him, and that she colored a little. Well, I don't thhik that that comes up to the rule, that it must be an act that not only points to adulterous connection, but is in- consistent with anything else. It does not strike me so. How did it strike Richards % He went in and kissed his sister, and saluted her, and shookhands with Mr. Beecher, and talked with him, then went off about his business I Now, in either way that it was evidence of an adultery that had taken place, or of an adultery that was going on toward its consummation then and there, you will very easily see that, whatever had happened or did happen, it didn't make much of an impression on Richards, for he shook hands with the man and saluted his sister, and then went about his business, and shut the door oi" left it open— I don't know that he says which he did— and never thought it worth while to mention the circumstance to his sister, his only sister, he her only brother, and their mother a widow. Well, gentlemen, as I said about the otfonse, there is no generalization of such conduct of Richards as enables ine to apply an adjective to it. It never happened before. I don't think that, after his example, it will ever happen SUMMING UP BY MR. EVABTS. 669 again. I read from the case of Freeman agt. Freeman, in tlie 31st of Wisconsin, page 246, -svliere the rules of all these matters of circumstantial evidence are laid down. Speaking of circumstantial evidence, the Court says All the circumstances are fairly and fully explained and shown to have heen incident to some other object or design, and not to have been brought about for the pm'- pose or with a view of perpetrating the offense with which the plaintiff is charged [which was adultery]. And in this connection the Court cannot forbear to re- mark that the character of a minister of the Gospel whose reputation in all respects, ex- cept so fai" as it may have become involved by the unfortunate matter in controversy, appears to be fair, goes a great way to explaiu the facts, if indeed any explanation of them can be thought to be necessary. Nor can the Court refrain from the observation that the good character which the plaiatiff appears generally to have borne, both before and since the time the offense is alleged to have been committed, is a most significant circumstance in her favor. If found guilty, the Court would be required to beUeve that from a life of purity and fidelity she turned suddeoily to one of depravity and vice, and then as suddenly agaiu returned to her former 'virtuous ways. Such a circumstance is highly improba- ble, and seldom or never occiu'S. There is not a scintilla of proof of prior misconduct or conjugal infidelity, and her subsequent behavior appears to have been inno- cent and not the subject of the slightest suspicion. It was suggested by Lord Stowell, in Williams agt. Wil- liams, as possibly " a less laudable motive" for instituting the proceeding that it might have been for the purpose of " trying the experiment of how little proof will be accepted as sufficient " to sustain the charge of adultery. A similar remark might, and with greater propriety perhaps, be ventured here, that the bringing forward of this charge, more than seven years after the occurrence is alleged to have taken place, and during all which time the husband seems to have had no thought of the infidelity of the wife, is to try the experiment of how little proof win be accepted as sufficient to raise a suspicion of her infi- delity. I have trespassed already upon your Honor's indul- gence. J ud£,e Neilson— Gentlemen, get ready to retire. Be in your seats to-raorrow at 11 o'clock. The coui't then adjourned until 11 o'clock on Friday. NINETY-THIRD DAY'S PROCEEDINGS. SECOND DAY OF MR. EVARTS'S SUMMING UP. THE ORATOR EVEN MORE EARNEST THAN ON THE PRECEDING DAY— CASES OF THE PLAINTIFF AND DEFENTDANT CONTRASTED — SUGGESTIONS CONCERNING TESTIMONY FOR THE GUIDANCE OF THE JURY— A PART OP MR. TILTON'S EVI- DENCE REVIEWED— HIS POSITION BY HIS AS- SERTION THAT HE WAS THE HUSBAND OF AN ADULTERESS DEFINED— MR. MARTIN'S EVIDENCE TOUCHED UPON. Friday, May 28, 1875. The argument of William M. Evarts in defense of Henry Ward Beechsr brought together, to-day, the largest audience that has crowded the hmits of the Brooklyn City Court room at any time since the great trial began. One of the most telling portions of the speech of Mr. Evarts yesterday was partly addressed to Mr. Tilton. He had been explaining the contumely which has always attached to the husband of an adulteress, as illustrated by the meaning of the English words which describe such a man, and the severity of the Roman law affecting such persons. The argument of the orator was that there was a moral improbability of the highest sort that Theodore Tilton had suffered this disgrace in his family. Turning toward Mr. Tilton, he said, slowly, and almost in tones of re- buke, while the audience listened in dead silence, and Mr. Tilton's face flushed very red, " How do you dare to say as you do say, and I think truthfully— I certainly hope truthfully for your character- that until July you had no doubt, no fear, or thought, or suspicion, in regard to the intercourse of Mr. Beecher with your family— how can you say that and not feel that you have forced yourself into the dilemma of choosing whether you take the con- tumely of the English opprobrium, or the dark stain of the Roman condemnation." Much of Mr. Evarts's address to-day might be called didactic in character. He seemed to be seek- ing to lead the minds of the jurymen into legal methods of thinking and reasoning. The objects and nature of evidence were explained, and the orator appeared to take great pains to point out the grounds of belief in, and the proper tests of the truth of, tes- timony. After stating these general propositions in the clearest language, he took examples from the , evidence in this case, and deduced conclusions by the I appK ation of the principles laid down. m THE TlLTOI^-BEEaRER TRIAL, The evidence of Mr. Judson, of A. B. Martin, some of that of Mr. Tilton, and of other -vi itnesses, was subjected to this process. "The juxtaposition of things said in private, and demonstrations made in public," was made to play a part in showing what the orator conceived to be the character of the plaintiff. The testimony of Mr. Martin, who said ia evidence that when Gen. Tracy had his interview with Miss Bessie Turner, at Mrs. Ovington's house, he (the witness) and Mrs. Tilton sat on the back piazza to escape the heat, and who declared that a projecting brick wall protectod that piazza from the sun's rays, was subjected to ^ keen analysis. Finally, the orator explained, amid a burst of laughter in which auditors, counsel, and jurymen joined, " Now, some- times men run their heads against a brick wall, but the trouble with Mr. Martin was that he dashed out his brains for want of a brick wall," and then he added, with the utmost drollery of tone and manner, " A.— B.— Martin : ar-broiled— Martin." The orator also considered the testimony of Mary Catharine McDonald, and the general character of Mr. Beecher's evidence. The nature of the rebuttal evidence, and the theories of the plaintiff's and the defendant's respective cases, were likewise reviewed. THE PEOCEEDINGS— VERBATIM. ME. EVAETS EESUMES HIS AEGUMENT. The Court met at 11 a. m., pursuant to adjomnment. Judge Neilaon— Yesterday morning I requested the audience to keep silence, to the end that we might have perfect quiet ; some persons will remember with what success. Now, I repeat that request. Of course, we have twice as many people here as we should have— very likely a great many more than we shall have when we meet again. Will counsel proceed 1 THE HOUE OF ME. BEECHEE'S CALLS ON MRS. TILTON. Mr. Evarts— May it please your Honor and Gentlemen of the Jury : I was asking your attention to wliat the law requires as an entirely indispensable element ot producing that legal certainty without which no judgment is allowed to be pronounced by the verdict of a jury, on questions of this criminality and of these large relations to the interests of society and extensive influence upon the happiness of others ; and I had asked your assent to the proposition that this case was utterly bare of all those facts of conduct, as seen and observed, which lead to the conviction that there had grown up in tbe liearts and affections and passions of these people, those vicious pm-poses which lead to wicked acta none of that evidence which shows the external eircum stances of misconduct or deviation from proprieties none even of that addiction to one another's private society, which is marked as having some secret an"" some wicked purpose ; and there are none of the occasio^ proved in any sense in which such a purpose may hav been indulged or gratified, or from which any conclusio" to that effect can be drawn. Now, I have to conside some general relations of Mr. Beecher and Mrs. Tilto~ which are in undisputed proof, which form quite as muc a part of the case of the plaintiff, and of our theory of t' association between them, its motives, its character, i traits, its action, as they possibly can do, in regard to th plaintiff's view. This was a habit of such social intimac as belongs to a relation of a clergyman and a parishione though a married woman, provided there are the e temal indications which lead to that intimacy, and p~ vided you find in the character of the parties, in the moral and intellectual nature, as separated from the su' ject in dispute, the attractions on the one side and th other, that at once account for and justify such degTee o Intimacy. Now, I caU your attention, in the first plac- on this general question of the amount and form and fr quency of association, to the fact that it procee" almost entirely from the defendant's own testimon The number of visits dinging the many years of confess' intimacy and constant regard, is represented as conii perhaps to once in from three to six weeks ; every one those visits In the ordinary horn's of day, day in the sen of forenoon, for us who dine as we usually do, at 6 o'clo every one of them. There is not a witness, a servant, inmate of the family, Mr. Tilton himself, there is not o witness who pretends that there was a visit in the eve ing, in the sense of a private call ; some social enterta' ments, some invitations, some set occasions, amountin I think, to nothing very definite, and certainly very fe in number, that were fixed for an evening,*of course, Mr. Beecher was present, showed his presence in t' evening ; but then it was in a crowd, it was in a compa" it was in the parlors. Now, in regard to any visits of Mrs. Tilton to Mr. Beec' er's house, there is no evidence at all that any suo instance occurred. Mr. Beecher says, whether or no M Tilton was at the house on the 10th oC October, he doesn know ; and my learned friend doesn't askhim whether saw her. She might have been at his house without seeing her. They don't press any further in any of tho inquiries. We show by him that he has no recollectio of seeing her there, or of any occurrence of any kind whio should note in his memory, or produce to yom* knowled any such fact ; a fact that would have been whoUy im" portant in itseK, except as giving external evidence th would support the possibility of guilty conduct, if pro other and additional were given; for to say that the vi S mi MING UF I of a married ladj of tile paristi, in the daytime, at the house of her clergyman, is a suspicious act, "svould shock not only the sense of decency, hut the sense of fairness, and intellectually the common sense of every man. Now, what beyond these visits, that ran through these years, occurring, as Mr. Bcecher states them— and he is the only witness to them, and if he spoke falsely he could be contradicted by servants— if the view that he se«ks to present to you, that he only strolled around there in the forenoons as a part of the sola^ie and the recreation of a walk, and spent there say up to half an hour or so, from five minutes up to half an hour, in a call of regard, of affection, of intimacy, if that could be contradicted, it would be. We are not to suppose that this plaintiff and Ms household, consisting of five servants, five children, and grown inmates, besides himself and his wife, is so unwatched, unremembered, unprotected in the observa- tion of all who saw as that, if this general proposition of Mr. Beecher that his visits in point of time, in point of direction, in point of circumstance, were altogether and wholly of the character that I have thus given to them— you are not to suppose that this plaintiff is not able to con- tradict. Whether he is able to contradict or not, absence of contradiction does not effect the purpose and result of contradiction. What is uncontradicted, whether it be because it is absolutely uncontradictable or because mis- fortune has prevented its contradiction, is, in a court of justice, the whole proof proved on the point. ME. BEE CHER'S GIFTS TO MRS. TILTON. Now, beyond this, wiiat are tlie seductive arts, and what the corruptiug influences that this visitor used ? Why, there seems to have been what in the end came to a some ^y hat bulky collection of octavos, from the Bampton Leccures on the Divinity of Chi'ist to the religious novel of which Mr. Beecher was the author. Well, when octavos are presented, and when the title- page contains the inscription of che giver, even if the nature of the gift is of the suspicious character of the Bampton Lectures on the Divinity of Christ, still the element of secrecy, of amulet, of love- charm, seems to be wanting oa account of the bulk and the publicity of the transaction. Then there were some flowers — flowers'sent to the cham- ber of a woman in confinement, flowers sent to the parlor of a lady li^-ing la her own house, flowers the sight of which gladdened the eyes of everybody within the house, and whose periume betrayed their presence to every comer. Now, when a man has a garden and a farm, and when, as :nIi-. Beecher says, he was in the habit of strew- ing thts^ flowers thick through the pathways of his parishioners, in theu' domestic life, I do not think that you will find much evidence of corrupt, adulterous pur- pose in the mere fact that these flowers, once, twice, three times perhaps, made the subject of evidence, and ta the chaste and beautiful and open form in which the testi- r MB. EYAETS. 671 mony has disclosed them, will affect y»ur minds with circimistantial evidence tending, as the law books say, to adultery, and incompatible with anytiiing else. THE FIRST OUTCROPPINGS OF "MALICE AND ENYY." Now, gentlemen, I caU your attention to the aflBrmative proof of the absolute want of fact ia this m- tercourse, on which to raise suspicions and interests from what is an afarmative fact, that there were constant observers, that there were watchful obseirvers, that there were jealous observers, that there were hostile and malig- nant observers, that watched these persons— the wife and the clergyman— during these years. You will remember a little item of proof in which Mr. Judson gave evidence, that at a lunch at Delmonico's Mr. Tnton introduced sub- jects of gossip or suspicion about this, that, and the other person; for the general subject and the general iudul- gence of words and speech on such subjects does not seem to have been foreign to Mr. Tilton's disposi- tion; and Mr. Judson says to him: "Well, there is one thing certain, at least, that Mr. Beecher has not been involved or suspected of any irregularities towards women;" and Mr. TUton says : "I have lost my faith ia man." Well, that is a pleasant form of meeting an im- putation upon a friend— this was in 1865— a pastor, a visitor at his family, a man that for years he had been telling that a little woman at his house loved him dear- ly ; and Mr. Judson pressing it again, Mr. Tilton still re- plies : " I have lost my faith In man," and for a third time this solemn, hypocritical " I dare not made to wait upon I would," is repeated by this stalwart man. Well, Mr. Judson, an intimate friend of Mr. Tilton, also a friend, or accLuaintance at least, of :Mr. Beecher, and a believer in him— he doesn't like these cowardly threats of malice and envy, and instead of allowing the subject to breed the mischief it was intended to breed, he brings it to the light at once, and has it smothered forever. A very wise man has said : " Suspicions that the mind of itseK gathers are but buzzes, but suspicions that are arti- ficially nouiished and put into men's heads by the tales and whisperings of others have stiugs." Now, my plain- tiff here— your plaintiff— our plaintiff— has read Lord Bacon, and he knew that these suspicions that tale- bearers carry with their whisperings have stings. He had read the Pi-overbs, too (in his youth), and he knew— and he lived up to it—" Where there is no wood the fire goeth out ; and where there is no tale-bearer there is an end of strife." And he took care that these fires should not lack fuel, and these strifes should never miss a tale-bearer. But Mr. Judson goes at once CO Mr. Beecher— goes to Mr. Beecher and tells htm whar Tilton has said, and Mr. Beecher seeks Mr. Tilton and calls him to an account, and Mr. Tilton denies it, abhors it, and does two things— one to Mr, Beecher— he writes him a letter that has been read to THE TILTON-BEECHER TRIAL. 672 you, and one to Judson ; flndimg him again, lie says, " I thought you were my friend;" "lam your Mend, hut I am also a friend of Mr. Beecher." Well> Tilton repeats, " I thought you were my friend." What was there in the knowledge of Judson that entitled this tale-hearer and strife-maker to think that Judson, toecause he favored him with his acquaintance, and, if you please, with his good feeling, would become a willing participant in what in every right thinking mind, in every honest heart, is condemned as the vilest and basest employment to which any man, any one, man or woman, can stoop? When the assassin faces his enemy or at least runs the risk of the resistance of weapon by weapon and force by force, or braves discovery and the opportunities of proof, and, so, exposure to punishment. It still is the basest form of enmity that is known— I mean of that deadly enmity that seeks destruction of the life. But that assassination by the slow poison of calumny, secretly infused into every vein of the society In which the calumniated character moves and is known, that is a baser and a viler form of assassination. It has every degree of cowardice, every amount of malice, every wickedness of purpose, and every mischief of result. Great characters, known characters, strong characters can resist it, but it is for us, gentlemen of the jxuy, for you and for me, to protect men in the common level of life, like ourselves, from such calumuiation. A wave that would be dashed to pieces oii the quarter of a man-of-war may swamp her coek-boat and destroy the lives that are in it. All the pelting with which Mr. Beecher has been followed through years and years has produced no effect upon him. But calumny, calumny, gentlemen of the Jury, takes its effect on those against whom it is aimed just in proportion as their general char- acter and life are hid from observation and untested by great opportunities or trial. Now, gentlemen, we might as well start here with understanding the character, not of Theodore Tilton— he has not introduced a new charac- ter into human affairs— men of these evil dispositions, men of this wicked conduct, have lived long before him. This union of open and outward display, this pre- tension, this self-satisfaction that Mr. Tilton and Mr. Moulton exhibit themselves before you as clad in — are the very traits that are associated in all conspira- cies. Why, the companions, the instruments, the agents of Catiline were of the same kind. They were long ago described— these men, Tilton and Moulton— by a great advocate much better than I could describe them, al- though what he said was said 2,000 years ago, and of others. Si pueH, tarn lepidi ac delicati, non solum amare et amari, neque eantare et saltare, sed etiam sicas vibrare, et ^ sparqere venena di- dicerunt: these youths, so jaunty and so slick, not only practiced the ar,\«i of freely loving and freely being loved, nor the grac» s of nn airy rhetoric and a bold gesticulation, but also h. ve tliey learned to ply the dagger of the assassin and scatter tihe poisons of calum- niators. It is very well to think with complacency, as Mr. Til- ton obviously does, of the showy, the briUiant, the ac- complished, the gratifying traits that make the showy external of base motives, base conduct, and wicked pur- poses, but he has not the credit of being the model and the type. Such men have lived always, and always will live ; and they have been understood always, and always will be imderstood. Far be it fiom me to disturb his com- j placency ; if it were ever valuable to him it is more valu- able now than ever. Horne Tooke said that he didn't sea why a man should not thank God for his self-conceit aa well as any of the other good gifts of Providence, and it certainly does carry a man through the world with a pretty high head, and with considera- ble enjoyment which is lost by the modest and pure. Now what passions of our kind are there that we can trace motives to, for I may as well apply the criticism at this earliest instance of malignancy and hypocrisy as at any other. You don't need to eat a whole loaf of bread to know that it is sour. A wise man eschews further experience of that batch. But some people will keep on eating and eating, thinking that the sourness has not struck in [Laughter] ; that it has not, at least, reached the bottom crust, and that you may get a little healthful nourishment, and you had bet- ter not discard the bread until you have had a full trial of it. Well, if you take a loaf of sour bread in yoiu* stomach, you will be apt to find out enough about that iudigestible fabric not to try another. Now, envy, as we call it, m its true sense as it is used by the great classic dramatists, and in the Holy Scripture, either in the Old or the New Testament, is the counter passion to love and charity in the sense of the embrace in brotherhood of all mankind. "Envy frets itself because of the prosperity of others and pines at their s j- periority." It finds its complacency, it finds its occupa- tions, it finds its goading impulses in the destruction of that prosperity and the abasement of that superiority. Emulation, which is the noble competition and the great and beneficent Influence that great characters have on those who are their cotemporaries or who follow them, is turned into the wicked passion of envy. And, as t)ie very essence of love is that its delight is in the happiness of others for the other's sake, as when you come to the sexual relations the love of marriage Is distinguished from meretricious love by that distinction, that the love is of the person loved, and beautified, and glorified in your affections, and in meretricious connections it is the gratification of selfish appetite, regardless of whatever degree of misery and ruin Is in- flicted upon the object of tlie meretricious love. So envy, the hatred of men, is the great wicked master passion, as love is the great, noble, sacred passion of our i nature, beginning wheu the iufaut wilh a smile reoog- SUMMUG UF BY MR. EVAETS. 673 nizes its mother, gro"^iTig till the youth takes the hride br the hand to the altar, ending for this life only ^hen the -vtlfe is laid in the grave, and through all, expanded, purified, intensified, elevated, until, at last, it is lost in the universality of the sea of love, not because it is any less intense, not that it has lost its luster, hut simply he- cause it has faded, as the stars fade in the morning in the full blazonry of the sun's illumination. No^, Tvhere does f-nvy or malice tend, and do its ravages cease -with its single first ob.iect, or does it grow like other passions upon what it feeds on ? Does it extend through the whole frame of the moral, the intellectual, the in- dustrious working of the man. Why, if your eye be single with this true passion of love and duty, your whole body shall be full of light. But if your eye be evil, your whole body shall be full of darkness ; and how great is that darkness! The ancients have a stem maxim marking the absoluteness of the dominion of this evil passion in few words, but which leaves nothing else to be said about it — " Invidia festos dies non egit." Envy, malice, keeps no holiday. And Theodore Tilton spent Christmas in forging a weapon that he says he meant to strike Mr. Beecher to the heart with, and New Years in preparing what he himself calls in his writing, "a New Year's present to Mr. Bowen." Well, talk of confessions, talk of indications of character, of purpose, of nature ; it is a by-word, "Actions display the man" Treatment of himself, by himself, in his o"wn description of himself, leaves nothing to be said of him by others. You don't need to search the heart of a man who boasts of his malignity, and takes credit from its horrors. Nor do you need to measure the conduct of such men with such cha^racters, and think how far they will go and where they will stop, and that this, or that, is too much. No wise man thinks any more of this credulity, this incaution toward such characters, the heart of whom is under- stood, than he does of measuring the depth to which a vulture wHl dip its beak in the heart blood of its prey, or how manifold or how merciless shall be the coil and the crush of the serpent when it entwines its victim. Let men who wish to run these experiments with reptile characters in animal nature try them. ME. TILTON ACKNOWLEDGES ME. BEECHEE'S BENEFITS. Let men who wish to, run these risks with the wickedness of the heart, when that is confessed. I read to you the list of evil that comes out of an evU heart as given by one who knew what was iu man. Now, having cautioned Judson never to assume to be his Mend further, and never to speak to him again, he wrote Mr. Beecher this letter : Midnight. Brook:lt>", Nov. 30, 1865. Set. Henry Ward Beecher— O^i/ Dear jPrie>?c? .• Return- ing home late to-night I cannot go to bed without writing you a letter. Twice I have been forced to appear as your antagonist before the public, the occasions five years apart. After the first I am sure our friendship, instead of being maimed, was strengthened. After this last, if I may guess youi- heart by knowing mine, I am sure the old love waxes instead of wanes. That was when the ciuarrel about the peaceful tendenr cies of Mr. Beecher was fresh, and when for some charity that had been extended to the fallen foes among our countrymen by Mr. Beecher, he was condemned with an exhaustive vituperation scarcely equaled bythe secular press. Two or three days ago, I know not how impelled, I took out of its hiding-place your sweet and precious letter written to me from England, containing an affectionate message which you wished should live and testify after your death. To-night I have been thinking that in case I should die first, which is equally probable, I ought to leave in your hand my last will and testament of recip- rocated love. My friend, from my boyhood up you have been to me what no other man has been, what no other man can be. While I was a student, the influence of your mind on mine was greater than all books and all teach- ers. The intimacy with which you honored me for twelve years has been, next to my wife and family, the chief affection of my life. By you I was baptized ; by you mar- ried; you are my minister, teacher, father, brother, friend, companion. The debt I owe you I can never pay. My religious life, my intellectual development, my open door of opportunity for labor, my public reputation— aU these, my dear friend, I owe' in so great a degree to your own kindness that my gratitude cannot be written in words, but must be expressed only in love. Then, what hours we have had together ! "\Miat arm- in-arm wanderings about the streets : "VMiat hunts for pictures and books ! What mutual revelations and com- munin£:s! What tnterminglings of mirth, of tears, of prayers ! The more I think back upon this friendship, the more am I convinced that not your public position, not your fame, not your genius, but just your affection has been the secret of the bond between u.\. For, whether you had been high or low, great or common, I believe that my heart, knowing its mate, would have loved you exactly the same. Now, therefore, I want to say that if, either long ago or lately, any word of mine, whether spoken or printed, whether public or private, has given you pain, I beg you to blot it from your memory, and to write your forgiveness in its place. Moreover, if I should die. leav- ing you aliA-e, I ask you to love my chUdren for their father's sake, who has taught them to reverence you and to regard you as the man of men. One thing more; my religious experiences have never been more refreshing than during the last year. Never before have I had such fair and winning thoughts of the other life. With these thoughts you stand connected in a strange and beautiful way. I believe human friendship outlasts human life. Our friendship is yet of the earth, earthy ; but it shall one day stand uplifted above mor- tality, safe, without scar or flaw, without a breath to blot, or a suspicion to endanger it. Meanwhile, O, my friend, may our Father in heaven bless you on the earth, guide you, strengthen you, illu- mine you, and at last crown you with the everlasting crown. And, now, good night ; and sweet be your di'eams of your unworthy but eternal friend, Theodore Tilton. Now, gentlemen, you understand what words are wortli. 674 THE TlLTOJS'Bl written or spoken, from this man. Wlien, three days be- fore, liis slanderous tongue has spoken mischief, and a common acquaintance of Mr. Beecher, the recipient of nis leasings, asked this, at least, about Mr. Beecher— *' that there never have heen any suggestions against his morality in respect of women," and Theodore Tilton, with the thrlce-acted pomp of duty to friendship, and fielity to truth, which forbade to ask what was untrue, and did not permit him to tell what was true, said, " I have lost my faith in man," and when asked what point there was in that in regard to Mr. Beecher—" I have lost faith in man," and a third time pressed, "I have lost my faith in man," and then, at midnight, in order that it might be preserved after he is dead, if he should die suddenly, or take poison — what poison would operate % — preserves this record. Are such characters new ? They are not common. We should have got out of this world into another if the staple of our society was made up of such characters. No ; " a serpent heart hid in a flowery face " is a charac- ter as old at least as Shakespeare, and thus preserved by Mm. Now, gentlemen, there is nothing in all this unless it seems to you to rest, as it does to me, on a correct, in- telligent, candid, and not uncharitable estimate of this plaintiffs character as disclosed by his own evidence. Such I believe it to be ; such the juxtaposition that we are able to make of things said in private and demon- strations made in public, shows you the character. It shows you its discords; it shows you its main current of purpose and of blood; it is the character. And it shows you more. It shows you that, when you are dealing with a disputed question of a par- ticular line of conduct or incident or relation, between two men, if you can only get hold of enough of their re- spective characters you can tell whether one or the other construction of the controversy is to determine, comports with the character aa disclosed, outside of the particular controversy, of one or the other. Truth comports with, agrees with, every fact— physical, moral, and spiritual— in the world. Error may couf use ; error may distort ; but be sure there is no one truth that is not compatible with every other truth in the material creation or the moral relations. Sometimes, by fortunately or skillfully acquiring facts enough to see whether the particular fact wiU comport with them, the cross-examiner is en- abled to baffle the false purpose of a witness. Why what is cross-examination, in its subtle, penetrating power % Some think it is to exhibit the infirmity of mem- ory, and the inexactness of expression by words, and that a great feat is accomplished when, by asldng a wit- ness to tell a long conversation over two or three times, the witty and profound cross-examiner has demonstrated that the thing cannot be done. Well, everybody of any common sense knew it before. How often did the coun- sel exhibit to you their inability— and I do n't refer now to my learned opponents any more than to omselves. EORER TEIAL. the counsel before you— exhibit their inability to repeat, after a ten minutes' interruption by a legal discussion, the very question that had been asked before the discus- sion began and was allowed to be repeated, and before your eyes, and without the least shame or aunor- ance, we asked that the stenographer might read the question because we could not repeat it. Now, with such a confession of this common trait between witty and profound cross-examiners and com- monplace unstrained memories, it does not seem to me a very great triumph of cross-examination to exhibit this incapacity. Indeed, if the rote was followed completely in the second relation, it would show that it was known by heart— had been committed to memory. But when cross-examination, ignorant at the start or imperfectly instructed, undertakes to demonstrate the improbability, the falsehood, of an immediate statement by showing its incompatibility with facts that shall be arrayed around it, and how it will not comport with them, then it is that the cross-examiner follows this great rule and principle of truth, that truth, if truth, will match all round, with material facts, with moral qualities ; but if it be false it won't ; and if that triumph in the cause of justice, in the service of truth, follows the employment of the trained arc of the lawyer, it is a great and beneficent result ; but if confusion of error, contumely on the weakness of memory, laughter at the indrfferent mental qualities of this or that witness, is the only result of cross-examina- tion, it may answer an immediate purpose, but it doe.a not serve justice or. promote truth. MR. TILTON'S GRAY HAIRS. Now, I will give you two amusing incidents of how truth will comport with all truth, however remote it may seem. It was amusing enough when it happened, and my learned friend Judge Porter has called it to your attention. When Mr. Tilton wished to convict Bessie Turner of a lie with a circumstance, he gave you as a reason that her story was false, and his was true, about his speech in regard to his gray hairs going in sorrow to the grave, that he had not any gray hairs at that time. Well, that shows that he put the question of whether Bes- sie or he told a lie on that fact. That was the test ; and he thought he knew about the gray haii-s in his head, or at any rate, if he didn't nobody else did ; but Bessie had combed his head ; Bessie had told you how frequently she had combed his head, and I find that people who don't grow the gray hairs are quite as likely to see them as those who do. [Laughter.] But he had forgotten— and, indeed, he does not believe in the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures— he had forgotten that it is written, "Thou canst not make one hair white or black ; " even under oath you cannot do that. [Laughter.] Ah ! but he had forgotten more than that ; he had forgotten that even the hairs of the most worthless head are all numbered. When the truth comes to light in his own letter, written three years bo- ISUMMI^'G UP 1 fore, when he told his wife, " Gray hairs since our mar- riage have stolen upon us," he shows you what there is in my suggestion that truth matches all the truth in the world, and that a lie does not. Bessie's statement matched all round, and his broke at the first attempted connection, JOKES AT A. B. MAETIN'S EXPENSE. Well, we had anotlier witness, a Mr. Martin, and he thought, inexperienced in the practice of truth or in. the arts of falsehood, that if he told a story in words, and there was not anybody to contradict him, or at any rate, if it was only words against words, that he could do some damage to Mrs. Tilton by his testimony, gained in friendly intercourse with her ; an-d so he told you that he and she being too warm in the room up stairs, went down, about half past 2 in the afternoon, to sit on the piazza to get cool. Well, now, there is a mat- ter that does not seem to have much to do with the solar system per se, by itself ; but you have got to match all around, and truth does it without an effort, and falsehood never; and so he was shown that the sun blazed there in that July af- ternoon, with the thermometer among the nineties, and yet they had gone there and sat because it was a cool place ! Well, that looks a little as if he had run against the solar system, don't it ? [Laughter.] But what is that to an ingenious mind like Martin's ? [Laughter.] Genius shows itself when most hard pressed, and its extempore efforts are sometimes its greatest ; so he said, putting down this captious notion of sunshine, " Why, there was a brick wall on the side of the piazza of the neighboring house that extended out its deep embrasure and kept us from the sun." It looked a little, then, as it the solar system was not, after all, to triumph ; but we brought an occupant of the house and they sent a surveyor, and there was no brick wall there. Now, sometimes men run their heads against a brick waU [laughter] ; but the trouble with this Mr. Martin was, that he dashed his brains out for want of a brick wall. [Laughter.] A. B. Martin : a broiled Martin. [Renewed laughter.] Well, when he comes on the stand again he will study the solar system, and also brick masonry. [Laughter.] SIGNIFICANCE OF MR. TILTON'S EARLY-EX- PRESSED SUSPICIONS. Now, as we go on we shall find many illus- trations of this antagonism which corrects falsehood ; and it proves something more, and we might as well •tart here with understanding that. This is not the first cause that has ever been tried ; these are not the first witnesses that have testified and been tested. It is not the first time that the learned Judge and my experienced opponents, or even ourselves, have had to observe and lament the diflBculties and the weakness of testimony. F ME. EYABTS. 675 and lawyers have hardened their experience into a maxim which the law foUows, and instructs juries to foUow, and which the conscience and the common sense of jurors impels them, compels them, to follow. It is, in the brevity of the law maxim in Latin, falsus in uno, falsus in omnihxts ; satisfy yourselves that a man is false in one thing, and you must judge him false in others. When a man tells you with his own mouth that be has lied through a series of statements imder a motive, and then that in another series of statements, under another motive, he does not lie, you have, in your common sense, one question for him : " How shall we trust a lying tongue to teU us when it lies V Now, would not that be nice, to have a man come and say, " I lied then, and then, and then, under a motive ; I now come here and teU the truth." " WeU, have you any motive here ?" " Oh 1 yes ; I mean to strike Beecher to the heart; I mean to drive him out of Plym- outh Church ; I , mean to pursue him to the grave." Well, that is enough— a motive. Now, would not you feel like Sensible men if you should base a verdict upon that testimony ; allowing such a man to pick and choose for you the things that are true, and taking them on his say- ing so ? There is an end of that ; and, unluckily, Moulton and Tilton are on the same platform, for that matter. Moulton has given you the series of his falsehoods, and he now gives you the series of his statements, and you have got to let his tongue choose; his motives you have in his statement that he would have the life of Beecher, that he would destroy him, and all the viUifying epithets that one man can bestow upon another have been used by him on the stand and under oath. If your Honor please, in this cause we do not need to trust to the maxim so firmly established, so wisely considered, carrying such conviction, both to the legal and the common under- standing, as ''falsusin uno,falstisin omnibus." The record in this case in its whole web of hypocrisy, of false state- ment, of prevarication, on their own showing requires us only to take this, the converse of the proposition, "falsus in omnibus, falsus in uno." You have one ques- tion to determine, whether the truth is spoken about it, and they have shown themselves false in eveiything : ia character, in conduct, in concealments, in prevarications, in spoken falsehoods, in written falsehoods. Ah ! gentle- men, it is a terrible thing to have the length of a trial, and the methods of the law unfold a tissue and a web of false character, the woof and warp of which are aU false. And then you are asked to believe that in that texture, in that tapestry, there is at least one thread of truth. They say to us, " Falsus in omnibus, vertcs in uno ; " false in aU else ; true at least in one thing ; for it is not in human nature not at some time to speak the truth, and this is the occasion. [Laughter.] But I said to you that the affirmative force of the negative proof is itself im- mense, when you are satisfied of the opportunities ; and I digressed to exhibit to you the aiMtude, as early 676 TEE TILTON-BEEGHEU TRIAL. as 1865, of Mr. Tilton as a watclier in Ms own household, and a watcher of his wife. Let me show you a little of his condition of mind ahout Mr. Beecher as a visitor and an inmate of his household — as an inmate of his house, and a friend of his wife — from another statement of his in writing : " Ahout ten or eleven years ago," and this was written in 1872, or there- abouts : it carries it hack to 1862 : Ahout ten or eleven years ago Henry C. Bowen, for whom I was then worMng as a subordinate in The Inde- pendent office, told me one evening, while crossing Fulton Ferry, that Henry Ward Beecher was guilty of adultery, a practice begun in Indianapolis and continued in Brook- lyn." That was in 1862. It had had some years run at that time. Between the years 1860 and 1870 Mr. Bowen repeated the accusation not less than a hundred times— [so it had not slipped his mind]— frequently exhibiting the deep sense of a personal injury, and sometimes saying that if he was so minded he could drive Mr. Beecher from Plym- outh pulpit. Now, either Mr. Tilton believed Mr. Bowen or he didn't, or else Mr. Bowen never said so, and I am sure I don't know how we are to find out that latter. Mr. Tilton has said so here. He said so on the stand in some degree. Mr. Bowen, their witness, was not asked by them the ques- tion, to purge himself of this imputed conversation and conduct. But, in respect of Mr. Tilton, we may fairly assume that, as against him, we may suppose that he had heard these stories, for he has said so. Now, either he believed them or he didn't. If he did believe them, you see that Mr. Beecher and Mrs. Tilton were under a pretty sharp observation, don't you ? A hus- band, a rival, a man who hated Beecher, and who either loved or didn't love his wife ; and he, why he would watch. If he loved her he would watch ; if he didn't love her he would watch. And he comes here and tells you that up to July, the day when his wife made some sort of a communication to him, which we shall examine on its own merits hereafter so far as it is the subject of evidence— until that time he made her an idol in his head. If there was nothing wrong between Mr. Beecher and his wife, if there was anything wrong in his visits and his rides — and we have shown you that in 1870, in the Win- ter, when Mr. Beecher had driven Mrs. Tilton out once behind a pair of horses and a buggy in the Park, and had been thanked by Mrs. Morse, and encouraged by the great good it had done Elizabeth, and by the invitation of iJIrs. Morse he went there a week afterward to give her another ride behind the same spanking team, that he found Mr. Tilton there, and the invitation was given, of course, as it would have been whether he was there or not, and Mrs. Tilton having some reason that disinclined her to go, he urged her to go. So you have the miscon- duct evidence, that after that time, which was two years after the adultery, or tne second year after the adultery began, while it was going on, before it was discontinued, he had not observed anything, or, if he had, his conduct was not candid and open^ was iti He won't take that alternative. It contradicts his oath that he had no suspicion or idea. Now, you will see, then, that the material circumstances of this alleged seduction and alleged adultery are just as inconsistent with all the external circumstances of life in which these parties were placed, ai)d the observation to which they were exposed, as the moral incompatibility of wicked conduct with religious char- acter and pure morality is impossible. Now, how can you get over that 1 Why, if your Honor please, it is one of the singular, perhaps unfortunate, traits in the iaanners and morals and everyday reason- ing of the English people and ourselves, that we have not a single word to describe the husband of an un- faithful wife that is not inspired with tne bitterest con- tempt and contumely for the husband. There are two words— and that it may not be supposed that my memory fails me in the exactness of the definition, I will read them to you, gentlemen of the jury. Now, as a plain matter-of-fact definition of the word " cuckold," this is accurate : " The husband of an adulteress ; " and then the adjective " cuckoldly,' " having the qualities of a cuckold, mean, sneaking ; " and then we have an ancient word, not much in use, as indeed the word " cuckold " is not in use, because the occasion for dt does not occur in our society. Wittol describes a cuckold as "a man who knows his wife's infidelity and submits to it— a tame cuckold." Now, that shows either a coarse or barbarous feeling, which may, perhaps, account for it. I don't sympathize ; I have no desire to sympathize in any such contumely, but it shows the strong sense of our people, whether it has grown up here or at the birth of English manliness before our removal thence from England, and you will find in every language, the German, the Italian, the French, having the same civilization and the same Christian re- ligion, the same contumelious aspersions of the husbands Now, what does that mean ? Why, it means that the vic- tims of such injuries are simple, silly, blind, indifferent,, carried away by affection to an absurd obfuscation of their observation, and that when the evil finally happens, as it must in its approaches have been noticeable, and if noticed, or unnoticed, mak- ing no impression— either way the character is contempt] ble; and to call a man a cuckold (which is simply the husband of an adulteress), carries contvimely and asper- sion. Well, there is not any other name in the language for him ; there is no other word that expresses that con- dition of the relation of a husband to a violated marriage except that word. Now, the Roman law, if your Honor please, was not so indulgent as merely to visit with con- tumely the husbands of violated marriages. Tliey had a law in Rome— for the Romans were a virtu ouis i>eople. STJMMIKG UP BY ME. EVABTS. the chastity of the Roman matrons and of the Roman maids was equal to that of any nation, and the grandeur and power of that society, even without a pure religion, shows how much can he built if the comer-stone of the family is maintainedhy sentiments of honor andreverence. The lenones, or pimps, or panderers, or procua'ers, werf watched and punished ; and the crime ^f lenocinium was visited with heavy punishments. That parents should prostitute tla»?ir daughters, or owners tbcir female slaves, or hushands their wives, was treated as nn evil that must be watched and punished ; and the Lex Jidia Be Adul- teriis provided that any husband who kept or took back a ■wife caught in adultery should be classed as a lenoeinant or panderer, and punished as such. It was a condition of the family that was pessimi exempli of most dangei'ous influence upon society. If the Roman malronage was still to include in their pure roll of honor prostituted wives, wives that violated the marriage vow, where was the honor of the matronage ? If young waves entering into matronage were to see that the power of public opinion, and the virtue of that noble state, was not dis- fignred by the presence of waives still cherished by hus- bands with knowledge of their infidelity, however cred- itable it might be to the extraordinary charity and affec- tion of the particular hiisband, it was subversive of the institution, and should not be allowed. Now, if your Honor please, and gentlemen of the jury, I have not the least idea that Mr. Tilton is exposed, on any facts in his own family, to the least imputa4ion of either this contimielious opprobrium of the English phrases or this darker condemnation of the Roman law. I wish to save him from both— from either— and I think I shall succeed ; but he stood on a very perUoas edge, and he has got as far down the precipice as he could get of his owTi movements. And I present, as an utter improbability (not going quite as deep into the foundations of morals and character as those I have suggested about a pure wife and a noble woman), but, I put it to you, that it is a moral improbability of the highest grade that Theodore TUt^n has suffered this disgrace in his family. He is a man of large intelligence; he is a man of active doubts and fears and suspicions. He is a man not inexperienced iu the wicked ways of the world. He has had, year after year, an inculcation into his mind that Mr. Beecher was a dangerous visitor in the families of the pure-minded women of Brooklyn ; and he has encouraged, has observed, has been pleased with the visits of Mr. Beecher. He has seen his wife by night and by day ; he has seen her in the privacy which the law says that even the great interests of Justice never should invade ; he has seen Into her soul ; he looked into her eyes with love or hate, with suspicion or fear, during these many years of the seduction and adultery. He has watched Mr. Beecher in his comings in and his gomgs out ; he has talked in restaurants about his want of faith tn Mr. Beecher, and has set other people to watch- ing, and thinking, and s^iripecting ; and, now, in two households, such as Mr. Beecher's and Mr. Til- ton's— in two houses, such as theirs, in the relations pos- sibly more public than when covered by those roofs, there has not come one fact in evidence against them ; and there didn't enter one doubt, one fault, one fear into Theodore Tilton's mind or heart. Well, I don't think you will be able to find any evidence of it. If nobody else could not, he could not, I don't think you will. Why, gentlemen, consider what it is to have had such vigilant, vindictive, persevering, intrepid, audacious, and trained hounds after a man ; and then to see the petty, trivial, contemptible, external evidence produced as circumstantial, or as proof of the facts ! Why, gentlemen, we all understand the difference be- tw^een suspicions, or aspersions, or evidence, not coming against a man because suspicion has not once been opened, but it was opened in Mr. Tilton's mind, and kept alive by Mr. Bowen through ten years. He watched and watched, and saw that IVIr. Beecher was pure, and he knew his wife was. That is the result. Now, gentlemen, if, in your grain trade a broker came to you and gave you a handful from a cargo of wheat, and you see it full of weevil and of rust, and he asks vou to buy it, you say : " You expect me to buy a cargo of wheat of which that is a sample 1 Why, a man wouldn't take it as a gift. What is the price?" " Full market price." " Well, you must take me for a fool." " But," the broker says, " per- haps you had better wait and let me tell you. That is all the weevil and the rust there is tn the whole cargo. Buy it at any price." Now, that is what has happened here. He brought you the samples, and it is the sample that is scraped fi'om the whole life of Henry Ward Beecher. Had not Tilton written of violence enough, of vehemence enough, of par- ticulars enough, identified in that New-Year's gift he pre- pared for Mr. Bowen, in which he described the de- baucheries and wicked adulteries and rapes of Henry Ward Beecher. Why didn't they prove something ? Why didn't they show any proximate traits of conduct or character leading to doubt or suspicion ? But, I don't put it upon that ; I put it upon the question, Why do you dare to say, as you do say, and I think truthfully— I cer- tainly hope truthfully for your character— that trntil July you had not a doubt, or a fear, or a fault, or a sus- picion, in regard to the intercourse of Mr. Beecher with your family— how can you say that and not feel that you have forced yourself into the dilemma of choosing whether you take the contumely of the English oppro- brium or the dark stain of the Roman condemnation I If your Honor please, I think we had better adjourn now. Judge Neilson [to the audience]— Gentlemen, keep your seats imtil the jui-y retire. [To the jurors.] Return at 2 o'clock, gentlemen. The Court here took a recess until 2 p. m.. 678 THM TIL TON -HI KATY MCDONALD'S TESTBIONY. The Court met at 2 p. m., pursuant to a<^ourimient. Mr. Evarts— But we are not left, gentlemen, on tMs question of external facts and direct testimony, to mere conclusions from its absence and tlie absence of wit- nesses. A witness was finally brougtit, no doubt a most estimable person, of intelligence and of truthfulness— whetlier any mistakes intervened in lier testimony or not it is quite uuimportant eitlier to tlie cause or to tliia just expression of confidence in lier for me to inquire— and that was the old family half servant, half friend, Katy McDonald, who had gone in and out with that family from 1855, onwards, from the marriage to the end, and now, at present, occupied, I take it, in some way, in con- nection with Mrs. Tilton's household, a servant or friend, coming to them from her relations to his father's family, devoted to him, descending to him, devoted to the children as his children, no doubt recognizing and feeling the beauty of the wife's character, and having the natural sentiments of an honest hearc, exerted in her favor; but still she belongs to the father's side of the house, and in the break of the family, and in the crim inations and recriminations that proceed between them, and in the outgoing of her sympathies, and in the adhesion of her fidelity, she stands now with the father and his childien, as in his care; and she, called for a purpose of no great importance, showing that their vigilance omits nothing. Is wholly silent on the question of whether there occurred anything from the time of the marriage in 1855 to the broken household in 1874, that could indicate either evil desires, loose conduct, erring purpose on the part of the wife, or impropriety of visit, in time, in length, in respect to occasions, on the part of Mr. Beecher, within that house— not a word. You find, then, in the absence of all the other servants— for we have called none of them ; none of them have adhered to us; none of them are within our control, and yet there were servants running through that famfly, five at a time, during all these years, their whereabouts, their accessibility not brought into doubt, and not one of them is brought. Finally, the intelligent, experitenced, sober, sedate obser- vation and judgment of this excellent woman, Katy Mc- Donald, is brought before you, and the reason that nothing is said is that nothing existed in fact and in truth to be eaid. Now, you must deal with this matter as between man and man, and according to the ordinary rules of hu- man nature. You are men with the qualities of intelli- gence, the sentiments of heart and the experience of life that belong to men, and you are to judge of a man and a woman, and to judge of families, and to judge of actual, practical, daily life, in the face and eyes, and on the level of the society of Brooklyn. You are, to judge of witnesses and of the absence of witnesses; I E CHUB TEIAL. you are to judge of the frivolity of testimony as it is pro- duced, and the absence of any more weighty testituony which could be produced, should be produced, always will be produced il there is any fact at the bottom to war- rant it and give it growth. These men (Mr. Beecher and Mr. Tilton),this woman (Mrs.TLlton),aretobejudgedof as men and a woman- of our day, of our society, of our daily life, so far as all external relations go. They are to be judged fairly; they are to be judged justly. When iudi- vidual differences, from the common traits of life, whether iu tatellect, in character, in ideas, ia habits of thought, or habits of expression, come to be scrutinized and weighed, each man, each woman is entitled to be considered fairly, accordiug to the tex- ture and the qualities of their own nature, so far as they are developed on the testimony, although it differs from i/oiir nature, or yom' nature, or my nature. That is fairness; but at the bottom we must judge them as men and women. If they are angels, we have no mode of judging about their conduct. If Mrs. Tilton is all spirit and no body, and Mr. TUton is all body and no spirit, we haven't any mode of judgiag of such abnormal characters. We assume that intelligence, education, experience on the part of Mr. TUton, expose him to our judgment as of a man thus having his faculties, large by nature, sharpened by education, hardened by experience with the world ; and it is— and I put it ia the utmost good faith to you, as I Lave all my illustra- tion and my argument on the question of the probabilities of his having been a deceived husband— I put it to you that it is one of the greatest improbabili ties iu respect to his iutellect, in respect to his character, in respect to his experience, in respect to his life, that it is possible to impute to another. I could almost as soon expect to convince myself that he is not six feet high, that he has not a beautiful rhetoric and accomplished taste, and educated faculty of rhetoric and of speech, as to convince myself that with this power of intellect, and with the traits of heart that this evidence displays, and with the sharpening of all the observations and elements of judgment that treat of this domestic calamity of an invaded household, that he should have been its victim. There is no satire and no sarcasm about it. WHAT WAS NOT DONE WITH ME. BEECHER. My point is that there has never been a rea- son for his suspicion, that there has never been a fault on the part of the wife, that he is not the husband of an adulteress. Now, gentlemen, laying out of view, then, the trivial and feeble and worthless evidence that bears upon the question of the guUt or the innocence of two excel- lent people, what is there in the ordinary experience of mankind on these questions, or on the maxims of saiety and security that the law and common justice have pro- vided for such controversies— what is there left to inquire about I I think, as I hav« said, that but for the great SCjUIISG UF I ultimate fact of tlie ciuestion of the vindication of Mr. Beeclier against tliis impeaeiunent, there would Toe no furttier ino[uiry. I tMnk the intelligence and the ex- perience of every jiu^yman vrere appalled at the poverty of a judicial examination, vsrhen the plaintiff rested, that had simply reproduced the pamphlets of last Summer, and the words that flowed from their mouth ; hut yet you were kept in expectation that Mr. Beecher, wholmew all, and wholmew, if he came upon the stand, even if he did not fear God, might fear man and his punishment?, said he never would come upon the stand ; three oaths of witnesses were too many to he breasted by a man that was to tell a lie. They were altogether too many ; but they were not too many to be breasted by a man who knew the truth and was going to tell it. If you watch the tortuous courses of the evidences drawn hither and thither, of Mrs. Moulton and of Mr. Tilton, you will find that there has been a very great in- genuity exercised to avoid misstatements that carried imputations of consciousness of falsehood, when any such statement ran against two witnesses that could speak and contradict the same thing ; for the law of peijury, which refuses that a conviction should take place for false oath, by the oath of one witness speaking the contrary under oath, allows the judgment to come if there be two witnesses, and the jury believe the two against the one. And so, day after day, this unhappy human nature of ours showed its CLualities so discredita- bly to it, in the bravado, and defiance of Mr. Beecher to come upon the stand ; and then, when he came upon the stand, I will agree that most of that sentiment slunk away, and, without waiting for his testimony, knew that he would speak the truth, and that the truth was inno- cence. But you heard him testify, you heard him cross- examined, and had heard also the immense ex- pectations of what cross-examination was to do. Well, it was as able, it was as discreet, it was as vigorous, it was as skillful, it was as intrepid, it was as comprehensive, it was as penetrating, it was as severe, as it is in the nature of cross-examination, by any forensic powers that our community furnishes. And then they said, " Oh, wait for the rebuttal ;" these men have kept back the damning facts, in order that Beecher might have put himself in their power, giving his oaths and his denials. Well, he had; he had put himself in their power if there were any truth or facts or witnesses to speak against him. That was right. Nobody appeared against him. Mr. Bell and Mr. Bowen gave testimony which, ia its volume, and in its applica- tion, was as valuable to thls defendant's case as any wit- ness that was produced on our side, as I shall show you. THE ROSSEL PROCESSION. And leaYing the-ni out, why a string of peo- ple about the relative po^itiona of Mr. Tilton, Mrs. Wood- ball aud her sister in the ConmiTme procession, filled out r ME. EVABTS, 679 the body of the rebuttal. Well, It never was a matter oi any consequence what relative positions these people held among themselves ia that procession. Honest wit- nesses, certaioly witnesses with whom we had nothiug to do, were clear of the opiuion, are clear of the opinion, wrote the next day ia the newspaper statements of it, published to all the world, of the relation of these pio- cessionists on that rrarch. Others come and give you a tangled maze, reduced, finally, on the part of the great political leader who nominated Mrs. Woodhull for the Presidency, to the final conclusion that all he could say in respect of the march, or its order, was that the procession marched. [Laughter.] The Chief-Marshal said that he saw them both, Tilton and Mrs. Woodhull, and her sister, Miss Claflin, not connected in the way that our witnesses said, but so that when as he marched at the head of the procession and turned around, he can take in all their persons at a glance of his eye ; and Mr. Tilton and Mr.— the Pant arch— Andrews, he swore that they were not in sight of one another. Now, do you believe that the Chief-Marshal, by turning around could see them in the same glance of his eye, and in the same division of the procession, as he said — for he was not on horseback, he was not mounted, h^ could not see any further than anybody else— and that Mr. Tilton and :Mr. Andrews, and Mrs. Woodhull did not know where each were in that procession 1 Well, I don't know that the Chief-Marshal was right. I have no doubt he was enMrely honest. It is difQcult to say who is right about all that. But the only merit of this controversy about the relative and accurate positions and relations, is on a question of veracity, or on a question of exposure to contradiction and contrariety withoiit there being any want of veracity on either side. The great point on which that evidence was introduced by us was to show that Mr. Tilton and these ladies in that communion or as- sociation, that had been introduced iato the case by Mr. Tnton's evidence— the plaintiff's evidence, not person- ally, perhaps, but the evidence on his side— carried it so far that they sympathized in public principles, and in- cluded in that sympathy the procession in honor of the Commune, which had the history that it had ; and in- cluded in its history the murder of the Chief-Jus- tice of France and the Archbishop of Paris. It is seldom, if your Honor please, that our profession has, ia the ex- periences and exposures of life, so noble a sacrifice as was there made by the Chief-Justice of France. Held, like the great head of the clergy, the Archbishop of Paris, among the hostage of this mob; they, the mob, the Commune, desired the Chief-Justice to be a bearer to the Government at Versailles of their desire for some terms of capitulation and surrender, on his pledge that he would return if terms satisfactory to them were not accorded to them. He said, " No, I cannot go on that errand. The Government of Versailles will never recog- nize any obligation to a mob like you. They will never 680 THE TILTON-B. allow me xo retui'n ; it cannot be that tliey will allow me to return. No power of my will, no adliesion to my promise, no protestation can ever save me and the cause of truth and faith among men, from the condemnation that I have violated my pledge and my honor. I cannot go hecause I cannot return." And he submitted to the slaughter, and showed what a lawyer can do at the post of honor, and duty, and in mainte- nance of his own honor, and, more important still, of faith inhuman nature that there are men that can keep a promise. The clergy, from the time of the Apostles down, have had the crowns of martyrdom widely dis- tributed among them ; and In modern times it has been the singular honor, when martyrdoms, when cruelties, when the fierce hatreds against religion and morality have been subdued by the prevalence of re- ligion and mercy— it has been the singular honor of the Catholic Archbishops of Paris to furnish within our time two martyrs to their religion. I am as much a Protestant by birth, by education, by conviction, as anybody, but I would like to see the rivalry between the old Church and all the branches of the new, and then among all the branches of the new an emula- tion of Christian faith, duty, courage, hope, and labor. That is my view of the advantages of the emulation among good men. Well, this procession was in honor of the Commune, that had made these sacrifices of the noble men of France. I am not to dispute the freedom of conscience, the freedom of thought, the independence of action, that belong to men having the courage of their opinions and manifesting them. I question nobody's motives in the procession, provided only they accept the facts, and have the courage to stand by them. MR. TILTON'S POLICY OF SILENCE. Now, gentlemen, this cause must be .ex- plored, in what constitutes the great volume of the evi- dence, almost entirely, as it seems to me, within the sphere of moral evidence. No doubt, some tests are necessary, on legal principles, as to the degree of credi- bility of the witnesses, as compared with one another ; or, on particular points of evidence, where they may dif- fer. And, gentlemen, I shall assume for the witnesses upon our side no different measure of moral or legal test for your belief in them than I accord to the witnesses of the other side. Errors of memory are as likely to happen to witnesses on one side of a cause as to witnesses on another side of the cause. Errors of memory are likely to happen even among intelligent witnesses and conscientious witnesses. Nor, shall I presume that, because Mr. Tilton is plaintiff and maintains his theory, that his evidence is to be probed, or trusted, or in advance accepted, less favor- ably than Mr. Beecher's. I propose to test him and Mr. Moulton, and Mrs. Moulton, by the same rules of candor, ^KCHEE TRIAL. of justice, of good sense, as I ask to have applied to any of the witnesses on our side. But, that includes the question of character, not as involved in the controversy, for that would decide the controversy in advance, but as exhibited by life, and conduct, and maintained in repute, as shown by them in motive, in candor, in intelligence, in accuracy, in good faith, on the stand during the trial. And, then, I propose that each, witnesses for us and wit- nesses against us, should be compared in your judg- ments, for the diminution, or the confirmation of your confidence in them, to the contradicting or the support- ing of the evidence, of testimony, given by witnesses in support of either one or the other in this controversy. The theory of the plaintiff is this, that up to the break- ing out of this matter of difference between him and Mr. Beecher, or up to a date of some six months preceding, his wife and he held such relations to each other and to their children and to the family as were properly de- scribed as an ideally happy home. But r won't hold to epithets— that, up to that time, the sentiments, the feel- ings, the conduct of each as known to each, their feelings toward each other as expressed, their daily life as seen to the most inmost inspection, was such as belongs to a family in accord, of elevated character and conduct and of happy sentiments toward each other ; that the only intrusion, the only rupture, the only discord, tbe only dissonance, came from the seducer and through his debauchery ; that under (to be sure, they must admit) circumstances of grave import in the affairs of Mr. Tilton, unconnected with this distiirbauce of domestic happi- ness—I mean, the disasters which he came to, as between him and his employer and in regard to his employments, his prospects, his livelihood, his fortunes, and his good repute— in connection, I say, with these disasters and this situation which had no relation to the intervention of Mr. Beecher— in connection with them, it became suit- able in protection of the good name of his wife, and the fair fame of his children, that he should come into rela- tions with Mr. Beecher to guard against the casualty of a controversy between Mr. Beecher and Mr. Bowen, insensibly and thoughtlessly drawing into it this aspersion and this disgrace to his family ; that thereupon all the purposes of all the inter- views was to secure that result of secrecy. To be sure he had no idea that Mr. Beecher would on his own account desire to explode and expose the matter. He was quite sure that his wife was nervous and sensitive as to any exposure coming from her ; and in respect to him- self, why he would have "lost confidence in human nature" If he didn't suppose he would want to keep it secret. So you have then thereafter, when the secret ia known to these persons on their own theory, the most ponderous system of machinery to keep the secret, the most extensive and elaborate reduction of it to writing, apology, and defense, accusation, argument, reasoning, all put into the permanent form of writing, and then a SUMMISG VP B judicious, to 1)6 sure, and circumspect communication by 3Ir. Tilton to a hamlf ul of friends, or tliose wlio lie tliouglit ouglit td know about it. in order to secure tiie secret ; tliat tlien tliere came to be a necessity of suppressing or humoring to the result ot prevention any hostile pro- mulgation of this secret on the part of certain interests vrliieh would lead, for the public good, to its promulgation —I mean, the publication in the interest of the opposite opinions of sooiety and religion of this exposure of the conduct of good, excellent people, and that then there came to be a prolonged, a manifold, diversiiied, intricate series of confidences, efforts, plots, falsehoods, to keep the secret that had thu5 been communicated and had run down the streets like water; that, in that, there came to be the necessity of a compulsory association by- Mr. Tilton, and by Mr. Moulton, as his coadjutor, andTby Mrs. Moulton as the wife with persons whose as- sociation, as it runs through this CYidence, as produced by the plaintiff, is denoimced by him and his witnesses as discreditable in a very high degree ; that that policy, ju- dicious, deliberate, circumspect as it was, failed, and there came to be an outburst of the WoodhuU and Claflin promulgation in the end of 1872 ; that, then, it was neces- sary to have new devices and conferences to put the se- cret back again where it was before the enginery for its suppression, ending in the result of its explosion, was first constructed ; that this suppression was approached, success was again frustrated, and, finally, duty com- pelled Mr. Tilton to reverse the policy of saving his wife and childi-en and commencing their destruction; that all the while Mr. Beecher, as he run along as a party to these confidences, these conferences, and these plans, was leading a life and exhibiting liues of action and con- duct which were iu the nature of eii'cumstances, or argu- mentative confession; that in regard to the collateral or interior arrangements which sprung out of suspicious accusations, examinations on the West charges, or on the inquiries concerning Mr. Tilton's continued membership of the Religious Society of Plymouth Church and its responsibility for him, and during the council called by the neighboring and sister churches from the general de- nomination; and then m the intolerable wit of I>r. Bacon, which galled Mr. TUton, came the final and definite promulgation of the scandal in the Bacon letter, followed then by the formal, sworn accusation of Mr. Tilton, by the evidence contradicting, refuting, suppressing it, and relieving Mr. Beecher, and then by the bold, irresponsible, unmeasured accusation of the public press after the trial was over by the long, elaborate papers of Mr. Moulton and of Mr. Tilton. r MR. UVABTS. 681 ME. BEECHER LIKEIS'ED TO ST. PAUL AND THE YIPER. Now, gentlemen, that is their tlieory. They thought that the boldness, the heinousness, the elabor- ateness, the circumstantiality of the charge, including picked items of evidence, selected pieces of Mr. Beecher's handwriting, reenforced by a foul accusation that had nothing to do ^vith the relations of Mr. Beecher with :Mr5. Tilton (except in the way of blackening his character and preparing public belief to believe him a scoimdrel and a debauchee) I, mean the the Proctor impu- tation, was thi'own into the elaborate demmciations of Mr. Moulton under the council of a wise adviser, as he was regarded, and with the purpose to stiike to death in the public judg-ment, forestalled, excluded, derided, the question of resistance, of inq.uiry, and of truth. Out of all this heat there came a viper, as when that reptile fastened upon the hand of St. Paul, but the apostle shook it into the flames, and the barbarians looked to see that he should have swoolen with the poison or fallen down suddenly, for they thought that he was a murderer that vengeance had pursued in the form of a viper. But when they had waited a long time, and the Apostle showed no change, they changed their mind and in the same rudeness of superstition they said, " He is a God." The viper did as little execution upon the physical life of the Apostle and came to as speedy a death himself as the malignity of this poisoning of the life blood of character has accomplished upon Mr, Beecher. It was a terrible trial, a terrible ordeal. No man would wish to be exposed to it. But, nevertheless, when the best test came, better than the oath and the judgment of jurymen, however conscientious and how- ever intelligent, under the limits of testimony, which after all is but ragged and piecemeal compared with the knowledge of a man's life by men who have known birn always, when the Christian men and women that kne^ Mr. Beecher for twenty-five years see him in their houses, and in his and their church, and see him in the world in all his labors and in all his conduct, when they witiout dissent confirmed his virtue,and their virtue guite asmuch, by their judgment, they had shown the difference between Christian men and women and barbarians. For they did not wait to see whether he would have swollen under this poison, or whether he would fall down suddenly, for they knew he was not a murderer, and they did not fear the viper or his poison. THE THEORY OF THE DEFENSE. Now, gentlemen, the general theory of the defendant's case is this.: that the relations of Mr. Beecher and ]Mrs. Tilton were, in the judgment, feeling, and apprehension of both of them, as Mr. Beecher un- derstood while those relations were growing up and going on, entirely moral, faithful, ti'ue, wholly above suspicion on the part of others, as they were whoUy free from su»* 683 TEE TILION-BBBCHEB TEIAL, picion tliat tliere could be misconstruction on their own part. Both these people recognized the duty not to be led willingly into temptation, both recognized the external duty of avoiding the appear ance of evil, and neither of them imagined that in either carelessness or attraction there was anything that was not as open as the day, and that was not as clear in the inspiring motives, and in the actual sentiments developed in that intimacy, as the best and severest judgment could require ; then, that by what was a revelation to Mr. Beech er, the desertion by the wife in the month of Decem- ber of her husband's house and his protection, and an ap- peal to the judgment of the pastor and so, gladly, of his wife, on his suggestion, and then of the church, if that should be thought advisable (in respect to which Deacon Bell was consulted), there came to be a very dis- tinct and very lamentable occasion to discover the household not to have been happy, and growing faults, and growing discords, and growing opprobiums, and growing dangers, such as to require a definite course of action to dissolve that family for temporary and re- stricted opportunities of safety to the wife, and of hope for correction, remonstrance to the husband ; that that matter came to an end, so far as Mr. Beecher was con- cerned—so far as it was an element of duty or of con- sultation with him, or on his part ; that then tl^re came to be a new and equally sudden, and equally unexpected, and equally intelligible assault upon him in the name of Theodore Tilton, brought to him by Mr. Bowen on the 26th of December, in which, with all the pride of an emperor, Mr. Tilton required Mr. Beecher to quit further obedience to the duty of preach- ing and to leave Brooklyn. That came to an end so far as Mr. Beecher, or so far as disturbing him, was con- cerned, in about five minutes after it was communicated. That was the end of that, and he neither inquired nor cared what wild inflammation of enmity or of suspicion had started this arrogance or this malice of Mr. Tilton. The testimony leaves all this undisputed, that he did not move a hair's-breadth or seek for any interview with anybody, and when my friend Mr. Fullerton, thinking he was going to put a poser to him, said, " Then you settled down on your indignation, did you, all that ■week V Mr. Beecher answered, " No ; I settled down on my work ;" and that is exactly what he did, and that he has done always at every stage of this matter. There has not been an interruption, whether with alarm mainly for others— mainly for Tilton and his family, or disturbance or appreciation of the turmoils and bewilder- ments that would grow out of irresponsible and unregu- lated meddling by people in other folks' affairs— none of these have interrupted a sermon, a prayer-meeting, a pas- toral duty, a public service, or a night's rest. That then in the same week of the 26th or 30th of December, Mr. Tilton opened to him grounds of complaint which he had against him, which were serious and which excited seri- ous commiseration for the disasters that had fallen upon the family, the prospects, the fortunes, and the livelihood of these persons, for whom everything from the begin- ning to the end shows that Mr. Beecher felt a great regard, and, although he might not approve Mr. Tilton, a great responsibility and anxiety for his restoration; that thereupon Mr. Tilton's character and life, as Mr. Beecher had rashly misconstrued it on in- sufiicient evidence, was restored by the asseverations and the intimate knowledge of Mr. Moulton concerning it, and any part that Mr. Beecher had taken in either in- creasing, or confirming, or assuring Mr. Bowen's resent- ment, condemnation, and dismissal of Mr. Tilton, became the occasion of self-reproach to Mr. Beecher. But more than all, that Mr. TUton complained then, that there had been bred in the affections of his wife a strong attach- ment and a conflicting feeling as between Mr. Beecher and her husband, that had qualified, had reduced, had disparaged the absolute devotion and the unquestioning submission that had formed the whole fabric of their marriage before ; and then that this lady had, either loj some confusion of mind, or by some unhappy subordi- nation to a wicked purpose, to make peace with, her husband, been led into making an extraordinary accusation of himself. I do not take up the details of in- terviews or of statements until I come to them directly upon the testimony ; but we shall see that imder the im- pulses (which were pressed upon him and developed and executed by these parties) of commiseration toward the family suffering these unhappy disasters, and of self-re- proach for any share, either in these external matteaJ or, more seriously, in the unconscious and careless aA thoughtless progress of a woman's attraction beyond tW^ duty of undivided submission to the husband and special devotion to him, Mr. Beecher was led to concur in tlie great duty, as well as the unmixed interest, that there should be a reparation for the broken fortunes of tills family as far as justice and truth, kindly and liberally measured by affection on his part, should carry him ; and above all, there should be an exclusion from the public eye of these unhappy dissensions in the family and of any connection of himself, however innocent, as their cause ; that thereafter, what was called a policy of sUence," which he supposed was an honest, an open, an upright purpose in good faith to secure the protection of this family, as it was pressed upon him by Mr. Tilton as the sole object of his resort to him, and by Mr. Moulton, as Mr. Tilton's agent and friend, as the fl.rst duty, the indispensable duty to precede, or make possible, the restoration of the external fortunes of Mr. Tilton ; that under that everything that was done, everything that was said, everything that failed to be done, everything that failed to be said on his part, was subordinate to, was in good faith conformed to, was a necessary and faithful maintenance of his duty as pledged, and as supported by every moral and religlpus consid SUMMING UP b: eration. * Then tliat all tlie eflForts in regard to the improvement of tlie affairs of Mr. Tilton, to the establishment of a paper for him, and in regard to pecuniary assistance, were all faithful, honest, and just efforts, liberal if you please, growing out of an exaggerated sense of duty and responsibility on Mr. Beecher's part, but still, in accord with his whole natui-e in aU that he has ever done, all his life— that aU these ef- forts, which have been turned into arguments and evi- dence of consciousness of guUt, to be suppressed or bought out of from this husband and his friend, by a party involved in guUt, were all of this elevated, straight- forward, plainly intelligible character and motive ; that aU anxieties, that aU efforts, in any form, were simply to matataiu imbroken, against strangely inexplicable and adverse influences, as we now look at them— to maintain unbroken this good faith and this promise and prospect of restored domestic confidence and improved bustuess relations for this family. Now, gentlemen, the range of this evidence opened itself imder the plaintiff's introduction and presentation of his case. This fact of adultery, which usually is open to proofs of the nature that I have proposed to you, and which, when it could with such confirmatory confessions as, under a just scrutiay, may be accepted and trusted, could take but a very short time, was made, under their lead, to consume many weeks, to involve an examination of Mr. Tilton himself, that covered, I believe, in the direct form, over eight days, and of course involved a consider- able consumption of time in cross-examination ; that on the part of Mr. Moulton covered many days, and on the part of other witnesses took a considerable time, and in- volved an examination ot all these liues of conduct, and all of them exposed to you, and presented under the oath of the plaintiff, and of his supporting witnesses in maintenance of his theory of the case. Our duty involved us in the necessity— for we could not stand upon porats of law, or appeals to the arrest of irrelevant inquiries which went beyond any of the actual and sub- stantial evidence that could support any verdict, what- ever your conclusions might be upon them, without being exposed to the imputation of excluding Mr. Tilton's evi- dence, or of excluding some inquiry that might suppress the truth, our duty involved us in the necessity of meet- ing the plaintifi's evidence by that which we have pre- sented to you. We never, gentlemen, have given any evi- dence in this case by itself for the purpose, of itself, and by itself, of aspersing, depreciating, or injuring Mr. Til- ton, outside of the relations to the proofs of the accusa- tion here. Nor have we given one word of testimony with the purpose of affecting what is called the question of the damages that should be recoverable against Mr. Beecher, by showing, as is permitted by the law, and as, in many cases, may be proper when there is a contest in- f^olrmg money sought on one side, and money sought to be saved on the other— we never have given one word of Y ME. EYABTS, 683 testimony with any such purpose as that. AU our evidence has been to meet the false views of the condition of that family in respect of peace and happiness.; the false state- ment that any disturbance of that peace or happiness came from the intrusion of Mr. Beecher, or any other seducer ; the false view that the complaints against Mr. Beecher grew out of that interference ; the false preten- sion that Mr. Tilton owed his disasters, in respect of Mr. Bowen and employments, to any malignant influence of Mr. Beecher, instead of to his own damaged reputation and his own misconduct ; and such necessary disclosures bearing on that question as grew out of Mrs. Tilton's re- sistance to fm-ther reproaches, and further disgraces, and fm-ther oppressions from the misconduct of her husband. That the pretenses of Mr. Tilton that there was no selfish or sordid motive and object in the impressions, and the false impressions, which he desired to produce upon Mr. Beecher's mind, in order to secure his aid, his commisera- tion, his good disposition ioward him, that those pre- tenses, I say, of the want of a sordid interest upon Mr. TUton's part, had no foundation ; and, as we go into the details (it is not worth while now to anticipate them — it would be a useless consumption of time) of the motive and the character, as pretended on the part of this plain- tiff, of his associations and his efforts with Mrs. Wood- hull, whatever they may have been we shall find that the pretense that they were excited, were measured, were directed by any interests or any rela- tions of Mr. Beecher's, is equally false ; that those rela- tions, whether they were suitable or unsuitable ; wheth&r the lady is of a character, and her house of a repute that made the visits of Mr. TUton, of Mr. Moulton, and of Mrs. Moulton suitable or not, did not grow out of, and were not measured and numbered by, any interest or any feelings or wishes of Mr. Beecher ; that in regard to the measures and efforts by which money came into Mr. Tilton's pocket, all the pretenses thaf those measures and movements were but for the just collection of a conceded debt, so far as Bowen was con- cerned, were untrue ; and that, in respect to the contri- butions to Miss Bessie Turner's support at her boarding- school in Ohio, the pretense they were in Mr. Beecher's interest for the suppression of a scandal against him, were equally false; that there was in her removal the object of the protection of Mr. Tilton's reputation, against her knowledge and her probable evidence, if occasion should arise, and that Mr. Beecher's relations to the matter began and ended with the idea suggested to him that Mr. TUton's means did not permit him to bear the expense of this measure to which he resorted ; that, when there came to be either an actual resort to pecuniary contributions, to make up a fund to carry along the enterprise that had been founded, by the friends of Mr. TUton and Mr. Moulton, without any contribution by Mr. Beecher— I mean The Golden Age— and when it came to the point where it was represented 684 THE TILTON-B] by Mr. Moulton that without a considerable sum of money, some thousands of dollars at least, the enter- prise must come to an end, hut if tided over this period, it might hope for an established prosperity, and when a generous friend of Mr. Tilton had heen ready to furnish the means, and had impressed Mr. MoultOn with her munificence, but when that high sense of honor and delicacy which character- izes Mr. TUton made it unsuitable that he shoiUd accept such friendship, that then Mr. Beech er, under these motives, and only these motives, of endeavoring, of professing, of desiring, to do all that reas- onably, or unreasonably, could be asked from generosity and friendship, gave the contribution that has been put in evidence before you. Now, in running out those lines in counter-movement to their production of those lines of evidence, there has come necessarily into display a large area of Mr. Tilton's conduct, concern- ing which he originally gave his views as true, concerning whichwe endeavored by cross-examination to getatleasta reasonable statement of what the truth really was, but concerning which it became our duty, by evidence expos- ing his conduct, of certainly a not very agreeable charac- ter with certain unnamed ladies, and the real length and breadth of his admiration of the character and the prin- ciples of Mrs. Woodhull and her new dispensation, to traverse and collect from the retdon which we traversed a combination, a variety, a weight, a power of damna- tory evidence which has, in your judgment, not with any complacency to my client, or my client's counsel, put this matter upon the footing of truth. THE LETTEES IN THE CASE. Now, gentlemen, in regard to the antecedent period, before we come to the first movements of actual opening important relations to this controversy, I mean the month of December, 1870. Now perhaps all that I need to add here to what I have already laid dowrf as the length and breadth and utmost scope and impression of the evidence of such relations as ' existed between Mrs. Tilton and Mr. Beecher— I need, I say, perhaps only to add to that that no love-letters of any Mnd have been offered or pretended to exist between these parties, Mr. Beecher and Mrs. Tilton, dur- ing the whole period of their acquaintance down to this very month of December, 1870. Not one letter. All the letters of an inculpatory character that have been produced in this case, of written communications be- tween the paramour and the wife, have been letters writ- ten by Mr. Beecher after the accusation, and the whole apparatus and machinery of the December and January and February interviews had been through with, or while they were going on, openly left by the wife, as she left everything when she left the house, exposed, and her taking with her, as her husband said, nothing but his i) .. love and good will, which she still had. And, in respect ECMEB TEIAL. to the letters to Mr. Beecher from Mrs. TUtoi^ they were all after the explosion, all during the periods of arrange- ment, or after the period of reconciliation, and all, so far as my memory goes, made as deposits in the hands of Mr, Moulton. Well, now, that is a very odd state of things. They were letters begun after the situation has been made public to the husbau-d and his friends, and we actually have had, I thinli:, not much on this trial, Still, I cannot say what my learned friend may think his duty and the truth of the case may call upon him to say in his behalf when he follows me ; but I think not much on this trial, but in some publications that are part of the public history of the case, some of these letters have been made the occasion of the basest and vulgarest interpretation, such as I am sui'e Mr. Til- ton in his senses could never have imputed to his wife, for he has said to you that there was nothing lewd could possibly find a lurking place in the heart or the life of Elizabeth Tilton. And on the part of Mr. Beecher these subsecLuent letters have been made the imputation against him of gross and coarse vulgar equivoques that were introduced to the notice of an exasperated husband, and of a largely ex- peiienc(}d friend, in matters of common life (Mr. Moul- ton), and first have their appearauee in the life or tbe writings of Henry Ward Beecher in these subsequent letters. Well, gentlemen, this proves, as all such efforts do prove when tested, evidence in favor of these par- ties. Rightly explored, sensibly and naturally read, there is nothing in them but the most elevated ex- pression of feeling and purity. But if there is in these letters these coarse, loose, lewd exhala- tions from the heart of Elizabeth Tilton, what be- comes of the theory; the comprehensive, and, aa I believe, the honest testimony that Mr. Tilton has born^ to the absolute purity of her thoughts as well as of her heart— what becomes of the generous, simple, complete, all-comprehensive confirmation of this purity of mind and of heart which Mrs. Bradshaw, their witness, Ms given, in a phrase of singular power, when, in addition to her delicacy, her morality, her piety, her devoted love to her husband and her children which this lady said remained unbroken down to the time she spoke of, 1872, she added that she was the cleanest minded woman that she ever knew. And, how of Mrs. Ovington's estimate of this friend and sister, of whose purity, whose piety, whose words of love and affection and duty to her neigh- bors and her household Mrs. Ovington had so rich an experience in her watchings and ministrations, her visits in the sickness in her fam- ily, whether of herself or her husband— she, Mrs. Oving- ton, as honest, as open, as clear-minded a woman as ever lived; but Mrs. Ovington has no idea that Elizabeth Tilton is not in all these regards up to all the imagina- tions of men or poets, of the dignity and elevation of her SUMMUG UF BY MB. JEVARTS, 685 sex. Ah, TTliat a terrible imputation upon the plaintiff, it he no^ presents, or if, under tiis instructions and inspira- tion, tlie learned counsel, taMng these instructions and inspii^ations from lum, imputes ohscerdty, vulgarity, as the hidden meaning of the ianocent expressions of these letters, which, as I say, show themselves as envoys into the exasperated camp of the hushand, and in her answer as delivered to the keeping of the mutual friend. OTHEE GENERAL TRAITS OF THE PLAIN- TIFFS E^TOEXCE. Now, gentlemen, there is anotlier general proposition to which I wish to call your attention, and which the experience of judges and of lawyers, and, I thini:, the experience of common life, will show you car- ries great significance. There is not any evidence that is brought into this case after I have left the area of what may be called circumstantial evidence but which comes to nothing; there is not any evidence that comes into this case that does not have its origin, not while either seduction or adultery is going on, but long after both had come to an end, and long after both, if they ever existed, had been discovered. There is not a word, an act, a movement, a construction upon :\Ir. Beecher's conduct that does not have its origin subsequent to the 29th day of December, 1870, having the first pretense of any such evidence originate on the 80th day of December, and not one word of evidence pro- duced out of the mouths of the witnesses, repeating what they say, came from his, that didn't have its birth after and upon the volimtary, the earnest, the exacting re^tiirement that Zvlr. Beecher should be careful not, by any heats of controversy with other people, to impair the security of the honor of Mr. Tilton's family. Con- fessedly every word that is produced here as coming from Mr. Beecher's mouth has come after and tmder the benevolent purpose of suppressing the approach of suspicion, or of combination, of a breath against the fame of his wife and his children. Nor, in respect of :Mr. Moulton, except as brought into being as between one who confides and one in whoit he confides, upon their own showing, nothing ever passed from Mi\ Beecher to either of them under that confidence that betrays guilt or consciousness of guilt ; *nt much did pass that proceeded warm from his heart, in sympa- thy for the condition, ia love for the afflicted parties, and in effort to relieve and restore ; and aU that comes to be the subject of evidence before you out of the mouths of men who avow that the utterances of Mr. Beecher and the freedom of confidence and of confidants grew out of the demand, the entreaty of :Mr. Tiltonthat his wife, who was the subject— no mat- ter what the subject was, for that we are not now dis- cussing—should be protected, and of ZMr. Moulton, that they were bound by their efforts to repair the mischief that had overtaken with such rapid and complete disas- ter the external circumstances of Mr. Tilton. Xow. I deal with their own showing, and that introduction don't at- tract confidence. Another most extraordinary and universal trait of this evidence is that it all comes, every bit of it, out of the Moulton mansion, and none out from the house of Mr. Beecher or the house of Mr. Tilton— none, I mean, of any extent or measiu-e, and the only exceptions are of the in- terviews at Mr. Tilton's house which grew out of ar- rangements made through Moulton. 2fow, there in the Moulton house is the hotbed in which this testimony has been raised. You loo]£ for facts ; you look for conduct to arise in the domestic establish- ments ot the two parties to criminality of this kind, and dm'ing the time that the alleged familiarity and the guilty comiection subsisted; but, as I have shown you, there is not a particle of proof that does not have its birth after it was all over, does not spring out of confidence in the interests of the family that was iiyured, and of cooperation in the friendship that was proffered by Moulton for the restoration of the broken fortune, and none of it that does not come out of the Moulton household in the person of its head, and of its familiar guest, who there had his lodging, not often perhaps, but his meals certainly, or, as Mrs. Morse saya in one of her letters, in Elizabeth's broken circumstances he could not find at home food sufficient for the nourish- ment of his brain. AN ADJOURNMENT TO TUESDAY. Judcre Neil son — Gentlemen of the jiu-y, yon will remember the other day sometliinsr w;t> said about om- working on Satuixlay unless the counsel closed their argument to-night. Since then we have lost part of a day. Now, it lies with you to say whether it will suit yotir views to attend to-morrow. The Foreman— May it please your Honor, I would say that the jury are unanimous in objecting to holding court to-morrow. One of our number is in feeble health, and others have very important business of their own that they wish to attend to. Mr. Beach [exhibiting a package of papers]— If your Honor please, that package o± papers has been sent in by the officer in attendance, who says they were handed to him by a little boy, and they seem to be addressed to the jurors individually. They are a sort of elephant on my hands. Sir ; I don't know what to do with them. Judge Neilson— [ think you had better keep them. Mr. Beach— Xo, Sir; I cannot keep them. I don't know what papers they are, but I think it would be at least judicious that your Honor should open one of the papers to see what it is, and from whom such messages to the jury come. The Foreman— May it please your Honor, we would like to know about Monday, whether it is a legal holi- day ? 686 TaE TILTON-BJEFJCHJ^B TRIAL. Judge Neilson— We are not at liberty to sit on Monday. The statute provides tliat the day shall he set apart from business, and we who administer the law are bound to see that it is not broken after it Is made for us ; and, therefore, when we adjourn we will adjourn until next Tuesday morning at 11 o'clock. Mr. Beach— Your Honor will permit me to pass those papers to you % Judge Neilson— I will look at one of them. Mr. Beach— Your Honor must exercise your discretion and indulge your curiosity, as far as you please. Judge Neilson— I will take the liberty of opening the one that is addressed to the foreman, as I have the pleas- ure of knowing him. [After opening one of the papers.] It is an illustrated paper, Sir ; quite harmless. Mr. Beach— It is what. Sir ? Judge Neilson— It is an illustrated paper; yet, I will instruct the Clerk to keep the papers until the jury have performed their duties ; and then, perhaps . [Laugh- ter.] [To the jury.J We now adjourn until Tuesday morning, at 11 o'clock, gentlemen ; and I hope to see you here in good health. Mr. Beach [To the jury]— I am sorry to have deprived you of fun. The Court then adjourned until Tuesday morning at 11 o'clock. NINETY-FOURTH DAY'S PROCEEDINGS. ARGUMENT OF ME EVARTS RESUMED. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MR. AND MRS. TIL- TON IN 1870 CONSIDERED— CONDITION OP MR. TILTON'S financial AFFAIRS EXPLORED— RELATIONS OF MR. BOWEN AND MR. TELTON GONE OVER— HOW MR. BEECHER'S TESTIMONY WAS AFFECTED BY THAT OF MR. BOWEN— WHO DESTROYED MRS. TILTON'S FAMOUS LETTER. Tuesday, June 1, 1875. Tlie argument of Mr. Evarts in summing up for Mr. Beec]ier was continued to-day. Tlie first part of tlie argument, which was devoted to the alleged separation between Mrs. Tilton and her husband in December, 1870, was very long and elaborate. Asserted contradictions between Mr. Tilton's testimony in regard to a conspiracy to sepa- rate liimself and his "v\dfe, and the statements on that matter in the "True Story," were pointed out. The testimony of Mr. Tilton, Mr. Bell, Mr. Bowen, and others was made to bear upon this topic, and the subject was developed by the orator with great care. The condition of Mr. Tilton's finances at the time of his discharge from The Independent was exhaustively considered. Mr. Evarts asserted that Mr. Tilton had endeavored to pretend in court that he was a man of property and of assured income, and that the pretension was false. The "Winsted affair" was explained, and Mr. Evarts pointed out the object which he had had in view in putting certain questions to the plaintiff, and the alleged inconsistencies and contradictions in his testimony. Points in the evidence seemingly far removed fnom one another were connected by the chain of reasoning pursued in develop- ing the argument. The interview between Mr. Bowen and IVIr. Beecher was taken up. Mr. Evarts declared that Mr. Bowen had acted with Mr. Tilton because he desired to put Mr. Beecher out of the rival paper to The Independent. The prepara- tion of the letter which Mr. Bowen carried from Mr. Tilton to JMr. Beecher was amusingf^ described. The alleged corroboration of the testimony of Mr. Beecher by that of Mi. Bowen, which has been so often referred to by the defendant's counsel, was dwelt upon with great force. The alleged letter of confession got by Tilton from his wife, and afterward destroyed, was the subject of some of the keenest argument of yesterday's ad- dress*. The orator declared that it had been destroyed because it would not help the plaintiff's side, which lost nothing by the destruction of the paper. " What would you give," said Mr. Evarts, addressing the jurymen, " to see that paper ?" Then he continued, answering his own questions, which were delivered in a high key and rapidly, with great deliberation, and in a low, almost guttural, tone of voice : " It is destroyed. " Who destroyed it ? Theodore Tilton. " Who gave it to him to destroy ? Francis D. Moul- ton." *THE PROCEEDINGS— VERBATIM. MR. EyARTS RESUMES HIS ARGUMENT. The Court met at 11 a. m., pursuant to ad- journment. The Clerk (Mr. Mallison)— The jurors can obtain their money for services in the month of May by calling at the Treasurer's office any time that suits their convenience. WAS MRS. TILTON'S RESORT TO HER MOTHER'S HOUSE A DESERTION ? Mr. Evarts— Before couiing to the first move- ments in the opening drama of this false accusation, I had endeavored to lay before you the situation of the parties as disclosed in their character, in their conduct. SUMMIJ^G UF BT i:VABTS. C87 and upon the eridence, as preparing you and yoftir judg- ment for a just estimate of tliese movements as they «liall come to he portrayed before you ; and I do not iuow that I have omitted any incident or trait of partic- iular import in regard to the relations of Mr. Beecher and Mrs. Tilton, and Mr. Tilton and Mrs. Beecher and Mr. Beecher— for with Moulton there were no relations on the part of Mr. Beecher, or on his part to Mr. Beecher, antecedent to these first movements, except this single item and element of proof which was adduced upon the cross-examination of the witness Bowen. It appears hy his testimony, and undisputed, that as an incident or attendant of the actual interviews and inter- course which make the first approaches to this drama— I mean the interviews and intercourse in the middle of December which arose upon the wife's movement of flight from her husband's cruelty, disgraces, and oppres- sions—it was drawn out that Mr. Beecher referred Mr. Bowen to Mrs. Seecher, and to certain letters of Mrs. Tiiton that were in her custody. Now, I do not antici- pate at all the scene or the transaction of this attempted separation of Mrs. Tilton from her husband, but I call your attention to the significance of this merely inci- dental statement, that Mr. Beecher referred Mr. Bowen to his, Mr. Beecher's wife, as either the correspondent of Mrs. Tilton regarding these troubles, or the depositary of his letters received from Mrs. Tilton. There has been an a-spect attempted to be insinuated into this cause that the antecedent relations between Mrs. Tilton and Mr. Beecher were of a nature, consciously, on his part, to preclude or discourage any intelligence of his wife on the subject ; and yet here you find when Mr. Beecher was cross-examined, whether there were any letters re- ceived by him from Mrs. Tilton during the period antece- dent to December, 1870, he answered that there were letters that had been searched for and found, and were in the possession of his wife, or of his counsel— found in the possession of his wife, and perhaps now in the posses- sion of his counsel. Well, my learned friends had access, "by the methods of the law, to those letters. They had a fund and a field for exploration there which was worth their while. If this husband had imparted to them any facts, or any sound opinion of the guilt of his wife ; but they drew out no such letters ; they sought for no such letters, in any sense that would bind them to their production, and they did not produce them. But it was reserved for Mr. Bowen, their witness, to let you further into the cotemporary fact at the time of these occurrences, that Mr. Beecher, in the end of Decem- her, referred Mr. Bowen to his wife for her intelligence and her views of the situatkm as between Mrs. Tilton and her husband, Mr. Tilton, and stated to him that she had letters received from Mrs. Tilton during the ante- cedent absence of Mrs, Tilton at Marietta. So you have, gentlemen, when you com«to the beginning of this move- ment between the parties, no reason to think, no reason to fear, no reason to suspect, that tiere had been any consoiciisness, any concealment, any maneuvering, any change of the ordinary rule of that household, that aU the correspondence of Mr. Beecier passed first through his wife's hands. Now, gentlemen, there are two important matters of dealing, matters of situation, and of feeling growing out of the dealing and situation, which precede the time when the accusation is first made, and Mr. Beecher and Mr. Til- ton first meet at its making and at his response to the charge. That occurred on the 30th of December, as we all remember. But there are two matters of fact, import- ant in their bearing, that form a large part ot the con- scious knowledge of both parties at that meeting, which are presented in directly opposite views by the theory of the plaintiff and by the theory of the defendant, and tn regard to which I challenge any answer from the learned and skillful advocate who is to follow me, to the proposi- tions that I shall make. It is, that in regard to both these preliminary inquiries, the theory of the plaintiff, import- ant, necessary to sustain the subsequent proposition to this theory, is not only utterly refuted by the evidence, but consciously false in his own knowledge, and the first of the series of impositions upon your intelligence and your consciousness that he ex- pected to practice through the forms of law and evidence. These two matters that I refer to are the actual character and position of the first promulgation, not publicly, but outside of the walls of Mr. Tilton's household, of there being domestic discord, and an occa- sion to appeal for assistance ; I mean the situation which is rightly described as the flight of the wife from the home of the husband, and an attempt to receive aid and advice and protection from the cruel circumstances in which she was placed. The second is as to the real situa^ tion of Mr, Tilton's personal, pecuniary, business for- tunes, as they stood at and before the 30th of December. In regard to the first proposition, about the wife, Mr. Morris in his opening lays down this as the rule and view that they propose. Referring to the letter of Jan. 1, 1871, which they regard as in the nature of a letter of contrition, betraying guilt, Mr. Morris lays down to you and the court these views : I presume that my learned friend upon the other side will have some explanation— at least, I hope so— but I have never been able yet to discover one. But at the time that this letter was written Mr. Tilton's family had not been broken up ; he was living with his family, and although his contract with Mr. Bowen was ended, and his loss of the position of editor had taken place, it was entirely without the influence of the defendant, and therefore furnished no cause and no reason for this great grief which was manifested. * * * It is claimed, and has been claimed, that the feeling that produced that letter [that is, Moulton's memorandum of gi'ief on Beecher's part] was brought about by the advice which Mr. Beecher had given Mrs. Tilton to separate from her husband. The point that I wish to call your attention to in this connection is this : that the advice, if e ver 688 THE TILTON-BFjEGHBE TRIAL. given at all, was not until after tlie 27tli of January, 1871, as the documentary evidence that we shall intro- duce before you will conclusively establish. Especially, you have the strange anomaly of the defendant's mourn- ing over wrongs not yet committed, if they were wrongs ; over acts not yet done. And so Mr. Tilton, on his direct examination, denies that there was anything in the way of separation, and of serious incompatibility of temper or of views of their do- mestic relations. Mr. Tilton, from the time you were married until your wife left you, as you have stated, about the 8th of July, 1874, was there any separation of home or resi- dence between you other than such as happened by jour- neys or engagements that took jflbu apart? A. No, Sir. Perhaps I should qLualify that answer by saying that m the early part of December, 1870, Mrs. Tilton went two or three days to her mother's house, at her mother's re- quest, and came back again. * * * It has since been called a separation. I did not regard it so at the time. I wish to be entirely accurate in my answer. Q. It was a separation in the sense of her being away from the house, and at her mother's, a certain period of time % A. Two or three days, 1 think. Now, not only in these two direct forms of the coun- sel's proposition, and of the plaintiff's own testimony, but all through, as an incidental light or an incidental observation was cast upon this preliminary situation, it was wholly to the point and effect that that amounted to nothing, th^t there was no reality in it, and that the pre- tense on the part of the defendant that there had been a serious, although perfectly justifiable— an important, though wholly suitable— intervention on the part of Mr. Beecher and his wife in the affairs of Mr. and Mrs. TU- ton as between themselves— I say the proposition on our part that there had been, was treated as an afterthought and a subterfuge. In the light of the evidence, gentle- men, what becomes of this view of the plaintiff ; and as it was a matter within his own conscious knoss^ledge, as it had produced its rankling effect within his own breast, and had been an urgent motive with him in his conduct during this unhappy period of the end of the year 1870 and the beginning of the year 1871, what becomes of your faith, if the very foundations of the cause are thus laid in falsehood, and in conscious falsehood ? THE BEECHERS ADVISE SEPARATION. Now, the evidence is very plain on Mr. Beecher's part, and he is uncontradicted, and he is sup- ported by Bessie Turner, and finally in the most remark- able way by Mr. Bowen and Mr. BeU, their witnesses. It appears that there came upon Mr. Beecher in the be- ginning or the middle of the month of December, 1870, as a thunderbolt out of a clear sky, intimation of a terri- ble condition of injury, of contumely towards the wife, and of profligacy an 1 cruelty on the part of the husband. Is there any doubt about it ? Of the principal fact, and of the strange incident within the household that led to it, you can have no doubt. Of the principal fact that Mrs. TUton deserted her husband's house, resorted to the protection of a mother little in a condition to afford pro- tection either of support or of guidance to thi? un- happy woman, and that immediately thereupon the resort of Mrs. Morse, the mother, by and with the concurrence, if not the prompting, of Mrs. Til- ton, was to Mr. Beecher, and the girl Bessie Turner was the messenger by which the knowledge was conveyed, and the invitation as well, to the meeting of the unhappy wife and her mother ; that thereupon Mr. Beecher went to Mrs. Morse's, and after a brief interview, which filled his heart with anguish, he referred them to his wife as the better person for advice to a wife and a mother, in regard to so unhappy and so sudden a revelation ; and then Mr. Beecher and Mrs. Beecher went together ; and then interviews pasf=ed, the greater part of them in pri- vate with Mrs. Beecher, on the part of Mrs. Tilton or of Mrs. Morse ; and then deliberation into which Mr. Bell, the deacon of the church, was called; and then a final conclusion, which, by a happy circumstance, came to be preservea, so far as Mr. Beecher's final concurrence or share of it was concerned, in the shape of a slip, which he handed his wife, as you remem- ber, because he was engaged with company, and could not accompany her or talk with her. Now, Mr. Bowen, coming as a witness for quite other purposes, in the inter- est of this plaintiff, and talking in the main upon quite other matters, of importance, as we think, in support of our views of this case, shed a flood of light upon this busi- ness. As a part of the conversation on the 26th of De- cember, after Bowen has opened to Mr. Beecher the bud- get of scandals, and reproaches, and complaints against Mr. Tilton which were crowded into his magazine, and which he had already considered and decided upon as involving the necessity of an absolute rup- ture between him and Tilton, Mr. Beecher introduces the corroboration of certain imputations he had heard, asking Mr. Bowen if he had heard of any difficulties, or of the situation of difficulty in Mr. Tilton's family, to which Mr. Bowen answered that he had not. And then there is disclosed to Mr. Bowen what was Immediately recent in occurrence and in memory with Mr. Beecher, this whole transaction of the flight of the wife from her husband, an appetil to him and Mrs. Beecher. an exam- ination of the case, the result of their views, and the ref - erence to Mrs. Beecher as the person having most knowl- edge and having had the largest participation in the matr ter— and she had had. You will remember in the evi- dence how there was a long interview betweeen Mrs. Beecher and Mrs. Tilton at the house of Mrs. Morse at which Mr. Beecher was not present ; and the views and opinions of this clear-sighted and watchful woman, Mrs. Beecher, were there formed ; and when Mr. Bowen went to her, no doubt, they were expressed to him. Mr. Bowen had a reluctance to visit Mrs. Beecher, for he seems, in common with Mr. TUton, SU:\IMIXG UP BY ME. EVARTS. 689 to be one of tlie men tliat 3Irs. B^eclier had seen tlirougli and discountenanced as visitors at lier lionse for many years; and Mr. Bcwen did i: c look Tvitli any great complacency on tlie interview wltli Mrs. Beeclier, "svlio liad seen tlirongli Mm, and made Mm understand that she saw through Mm. But Mr. Beecher said, " No hostilities, no unpleasantness or fear of it, need prevent you. Mrs. Beecher wUl receive you; I wHl Bpeak to her on the subject." And Mr. Bowen goes and talks it all over ; and whether he sees the letters or not that had been received and were in the custody of Mrs. Beecher at that time, I don't know ; but he had an oppor- tunity to do so; there wasnothing secret about it. And then Mr. Beecher resorted to Mr. BeU, a deacon of the church, a man of intelligence and of integrity, a man to be re- sorted to by the pastor, or by any parishioner, in case of difficulties of tMs kind arising that gave a right to resort to the advice and the guidance of the fellowsMp of the church. He s you that Mr. Beecher then laid before him this whole situation and took his advice. We had endeavored to prove it by Mr. Beecher. We desired to prove it. We thought we had a right to prove it. But, the rules of evidence as administered by the learned Court under that division which permits proof to one side in aid of their views and excludes it fi'om the other be- cause it is ta their favor, a rule of law well founded, of necessary and of valuable application, excluded it on our part. And when we tried to prove it by Mr. BeU when he was first on the stand the same just appli- cation of the same just rule of evidence as it was con- strued to be applicable fey the learned Court excluded that testimony on our part. And, flu ally, they recalled Mr. Bell, and having found that they had no right to examine him as to one point that apparently they had called him to, they did go into a complete proof, on their examination, whioh we did not object to, of tMs entire evidence that they had twice excluded from us, in our earnest efforts to prove it. Now, that advice, that evi- dence is plain : He stated to me— that is, Mr. Beecher stated to Mr. BeU— that he had been sent for by Mrs. Tilton to consult in regard to the- position of domestic afl'airs in her own household ; that she had left her husband and was then at ]Mrs. Morse's, her mother's ; that she was in ^eat trouble and great anxiety ; that the conduct of her hus- band had been in a great many ways very severe, very cruel, and everything but what (I was going to say) a decent man's conduct ought to be to a woman. He stated that Mr. Tilton's conduct in regard to other matters, in regard to licentiousness, was very low. He stated that he had been called upon by a young girl— he did not mention any name— a young girl who had been in Mr. Tilton's family— and she had related to him circumstances occurring ta the family, in the household, by Mr. Tilton, wMch were exceedingly licentious. He •tated— I presume I need not go into the circimistances of the statement; I have sufficiently indicated what it was. He stated that, at last, Mrs. TUton had been forced to fly from her home ; that she had done so, and had gone to Mrs. Morse's ; that she had sent, then, for Mm, to ad- vise with Mm as to what course she should pursuf^ ; that he had consulted Mr>. Beecher on the subject, and that ■"bey thought— both thought that it was better that they should mention the fact to some member of the church, so that they might not go on in the matter without the whole church [with the whole church, it should be] being ignorant of this proceeding, or what advice they might give, might tender to Mrs. Tilton. They had, therefore, called for me, not so much to take my advice as to inform me of the facts that were occur- ring, and inform me of what advio^ they pronosed to give, if any, to Mrs. Tilton. He asked me then — or said then, that he proposed to hand the matter over to ISIrs. Beecher, that it was a matter that a lady could manage better than a gentleman, and Mrs. Beecher rutended by his suggestion to go and see Mrs. TUton the next day. The question wae particularly as to what advice Mrs. Beecher should give to Mrs. TUton ; I don't know whether from Mrs. Beecher or from him, the question came up about a permanent separation— that is, Mr. BeU says, " I don't know whether it was from Mrs. Beecher or from Mr. Beecher," that the question came up and was presented to Mr. BeU, but from one or the other that suggestion was made, of a permanent separation between Mr. and Mrs. TUton. " And Mr. Beecher asked me what I thought of that. I said, in an- swer, * Of course nothing elee can be possible; it is im- possible for Mrs. Tilton to Uve another day with Mr. Tilton on such facts as you have presented to me.' Then Mr. Beecher asked me if I thought it would be weU to caU ui any of the ladies of the church. I said, tmques- tionably not; it was a matter of great delicacy ; it was a matter far more easily managed by a few than by many, and it would be exceedingly harmful to bring it into the church, or even to hand it over to any ladies tmefficiaUy, and that it was certaia that the best management of the case would be to have it left in his own hands and those of Mrs. Beecher." Now. gentlemen, you have In the touching narrative of Bessie Turner as to the midnight flight from the house^ when tMs wife goes down in her stocking feet to the door, puts on her shoes there, and at 1 o'clock at night seeks protection agauist her husband's treatment, and of her prudence and consideration that she rejected Bessie Turner's wish to go herself with her. and required her to return and retire into her bed with the chUdren, and look after them tMough that night, and then Bessie's foUowing the next morning and taking the children with her, and then this interview and then tMs consultation, you have a direct, and plenary, and indisputable proof that the defendant's proposition of the first movement of eomplaint being of the wife against the husband, and of that gravity that it disclosed Ms profligacy and Ms cruelty, and that It meditated protection permanently, or at least until sep- aration, tried, should have put the wife in her true posi- tion before the pubUc and the chiu'ch, and put the hus- band under the corrective, it might be hoped, influence of a declared exposure of the wickedness of his house- hold—you pan have no doubt of that. What was Mr. Beecher's written memorandum handed to Ms wife ae the final result of Ms reflection after Ms conference witi Mr. Beacher ! 690 TEE TILION-BEECEER TRIAL. I incline to think that your view is right, and that a separation and a settlement of support will be wisest, and that in his present desperate state her presence near him is far more likely to produce hatred than her ab- sence. HOW MR. TILTON TOOK THE ADVICE OF SEPARATION. Now, did this impress itself upon Mr. Tilton as a grave interference in his affairs ? Did he acquiesce in it or did he resent it ? Did it rankle in his heart 1 Did he lay it up as a blow at the integrity of his household and the respectability of the name and fame of his family on the part of Mr. and Mrs. Beecher that was to be re- sented and punished ? Ah, it is said that we use grave words of imputation when we charge conspiracy to de- fame Mr. Beecher, as if that were a word pregnant with terrible meaning. And it is not a trivial term. Novir, let me show you how Mr. Tilton viewed this interference in his family in December upon this appeal of his wife as included in a letter that he brought in the hand- writing and with the signature of his wife to Dr. Storrs in December, 1872. It is a letter that will come into view in reference to the llret sentence of it, as it has been made the subject of frequent remark in respect to that part of It. But the sentence immediately following shows whether or no this separation was a phantom, a figment, an afterthought, a subterfuge, a casual occurrence with- out significance, for he makes his wife say in this letter to Mr. Storrs— no more her truth or her feeling, or her opinion than the first sentence— but he makes his wife say, after saying : In July, 1870, prompted by my duty, I informed my husband that H. W. Beecher, my friend and pastor, had solicited me to be a wife to him, together with all that this implied. Six months afterward my husband felt Impelled by the circumstances of a conspiracy against him in which Mrs. Beecher had taken part, to have an Interview with Mr. Beecher. Now, gentlemen, there you have in writing, in form, tliat the impellrng motive of the interview of December with Mr. Beecher was the conspiracy in which Mrs. Beecher had taken part against him and his famiJy, for I discard all notion that it is anything but new evidence how Mrs. Tilton is made by this husband to expresses sentiments at his pleasure. Did Mrs. Tilton think it was a conspiracy on the part of Mr. and Mrs. Beecher against the peace of the Tilton family when she had left her Tiouse and resorted to her mother for protection, and sent for Mr. and Mrs. Beeoher for their advice and aid? Did she think it a conspiracy of theirs in which she, Mrs. Triton, was the first mover, the first source and origin of any impression or any knowledge that there was any situation that needed to be taken up and disposed of ? No, I ha re read you at once Mr. Tilton's firm written statement that the interview he held with Mr. Beecher on the 30th of December was impelled by the circum- stances of a conspiracy against him In which Mrs. Beecher had taken part ; and then in the letter that this same husband, Mr. Tilton, gives to Mr. Moulton in his wife's handwriting, and under his wife's signature, m which she is made to approve and applaud h.er husband's conduct, she says : You have risked so mucli as he has sacrificed for others ever since the conspiracy began against him two years ago. And Mr. Tilton in the ** True Story" says : Mrs. Morse once went to a lawyer in Brooklyn and, with a plausible air, consulted him about a divorce be- tween my wife and me. It is sufiicient to say in refer- ence to my case with Mr. Bowen and Mr. Beecher, and to the case of each against the other, that she (Mrs. Morse) made a careful and malicious use of tlie few facts in her possession and of the many fancies whicli these engen- dered in her diseased and unhappy mind. Mrs. Morse, in plotting her insane mischief, chose a confederate for a brief time in Mrs. H. W. Beecher, another lady of ab- normal type, whose peculiarities having less aggravation, are also less pardonable than Mrs. Morse's. For 11 years Mrs. Beeoher and I have not been on speaking terms, nor have I ever had so relentless an enemy. Well, she was a truthful one anyhow. She never re- ceived any confidences from him. She never valued anything that would come from his mouth, and she never was deceived by any discrepancy between his face and heart. Mr. Storrs giving the narrative, and an important narrative, and Mr. Storrs was Mr. Tilton's best friend, next best friend to Moulton— no, standing in equal rank with Moulton— the man he would have gone to as his agent and his confidant, and the manager of his affairs with Bowen and of his interviews with Beecher, on his own statement, if he had only happened to meet him in- stead of Moulton. Now, I am afraid to trust even that hypothetical view of Mr. Tilton. But if it were so, how unfortunate that Mr. Tilton did not find in the confidence of a friend the intelligence and also the integ- rity aiid practical good sense of Mr. Charles Storrs. But Mr. Storrs says on that " He rose and said he wanted me to go right pound to Frank Moulton's with him." Now, this was the 2d day of January— the 2d day of January, 1871— right after all these interviews that I am coming to : Q. Did you go ? A. I did. Q. Witli bimi A. Yes, Sir. Q. Did you have any conversation on yotir way there ? A. We did. Q. What was it 1 A. I asked him what the trouble was. Well, he said that Mr. Beecher, Mrs. Beecher, and Mrs. Morse had been talking against him to Mr. Bowen and influencing him against him, and he also said that they had influenced his wife against him. Now that was the friend of whom in this very inter- view he says that " it was mere chance whether I had not taken Mm instead of Mr. Moulton. And he said, ' I want you to go right round and see Mr. Moulton.'" They started, and they did see him ; and Mr. Stoi rs tells you a good many other things that occurred that daj that ex- SUMMING UF BY ME. EVABIiS. 691 plode the -whole fabric of the false charge against Mr. 3eecher, as you -will see when I come to direct your at- tention to it— explode it then and there on that second day of January, while it was all fresh ; put it on the foot- ing that we say it stands upon both in respect of fact and in respect even of this false charge or erroneous charge on the part of Mr. Tilton. I am now dealing with the plenary proof that this discord in the family, that this flight of the wife, that this appeal to Mr. Beecher, that this interventien of advice and consultation and of responsibility was the moving cause of the hatred, of the approach, the interview, the charge that he made against Mr. Beecher. I have it under his own words, for you do not doubt that these letters that he brought to Dr. Storrs and that he handed to Mr. Moulton from his wife were his letters, approved by him, if not, as I thinlr very plainly, written by him ; and as #3 this statement of Mr. Storrs, I do not need to say any- thing more on the subject, except to say that when Mr. Tilton is recalled to the stand on rebuttal this entirely new matter that we had introduced from Mr. Storrs of this pregnant consequence that I have read to you is not contradicted by Mr. Tilton at all. "Was it not important 1 Does not our view exclude his view 1 Does not our view falsify his view ? Does not our view convict him of will- ful, purposed contrivance of evidence against the trutli to beguile your judgment and mislead your verdict % THE STOEIES THAT MR. BO WEN KNiJw TO MR. TILTON'S DISCREDIT. Now, iminediately on his wife's return, or very soon, there occurs the misfortune of lier miscarriage and serious illness. That began on the 24th of December, and the next movement originated also in the troubles of Mr. Tilton, wholly in the troubles of Mr. Tilton, and wholly in troubles with which Mr. Beecher had nothing whatever to do until they were forced upon Mr. Beecher's attention by what was considered undoubtedly a very bold and very wise act by BIr. Tilton. On Saturday pre- viously, on the 24th of that month, Mr. Tilton having been deposed from his place as editor of The Independent, and having received, in lieu of that eminent and perma- nent position, contracts of employment, con- tracts which gave Mr. Bowen complete com- mand over the durability and circumstances of terminating the relation instanter, that being the situation just established and ostensibly and pre- sumably to be secure for some two or live years,— two years in the case of one paper, and five years in the other, ]^lr. Oliver Johnson, then a companion in employment on The Independent, intimates to Mr. Tilton that Mr. Bowen had neard stories, and was considering them, prejudicial to his character, and he had better see Bowen. Mr. Bowen didn't want to see him ; Mr. Bowen had not asked an interview with Mr. Tilton; Mr. Bowen had not ad- vised Mr. Johnson that he wanted to see Mr. Tilton, but Mr. Bowen had talked with his managing editor, Mr. Johnson, on the subject of these impu- tations upon the character of Mr. Tilton and the neces- sity of terminating Ms relations with The Indexiendent, and Mr. Johnson, not in betrayal of confldence, but as a friend of Mr. Tilton, as he was, brought it to the notice of Mr. Tilton and advised hun to see INIr. Bowen and force some open consideration between them of these causes of complaint. The result of that is that when an attempt had been made at an interview earlier, Christmas , as a day of leisure, was assigned for an interview, and Mr. Tilton attended at Mr. Bowen's house with Mr. Oliver Johnson, and then Bowen informed Mr. Tilton of the stories against his character which had come to his knowledge. Briefly it is thus, and indisputably thus, whether in the testimony of Mr. Bowen, in the testimony of Mr. Oliver Johnson, or in the testimony of Mr. Tilton himself, that IVIr. Bowen had had no suspicions, had received no intimation, had heard no rumor's prejudicial to IVIr. Tilton prior to the time he had dissolved the connection as editor. And when that was announced in public, when it was seen that this great throne, that this lofty crown, that this powerful scepter, were no longer in the hands of this king, but that they had aU been resigned, and another king that had new views, at any rate not the per- sonal interest in the question that Mr. Tilton would have had was announced, then the stories came to Mr. Bowen. What are his figures 1 They came in clouds, they came in an avalanche ; they came from ne*r by and from afar off— the story from the ante-room of The Union office, the story from Winsted, and the story from the North-West ; the story of an intrigue with a woman in fashionable llf e— everything, as Mr. Tilton admits (it is all admitted), came to his knowledge in the sense of im- putation or information. Well, now, I am not talking of the truthfulness of these imputations ; I have never gone into them any further than was necessary to show the situation to be such as it was pretended on Mr. Tilton's part it was not, but what manifestly it was, that there had come to be such a knowledge on Mr. Bowen's part of misconduct on the part of Tilton, and such a basis of fact, such a definite- ness of name, and place, and circumstance, as made it, at least, the subject of inquiry, and responsible inquiry, and of necessary action on Mr. Bowen's part. That being so, this movement became an important element in this false accusation, and in all the surroundings of gloom, of malignant calvmmy, that have attended Mr. Tilton'a course toward Mr. Beecher through years. MR. TILTON'S FINANCIAL POSITION IN 1872. I have shown you the interference in his family that he stigmatizes as a conspiracy, as proceeding from relentless foes, as being such as to compel him to come into such a controversy as he did come into witb 693 THE TILTOJS'B Mr. Beeclier. Kow, liere there are, in regard to this mat- ter, two propositions on the part of this plaintiff which lie deems it important that you should accept as proved, and which you should stand upon as the foundation stones for your footing when you come to consider the interview of the 30th of December. He says that at the time of that interview, first, he was in no disaster, and secondly, that Mr. Beecher had had nothing to do with it; that the pre- tense on Mr. Beeoher'spart of his having rashly, inconsid- erately, uncharitably, tat en for granted that the imputa- tions against Mr. Tilton were well founded, and joined, and aided in, and supported, Mr. Bowen's ill-construction of his conduct, and the severe decisive action in striking, at a blow, character, property, livelihood, family, every- thing, so that at the end of the week, when this inter- view was held, the 30th of December, there was no more deplorable condition of what had been a proud, a haughty, a self-confident, a high-headed attitude, de- meanor, walk, and conversation in this community, so that he was "lying stripped and bleeding on the aide- walk," to use his own phi-ase to Sam Wilke- son, a pitiable object, and needing aid from anybody that professed friendship— all this in their case, in their evidence as produced by this plaintiff himself, and by the wit- ness, Moulton, by whom thay have attempted to support the plaintiff's evidence before you, all this notion has no foundation. ■ He was a man of com- fortal)l6 and assured property ; nay, up to the 30th of December he was in possession of contracts which gave him a securer and a better position than that of editor, which gave him $15,000 a year, as he has attempted to impose upcu your anclorstanrling— not very successfully on his own testimony to bo sure, and we shattered to atoms the whole fabric of that view by the testimony on our part— that it was not until late on the night of the 31st, when the chimes of St. Ann's were ringing out the olu year and ringing in the new year, that the first notion came to him that any moth had corrupted the garment of his pride. It is of the gravest importance to this plain- tiff that he should strike out this state of facts as within the consciousness of himself and Mr. Beecher, and as a matter of substance and of fact, at the time of the decisive ^interview of December 30, 1870. "Well, what are we to say on this subject now 1 How do the proofs stand now ? Why, gentlemen, I shall not weary you nor myself by long obsei-vation upon the general mass of this evidence on that point, for it is all one way. Now, gentlemen, I asked Mr. Tilton if, after the inter- view with Bowen on the 27tli day of December, he didn't go to his house, exhibit great distress, and say he was ruined, and then, by conduct pursued there, indicate the extremity of his disaster and the extremity of his resort for means to fight off the further completion, the hopeless consummation of it. No. As usual, he wants to have a circumstance to fortify his statement, and he says, " I iJKCHEB TRIAL. was not ruined ;" and through a long direct examination they made it appear that he was worth some $30,000 or $35,000, all made up in this way. SpeaMng of the begin- ning of 1871, he says : I owned a house, in which I lived. No. 174 Livingston- st., which, with its library, furniture, and pictures, I suppose was valued at about $25,000. I owned a piece oi property in Llewellyn Park, New-Jersey, valued at about $10,000. I owned a share of The New- York Tribune, valued, I think, at that time, at a little more than $10,000. I owned a small farm out West, in Iowa, val- ued at about $1,500. I owned a piece of land, a little fragment of it, near Prospect Park,' In this city, valued at about $1,000. Then he gives his mortgages, and then the fact that The Tribune stock had been assigned to his father. But counting all that up, it comes to this in the end, that he had a house and furniture, whatever it might be worth, which brought him no income ; that he had about $4,000 on deposit with the firm of Woodruff & Robinson, which was drawing, I suppose, four or five per cent interest, whatever rate they made up the account at ; tliat he had a fragment of land near Prospect Park, which produced —assessments [laughter ;] a farm in Iowa which had the usual crop of wild land taxes, and the Llewellyn Park property, which ended in having been got for advertising and having been turned over to his particular friend Franklin Woodruff as an additional security for the mortgage of $7,500 upon his house. Now, there is an- other friend that sticketh closer— to his property— than a brother. [Laughter.] I never saw such a set of friends as the man has about him! Help him! help him I Why, all his property comes to nothing. It amounts to nothing. That is no imputation upon Mr. Tilton, no reproach. The reproach is in the false and shallow at- tempt to impose upon your understanding that he waa a man of income and property; and the attempt ends, as I say, in this Llewellyn Park property, salable never, sold never, coining to be needed, in the generous estimate of one of his best friends, as a further support to a lien of $7,500 on his Livingston-st. house. Any in- come 1 Oh ! no, no income from anything. The Tribune Stock belonged to his father, and it so remained. No in- come from anything. And I proved to you, out of his own mouth, I think, that from that Ist of January, 1871, down to ti^e time that he stood before you, with the ex- ception of what he mip:ht have picked up in one of his broken and discredited lecture tours that ho took in 1872-3, didn't he? [addressing Mr. Tracy.] Mr. Tracy-1871-2. Mr. Evarts— Only in 1871-2 ? Mr. Tracy— Yes. Mr. Evarts— Well, he made some money then in 1871-2 but none in 1872-3, and I proved by him that all the money that he had had and that he had spent was the $4,000 that was in the hands of Woodi'uff & Robinson to start with, the $7,000 that he had got out of Bowen io SUMm^^G UF BY ME. EVABTS. 693 the manner that rou no"w pretty well understand and will still better understand after I have remarked upon It, the money to help Bessie Turner's schooling, paid by Mr. Beeoher, and the $5,000 that Mr. Beecher also had contributed to The Golden Age in its necessity ; excepting that Mr. Moulton, Mr. FranMin Woodruff, Mr. J. P. Rob- inson, Mr. Mason, and Mr. Southwick had made up a contribution, to the same object to which Mr. Beecher gave $5,000 in its necessity, of $12,000, one-half of which was consumed, and the other half returned to those munificent donors out of the money that he got from Bowen. Gentlemen, how do we stand now upon the question whether in the middle of the week of December that closed that year Mr. Tilton had come to an absolute pros- tration of his affairs, and was convulsively scrambling out of the flood tliat was overwhelming him, and seizing upon any straw, even upon a woman's hand, careless whether he drowned her with himself, provided he saw the last chance of her feeble aid saving him— what shall we say about that 1 He carries it, as I say, with a high head through his direct examination. "Nothing ! Why, we had just made the bargains ; there was not any trouble ; we had talked, to be sure, and he had said, when I had thrown out an intimation that he had better run after Mr. Beecher and let me go— I ' sent him on that scent, and we had combined in a great move, that Bowen said would be successful, -^o drive Beecher from further editing the rival news- paper. The Christian Union, and that would take effect in 12 hours, and that he and I— Bowen and I— should be masters of the situation, clear of a rival and clear of a hated enemy, an enemy, if an enemy, because we had injured him, an enemy hated, if hated (and I do not doubt that Mr. Beecher was hated by these men), because Mr. Beecher knew that they had injured him." Now, to be sure, when on the cross-examination — or, in- deed, on the direct, but more fully on the cross— it was made to appear that, the vigor and success of that war against Mr. Beecher that was commenced on Christmas did not come up to the sounding phrase of the manifesto, and aU that had come of it, although what had occurred had not been displayed to you as it now is, for Tllton could not speak of it, and Bowen was not called— what had occurred between Mr. Beecher and Bowen— when it was proved that on the next day after Bowen carried this missive that was to hurl Mr. Beecher fiom hLs pulpit and from his editorial chair, and to drive him from Brooklyn, when it was given in evidence that allthathappenedbetweenthejointactorsin that brave act was that thenexttime they met, which was the next day, Mr. Bowen, with a countenance livid with rage, and with greater excitement than Mr. Tilton sup- posed it possible for him or any man, perhaps, to ex- hibit, shook his fist in Mr. TUton's face and said to htm : If you ever mention that I was an ally, that I was a conspirator, that I ever knew or heard of that letter that you wrote and I carried to Beecher, I will cashier you ; I wiU drive you out of the ofQce ; I will call a policeman and turn you into the street. When that was proved it was pretty evident that Mr. Tilton did not stand on velvet with Mr. Bowen on the 27th day of December, and that is the last time they ever met, as I understand the testimony of Mr. Tilton. Now, don't you think, on his own showing, when he went home on that Tuesday, that he did feel that he was ruined ? Bowen and Johnson had told him that he waf going to be turned out unless he arrested the hand. A contrivance, exhausting malice and reaching all prospect of ever being supported by proof, and carrying any prac- tical results, had been the only scheme that he could suggest for his temporary salvation. That petard had been fired by this engineer, and who was hoisted by it, Beecher or he, Bowen's interview with him, as testified to by himself, shows you. Now, don't you think that he knew that he was ruined? I am bringing to you the evidence hereafter, but, on his own showing, you know that he was ruined. You know that he knew he was ruined, and you know that he swore that he was not ruined, but was in the proud possession of this long assured career with Mr. Bowen on The Indepeyident and The Broohlyn Union, and the $15,000 a year. Now, gentlemen, I am not deal- ing with this witness and this plaintiff on captious criti- cisms, of which best remembered words or conversations, or obscure and incidental facts are the basis. I am deal- ing with him upon the very basis of his cause, upon the very basis of our defense, and I show you at every step in it, that he invents, contrives shallow and foolish pre tenses that, looked at by themselves, won't stand the penetration and the discomfiture of a truthful interpre- tation of his own testimony. ME. BEECHER'S SUSCEPTIBLE POINT. But, when you remember the evidence of that excellent, candid, simple, straightforward woman, Mrs. Mitchell, the nui-se, and when she tells you what went on in that household during the three days after his accomplished ruin, after he had brought it into the family, up to the time when he had prevailed upon that sick, that feeble, that hysterical woman, standing, upon the evidence, between a swoon and a gasp, you don't doubt that he was ruined, and he knew he was ruined, and that his resort to Bowen's hatred of Beecher instead of saving him had hopelessly plunged him deeper, and that now he must contrive some approach, some operation upon Henry Ward Beecher that should not attempt to intimidate him, that should not attempt to antagonize him, that should not attempt to affront him, but shoTild come aroimd that great, generous, magnanimous heart of his, which Mr. TUton has testified made his (pointing to Mr. Beecher) greatness, and distipsrnished him froiT» 694 THM TILTON-BEECEEB TRIAL. all other men. He had told you that the way to get the aid, the sjonpathy, everything in respect of sentiment and effort that one man could do for another out of Mr. Beecher was to make him think that he had done you a wrong, however slight, and that it was in that way that men did impose upon him, and that if they knew Mm as weU as Mr Tilton knew him they would impose upon him a great deal more— all that I have laid out in these gen- eralities of testimony which so try the patience— not of you, gentlemen of the jury, for you understood them— hut of the all-wise critics of the press that wondered when I was going to prove Mr. Beecher innocent, and let alone those generalities of proof. It is a generality of proof for Mr. Tilton to disclose to you that the way to get hold of Mr. Beecher is through his heart; that the way to get hold of his heart is through an impression of an injury has been done to him ; that men who understand that practice it upon him, and if they knew as much about it as he, Tilton, does, they would practice it a good deal more. Now, that is a gen- erality that covers the whole malicious scheme to work out of the tenderness of heart and the tenderness of con- science of Henry "Ward Beecher that moral evidence, as they call it, that he must have done something very wrong because a man of the world, a gambler, a profli- gate, a Sir Philip Sidney, or Sir Marmaduke would not ruffle a feather unless it was three years' seduction and two years' adultery. Ah, gentlemen, a sad thing it is for us, in this civilization of ours, if you are to argue the magnitude of an unknown offense by the reach of gener- ous, of solicitous chagrin, regret, remorse, compunction that wUl flow out even of the wounding of the feelings, much more of a serious Interference with the domestic condition and with the external prosperity of one of a family standing in the relations of friendship. I do not know how to express my scorn of this reduction of human nature to coarse and vulgar standards by which the lowest and the coarsest are to impose their nature upon all the grades of character, of conduct, which we are striving, by education, by religion, by all the humanities, to raise higher and higher toward heaven. Our system is— and how wonderfully successful it has "been— to raise a mortal to the skies ; theirs to drag an angel down, and it is under those two oppos¥ig forces and estimates of human character, human conduct, and human destiny, that the division takes place to-day before you. Cowper, who besides being the most instructive and religious moral poet of our language, and the sweetest composer of de- votional hymns familiar to us all, has the credit of hav- ing written the wittiest, the most laughter-moving verses of our tongue also ; but, besides John Gilpin, he also had a touch of humor in some other matters, and having occasion to exhibit the pranks that the parishioners prac- ticed upon a tithe-collecting clergyman in England, he concludes the coarse jokes of the farmers and the miser- able sufferings of the clergyman in this pithy ment: " Oh, why were farmers made so coarse, Or parsons made so fine ; A kick that would not hurt a horse May kill a sound divine." Now, gentlemen, when they talk of agitation of mind and feeling and compunction they are dragging you down from an elevated, purifled, Christianized frame and fabric of character and mind and heart to compare him with the groveling and coarse sentiments and feelings of men without character, without conduct, without aspiration, and without hope in the world, and they who are without hope in the world are without God in the world. SOME INSTANCES OF BAD MEMORY. Now, Mrs. Mitchell says that Mr. Tilton wa& back and forth with Mr. Moulton with his papers, with hi& interviews with his wlEe in the sick chamber— for the wife could nit leave it— against her remonstrances, against her fears, against really her duty, but what could she do against the husband and the husband's friend 1 and that the result of all that was, as you know, the procurement of a certain paper on the 29th, which is Thursday, which was used on the 30th, which is Friday, and Bessie Turnpr tells you the same thing, and the distress was so great that Bessie Turner, seeing it, sank down, as it were, and swooned in that sick room at these terrible demonstra- tions of Mr. Tilton's lamentiags, and bewailed the woe of that family thus openly declared, and Mr. Tilton tells you himself that he told his wife of his troubles, whatever they were, and he told her on the 30th, before the 30th, before the 29th, when he got this accusatory note from her (its contents, its character I shall make so plain to you that you won't really feel you have lost anything by its willful destruc- tion), that he got from her that note of the 29th as the means of an interview with Mr. Beecher, or to be used in an interview with Mr. Beecher which did take place on the 30th, because she was distressed in mind— at what ^ That these troubles with Mr. Bowen, and an enhance- ment or exaggeration of them between Mr. Bowen and Mr. Beecher, would bring into display or action this con- nected trouble in her house, whatever it was— you hare his own telling of it; I am. only telling what his confes- sion on his part is— that his troubles, and the dangers, and the difficulties, and the fears and anxieties that sur- rounded them were the topic of conversation between himself and his wife, as indeed Mrs. Mitchell has plainly told you; and what does Frank Moulton tell you about it? He thinks he was there once. Not more than once, I think. Mr. Shearman— Twice. Mr. Evarts- And ho don't know whether the woman was sick; he could not remember; it made no impression on him ; she might have been sick, and, very likely, wa» SUMMmG UP I rivjlr. Well, now, gentlemen, what do you tliink of a man's memory that could go into that sick chamher, and see that woman lying on her hed, and all this turmoil (for the nurse says he was in the chamber over and over again)— all this turmoil going on, conferring with Mr. Tilton in his own house and elsewhere, cooperating, suggesting, requiring, demanding, the agency of the wife to be invoked, and tell you coolly that a note that he had from her desiring the retm'n of this important paper he cannot remember; thinks she must have given it to him, but, whether "she did or not, he don't know ; and he don't know whether she w^as sick or not. Well, gentlemen, there is nothing like command of your faculties ; that is a great merit in a man ; and as memory is one of the faculties, I suppose it is a good thing to have command of your memory. Memory, Mr. Moulton and such witnesses think, is a very good servant, but a very bad master. You may remember the delicious wit of one of the conversations in Sheridan's " School for Scandal," where that bright coterie of men and women that never overvalued their neighbors were commenting upon Miss Yermihon's beauty, and Mrs. Candor says : "She has a very fresh complexion." "Yes," says ia(??/ Teazle, " when it is freshly put on." " Well, but then it must be natural," says Mrs. Candor, " for I have seen it come and go." "Yes," says Lady Teazle, " come at night and go in the morning." "And, what is more," says Sir Benjamin, " her maid can fetch and carry it." Well, now, gentlemen, the testimony of these witnesses was very fresh when it was freshly put on, and you could see it come and go. Three hundred and five things we wanted to know that Mr. Moulton did not recollect : and I don't think it would be too much to say that you could some- times almost see Mr. Tilton fetch and carry their mem- ories. Ah! gentlemen, you have been but dull witnesses of these witnesses if you need anybody to e55)lain to you the character and the system of their testimony. Not remember that the woman was sick ; not feiitember whether he got that note from her hands ; nflt re- member that he was there once; not remcaaber whether she was in bed, or not ; whether she wroti^ it in bed, nor any of these little items of proof! They didn't know that we had an honest, an intelligent, and a candid witness who told what she knew and what she remem- bered, audit fitted with every proof in this case; whereas their testimony is at variance in all these shadowings that they attempted to detract from the scenes and the occur- rences of that week ; at variance with the whole moral force, with the whole necessary aspect of this situation. Suffice it, then, gentlemen, to say that on this testimony you know and feel that Mr. Tilton was ruined, and he knew it ; that he so acted, and that all his movements with his wife, and toward Mr. Beecher, were governed by that knowledge, and were contrived in order to repair the ruin or build anew the structure after it were hopelessly irrepaxable. F MB, EVARTS, 695 Now, there is one thing that Mr. Tilton and Mr. Moul- ton agree about— that during all this preliminary period the only thiag in the way of accusation, ia the way of imputation, in the way of detraction, in the way of calumny— the only thing that they pretend is that Mr. Tilton had given birth to the charge of improper solicita- tions. So it was, so it continued up to the interview of the 30th of December. So it was after that interview, so far as any demonstration, any statement to outside people was concerned, up to July, 1874, when it was de- termined to change it into a charge of adultery. But —I do not insist now upon a course of reasoning ap- plicable to this particular proposition that I have just stated— but during this period, up to the interview, no- body pretends that anything was said or sug- gested except a charge of improper solicitations. Well, now Mr. Bowen comes ta, a witness called by them- selves, and says they called him for the purpose of show ing that Mr. Beecher didn't take part in the movements, conclusions, decisions and actions on his part in regard to Mr. Tilton's relations to The Independent ; I will leave that for the moment. I take him now on his statement that he told Mr. Tilton on the 26th of December, in that Christmas interview that preceded his carrying the note to Mr. Beecher for him, and in Mr. Tilton's name, that he should sever his entire connection with The Independent, and with the other newspaper, and he gives as a reason why Mr. Beecher didn't influence him toward that de- cision, that he had completely decided before he saw Mr. Beecher. Well, if you take the story for its own working one way, you must let it work the other also. You hdf ve proved by your own witnesses, and not left it for me to argue, from Mr. Tilton's own statement, though that would have been enough, what occurred between him and Mr. Bowen on the 27th— you have proved by your own witness that on the 26th of December you knew you were ruined ; that the ax was to faU ; and when your last despaii'ing effort to change the attack upon Mr. Beecher and save yourself had f aUed, as you knew it had when Mr. Bowen shook his fist in your face on the 27th, you knew the ax had fallen —absolutely fallen. The Court here took a recess until 2 o'clock. THE WmSTED SCANDAL. The Court met at 2 p. m., pursuant to adjoum-^ ment. Mr. Evarts— Another element important to be brought into view as bearing upon the conscious knowledge and feeling of Mr. Beecher and of Mr. Tilton when they first come into one another's presence on the 30th, grows out of the real gravity, weight, and substance of these impu- tations against Mr. Tilton's morality, which had come to Mr. Bo wen's knowledge, and were made the occasion of his deliberation, decision, and its announcement to Mr. Tilton. Now, that these topics and incidents included the Winsted affair, and the dealing with a womaa in the 696 THE TILTON-BEEGHEB TEIAL, oflSces of The Independent or The Brooklyn Union, there can be no doubt, upon Mr. Til- ton's own testimony. His mode of disposkig of fhem you have heard. He has no difficulty in brush- ing away, while it merely depends upon the turn of phrases, either these or any other facts ; but the difficulty is that when the facts return, they return not only with the force of proving themselves, but of discrediting him. If he had admitted the truth, then the character of the facts would have been all that was to be gathered of im- port from their evidence ; but if he denies them, if he misrepresents them, and they are facts within hie own knowledge, then when our duty brings back in a shape not to be contradicted, not capable of being disparaged, these ugly facts that he had swept away by the breath of his mouth, then the facts come back, proving him to have been false, deliberately, consciously false. And how many times have these blows to be given— not to the fabric of the testimony, but to the character— the in- grained character of the witness, and the plaintiff— before they tell to its destruction 1 Why, gentlemen of the jury, if witnesses are to be believed in their own case, under the operation of the bitterest and most hateful passions, by their confession, that ever actuated men, they must at least carry a clear tablet for their testimony, and not liave it disfigured by obliterations and double texts. Now, this matter about the charges brought to Bowen's notice, to the prejudice of Tilton, were.regarded bv TUton and his counsel as important, if true, and grave, on their bearing upon what becfame a principal question with them, and has been made a principal question with them, and which I shall consider on its own merits, and that is, as bearing on the question of whether Mr. Bow en owed Mr. Tilton any money for suddenly abrogating the con- tracts and dismissiag him. The contracts provided that at his will he might dismiss him without cause, but then upon a penalty of paying six months' salary, or compen- sation, which amounted in the aggregate for the two papers to $7,000. Very weU. But if his character was unworthy, his conduct unsuitable to the position of an editor of a religious print, if his personal credit and conduct were such as to justify, nay, to demand dismissal, why then Bowen was discharged by law, in conscience, from any responsibility whatever for the sud- den and summary termination of the relation. And that was the situation. Bowen understood it so. Bowen never departed from that position until, under certain in- fluences which attended the final arbitration and the "Tripartite Agreement," he surrendered that position and closed at once the pecuniary and the other controver- sies in which he had become involved. "Well, we have, then, as a sample of these stories, thus to be tested whether there w»a8 solidity in them, this Winsted affair, which I shall spend but a very few moments upon. But in it you have not only evidence of the gravity of the im- putations, but you have evidence of the lightness with which Mr, Tilton'8 oath deals with such questloni It was charged that, m public rumor, publio fame, at Winsted, Mr. Tilton's conduct with a lady there on the occasion of his delivering hia lecture, had been unseemly, immoral, and profligate. Very well. Now, he does not prove that it was ; that I will agree ; but the rumor was of that kind. Mr. Tilton knew everything that had occurred. What did he do about it t Nothing in it ; a mere child— a sick child at that— put upon him by his wife because she could not go, and this girl would like to go, and that it was a shameful, scurrilous calumny against him and against her, and had no real foundation. Well, it occurred toward the end, I think, of December, 1869, and it had been sharp enough in its impression to occasion the writing of a letter of in- quiry to him while it was fresh, and he had written an answer, and that answer we have, and that answer was written, I think, on the 9th or 10th, or 8th, of January, 1870. There had been a casual misdating of it, you will remember—" 1869," by that common error by which, at the first of January of a new year, we are very apt to put the date of the olf year. Well, that helped him a little while. He said that in 1870 this Winsted affair, the knowledge of which had been thus brought to IVIr. Bowen's attention, was an old affair ; it had happened years before ; there was nothing in it ; a little school girl, young. Well, when I got hold of this letter, that " 1869." you know, helped him a little. If this was written January, 1869, then It would have been December, 1868, that it happened ; but I probed the matter and got from him, finally, by refer- ence to the memoranda of engagements, I having the means always of holding him to the truth, that that letter of his was written on the 8th of January, 1870, and with- in two or three weeks after the transaction occurred; and in that letter he represents this little bit of a girl as shockingly disproportionate in size to the magnitude of this scandal, and that if there had been anything observed. It must have been an intrusion ; disgrace- ful to anybody that was witness to any such fact Well, if Mr. Tilton had told the story as it was, or reason- ably so, there would have been no occasion for our gomg into it as a matter of fact. Its only importance to us was as an element, substantial in its character, in Mr. Bow- en's judgment, and his action, and as showing that Bowen had solid grounds for his opinions, and, in his opinion at least, for the course he took with Mr. Tilton, and If so, that he did not owe him the $7,000, and that as to Its being an honest debt, payable, demandable on its own merits, and finally collected on its own merits, that there was nothing in thatldea, that it was got by that outside pressure which may not be blackmail, but which is utterly disreputable, utterly contemptible, and which the judgment of this community, in Its length and its breadth — I mean not merely of these great cities but of this whole great country of ours— pronounces at onoe as the vilest STTMMIJSG UP 1 mode of extorting money, from the fears of reputable people against public defamation, and the less there is of fact and truth in the supposed charges, the more sensi- tive is the unsullied repute against this public detraction. And it was not desirable that IMr. Tilton and Mr. Moulton should have it proved against them that they extracted and coerced the psfrment of money from Bowen under the threat, "unless you pay I publish these scandals," and therefore they desired to make it appear that BoTven had no defense, and kneV he had no defense, and had always admitted he had no defense. Well, they made very little progress in that, for Tiltou and :Moulton both stated to you thatBowen said he didn't owe anything. Now, we are obliged to go into this matter of the Win- fited affair, disagreeable to all, and how does it turn out ? Why, that this lady was of the age of some 17 or 18. Mr. Tracy— Twenty-two. Mr. Evarts — Twenty-two years, weighed 150 pounds or 80, people took her for 27 or 28, twice as large as Mrs. Til- ton, it was stated; and so the idea of the little sick school- girl that could not support the scandal, and that it must break down therefore of its own weight, wholly disap- pears. Well, now, gentlemen, did n't he know about that ? And yet the letter he wrote to Hastings, and the story he told, was a very different matter from this ; and then the disclosure of the innocent— if they be Innocent- relations that he held to this young woman in the pri- vacy of the room is such as may make no impression on your mind, perhaps, of impropriety ; and the shameless- ness with which he disclosed it, and takes virtue to him- self for his want of sensitiveness on its impro- priety, may make no impression upon you ; but I think this plaintiff and this cause would give all the evidence tfeat they have given before you In five months, if they could show a joui-ney between Mr. Beecher and Mrs. Tilton up to Winsted, and the oc- cupation of one room, reading Milton, and lying on the flame bed, in half undress, and so repeatedly seen and disclosed and exposed by witnesses, that no man can question either the intelligence, the integrity, or the oan- dor of. They are no parties to this litigation. They are eensible, respectable business men of Winsted, and you do not sympathize with cross-examinations that bring ■out no disreputable facts, but are disreputable questions when there is no fact to justify them. You would not like it if you went to Winsted or to Boston, to have in- quiries of injurious imputation that jurymen expect to harbor on the idea that there had been something of that Wnd, or counsel would not ask the question. No ; jurymen do not sympathize with that mode of dis- paraging witnesses, that puts the depreciation in the question and misses it in the answer. Now, there is noth- ing in it, perhaps, and I have not the least desire, either directly or indirectly, to carry any imputation of a serious character in regard to this young person, but I do put it to you that tlie circumstances iustified the rumor, justl- Y ME. EYARTS. 697 fled the discredit of Mr. Tilton, and that his oaths on the subject show him to be unworthy of credit in any matter that he chooses to put his own interpretation and his own evidence upon. THE WRITING AND PRESENTATION OF THE RESIGNATION LETTER. Now we come to the Bowen and Beecher in- terview, so far as I have not already disposed of it, in its relevancy and application to the principal issue here, and which I now ask some little attention to. Mr. Beecher is the sole witness to that interview, up to the point of the introduction of the rebuttal evidence of the plaintiff, which brings Mr. Bowen on the stand. Now, see the attitude in which Mr. Tilton places himself in re- gard to that missive, and see the judgment that he ex- poses himself to, when the only conclusion in regard to Mr. Beecher, to affect him, is not the sending or the forging of the weapon, but the manner in which he receives it. Tilton tells you that when ^ir. Bowen was running on with this tirade against hun, somehow or other it became appropriate for himself to introduce an insinuation or an accusation against Mr. Beecher in re- spect to his own, Mr. Tilton's, family, and that that accu- sation was not in the least discreditable to his wife, or his children's fame, but an accusation against Mr. Beecher, to wit : that IVIr. Beecher had made improper advances or improper proposals to his (Mr. Tilton's) wife; that thereupon Mr. Bowen, either then giving, or before that having given the catalogue of Mr. Beecher's profli- gacy, from Indianapolis down, the terror and the danger that he was to all the people of Brooklyn, Mr. Tilton's quite moderate suggestion that he had been guilty of these improper advances, immediately eclipsed, in Bowen's mind, all this horrible scheme and system of profligacy that he had been enlarging upon; Bowen thought, no doubt, to himself : " Now, here is something that looks as if there was something to it. I have been dealing in this cloudy calumny and nobody has heeded what I said ; but really, now, this young man— he has got something that is not too incredible, and that as he gives his own wife as the obiect, to be sure, saving her innocence, his credit, and the fame of his children— really now there is something. It is your duty, Mr. Tilton, to arrest this long career of profligacy, to stem this tide of adultery, to restrict this wide-spreading seduction. You have got a fact. Use it." *' WeU, but Mr. Bowen, you have been talking about facts that were a thousand times as great as this little fact of mine. Why don't you use some of your facts ?" " Oh, a sense of honor restrains me. Mr. Beecher and I have oome to a settlement, and all things are ended between us." Why hadn't he thought of that sense of honor before he told Mr. Tilton of those infamous aspersions of Mr. Beecher ? I think his sense of honor comes and goes, and you can see people fetch and carry it. But anyhow, he did, and that was enougU 698 THE TILTON'BI for Tilton, beoanse TUton saw the point of lionor at once. At once Bowen recoiled. " I -will not ask you to be guilty of a breach of honor ; far be it from me." " How shall we arrange it then ? " "Why, you open the mat- ter by this insinuation about your wife, and that will open the question of Beecher's moral character in gen- eral, and then I shall be relieved upon the point of honor, and I will back you up." Well, now, was there ever a more fitly adjusted con- trivance between two "men of honor" to maintain their honor? and yet, when they tell you their own story of it, they wonder that people d^n't think it as hon- orable as it seemed to them. [Laughter.] " Now," says Bowen, "you write a letter, an open letter, and I will carry it;" and, as Tilton says, it was their joint act— their joint act. Said I to Mr. Tilton, ""^Tiat was your object? What did you expect to accomplish?" "I ex- pected," said he—" My object was, to strike him to the heart! I expected to accomplish his expulsion from his church and from Brooklyn within twelve hours." Bowen said, " He can't stay twelve hours under that letter. Put in," says Bowen, " nothing definite ; but put in, ' for reasons explicitly known to him ;' " and they altered the draft and put that in— an appeal to Mr. Beecher's con- sciousness, hoping that when he saw " Theodore Tilton " signed to that, he would pack up his trunk and go. Well, we are coming nearer to the proceedings of the Ku-Klux than we ever expected to be in these civilized communities. " Put in," says Bowen, " * leave your pul- pit, quit the editing of The Ghristian Vnion.' " " Well, no," says Tilton, " we have got enough in." Now, Bowen did not think there was enough in, provided Beecher was not driven out of the rival newspaper ; but still, I sup- pose he concluded that if he left Plymouth Church, and left Brooklyn, probably he would not continue to edit The Christian Union. Now, now, the missive is forged ; now the messenger is charged ; and now Bowen, if he has not got Beecher, has got Tilton— got him, got him—hody and soul. He has got, under his signature, a bold, de- fiant, blackmail letter against Mr. Beecher; and, although the space between Bowen's house and Beecher's house is not very long, yet there was time eno^^gh to lead Bowen to reflect that perhaps it would be as well to seal up that letter and not carry it open ; and he did so. We got that much of truth, at least, out of Bowen's lips and from his tongue, the moisture that closed that letter. That is plain; there is no denying that. Well, Bowen goes there and hands it to Beecher. Beecher opened it, and read it, and he did not fall down dead, but, on his own view of it, tunied to Bowen and said, " Why, this is sheer insanity; the man is crazy." That was enough for Bowen. He knew that that appeal, " for reasons ex- plicitly known to yourself," did not carry any conscious- ness to Mr. Beecher, and that what Tilton had told him had disappeared like the baseless fabric of a vision ; and then he felt, " I had Tilton before ; now, I have got him ECHEU TEIAL. with the evidence that his charge is false ; for I have de- livered it to the man against whom it came as suddenly as the stroke of the lightning ; I know he was unprepared,- I know now that this was an arrogant, a grave, a delibe- rate challenge to him, which, if the reasons ' explicitly known to himself that were suggested by TUton to me had existed, would have immediately brought some con- fusion to the face, some tremor to the lips, some per- plexity to the understanding." And is it not so ? If you, or you, Sir, knew that you had beSn living in adultery for sixteen months with Theodore Tilton's wife,, and some- body suddenly brought you a letter written and signed by the husband, appealing to your consciousness of some relation to him that should suggest and justify that demand, don't you think that it would make some impression on you ? All the evidence shows, and it is a part of the plaintifTs case, that no intimation, whatever, proceeding from Mrs. Tilton, or proceeding from Mr Tilton, had ever brought to Mr. Beecher's knowledge the fact that this terrible guilt, prolonged, persistent, inexplicable, had become known to the in- jured husband ; and Bowen who had been only that very day unrolling to Tilton the enormity of Beecher's profli- gacy and the Christian duty of arresting it, and had siezed upon Tilton's suggestion that he at least had an ef- fort to be profligate to charge against Beecher— seized it and carried it there, looked at Mr. Beecher as he r?ad the letter, heard his answer, and at once concluded: "Whatever Mrs. Tilton may have said to Mr. Tilton, whatever jealousy may have in- vented, or hatred magnified in Tilton's breast, there is nothing in Beecher's consciousness that makes the color come or go in his open countenance, that is coursed as Immediately by every teU-tale flow of blood as a young maiden's in the flush of health. Ah ! Mr. Bowen has not lived in vain. He knows something about false charges ; he has seen the ways of this wicked world ; and he saw that instead of that charge relieving him of the rivalry of The Christian Union or crushing the antagonism of Beecher to him or to Tilton, all that had happened was that Beecher was in possession of this conclusive proof ol Mr. Tilton's enmity and malignity. Ah 1 Bowen must have rubbed the hands of his imderstanding and chuckled over his forethought in having closed that letter ; for if it had remained unclosed, Mr. Beecher would have had the same evidence against him, Bowen, that he had against Tilton. Now, Bowen says that Mr. Beecher treated it, so far as any spont£tneous expression of his, Beecher's, own went, even more contemptuously than by this statement which he made that the man was crazy. Bowen says that he put it Into his pocket, and did not show anything at all, and that Bowen then said to him, "Well, what do you. say about that letter?" and then Mr. Beecher said, " Why, this is sheer Insanity ; the man is crazy." I think Mr. Bowen does his sagacity an injustice. I think the same wit that closed the letter iSUMm:sG Tjp 1 •wirti his moutli would not open it also vrttli Ms moutli, or EhoTT any int-erest In it, or tliat lie Tvas a messenger tliat ■?ras expected to bring an answer ; and I ttiink Mr. Beeclier's statement, therefore, is more conformable to tlie probabilities and to tbe cbaracter of Bowen. Now, gentlemen, tbese little differences in tlie memory of witnesses come to notbing. Tbe real question was, when you bad beard from Mr. Beecber tbat narrative, "wbeu Mr. Bowen comes, brougbt in bere to speak to tbe same interview — tbe real guestion was, and you watcbed for it, and we on our side watcbed for it— wbetber be sbould put a different complexion upon tbe transaction, wbetber be would sbow confusion on Mr. Beecber's part, tremor, solicitude, anxiety, entreaty ; and be did not. He said Mr. Beecber treated it witb contempt, sbowed no solicimde. Bowen does not remember tbat be said to Mr. Beecber wben Mr. Beecber said tbis spontaneously, "Ob, I don't know anytbing about tbe letter; I only brougbt it bere," Ab! but gen- tlemen tbat was tbe very attitude be bad pre- pared for bimself by closing tbe letter, tbat very atti- tude, to be able to say, I dou't know auytbiug about tbe letter. Tbat Is all be bad done it for; and rely upon it, be preserved tbat advantage after be bad seen tbe way tbe lion received tbe insult of a less noltle animal. You may rely upon it tbat Bowen, wbo meant to keep out of tbe reacb of tbe lion's paw, and not to bave bis precious bead crusbed i>etween tbe lion's jaws, didn't tbink it woitb bis wbile to thrust it in wben be saw tbat be bad kept it out, and tbat tbe lion was by no means tame. Ab ! Mr. Bowen! IMr. Bo^. ea 1 Men must be judged by their character; and whatever uncertainties there may be about yours, they do not touch your calcu- lations about your safety and advantage, that you dis- played hereby youi- caution in not carrying an open let- ter. Then Mr. Beecber, according to Bowen, as would be yery natural— Bowen does not say be told him he knew what was in tbe letter, or had any suspicion of it, or was any party to it, but he thought he bad to move Mr. Beecberto talk about that letter. TVeU, be admits that Mr. Beecber said to bim on tbat motion of bis the same thing that Mr. Beecber testifies tbat be said spon- taneously ; tbat they agree about. But then Mr. Beecber said, according to Bowen (and here there does not seem to be any very particular difference)— Mr. Beecber said, "Well, Sir, do you come bere as a friend, or how do you come?" Did that look as if Mr. Beecber cared how he camel But he wanted to know how he came. "Oh!" says Bowen, " as a friend ; oh, as a friend by all means !" jLaugbter.] Now, if Mr. Beecber could have heard the conversation between Triton and Bowen about an hour before, that took place in Bowen's parlor, what would he have thought of Bowen ? You have heard them both. Well, the trouble about this conference at whicli only two are present, and both of the same way of thinking, is, that Y MB. EYABTS, 699 when youbaTe too many of them, and you are the con- stant party, with changing partners, and you profess to be of the same way of thinking all tbe wbile witb each partner that you are with, wben you get them together, that is tha trouble, ah, that is the nitro-glycerine tbat blows up tbe whole concenio Innocent, harmless acids and alkalies, oils and powders, if you will only keep them apart ; but if you get them together they do play tbe mischief witb the best laid foundations and tbe most honorable characters. [Laugh- ter.] Only tbi*k of it. Bowen, that with TUton an hour before bad been so sensitive to his own, Bowen's lionor, tbat be could not suggest anything, move anything, to- wards arraigning Mr. Beecber, but said that Tilton might and he would back him up, and they together would drive Beecber out in twelve hours ; he beards tbe lion in bis den and the Hon says to him, " Sir, how do you come herel Do you come as my friend?" "Ob, oertainly, certainly;" and wbile he was not willing to admit, as Mr. Beecber bad stated, that he grew more and more friendly all through the interview, yet he admits tbat it began friendly, ended friendly, continued friendly, and the only reason it didn't grow was that it was without variation pr shadow of turning. Well, what a pity it is, at several times during the long, tortuous course of these slimy calumnies, these con- temptible hatreds, that you could not have got three or four of these people together, and bad them put their in- terviews together. Tbat that is the miscalculation about the resom^ces of the Divine provision for the ad- ministi-ation of justice among men, forming a part of the moral government of the world. These two conspirators, Moulton and Tilton, Bowen and Tilton. wben they are together, think that no eye overlooks their machinations and no ear ov^rheai's their plot- tings ; as if human justice and the moral government of the world had no other power oi overseeing and of overhearing than tbat the particular privacy in which tbey are dealing. Sliallow, ignorant, foolish calculations thus rebuked by the great prophet and poet of the Hebrews, "Ye fools, when will ye be wise ? He tbat planted tbe ear, shall he not hear 1 He that formed the eye, shall not be see ?" Here, in this little juxtaposition of these two interviews — within an hour of each other— between Tilton and Bowen, and Bowen and Beecber, the resources, easy resources of that iustice which is but a part of the moral government of the world, shows you that men can be overheard, and their privacy can be penetrated by the sight, when they tbiok that they are alone. CONSEQUEJs^CES OF THE EESIGNATION LETTER. Now, if nothing had happened to Beecher from the transaction of the 26th of December, a good deal had happened to Bowen and a good deal to Tilton. 700 THE TILTON-BJ Bo wen saw tlie necessity of Ms rapid retreat from his eompanionsMp with Tilton, and lie left no doubt in Tilcon's mind of wliat tlie result of tlie interview between Bowen and Beecher was, nor of wbat Ms, Tilton's, fate at Bowen's hands was to be. We liave a very grapliic de- scription of it by Mr. Tilton, and Mr. Bowen was not called upon to contradict it by our learned friends. Now, tlie staple of tbe further conversation between Bowen and Beecher was this. Bowen was slow to remember it, but it all came. There is not a word wanting in his cross-examination and direct examination together to corroborate and sustain every word of Mr. Beeoher's testimony in regard to that interview; and I call upon you to notice it, not merely because it gives an absolute confirmation of the spirit and charac- ter of the interview, bat because it corroborates the strength and acoui-acy of Mr. Beecher's memory. Mr. Beecher has displayed to you the conversation about Mr. Tilton's profligacy, or the rumors of it, as they had come to Bowen, that he had heard nothing of them— Bowen hadn't— until after he had deposed Tilton from the editor- ship of The Independent ; that then they came in, came like an avalanche, came from here and there, from the West and from the North, and that they were horrible ; and then that he, Mr. Beecher, said, " Well, I have heard about Mr. Tilton myself," and witMn a very short time, Bowen says that Beecher asked him if he knew anything about any troubles in Mr. Tilton's family. " No," says Bowen, " no ; I have heard nothing of any consequence about any troubles in his family." Well, I am sure I don't know that he had. I have nothing but Mr. Tilton's word for it that he told him anything against Mr. Beecher in their conversation. Mr. Bowen, on a further direct examination by his own side of the case, the side that called him, is made to answer that at the time of the signing of the " Tripartite Agreement " he had never heard of any imputations against Mr. Beecher in respect to Mr. Tilton's family. That is in 1872. He says that he never had heard that Mr. Tilton had made any charge against Mr. Beecher. They had an object in asking him that question, and he favored that object by Ms answer ; but the difSculty is that when you get an answer into a case you cannot get it out, and it is competent for both sides to comment upon it. Now, then, Mr. Beecher proceeded to tell him about the flight of Mrs. Tilton from her husband's roof ; the resort to her mother, Mrs. Morse ; their joint resort to him and Mtb. Beecher, and the advice and the grounds of the application, and of the flight of the wife, the Bessie Tur- ner matter, other intrigues with ladies of more distinc- tion and credit, and Mr Beecher concurred in the opiaion of Mr. Bowen that it would not do to have Mr. Tilton at all connected with The Independent. Now, the point about Mr. Bowen is that he had already made up Ms mind the day before, and so all these statements of Mr. Beecher, which he admits were made to him, cou- EGREB TRIAL. curred in that view, tended to that result, really produced no impression upon him, because Ms mind, self -poised, had already determined it. But he agreed on a question I put him that there was nothing in what Mr. Beecher said that tended to unsettle his decision, and he had said, too, that although he had substantially made up Ms mind, and had substantially informed Mr. Tilton on the 26th of December that he was going to discharge him, yet he had not absolutely. And then, in the next column he said that he had, absolutely, and so you have those insensible vibrations of a great mind between abso- lute and semi-absolute determination. Why, the touch of a chOd will rock a great bowlder that is poised in that way, and I should think that what Mr. Beecher said might tend to the absolute, and dispose of the semi-absolute determination. Well, gentlemen, you all understand that interview. It was of the kind that Br. Beecher states, and Mr. Bowen absolutely confirms it. We have got into a curious question of where the conversa- tion took place, and which is right about that, an unimportant consideration, as there is an entire agreement that the nature of the interview was that Mr. Beecher did not care that [snapping his fingers] for the missive, and showed it. Mr. Bowen cared everytmng for having it appear that he had nothing to do with the missive, and Mr. Bowen was fi'iendly, and friendly, and friendly, and glad to find that if he had not succeeded in triumphing over Mr. Beecher, he had at least success- fully concealed from him the deadly enmity and hatred that he felt for him, and he came back rubbing his hands again, figiuatively, to Mr. Eggleston, who was waiting for him, and said, " Mr. Beecher is delighted that Mr. Tilton is discharged " — is, in the present tense. " And he is your friend, and my friend, and he has told me stories about Tilton horrible stories," Eggleston says — " and our compact, and our amity is complete." Well, gentlemen, I don't know whether Tilton haa misrepresented Bowen in that previous interview between himself and Mr. Bowen, or not, and I don't know that we ever shall know, for by the very terms of the proposition it is oMy the statements of the two about each other that we shall ever get at. Mr. Tilton's statement of the interview stands as the truth in this cause. It is uncontradicted and f urmshes. so far as that enters into the estimate of the feelings and relations of Mr. Tilton and Mr. Beecher, and Mr. Tilton and Mr. Bowen, and Mr. Beecber, the evidence on the subject— I mean of these calumnies agamst Mr. Beecher, the animosity of Mr. Bowen, and the subjugation by the strong mind of Bowen of the weaker character, Tilton, to his, Bowen's, objects. Mr. Bowen contradicts distinctly Mr. Tilton on the question of Ms discharge as then de- termined upon, and then communicated, and he con- tradicts Mm further by saying to you that on the morn- ing of Saturday of that week, h« informed Mm of Ua then present absolute and actual discharge. SUJd[MJyG VP BY MB. BVARTS. DEDUCTIONS FEOM THE XATUEAL BEXT OF HUMAN ACTION. 701 Now, gentlemen, I have occasion to ask yom- attention to tlie vast value of these two facts that we hare fought against — ^the evidence of the plaintiff out of his ovm mouth, out of other .witnesses, so far as they could show collateral support to it — we have fought against these two propositions of there being this action of the wife contemplating separation, resort to the pas- tor, tMs dealing by the pastor with it, openly, clearly, decisively, and this second point or the dealing between 3Ir. Beecher and 3Ir. Bowen whereby Mr. Beecher es- poused the view which Mr. Bowen communicated about Tilton's character, and the necessary action of 3Ir. Bowe.n in regard to it, corroborated, assisted, confirmed, secured, and aided by his disclosui-es of this conjugal discord and of this personal profligacy with Bessie Turner and with others. Gentlemen, you are full grown, men. Some people seem to thinlr that if they have come into a jury-box they are to lose all their common sense, all the elasticity of their understanding, all their personal knowledge and views of human nature and of human conduct, and take up a dry and formal following of testimony as it may be long drawn out before them. "Why, gentlemen, you are here because you are practical men, because you know something of our common na- ture, because you come from the bosom of the very society in which these parties moved, and in. which their action is taken, and by which it is to be judged. All the number of witnesses that would prove to you that the moon was made of green cheese would not justify you in bringing in a verdict that it was made of green cheese, not in the least. It would justify you in bring- ing in a verdict that the witnesses were made of green cheese. [Laughter.] Now, I ask you this — do you believe that there could be a relation of paramour and mistress between a man eminent in society and a woman the wife of a man prominent in society, and moving in the circles of social Intercourse, of religious association, of public notice, that belonged to these people and these their re- spective families— do you believe that that relation be- tween paramour and mistress could have continued for eighteen months, and then, by chance— much more if by confession or communication from the wife — come to the knowledge of the husband and then, everything being lovely and quiet between them, so that there was no out- break there — do you think the wife and the mistress would have left the paramour six months unadvised that somebody else knew of it, that that somebody else was the husband, and that husband the hat«r on independent grounds of the paramour ? Do you think so ? Did you ever hear anything like that, that would lead a woman that had had that degree of affection and submission to a man, that she would not -warm him against the oinguarded course of his life toward this familv. that would expose him to the observation, to the condemna' tion, to the r^entment of the husband? That would bs a new chapter in human character, and I think if it could be understood as a natural and probable sequel of these illicir relations, and of their discovery, that it might t^?nd to discourage the ventures that men make ia that direc- tion. No, gentlemen, common sense discards that. Well, if a wife, conscious of this final, deepest guilt of a woman as toward her husband— conscious of the long course of seduction concealed from him, and of the long pollution of the marriage bed and cont;imination of the offspring by a stain, had confessed and found a forgiving husband ready to conceal, un-viQing to resent against the injurer— do you think that that wife, with that knowledge of her own conduct and of her husband's privity to it, will be the first to pick a quarrel, and desert the shelter of that roof? What roof could be so hospitable to her guilt as that ? What shelter against discovery, against publicity, against ruin so safe as that? "\\liat could break the tacit or the actual compact of im- munity, of secrecy, of restored and continued love on the part of the husband to the fallen and penitent wife so necessarily, so absolutely, as the wife's desertion of the home and accusation of the husband of profligacy ? Well, gentlemen, if you can imagine that a wife so situated, so sensitive, so morbid on the question of secrecy, could rush out of that house, and accuse her ' usband when he knew of her profligacy, you must have some strange views of human nature, and if we cannot try these people a,a htmian beings we cannot try them at all. But, do you think she wo aid go to the paramour and the pastor, and if she did, do you think he would turn over to his wife, and his wife f7i is woman [turning to Mrs. Beecher], this matron who makes the name of matron all the more noble that she is conspicuotis in its roU of honor, this woman that saw enough into the eyes of Theodore TUton eleven years before to banish him from her house, and enough into the eyes of Henry C. Bowen to keep him from crossing her threshold? Do you think that Henry Ward Beecher would turn over his mistress to his wife for her to exam- ine, with all the power that a woman knows to apply to a false woman? Now, you may think that is natural, and you may think it is safe, and you may think that out of these two women being shut up, Mrs. Beecher and Mrs. Tilton, there came nothing but advice to quit the husband, brave him. to sustain her purity. You may think so. I would not like to have any client of mine convicted of any . Clime like this, but I assure you, gentlemen, if he has to be convicted I would like to have him convicted on evi- dence like this, for the evir.. - j-e answers the conviction and convicts the tribunal that condemns. Look, now, at the enormous value of the dealing whioli Mr. Beecher exhibited to the Bowen missile, proceeding from the bow and the skillful archery of Mr. TUton- Take Bowen's statement ; was there ever greater uncon- cern, was there ever greater indifference, ever stronger. THE TILTON-BEECHER TRIAL. 1 703 more definite braving of it than Mr. Beechor's treatment of tlie missive and his treatment of the man ? Was there any yielding ? Was there any entreaty of Mr. Bowen 1 No. All Mr. Beecher wanted to know was, "Whether you came here, Mr. Bowon, coupled with, conscious of, in complicity with this insane, mad contumely of Mr. Tilton?" If Mr. Bowen had said, '* I did ; I suggested it, I urged it, T a.m going to hack it up," then Mr. Beecher would have facea them both, and he has faced them both ever since. But neither Bowen nor Tilton has faced him. I can imagine no possible construction of human conduct that would treat this charge, this demand, under Mr. Tilton's own signature, as Mr. Beecher treated it, if there had been the least consciousness of those guilty relations. What did he do ? He talked with Mr. BoAven as long as Mr. Bowen chose to talk, and then Mr. Bowen went about his business, and Mr, Beecher never troubled himself in the least, never sought Mr. Tilton, never sent a friend to Bee him, never thought of the subject further, and waited what anybody would have to say or to do about it. Well, gentlemen, we might, I think, consider all attempts to convict Mr. Beecher of this crime, u.pon moral evidence, as substantially ended by these two penetrating thrusts into his very soul that this evidence has given to him, and you read on its unruffled mirror the placidity of in- nocence which forbids you to imagine guilt. Are you to take an alternative proposition, that he is an old offender, fall of wickedness ? Well, there you run against a thousand improbabilities, not to say impossi- bilities. You run against what, even in the case of a sin- gle instance of guilt, is really a moral Impossibility, Is there nothing, then, in the wisdom of the Great Mas- ter that when you are judging of moral character you are to judge by the conduct of the life % Is there nothing in the proposition that men do not gather grapes of thorns, and hgs of thistles ? Do you plant thistles to raise figs, and thorns to expect a vintage from ? What greater vintage of Christian beneficence and activity has ever been poured out iuto the wiue-vats of a nation than the life of Henry Ward Beecher has furnished % And, yet, all these grapes have been gathered from this tliorn tree, and are gathered still. If, under this fig tree, men could not repose, what beneficent shelter Uas ever been reared In the human character and human conduct for the con- fidence and the safety of one's feUow men ? And, yet, *\is is but a prickly thistle bush that everybody that ever approached must have been wounded by, and yet nobody has found it out. This long course of wickedness has run in a parallel stream through this life, and divided it between its muddy waters and its crystal flow, so that those who stood on either bank proclaimed it vile or healthful as they happened to be on one bank or the other. Why, gentlemen, il you will not take philosophy, and the great teachings of the Scriptures, on these subjects, lot as understand, as we all do, the generosity of character, openness of nature, warmth of heart, universal sympathy by which every child is his friend, every woman reveres him, every man confides in him, as inconsistent with the course of profli- gacy that hardens the heart. Who knew better than Bums, the poet — an authority on misfortune — as a mania respect of his morality, who set aside all former teach- ings and says to the 3^outh whom he would guide througli Ufe : A sacred, pure and well-placed love, Luxuriantly indulge it ; But ever scorn the illicit role, Tho' naething should divulge it. I waive the quantum of the sia, The hazard of concealing ; But, oh, it hardens a' within, And petrifles the feeling. And yet a warm and generous fountain of beneficent acts and sympathetic nature, as Mr. Tilton describes it, that was open to the imposition and accessible to the appeals of friendship's impositions, of ill design, and ac- cessible to the appeals of friendship, remains the uncon- taminated and the unhardened nature of this defendant. So now, so always in your opinion, in the opinion of everybody that ever knew him or saw him, and ail these monstrous absurdities that defy the faith in man and the faith in God that holds the world together, you are to establish in order to save the credit of the oaths of a few Avitucsses. THE DESTRUCTION OF MRS. TILTON'S WRITTEN ACCUSATION. I come now, gentlemen, to the first meeting of the injured husband and the adulterer after the alleged discovery of the guilt. Six months after it is said a« commimication of some kind prejudicial to Mr. Beecher's relation to Mrs. Tilton and to the honor of his intercourse with Mr. Tilton's family, these two men are brought to- gether, and I think, gentlemen, that you will in advance agree with me that this interview carries more import- ance in its real occurrences, if you can get at them, than any other interviews. If there was any accusation made at all, it was made then, and what was made then was the accusation that existed, either in imagtuation or had been produced by iuA-ention, or had any basis of mistake or any solid support in truth. Whichever your theory may be on which you finally rest, whatever the accusation was, or was to be, as an honest accusation it was then and there made, WhateA^er of confessions, whatever of concession, whatever of acqui- escence on the part of the accused ever took place, took place then and there, and there was the period, then and there was the situation, then and there the aspects of the matter all around, that, if you can get at the truth, Avill be worth more to you than anj^ long-drawn party- colored piece-meal aspects, and intercourse of the years afterward, Noav, about that I don't think there will be SU212LIJG UP B any dispute. What liad Mr. Tiltcm done on liis o^n Blio-^ving in respect to tliat proposed interview before it occurred? He liad got from Ms wife, as lie says, and as apparently is true, a paper written in lier own hand, of some character and purport— that is admitted. He had got it by efforts in that sick room, persisted in day after day, against the remonstrances of the nurse, and that paper he obtained on the 29th, on Thursday, and kept it unshown, he says, to anybody till the night of the 30th. Now, what would you give to have that pap.-r? It has been destroyed. Who destroyed it ? Theodore TiLton. Who gave it to Mm to destroy 1 Fi-ancis D. Moulton. When ? They both swear, not giv- ing day and month and year, but with relation to another event, "Immediately after the ' Tripartite Agreement.' What justification was there for Francis D. Moulton "im- mediately after the ' Tripartite Agreement ' " to give to Theodore TUton that paper to destroy ? Ah ! gen- tlemen, they all swear, all these people, that there "was not any agreement, nor any connection, nor any Idea ia reference to the destruction of the papers with the " Tripartite Agreement," or the arbitration. All our "Witnesses swear the other way ; Claflin, Freeland, Storrs, and Wilkeson all swear that there was an agi-eement that all the papers should be destroyed. Now, I have got the oath of Mr. Moulton and the oath of :Mr. Tilton, that im- mediately after that Mr. Moulton handed to 3Ir. THton the papers- to be destroyed, and I have got the oath i of Mr. Moidton that he told Mr. Beecher that he ■would keep that paper tied to the other, and that they never should be separated, and should be kept together for his protection. Ah ! gentlemen, you have a self-con- lessed, absolute treachery, and absolute convigtion of their own falsehood ; you have got them both. Their conduct shows in their ready seizure of an opportunity given by that compact, to destroy all, to hurry to destruc- tion this one, and then in order to explaia their possession of all the others to use against Mr. Beecher when he wanted this one for himself of all others in the world, they say there was not any- thing said about destruction of papers, and there was no right to destroy any papers. Where is your promise that the two papers should be kept together ? Ah ! gentle- men, what did Moulton teU Charles Ston-s about this uniLateral (to borrow a phrase of my learned friend and brother Porter), this imilateral destruction, and tMs unilateral saving of impers \ Charles Storrs was asked what :Mr. Moulton said about bui-mng the papers, and he says that Sam Wilkeson had seen him, or written Mm that he wanted Mm to be sure to burn Mr, Beecher's "apology," and aJl the papers, and Mr. Moulton says: "Of course I burned all the papers," and laughed, and he says, " Mr. Beecher thinks I have," and then he says: "If Sam Wilkeson thinks i have burned all the papers he is mistaken. What would Theo- dore do with his trouble 1 " And when Mr. MoiUtou is re-» F ME. EYAETS. 703 called he don't deny a word of that. Now, don't yon believe that it was a part of the arrangement that peacj was concluded all around, and that all the papers were to be destroyed ; and don't you believe that this man hastened to destroy the paper that we want, and that we miss? If truth would be on their side from it, so much the better for them, so much the less reason for their destroying it. So you needn't worry yourselves that they have lost anything by its being put out of existence. Ah ! how they jumped at the idea that, now, tMs pledge of Mr. Moultou would justify the desta-uction of all the papers, and that the treacherous wickedness of Mr. Moulton. self-confessed in act, that he did destroy one. separated it from the rest, and his production here of the rest, that he did save the rest, and then his sneering remark to Mr. Storrs : " Oh ! I have bumed all the papers, of course,'" and he laughed, and then he says, " Mr. Beecher thinks I have ;'' and then he says, " If Sam Wilkeson thinks I have bui-ned all the papers, he is mistaken. "^ATiat wouLl Theo- dore do with his trouble ?" " T^Tiat of the trouble that he was using heretofore and means to use hereafter ? Xow, Theodore and I have only bm-ned that one paper." The Court here adjourned imtil to Wednesday at 11 o'clock. NINETY-FIFTH DAY'S PROCEEDINGS. ME. EVAETS FUETHEE ANALYZES Ey^)E^XE THE FAMOUS INTERVIEW AT ME. MOULTO^''S HOUSE BETWF-EX MR. BEECHER AND MR. TILTON THOROUGHLY CONSIDERED— ALLEGED IXCOXSIST- EXCIES AND IMPROBABILITIES IN THE PLAIN- TIFF'S state:*ient dwelt upon with emphasis —HOW MRS. TILTON'S ASSERTED CONFESSION IS LOOKED UPON BY THE DEFENSE— HER CHARAC- TER DECLARED TO BE IRRECONCILABLE WITH THE SUPPOSITION OF GUILT— EVIDENCE FROM MR. BEECHER AND MR. TILTON COMPARED— A DAY OF FREQUENT WITTY AND STIRRING PAS- SAGES. Wednesday, June 2, 1875. William M. Evarts continued Ms ara-umeut for Mr. Beecher to-day in tlie Brookl3-n City Court room. He considered the first interview between Mr. Beecher and ]Mr. Tilton after the alleged discovery of adultery, the destroyed letter of Mrs. Tilton to her husband, Mr. Tilton's account of his wife's oral confession to him, and other portions of Mr. Tilton's evidence, and Mr. Beecher's statements concerning the interview between himself and the plaintiflt in Mr. Moiilton's house in December, 1870. Mr. Evarts argued at considerable length to-day upon the inconsistency which, he asserted, exists 704 THE TILTON-BM between tbe plaintiff's statements and theories and the acknowledged principles and motives which govern human actions. Whenever his argument was thus based on asserted characteristics of human nature he infused a lire into his words that fully aroused the attention of the auditors, while witty passages abounded to make them laugh. The first subject taken up by the orator was the first interview between Mr Tilton and Mr. Beecher after the alleged discovery of adultery between Mrs. Tilton and Mr. Beecher. Considerations that had governed Mr. Tilton, in what the lawyer asserted to be the fabri- cation of his story, were pointed out. Mr. Moulton's account of his walk with Mr. Beecher to Mr. Tilton's house, on the occasion of the interview under con- sideration, was analyzed. " Out of the fullness of the heart," exclaimed the orator, "the mouth speaketh, even when the heart is small and the mouth large, as in Moulton's case." Perhaps the most interesting portion of the ad- dress to-day was that in reference to Mr. Tilton's account of the interview with Mr. Beecher and of the alleged oral confession of Mrs. Tilton to her hus- band. The orator asserted that it was improbable, and not according to common sense, that Mr. Tilton should have talked in the manner in which he said he did to Mr. Beecher, supposing the latter to have been the paramour of Mrs. Tilton. "Look," he said, referring to Mr. Tilton's statement of the be- ginning of the interview, " at the cool way in which this rhetorician opens the deepest passions and re- sentments of the human heart." The analysis of the alleged oral confession of Mrs. Tilton to her husband was made with such sarcastic and witty keenness as to excite continual bursts of laughter from the counsel and audience. The jury- men also smiled appreciatively, Mr. Beecher laughed, and even Mr. Tilton once or twice joined in the mer- riment. One of the humorous comments on the alleged words used by Mrs. Tilton, which attracted much attention, was in reference to the statement that she had told her husband the dates and places of the commission of the asserted acts of adultery. The last act had occurred at her own residence. " She is talking," said the orator with a smile, " to her husband, and for fear there should be doubt, as they had removed from time to time from one house to another, she adds, * At her own residence, 174 Livingston-st.' " This particularity, in some of the asserted statements of iMrs. Tilton, served as the basis of an argument against the probability of the whole story, because * ECRER TRIAL. Mrs. Tilton was represented to have declared that acts of adultery had occurred at other places which she appeared not to have disclosed. The persuasions which were alleged to have been used by Mr, Beecher in overcoming the virtuous scruples of Mrs. Tilton afforded another subject for the wit and argumentative skill of the advocate, "Ah," said he, "he must have preached with a power to conscience and intelligence that he has not exhibited in public if he could reduce a woman's nature to scruples, and then pufl' them away with a breath." Mr. Evarts insisted on the inconsistency between Mrs. Tilton's pure-mindedness, which even her hus- band lauded, and the supposition of her guilt ; and he pointed out instance after instance of alleged im- probability and want of harmony in regard to cir- ciunstances, times, and chains of reasoning in the statements of Mr. Tilton. Finally he took up Mr. Beecher's account of the interview at Mr. Moulton's house, to which the cited evidence of Mr. Tilton re- ferred. The two accounts were laid together, and compared, and their contradictions were clearly brought out. Mr. Beecher stated that Mr. Tilton said to him that the writing of the letter demanding that he (Air. Beecher) should leave Brookljoi, was a grand thing to do, but it would have been grander not to have done it. " Now," exclaimed the orator, with biting sarcasm, that caused the plaintiff" to color to the roots of his hair, while the audience laughed, " What a happy condition a man is in when what- ever he does ia- grand, and if he hadn't done it, it would have been grander !" THE PKOCEEDINGS-VERBATIM. THE INTERVIEW OP DECEMBER 30. The Court met at 11 a. m. pursuant to ad- iournment. Mr. Evarts— We may perhaps conslfler for a few mo- ments in advance what would be tlie probable attitude, wliat the tone, what the temper, what the method of ac- cusation, and what the reception of the accusation that would, on the known proof of human character and hu- man conduct, mark the first interview between the accus- ing husband and the guilty adulterer. Nay, more, if the accusation were to proceed upon the information con- veyed to the unsuspecting husband by the corrupted or uncoiTupted wife— I mean the adulteress— you would like to see what, upon these same recognized principles of human character and human conduct, would be the SUMMING UF I tennfi,tlie attendant circumstances, tlie emotions with TV^Mcli this dreadful fact was first disclosed toy the offend- ing wife to the unsuspecting hustoand. ME. TILTON'S STORY OF THE INTERYIEW INCONSISTENT WITH HUMAN NATURE. Is adultery in a reputable family, in a respect- able connection of society, and witli a woman of even tlie ordinary traits of purity, of iutelllgence, of piety, and of domestic afi'ections, a commonplace occurrence ? Is it to be treated lilie a cut of the finger or a bruised brow ? Is tliere anytliiug that more upturns the deep- est feelings of the husband and of the wife, when, brought by the urgency of conscience, guilt is disclosed, pardon is beerged, and either the wife is slain by her hus- band or is pardoned by his superhuman charity % What tears, what sobs, what solemn silence, what deep contrition, what conflicting, convulsive emotions, fill the husband's heart and show themselves in conflicting ex- hibition of his pm-pose, and finally of his conclusion ! And then, when the inj ared husband meets his friend, the cor- rupter of his wof ^, the destroyer of his own honor, the defiler of his marriage bed, and the shame and disgrace of his children, and his children's children ; when a hus- band thus outraged, of whom it is said by a wise man, that I have had frequent occasion to refer to, not much in repute doubtless with the new dispensations, that get direct revelations from heaven through mediumistic fits —Solomon says that "jealousy is the rage of a man;" and when two such parties come together, you may imagine that if there be at the bottom either information on the part of the accuser, mistaken if you please, cer- tainly if weU-f ounded and conscious guUt on the part of the accused, that you will have a scene that cannot be handled by any mere conception and preparation before- hand. Nature will, icill show itself in such an interview, if the great and central fact exists, either as a truth, or as a conviction on one side, that of the accuser. And now, gentlemen, I shall satisfy you upon a mere reading of this plaintiff's story of that interview, rightly interpreted, by that knowledge of human affau-s which you possess and that Imowledge of his character and of Mr. Beecher's which you have gained in this trial, that that narrative, upon its own reading, is a self-exposed and self-convicted invention, framed by that degree of cunning that beheves in words, their instrumentality, their rhetorical connection. This plaintiff understood that the wife's confessions, if there ever had been any, could not be made the subiect of evidence against Mr. Beecher. Om- law convicts parties on their own confes- sions, not on the confessions of others. This idle word about Elizabeth's confession, or Mrs. Tilton's confession, that has been dragged in by Moulton and Tilton as often as might be during their protracted evidence, is a solecism In terms. It was an accusation of another, never a con- fession of her o-vvQ. I will show you — what was supposed F MB. EVABTS. T05 to be cunning on the part of this inventor of this story,, to cover his disgrace in bringing to light the shame of his wife that he had once pardoned, to make it probable and possible that such a woman could be in such a gmlt— that he has covered it witli inconsistencies with human nature that make the whole story incredible and self-contradictory. He knew that the confessions, I say, of a wile could not be given in evidence ; he knew, too, that confidential in- tercourse between the husband and the wile (although the law of evidence were so much relaxed, as it was held by the Court, as to permit the husband to testify against the wife, or against the defendant, in the wife's cause) — that the law did not permit his statement of anything that passed between him and his wife. He knew that the only mode iu which he could bring to your notice, as having occurred between himself and his jvlfe, what it suited his purposes to propose to you as having occurred, was by weaving it into a recital or narrative that he should repeat to Mr. Beecher ; and then he thought : " Now I have an opportunity to weave the web of my metaphysical argument, that a woman that was good and pious, and that loved me, and that still loves me, could be led into what all the world considers as betrayal of the husband, prostitution of herself, de- sertion of a mother's duty to childi-en, an abandonment of everything that makes up good character and conduct and pure fame, and yet remain unsullied in her conscience and untouched in her purity. So, too, I can weave into it an explanation of how a good man and a great man can find in conscience, and in religion, and in duty, a provoc- ative and a support to a course of conduct that, in the general judgment of mankind, would be, must be con- sidered as base, as vile, as injurious to all the interests of society, as fatal to the fame of everybody and everything that the good and great man valued, as it is possible to portray even in the imagination of a poet, in the conduct of a wicked man. I thus," he said, "by the enchantment of my words and the prettiness of my sentiment will gild this awful guilt with what will make it credible, or else it never can be believed." And there he is, the victim of his own shallow philosophy. PURPOSE OF THE INTERVIEW. You will observe, gentlemen, that as we have led you up to this interview we have shown you the occa- sion of Mr. Tilton's resentments against Mr. and Mrs. Beecher's interference with his domestic peace and credit. We have shown you his deep ground of resentment against Mr. Bo wen, and his deep sense of the foUy of his attack upon Mr. Beecher, and of the ruin that had come from it, in destroying the only counterbalancing influence against Bowen's absolute condemnation that the wit of man coidd suggest : the support— the recurrence to the support of Mr. Beecher. Now, we will show you by the traits of this matter of the 30th of December, in all its THE TILTON-BEECEEB TBIAL. 1 706 stages, tliat the great effort was to find some means hy whicli tlie audacious attack of tlie 26tli upon Mr. Beecli- ■er, and its absolute recoil, could be displaced Irom Ms mind and put out ot the way. Why, gentlemen, you would suppose that the iirst feeling of Mr. Tilton, if he had suffered this injury, and Mr. Beecher was guilty, no matter whether his purpose was to ruin Mr. Beecher or whether his purpose was to coerce Mr. Beecher into cooperation for his— Mr. Tilton's— resti- tution, that he would follow up that attack, whose sup- port had not yet been disclosed, except in the conscious- ness of Mr. Beecher, if the cause existed— by the open, by the vehement, by the damnatoiy accusation, and give . the adulterer the choice, to take his ruin or become his servant; and so any man would have dealt with any man if there had been any fact upon which to rest. On the , contrary, on the showing and ad- mission of Tilton and Moulton, and more, upon the absolute and necessary conclusion from the facts that they state, the whole object of this inter- view was to undo the mischief that had been done, not ^ Beecher but to Tilton, by the attack— joint attack of Bowen and Tilton in the missive of the 26th. Before I am through with the close examination of this day's pro- ceedings, the 30th of December, I shall have occasion to point out to you, step by step, how wholly consistent with this proposition of mine is everything that occurred, how absolutely inconsistent with the theory and with the charge, and with there being any truth in the charge, as now proposed, of adultery, is everything that came out of the mouth of Mr. Moulton, out of the mouth of Mr. Tilton, out of the mouth of Mr. Beecher upon that day. ME. MOULTON'S SUMMONS TO MR. BEECHER. I take up now the evidence of Mr. Moulton as it attaches itself to th3 preliminary walk from Mr. Beecher's house to Mr. Moulton's, where Mr. Beecher was to expect to meet Mr, Tilton. He says to Mr. Beecher, in the house of the latter : " Mr. Theodore Tilton is at my house and wishes to see you." The answer of Mr. Beecher is perfectly natural and un- concerned : "This is Friday night ; this is prayer-meeting night ; I cannot go to see him." "Well," I said, "he wants to see you with regard to your relations with his family and with regard to the let- ter that he has sent to you through Mi-. Bowen." Well, Mr. Beecher knew perfectly well that his rela- tions to Mr. Tilton's family, in those terrible scenes in which he had been engaged by Mrs. Tilton's appeal, a fortnight before, and in the deliberations and in the ad- vice, and in the fact that Mrs. Tilton had gone back and doubtless had conveyed to hes husband everything that had occurred on Mrs. TUton's part, and on his, and that In this patched-up amity between them they were per- haps, neither of them, certainly not Mr. Tilton, dis- posed to look withec[uanimity and patience upon this inte^ ventionof Mr. and Mrs. Beecher in their domestic affairs- he knew perfectly well that there was a just right of Mr. Tilton to desire to speak to him concerning those aflairs. He knew, also, that Mr. TUton ha'd sent him that letter on the 26th, and he knew that Tilton, if there was any rea- son for sending that letter, which had not shown itself, certainly, in any consciousness as betrayed by riv.Beecher, might very well want to eay something about that ; in other words, Mr. Beecher saw and knew that on these two points of his and his wife's intervention in the domestic affairs upon the invitation of Mrs. Tilton and Mrs. Tilton's mother, of this moody, passionate, willful, 'capricious man, ]VIi\ Tilton, and the strange attack followed by the strange (in connection with that attack), interview with Mr. Bowen and the ruin of Mr. Tilton in his relation to his employer, his employment, and his livelihood, which Mr. Bowen had announced to him (Mr. Beecher)— he knew that the situation in which Mr. Tilton and his family found themselves was grave, was serious, was calamitous. And when Mr. Moulton said to him, ".These are the two topics on which Mr. Tilton wishes to see you," Mr. Beecher, with that sensitiveness of sympathy and that profuseness of magnanimity, saw at once that it was his duty promptly to accede to this not unreasonable ap- pointment. New, look at it, " He wants to see you"— these are the first words of JMr. Moulton—" in regard to your relations with his family, and with regard to the letter that he has sent to you through Mr. Bowen." Now, leaving out all irrelevant matter, you wUl see how Moul- ton was in the common purpose of inflaming Mr. Beecher against Mr. Bowen, and attracting him to friendship for Mr. Tilton. And we walked along together and I told him what Mr, Bowen had said to Mr. Tilton concerning his (Beecher's) adultery. I told him that Mr. Bowen had charged him with adulteries, in the presence of Mi". Tilton and Oliver Johnson. Now, did that look like an honest interview between an accusing husband and a guilty paramour concerning Mrs. Tilton's guilt and concerning Mr. Beecher's injury to Mr. Tilton, and as a proper introduction to the sentimenta, the purposes in that interview that must have influenced Mr. Tilton, unless he was either more or less than mau ! Oh, no, this confidential friend wanted to propitiate the mind of Mr. Beecher in advance to the friendship that Mr. Tilton needed from him, by showing him how wicked Mr. Bowen had been, and how that letter of the 26t'i, which Mr. Moulton had told him was the rea» son of the interview, had proceeded from Bowen's wicked, unrestrained imputation against him— Mr. Beecher— an<" that what that letter meant " for reasons best known to yourself "—oh I "well known to yourself" meant the consciousness of the adulteries that Mr. Bowen had treasured up and had infused into Mr. Tilton, animating his zeal for public morality and his duty for purity in the HonselioMs of Brooklrn. Mr. Moultou weighs liis Tvords and. chooses his topics for the object. Xow, Mi-. Beecher said that was singular ; when Bowen brought to him that letter he pledged his friendship to him. Well, what that waS) you have seen. Bowen said he came as a friend and continued a friend. He did not inform him that he had told Tilton any such thing. No, he had stuck the letter together so that Mr. Beecher should not even know that he knew what was in that, and he told him furthermore now, look at how these traits show there was no firuilt in Mr. Beecher's mind, no accountability, no fear of his resentments on any other grounds than these : " And he told bim furthermore that lie had sympathized with Mr. Bowen in the stories told him against TUton ; that Mr. Boweu told him some stories against 3Ir. Tilton and that he had sympathized with them." Xow, those are the topics, those are the in- terests in Mr. Moulton's mind, those are the thoughts in Mr. Beecher's mind— "Tilton finds that Bowen has been using that Interview with me contrary to what was the declared purpose and confederation between Bowen and Tilton, and I find— I, Beecher, find, from this gentleman's statement, that Bowen's adiUteries— that Boweu's slan- ders, for which I hare the utmost contempt, as I have trampled them imder my feet for years— that those hare been inspired into this yoimg man's miad and he. In his extremity, has been made the tool of Bowen, and Bowen sent that blow and the recoil has killed Tilcon." Xow, that is the way they came together. Out of the fullness of the heart the mouth speaketh, even when the heart is smaU. and the mouth is large, as iu Moulton's case. [Laughter.] Now, tliat is all on the topics that ^ere to be the subject of consideration. There was something said about the weather, and an avowal by 3Ir. Moulton that he was not a Christian, which was uncalled for imder the circumstances. He was not pushed into it as St. Peter was when he stood before the fire and warmed Ms hands. It was a voluntary avowal, ta a Christian city, that he was not a Christian and was a heathen. But thinking that that alone would not recommend him to a Christian minister, he said : " Now, as the best pledge of any friendship I can frame and propose to you, I will show you how a heathen can serve you." And whatever else may be said, and proved, and charged about Moulton's inconsistencies and his treachery, he has never been un- faithful to that pledge ; lie has shown you how a heathen can serve a Christian minister. But we know that, fi-om the time of the Apostles, when they shot and burned them over the fire, and imprisoned them in dimgeons, and Tortured them in boUing lead— we know how the heathen liked to serve Christian ministers, and Moulton told this man that he would show him how he would serve 7m». [Laughter.] And perhaps Mr. Beecher has found out. You have, at any rate. 3Y ME. ETAETS. 707 ME. BEECHER FISSl AXXIOUS TO KXOW WHAT BOWEN HAD SAID. Now we get to the liouse, and tlie husband is before the seducer and the paramour. Now we have a narrative uninterrupted that fills about three columns, I should think, of a newspaper, and it is a full rationale of this case as propounded by Mr. Tilton, intended to in- troduce what he proposes to your common sense as an actual interview between himself and his wife, and an actual interview between himself and the paramour. And you will see whether you think that it will stand the test of common sense and of common decency in respect to either. But you will see now how he betrays himself. What he wanted, what was uppermost, what was the ob- ject, was to get out of the terror and the destruction of ^Ix. Beecher's resentment against him for that letter. And so, forgetting all Ms own wrongs, forgetting the tor- tures and disgraces, and pity for Ms wife, and pity for Ms children, and all the flood of passions, good and bad, that overflow and boll over in a man the first time he meets the adulterer that has ruined everything that is dear to Mm, he begi* by going at what Moulton had gone at — this letter, and Bowen's accusations of Mr. Beecher. Now, he says, to begin with, and to be carried along, I suppose, with Ms narrative, " I cannot undertake to re- peat accurately, that is to say, I wiU not attempt to give the words, except at certain points, because what was said was mostly said by me, and I have no special gift at recalling words." Then he goes on and gives you, I say, a narrative, three columns of a newspaper. *' I can better call what he said than what I said." Well, I should think so, because he says INIr. Beecher did not say anything. No doubt, you can better remember what a man said when he said nothing than what another man said wben he talked half an hour. "I began in tMs way— I am entirely accurate as to the first words spoken, and they were these." Now we have a start-off. between an infuriated husband and a guilty paramour, each knowing the tinith about the other. "I said: 'I presume, Sir, that jiou received from me a few days ago, through Mr. Bc^en, a letter demanding your retii'ement from your pulxjit, and from the City of Brooklyn?' He said: *Idid.' I then said to Mm, ' I have called you here to-nigM in order to say to you that you may consider that letter unwritten, unsent, blotted out, no longer in existence.'" And on Mi*. Til- ton's cross-examination I draw from him that that was the absolute purpose, the perfect desire to get it possible as between him and Mr. Beecher in regard to Mr. Beecher's feelings toward Mm, as if that wicked and impudent letter had never been written, j Beecher's friendliness to him was what he j was aiming at, and did aim at all tMough 1 that week, and on his own showing what a strange 708 THE TILTON-HEECEMJE TEIAL. position, if lie liad the least idea of these relations between Mr. Beecher and liis wife that he now parades. His position would he this : " I wanted to he sure of Mr. Beecher's feelings toward me. I tnew he loved my wife, hut I did n't know how he felt toward me." [Laughter.] And he meant to find out. " * I thank you,' he said. I re- plied : ' Your thanks should not go to me, hut to Eliza- heth. It is in her behalf that I hold this interview, and whatever I shall say here, or in consequence of this meeting, is, not for your sake, nor for my sake, but for her sake.' I then asked him whether Mr. Moulton had shown to him a statement which Elizabeth had written. * * * He said that Mr. Moulton had shown him no statement. I then said, * Do you not, then, understand the object of this interview ?' " Well, he ought to by this time, because Mr. Tilton had told him. " ' I have called you here to-night in order to say to you that I want that let- ter I sent to you blotted out.' * I do,' said he, in general terms." Those were the general terms that Moulton had expressed to him— it was about his relations to his fam- ily, and about that letter. ' I then replied, ' you should understand it more specifically.' " Now, look at the cool way in which this rhetorician opens the deepest passions and resentments of human nature. " You should under- stand it more specifically. I will read to you a statement whi«h Elizabeth has made. Mr. Moulton has the original ; I have a copy; I will read to you the copy." Now, Mr. Beecher knew that he was an adulterer if there had been any adultery, and that Mrs. Tilton was the partoer in his guilt, and that she had made a statement ; and that this letter and the troubles in his family that ]VIr. Moulton had spoken of as calling for this interview with Mr. Tilton, were of that gi-ave matter; didn't he? Didn't he know it then, if there was anything? You must judge. I tell you he did. If there was any fact, he knew it. If there had been a disclosure, he knew it. If Mrs. Tilton had accused him, he knew it. If Mr. Tilton had a charge of those facts, he knew it; and he knew if he had any charge, if those facts were true, it was of these facts» Now, see how the man meets it. He said, cool as a cucumber about this statement, while Mr. Tilton " was searching for the copy which I had made of Mrs. Tilton's paper, he said to me : ' Before reading that, Theodore, I wish you would tell me what Bo wen has been saying against me.' " Well, now, between this lion of a husband and this con- sciously guilty man, could there be anything more infi- nitely ludicrous than this ? " You ought to hear Eliza- beth's statement ; I will search for that ;" and there was some delay. Mr. Beecher says : " Well, Theodore, before you read that I wish you would tell me what Bowen has been saying against me." WeU, how did the husband meet it ? How did he meet it ? Why, he says : " I re- plied to him that I had not summoned him to the inter- view for the purpose of discussing with him Mr. Bo wen's affaire, but that he should go to Mr. Bowen himself. Nevertheless, as he asked me tli© question, I would say that Mr. Bowen in a& interview with me on the preceding day, had made a statement that^" now, we have got it as in quotation marks— that— see, Tilton wanted to get in as early as possible what Bowen had had to do with that letter, that it was Bowen's calumnies, if they were calumnies, that were at the bottom of it— "you have been guilty of adulteries with numerous members of your congregation ever since your Indianapolis pastorate, all down through these twenty-five years ; that you are not a safe man to dwell in a Christian community ; that he knows numer- ous cases where you have shipwrecked the happiness of Christian homes ; that he has determined you shall no longer edit The Christian Union." You see Bowen, with his zeal for morality and religion, and exposing the turpitude of this Christian man that was thus ravaging the sheepfolds of Brooklyii, and had been for 25 years, to Bowen's knowledge! WeU, didn't that rather make him an accessory before the fact to the ruin of aU these Brooklyn people ? Mr. Bowen, even, with that Christian indignation, had brought it to the point that it was determined " you shall no longer edit The Christian Union." That is the first thing; "that you shaU no longer speak m Plymouth Church ; and he says distinctly"— Now, you have the moral sentiments from Bowen ; he don't mean to be mistaken—" that you are a wolf in the fold, and that you should be extirpated." Well, now, he is very bold about Bowen's feelings toward Beecher. He didn't wish to ameliorate Beecher's feel- ings toward Bowen ; that is plain. He didn't take the means of finding out or securing friendliness on Beecher's part to Bowen. Oh, no. Trath» truth, governs this part of the conference. " Mr. Beecher said "—and whenever Mr. Beecher says anything, you will see that it is perfectly natural for an honest man that knew what his own character and con- duct was, and cared not for the malign er—" Mr. Beecher said it was a matter of amazement to him that Mr. Bowen should have so spoken ; 'for' said he, ' when Mr. Bowen delivered to me youi- letter demanding my retirement from the pulpit, he appeared to be friendly, and he oftered me his friendly services in the matter.' " AVell, if Tilton had had any doubt about the trick that Bowen had played him at that interview, he now had his mind disabused of that doubt. I then said to him that I had joined with Mr. Bowen at the beginning of the week in making that demand upon him to retire ; that I had written that letter at Mr. Bow- en's suggestion ; that Mr. Bowen had requested that such a letter should be written, and had said that the reason why he could not write it himself was that in the preceed- ing February— that is February, 1870— he, Bowen, had had a reconciliation with Mr. Beecher, and that Mr. Beecher had begged his pardon, and had bent himself on the floor and wept, and Mr. Bowen had freely gi-anted him forgiveness for the crimes he had committed. Good heavens 1 How came Mr. Bowen to be gifted SUMMING UP BI MR. EYAEIS, 709 ■witli the power of atosolution for sin i AU these adul- teries wliich Mr. Beecher had been committing for 25 years, ravaging the flocks, and was still perpetrating, all forgiven 1 That he, Bowen, had freely granted him forgiveness for the crimes he had committed, and Mr. Bowen said, in view of having granted that forgiveness, he could not Initiate proceedings against Mi". Beecher, hut if I would initiate them hy sending such a challenge, he (Bowen) would sustain that demand, and in the interest of moral- ity and religion expel Mr. Beecher from his pulpit and from the city. That he furthermore had said that he, Bowen, had it in his power at any time to drive Beecher out of Brooklyn within twelve hours. Well, Mr. Beecher didn't trouble himselC at all about the substance of these accusations. His reply now, as before, was of amazement that a man could talk in that fashion. Mr. Beecher again spoke of his astonishment that Mr. Bowen should have said such things to him— or to me [Mr. Tilton corrects himself]— on Monday, and then have expressed himself in a friendly way, as Mr. Beecher de- scribed it, on the occasion of delivering the letter. Well, these twenty-five years of adulteries, drowned out by the pardon of Bowen, then passed very much out of consideration and don't seem to have troubled any- body's mind since. It has been printed in the papers in the form of a letter from Mr. Tilton to Bowen. You don't And anything printed from Bowen— there is nothing from Bowen that does not come through Tilton. People have read it and yet the wolf goes on, not in sheep's clothing any more, of course, because the sheep's clothing has been stripped off, but he goes on, not only with absolu- tion for the past, from Bowen. but indulgence for the future from the same great ecclesiastical authority. [Laughter.] ^ THE TALK ABOUT THE ALLEGED CONFES- SION. How, after tliis cool, quiet introduction which Mr. Tilton flattered himself was so artful for the purpose which he had, of throwing on Bowen all that letter, and inflaming Beecher against Bowen and drawing him to- wards himself, he then goes on and gives the reason he liad come to this interview with Mr. Beecher. Now, mark how he confirms otir statement and belies his own, as to what passed between him and his wife during this week. I then told Mr. Beecher that after I had had this inter- view with Mr. Bowen I had narrated the substance of it to my wife ; that my wife was ill, and that this intelli- gence filled her with profound distress ; and that she had instantly said to me that it was a violation of my pledge and promise to her, made in the preceding Summer, that I would never do the Kev. Hemy Ward Beecher any harm, or ever assist in any exposure of his secret to the public. Well, I think Mr. Tilton's conduct was rather open to that criticism of his wife, if he had pledged himself that he would n't do any harm to Henry Ward Beecher. He had told you that his animatiag motive when he wrote that letter to Mr. Beecher was to strike him co the heart, and to drive him out of Brooklyn in twelve hours, and he thought he would do it by that letter ; so it looks a little as if he had violated a pledge, if he had made one. So there is nothing that these people do at any step that they do not have to avow is infamous in motive and in its violation of every pledge. She said to me : "If Mr. Bowen makes a war upoi Mr. Beecher, and if you" Now, Bowen had not shown any disposition to makft war upon Mr. Beecher except so far as Tilton would carry it on " and if you join in it, and if Mr. Beecher retires from his pulpit, as he must imder such an attack"--that is the poor wife's notion, if under that attack of Bowen of these adulteries of 25 years he retires, as he must—" every- body wOl, sooner or later, know the reason why, and that," said she to me, "will be to my shame, and to the children's shame, and I cannot endure it." Well, now, how do you suppose that topic, thus brought up suddenly, with all its horrid meaning to a guilty soul, was received by Mr. Beecher, and how was it treated by Tilton? I am taking Mr. Tilton's story; he cannot com- plain of that. When he had said this, made this incidental reference, " Mr. Beecher then asked me what I meant by speaking in that way of Elizabeth and her shame.'* " Why, what is all this ? Your wifel vour children? I understand thus far : you have been talking about that letter and about Bowen' s ' adulteries ;' you told me that you were fumbling for a statement that you were going to read to me, but now you have said something about Elizabeth and * her shame ;' now that, that that, is some- thing that I would like to hear about. What is that ?" " He asked me," says Mr. Tilton, " what I meant by speaking in that way of Elizabeth and her shame; sol then read to him a copy of Mrs. Tilton's confession, a copy which I had made in the early part of the evening; the original of which was in Mr. Moulton's possession." Well, I objected and asked for the paper. He said the paper was destroyed. "When was it destroyed?" "It was destroyed by Mrs. Tilton's own hand." "The copy you took, T mean?" "The copy was destroyed that evening, during the interview; the original was de- stroyed two years later by Mrs. Tilton, in my presence." "Is that the one that Mr. Moulton speaks of in his testi- mony as having been destroyed?" "Yes, Sir." Then Mr. Fullerton asks, " Destroyed immediately after the 'Tripartite Agreement' was signed?" Mr. Fullerton knew when it was destroyed. "Yes, Sir; after the 'Tripartite Agreement' was signed, at Mr. Moulton's house," that paper was destroyed. Well, he read the paper, whatever it was. He says : After I read to him, then he lifted his hand as if he were about to speak, and I said, " No, Sir ; hear me through, and speak then." 710 IHE TlLTON'BEhUniEB A DESPERATE MOVE OF MR. TILTOK'S. And then, gentlemen, we had a most extra- ordinary occurrence liere right imder the eye of the Court, and in the face of the jury. I objected, under a well settled rule of evidence, as I supposed, to allowing parties that had destroyed this vital paper, willfully, to undertake to give evidence of its contents; and the law does not allow that. The law understands that a paper must speak for Itself, and provides that people shall not he allowed to destroy it and substitute their memory or their invention. My learned friends with great ability, which, indeed, characterizes all their foren- sic interlocutory arguments— Mr. Fullerton and Mr. Beach both— argued that that rule could not apply, because the paper was destroyed with Mr. Beecher's concmrence, that night, with his concurrence, before his face, by Mr. Tilton, and the original afterward, with his concurrence. "Well, that had not been proved. I said, " It will be time enough to put upon that ground, to eet a right to give parole evidence of that paper, when you have proved Mr. Beecher's conciuTence," but they argued and argued that it was not fraudulent, and that the proof was admissible, although the destruc- tion was piirposed ; for their argument was that it was done as a deliberate act and upon the concurrent pui'- pose of ]VIr. Tilton and Mr. Beecher then, that night, and some concurrence of Mr. Beecher afterward, two years afterward, though that, of course, they had not then given any proof of. I brought the authorities and read them, that even a destruction that was not fraudulent, if It was purposed, would not permit the introduction of secondary evidence by the person who purposely destroyed the paper, because the interests of the administration of jus- tice could not be exposed to the question whether it was fraudulent or not ; but that it was only when accident or mistake had caused the destruction of a paper, that parole evidence or secondary evidence of its contents could be given; and would you belies' e it, when that discussion was over and this paper had not been permitted to be de' tailed by his tongue, and he had heard this argument of his counsel that it had been purposely destroyed with Mr. Beecher's concurrence, and therefore the testi- mony ought to be allowed, and that the books did not allow that distinction, but allowed the distlbction of the accidental destrtiction— would you believe it the next moment that he opened his mouth on the witness-stand, after this discussion, he threw his counsel bodily overboard before your eyes, crushed their argument that the destruction was puiposed and with Mr. Beecher 8 concurrence, and said that in the heat of his presentation of this case to Mr. Beecher he had in- advertently picked this paper to pieces, and found he had destroyad this copy of the confession! Now, gentlemen, that was done before your eyes, un- der the ready wit and the short reckoning of Mr. Tilton, that if he did put his counsel to the open shame of argu- TBIAL. mg, upon his previous instructions, that the paper had been destroyed purposely and with Mr. Beecher's con- currence, he at least would help his cause, as he thought,, and invent an inadvertent, mistaken, unintentional de- struction. Well, it did not answer the purpose. It didn't remove my objection, because the original had been de- stroyed ; and it did not satisf^^ the ground of his Honor's exclusion, which was on another point. So much for that wriggling of a witness and a party out of one scrape into another. HOW THE ALLEGED CONFESSION WAS MADE. Now, gentlemen, we come to this plaintiff's (the husband of an adulteress) narrative to the para- mour of his wife of the wife's statement to him. Mrs. Tilton's confessions are not permitted to be given in evidence and have not been given in evidence in this cause from anybody, Mr. Tilton was not allowed to give them because it would be infidelity to confidential com- munications from a wife. Nobody else has given them ; nobody else could be allowed to give them; and yet you have a long narrative that, at first view, looks as if it was a statement by a witness of what she confessed ; but you will see at once the difference, when it is, only what he told Mr. Beecher, di& what she had con- fessed, that has been permitted to be given in evidence, not tending to prove that it was true, not permitted to have that influ.euce on your minds, because it would be equally a part of his statement to the paramour, whether it were true or not, wouldn't it ? It would be an enginery to probe the paramour's conscience, and to alarm him into an admission, whether it was true or not. If a husband, suspecting a paramour, seizes him unawares, and invents a confession of his wife and puts it to the paramour to see how the paramour will deal with it, why, he uses a weapon the effect of which on the paramour will be the same whether his wife has confessed or not, if the paramour knows it is true. Many a case of that kind is found in the books. The force of all this permitted testimony of what passed be- tween Mr. Beecher and Mr. Tilton is to bind Mr. Beecher by what he does ; not to prove the truth of the state- ments that are made to him \)j Mr. Tilton. And you will see at once the difference. I could cross-examine IVIr. Tilton as to whether or no he told Mr. Beecher aU this^ rigmarole, if I had thought it worth my wiiile, but I could not cross-examine him as to what passed between him and his wife. I could not explore the secrets of that in- terview and draw out from his unwilling mouth, per- haps, against his will, the truth of what passed between himself and his wife ; because he had not been allowed to swear what passed between himself and his wife, and I could not occupy a field by cross-examination that had not been opened. The same objection to making a husband, or allowmg a husband, to reveal confidential passages between himself and his wife, would have ©x- SCMMISG UF BT Jd£. ETAETS. 711 eluded mj" cross-examination as to the actual occurrence betrween tliem, just as mucli as it excluded Ms direct tes- tlmonr. Therefore, vou Tvill see that this matter of ■u-hatever passed on that July toetween Mr. Tilton and his -wife remains Tvholly unexplored; no afarmative direct evidence has been permitted to he given of it ; my side of this ease has heen excluded from prohing, from testing, from convicting of falsehood and of folly, the story of any such interview. But as a part of this intervleTv he- tween the husband and the paramour, this becomes a subject to be commented upon, and it is invaluable. This is the husband's reproduction of what he alleges Avas an interview between his guilty wife and ^mself on the occasion of his becoming first informed of the guUt of the wife, and when he had had no suspicion up to the moment of the interview. Xow, you would suppose that a woman that had made up her mind to tell her husband of such a course of life as this woman is said to have admitted to her htisband wotild have had some emotion ; there would have been a sob or a tear ; there would have been a justification, a depreca- tion, a subjection to his mercy on the part of the wife ru lier own behalf. Can you figure to yourself, in our circle of society and on the level of these people, saying nothing of the particular delicate traits of Mrs. Tilton, her severe notions about the least approach of unchastity, her severe condemnation of all iromorality in others, her hatred, her abhorrence of any approach or exhibition of the faUen condition of woman, her sister, which excited such feelingin her that, while all other people were patient and courteous and embraced with Msses, Mrs. Woodhull in her presence, as Mr. Tilton tells you himself, whenever his wife and Mrs. WoodhuU were iii the same room their eyes flashed lire at one another— do you suppose such a woman, that had dragged her body through the prostitution of sixteen months, and through the longer indignities of the coarse approaches of three years "before— to be sure one incredi- bility shuts out another ; the whole thilig is so iucredible that you cannot reason upon its ever having occurred, but his theory is that it had occurred— do you suppose a woman whose eyes flashed fire whenever they lit upon Mrs. Woodhull's face, could have, under the power of conscience, made a long confession of her guilt, of the facts if it was innocent adultery, of the disreputable facts that, unexplained, looked a little against a woman certainly Llaughter], and had the nar- rative begin and go on as this one doesi Ah! gentlemen, a witness that is not to be con- tradicted, when he tells this narrative can make it match, perhaps, in loords, but the folly of expecting to have it match human nature, in the judgment of men, in ihe judgment of women, in the judgment of a jury, is ut- terly incalculable and preposterous ! The idea entering Into the shallowest pate, unless it was a shallow pate in- flated by self-conceit, that he could make an interview between husband and wife, that the very stones of the street would cry out against as a libel on auman nature, a libel upon a woman that could say it, and a libel upon a man that could hear it ! Xow, see how the wife begins. Mr. Tilton says : " I told ^Ix. Beecher that in the early part of July pre vlotis to that interview [that is, July previous to this December], Mrs. Tilton had come home uneirpectedly from the country and had said to me that the object of her return was to communicate to me a secret that had been long resting upon her mind like a burden"— these are her words, figurative, you see, rhetorical — " which she wished to throw off' — cool, quiet — "that she had on several previous occasions come almost to the point of making such a statement to me" — statement ; no confession, no notion that she was going to make a con- fession, but a statement—" and once in particular while on a sick-bed, but that she had never until then, having- been restored to health" — well, she had been in health, before, and the time she most thought of it was when she was sick—" she had never until then, having been restored to health, been brought quite to the point of courage— the disclosure." Now, was there ever a cooler adulteress lying by the side of a husband ra a marriage bed, and iatroducing the shameful narratiTe that bums into the soul of a woman, and she a woman whose eyes flashed fire at the presence of impurity 1 Ah 1 Mr. Tilton, you can invent speeches for Tiltons ; you cannot invent them for women ! " That before she would announce to me what the secret was"— vousee it was not anything of hers, nor that he suspected that she had anything to do with it—" she ex- acted from me a pledge that I would do no harm to the person concerning whom the secret was to be told." A unilateral secret, obviously, for it only related to one- person; no connection with this living soul and body that lay by his side, and was talktag to him. " And, furthermore, that I would not commnnicaTe to that person that she had made such a revelation to me "' — no confession — "because, as she said, she wished to in- foi-m him of that revelation herself." Ah ! gentlemen, not much notion of confession to :Mr^ Tilton; the word didn't occur ; not much notion of con- sciousness of guilt on her part, the sin of unchastity and^ pollution of body, and you remember her letters that my learned brother exposed to you with siaeh effective dem- onstration as the anatomist exhibits over the torn frame, of a subject. And Tilton was as cool as she. " I had given to her this pledge," and that you might- not doubt how sacred it was, and solemn :— " my word of honor that I would neither disclose her secret "—that is, the secret she was going to tell—" whatever it might be,, nor would I injure the person concerning whom it was to, be told." So they keep it up, and you see, gentlemen, now we- don't need to talk about these things, the impossibility of ^ such a beginning, not in respect to the memory of words, . but in the very imperishable principles of human nature- and human character, puts to flight aU solicitude about- believing anything that comes after ; and when you have a living witness and a credible man, ^Fr. Beecher, who. 713 THE T1L10:N-BEECHEE IBIAL. tells yon that all this folly never was produced in Ms liearing, and gives you a perfectly rational explanation of wliat was said to Mm as coming from tlie wife, wMch Is perfectly consistent with this telling of the story about a third person that didn't involve the wife's character or her conduct, to wit, a withdi'awal of her affections, and, if you please, the further statement of rejected addresses —when you have a living witness that tes- tifies along the live current of human nature and human conduct, you then can understand how this witness has fixed the real traits of any communica- tion or statement as not being a confession on the part of the wife, hut an accusation of another, of being some- tMng to be told injurious to another, and not to excite animosity on the husband's part against that other, nor even to be made the subject of communication to him, "because the lady wished to be the medium of communi- cation to Mm herself. Well, now, we have got some third person, about whom something is to be told wMch has not started a tear or a sob on the part of the wife ; nor has it agitated a suspicion or a doubt on the part of the liusband. And then she goes on just as coolly; and now listen • That she then said to me that it was a secret between -herself and the Rev. Henry Ward Beecher. Well, she put in his full title, so that there might be no mistake of the person ; and, then, to guard against fur- ther misconstruction, she adds, " her pastor." Well, gen- tlemen, Mr. and Mrs. Tilton knew Mr. Beecher, and they knew he was the pastor of Plymouth Church; and when an agomzed wife, under the power of conscience, is going to tell of her seduction, of her prostitution, she would tell of it, wouldn't she ? She would humble herself in the pillows of the bed and, with sobs and tears and dishev- eled hair, tell the sad story of her shame. She would not put in " Rev. Henry Ward Beecher, my pastor," as the first thing she said on the subject. Now, see how she re- calls to Mm ; just see how she talked to Mm there that night: "That, as I was well aware," that is, that she said to him— he don't say he was aware, but she said, "Now, as you are well aware," my husband, "there had been during a long comse of years a friendsMp between herself and her pastor." She wishes to recall to his mind the general traits and features of this business and rela- tion, so that it won't seem improbable to him that she has committed adultery with a man in the moon. "TMs friendsMp, contrary to my expectation, had been," she says— well, that was fair to tM'ow that in— " had been in later years more than friendship. It had been love ; that it had been more than love." See how the climax rises with the rhetoric that belon.jrs to the passion of the heart. " That it had been sexual intimacy ; that this sexual in- timacy had begun shortly after the death of her son Paul"— well, that is a queer way of speaking of little Paul to the father—" her son Paul ; that she had been in a ten- der frame of mind coEsequent upon that bereavement." Now, you know, having got at the fact of the adultery, it is to be made reasonable by connecting it, naturally, with sentiments, and feelings, and a situation of the woman's mind that tends to adultery, of course. You must have the proximate situation to make the adultery natural ; and anybody can see that a mother, having lost a child, turns her attention to adultery, of course. Of course, we all understand that. That toeing granted, it is in vain to reason against the rest. However, she does a little more. That she had received much consolation during that shadow on our house from her pastor ; that she had made a visit to Ms house while she was still suffering from that sorrow All in the name of the dead Paul that tMs adultery is justified, and there, on the 10th of October— you see we have the date; the date is important; we must get it somewhere ; the law requires some particular time and place, and now we have got it. Only tMnk of it, of a woman under the influence of conscience, and stirred by the deepest passions of Jier sex, or of our nature, having the precision of mind equal to that of my learned brother Morris in drawing this declaration of stating ^he time and place at Mr. Beecher's house on the 10th day of October, 1868. Now, it could not have been for the pm-pose of having a suit brought, because she had exacted a pledge, and he had given it on his honor, that he would not do or say anytMng about the matter she was going to teU Mm. Still sufiering from that sorrow, and that there, on the 10th of October, 1868, she had surrendered her body to him in sexual embrace ; that she had repeated such an act on the following Saturday evening at her own resi- dence. A queer way of talking to her husband, and for fear there should be doubt, as they had moved from time to time from one house to another, she adds, " her own residence, 174 Livingston-st.; " fLaughterJ " that she had consequent upon those two occasions "—look at the rationale of it ; " consequent upon those two occasions." Not subsequent. Oh, no ! There is a logic of conneo- tion. WeU, as we have a very good maxim that it is oMy the first step that costs, I think the two steps did Justify the reasoning that the rest followed, Consequent upon those two occasions, repeated such acts at various times, at his residence and at hers, and at other places. ^ A FEAR OF ALIBIS. She does not seem to have disclosed the other places. What would her friends have given for the other places % Ah ! gentlemen, these other places I There were other places, mind you, or this was a He, and the same woman that told with such precision that it was at her residence, 174 Livingston-st., would have at least given a clew that could have been followed out to find the other places. They could have proved them if they had proof, but they had not any other proof of these places, Mr. Beecher's house, or hers, any more on this SUMMING VF BY MR. EYAETS. 713 trial than they had of the other places ; and, if they had not any proof of the other places, Mr. Tilton thought, on the whole, that there might be more danger of alibis if he had given equal precision to the other dates and the other places that the woman mentioned— that he said she mentioned. " Such act of sexual intercourse repeated." Repeated such acts. Now, she didn't wish to be mis- understood. Repeated such acts, she said ; so she re- peated such acts of sexual intercourse, continuing from the Fall of 1868 to the Spring of 1870. "That in July, 1870, she had made"— now, this is not a part of her narrative, but it comes in here— "that in July, 1870, she made a confession to me in detail of those acts ; that she had given to me also, during that recital, many of the reasonings by her pastor communicated to her to change what were her original scruples against such a sexual intimacy." THE AEGOIEXTS BEFORE WHICH IT IS ALLEGED MES. TILTON FELL. Only tMnk of it. A woman 35 years old that Tiad had six children, one of them lately dead, that speaks of a woman's feeling about chastity, a wife's feeling about chastity, a mother's feeling about chastity, and the pollu- tion of the marriage bed in her own house, which the French law in terms says justifies the husband in slaying Tier on the spot— and they are not supposed to be a sensi- tive people on these matters— this woman speaks of that as her original scr«.ples against sexual intercourse. Good heavens ! We shall have to ask the maidens when they stand at the foot of the altar whether they have any scruples about sexual intimacy with other men than their husbands, and our wives— we want to know how they feel on this delicate question of casuistry, this domestic question, about which opinions differ, that has so much to be said on one side and the other for it, to know what their scruples were. Ah, these insidious Christian instructions of Mr. Beecher that removed, her scruples about prostitution and adultery and bastardy in her family. Ah, he must have preached with a power to conscience and intelligence that he has not exhibited of Jate if he could reduce this natiu-e of woman to scruples, and then puff them away with the breath of his mouth. Now, I thought that it was a little steep, to use a slang expression, when she said that she told him that her pastor, for reasons, had induced her to change her orig- tual scruples. I brokte in there— I could not stand it : Mr. Evarts— Mr. Tilton, do I understand that this is what you said to Mr. Beecher 1 I began to see that I had got him in a grasp that he never could escape from, but that I must hold him by a new twist of the cord that he needn't jump from it. He answered : "Precisely, Sir." Well, pretty good for a sin- gle word. Well, now, he goes on and gives the reasons, and yon see they carry conviction to every pure-minded woman: ** That she had in the early stages of their friendship"— now, the woman was not unwarned—" been greatly dis- tressed at rumors concerning INIr. Beecher's moral integ- rity." Well, now, every rumor has been traced to Mr. Tilton thus far. Mr, Tilton repeats to Mr. Bowen ; Mr. TUton writes to Mr. Bowen what he says Mr. Bowen said to him, but Mr. Bowen has never come out and said he said it, but you will see how the dreadful alternative that I put to this man of knowledge about Mr. Beecher, If there was any truth of any kind, comes out of his own fig- ment, to be sure, but of his own necessity to make, by a figment, a storv that he thinks credible." " That she had in the early stages of their friendship"— Mr. Beecher's and her own — " been greatly distressed at rumors concerning ]Mr. Beecher's moral integrity." Why should she have been distressed about a matter that, as it turned out, was only a scruple of an over- scrupulous woman, and that when the vile pollution had been perpetrated and continued had not touched her yet, and for a year afterward, with the notion that she had violated her marriage vows. Ah, this is too extraordi- nary. " She was distressed at rumors concerning Mr. Beecher's moral integrity ; that she wished to show to liim" —now comes the justification— comes this shrewd, as this party thinks it, invention of his to make you swallow this adultery as not involving any want of innocence on the part of his wife. How noble her motives now, having heard and been distressed by rumors of Mr. Beecher's immoralities with women ! She wished to show to him that there was a woman who was superior to the silly flatteries with which many ladies in his congregation had courted his society. His society ! What does society mean in that connec- tion, of his known immoralities and the silly women — the rumors of his immoralities and the silly women that had courted his society 1 "That she wished to demonstrate the honor and the dignity of her sex; that she had done so in her own thought, until finally she had been persuaded by him, that as their love was proper and not wrong" — well, that seemed to be taken for granted, that the love of a married man with a married woman, the wife of another man, that that was all right, and, "therefore it followed that any expression of that love, whether by the shake of the hand, or the kiss of the lips, or even bodily inter- coui'se, since it all was the expression of that which in itself was not wrong, therefore that bodily intercourse was not wrong." Well, now, that involved sentence of metaphysical reasoning is almost as long and faulty as some that the newspapers impute to me in my argument. How natural for a woman lying in bed by her husband, and talking about her own adultery to a man who had never heard of it before. How interesting it must have been that, if he had got to accept the fact, at least his reason was not going to be imposed upon if he should understand how it happened. The Court here took a recess until 2 o'clock. 714 IHB TILTON-BEECUEE TRIAL, AFTERNOON SESSION. The Court met at 2 p. m., pursuant to ad- {ourmnent. Mr. Evarts— She proceeded with her exegesis of this adultery after saying that step by step, a shake of the hand, a kiss of the lips, or bodily intercourse, since it was the expression of that which in itself was not wrong, therefore that bodily intercourse was not wrong. That she had said to me that Mr. Beecher had professed to her a greater love than he had ever shown to any woman in his life ; that she and I both knew that for years his home had not been a happy one ; that his wife had not been a satisfactory wife to him ; that she wished —that he wished— [that is a correction ; she " does not belong there.]— that he wished to find in her (Elizabeth) the consolation, the help to his mind, atid the solace of life which had been denied to him by the unfortunate marriage at home. Well, what becomes of the 25 years of adultery and debauchery that had run on, from Indianapolis down ? On this story, this was the first real resort to happiness in marriage which Mr. Beecher had felt at liberty to as- sume. Late in life, at the age of 56, after he had had nine children, and while he had some six or eight grand- children, and had fair daughters-in-law about him, and a wife that he had been faithful to from the time they were both 17 years of age, he thought that his duty required him now to find consolation, reward for a virtuous life, help to his mind— for his mind and his soul were devoted to the service of God, and anything that could amplify the great powers for truth and Christianity that he was endowed with was of course a duty— and the solace of life which had been denied to him by the imf ortunate marriage at home, a marriage now, at this date, of a con- tinuance, I suppose, of some 30 years. Mr. Porter— Thirty-five. Mr. Evarts— Thirty-five years. Well, what a revela- tion it was to him ; what a revelation to Mr. Beecher, at the age of 56, that this improsperous, unfrmtful mar- riage Of his had been a penance and a drain upon his powers, and that now his duty required him to find that support for his future labors that should continue his beneficence in this world ! Now, we have the narrative of the wife continued : That he had made these arguments to her during the early years of their friendship. Now, the early years of their friendship carried them back to 1863 and 1864, and 1865. He began at the be- ginning. But these convincing arguments, (that when stie had really relished their true moral force and re- ligious beauty, carried away all scruples— and I shall read to you from this same husband, plaintiff, witness's mouth— in the retrospect seemed to her to make it all for the glory of God) she had not taken without inspection and without resistance. That he had made these arguments to her during the early years of their friendship, and she had steadfastly resisted ; that he had many times fondled her to the de- gree that it required on her part almost bodily resistance to be rid of him. Now, here was a woman that did not believe in these arguments, at this time, of the early years. She had steadfastly resisted. Her mind had not been over- powered, nor her conscience corrupted, nor her Instincts of chastity deadened ; but yet through this period he had fondled her, and pressed his coarse, polluted touch to the point that it required almost violence to resist. Now, this is the narrative, this is the course ; and this was as coolly delivered by this chaste woman, and as coolly re- ceived by this husband, as if the narrative had been about a persistent search for any of the trinkets or gew- gaws of dress, through the shops of the city. Now, gentlemen, what sort of a figure, in any rank of life, would a woman make in setting up her chastity as having been overpowered byviolence in the final consummation of ruin by force, that began by telling the Court and jury that she, through a series of years, had been fondled so that it re- quired bodily resistance to preserve her virtue % I do not think that we lawyers, or you jurymen, or the Judge or bench, would listen long to a story of violent consum- mation against chastity, thac had been preceded by years of violent fondling; and yet this rhetorician thinks that he has put a white robe of chastity over his wife by put- ting such a narrative into her mouth, that he has covered Mr. Beecher with the double guilt of paramour and mis- tress, and made his wife a saint. Now, gentlemen, this plaintiff was a little unlucky in his assortment of the two occasions on which this pros- titution of his wife occurred, on the theory of absence of desire, and absence of consent, and absence of coopera- tion, or enjoyment in the guilt, in putting the first sur- render, not at her own house, but at Mr. Beecher's. How did the woman get there 1 Was she carried in her sleep from 174 Livingston-st. to 124 Columbia HightsI She was not in the habit of going there. There is not any evidence that she was there on the 10th. There was no reason for her going ; and yet this sDly reasoner, her husband, has made an un consenting, reluctant, submis- sive prostitution, attended by the wife's resort to the un- accustomed place of meeting. You can judge as well as I whether that comports very weU with the theory upon which this prostitution of the wife is presented. But that theory is the only theor;^, that statement if the only form and manner and circumstance of this adultery that is pretended by the plaintiff. And now. " That after her final surrender during the period of her sorrow,"— now this is all over again ; this is what she told her husband—" during the period of her sorrow, in October, 1868, he had then many times solicited her, when she had refused ; that the occasions of her yielding her body to him had not been numerous, but that hli solicitations had been frequent and urgent, and some- times almost violent.'* suMJiiya UP B And so -^e have tills rene-vred condition of a Avoman ▼ho Aras pure of heart, "utterlv free from anr lo^ or de- grading impulses, and tliat put lier fault. If at all, upon being oTerpo-srered by piety and duty to the Church and to God. telling you this continued story, after the first sacrifice, that thi s resistance of her instincrs, resistance of her conscience, resistance of her woman's nature, con- tinued, and was constantly overcome, or nearly over- come, but sometimes triumphed ; and aU this goes on, and not a suggestion or a complaint of any kind, of any degree, Well, there vraa time for meditation, wasn't there \ She was shut up in her own house with these lovely children of hers, and watching over them and their unfolding beauty and purity. She was taking care of these redeemed women of the Bethel, and saw the misery and wretchedness that this debauchery had wrought in their hearts, their f amlLies, their souls ; and that religion, the Christian religion, was the only redeeming influence, and that it was adequate; and yet, without having any of the evil impulses of the heart, or any of the carnal urgency of the flesh, she carried on this concurrent stream of pros- titution of her body to a hypocritical religious teacher I This is the way Mr. Tilton makes adultery easy ; this is the shape in which he makes it pure; this is the verbal protection against the sin and stain and ruin of those acts which strike at the very heart of the female character. HOW IT IS ALLE&ED MES. TILTOX AWOKE TO HEE Siy. Now, wliere did her conscience wake np ? It never waked, up on the subject of adultery, not cer- tainly for a year afterward, as I shall show you : That she made this confession to me j and that is the first time that the word occiu's] because the sense of de- ceitfulness in her mind was a pain to her conscience. Well, she had a conscience, a seusitive conscience. She saw that somehow or other the thing must be wrong. She knew the seventh commandment, which forbade adultery. She knew the tenth commandment, which for- bade a man to covet another man's wife ; and that would &eem to be plain, but that didn't touch her ; no, no, nothing in that; but there was a sort of concealment about this that patae-d her conscience. That she had gone away from heme in the Spring [she repeated all this to her husband] parting from me under a cloud, as I knew. That she said. He -wanted all Idiese things to be in evi- dence ; there was no way of getting them in evidenc-e — his own views of how he would like to have this thing displayed before the public, " and that I had. written to her "—now listen to this ; she tells her husband all these things, that he knew— And that I had written to her in her absence a letter, Baying that unless she told me the truth, that if she ever lied to me as she had done in reference to a few minor matters, that I never again could hold her tu any respect. r ME. BY ARTS. 715 I Well, now, what an extraordinary thing. After the j day and the night that the woman was talking to htm he 1 had never had the least suspicion of anything wrong about it— nothing; yet she was moved in conscience by a feeling that there was a little duplicity, a little double- dealing ia having two bed-fellows at the same time; tliat to a mind sensitive to truth and openness, produced a sense of uneasiness ; and besides he says : " That I had written to her in her absence a letter, sayiag that unless she told me the truth, that if she ever lied to me"— this is his own language, in his own letter, to his own wife, if there is any word of truth in this, that she repeats to him— "If she ever lied to me as she had done in reference to a few minor matters, that I never could hold her in any respect." Ah, gentlemen, what was that letter ] What is this mode of an ideal happiness undisturbed up to July, when this statement was made between this man and his wife, in which he had wiltten her a letter that if she lied to him as she had in a few minor matters, he would not hold her in respect? He thinks it a shame that the obligation of forensic duty should regnire us to point out false- hoods, and describe them as falsehoods, but he thinks it consistent with an ideally happy home that a husband should write to a wife: " If you ever lie to me as you have done, I won't hold you in respect." Ah, gentlemen, long stories require considerable power of reasoning as well as memory when they are all falsehoods, and every now and then there i>eeps out a self-conviction of the utter incongruity with the whole fabric of his case, of his own little touches of nature and woman's nature, as he thinks it, that he throws in. Xow, what an admirable character for a novel this would make. How all the good people of Europe and America, how all Christendom (to use the plaintiff's favorite phrase) would admire the penetration that had seen further into human nattire than the in^iration which had made the Savior say, " All these evil things come out of the heart;" that had spoken with greater authority in regard to sin than the great autlior of tho rules of human conduct proclaimedfromMt. Sinai; who had heedlessly, rashly, foolishly undertaken to say, "Thou Shalt not commit adultery," when he had made it evident that piety and duty left the he-art and soul imsullied un- der the pollution of the body. But still lying; that, that was wrong. That letter had rankled in her thought and heart. But for that letter this poor woman never -would have awakened this side of the judgment seat to a knowl- edge of the sin of adult-cry. That had rankled in her thought that she felt that she never could look me honestly in the face again until ah© had made a full and free confession ; that she had come down from the country on purpose to make it. And now I suppose there is a little break, and the wife stops here, though this witness don't make any break, and he goes on, then, to describe to Mr. Beecher : And that she had made with great modesty and dell- caoy and womanly feeling, without giving evidence that 716 TEE TILION-BB hJCHEB TRIAL. tlie great fact wWch slie confessed was wrons, but tliat tlie "wrong whicli she wisTied to tlirow from tier mind was mainly the necessary deceit with whicli she had hitherto concealed it from her husband. Now, the hustoand says, referring to his statement to Mr. Beecher : It was a long story. I told it from a little memoran- dum which I had made of dates and matters, extracts from letters— a little memorandum made on the hack of the white envelope unaddressed in which Mrs. Tiltun's statement that evening had been lodged ; I had made the memorandum of dates and of letters. Well, he don't seem to have referred to any dates or letters, and he had made that memorandum, not with any letters or facts or records before him, but in the few minutes that elapsed after Mr. Moulton left the house to go for Mr. Beecher until he got back. In other words he was going to deliver an address, an address to Mr. Henry Ward Beecher, and he reduced to the form of notes the heads and points of his argument. Well, Mr. Moulton, the sexton, was sent to bring in his audience. What a silly story ! Now, look at it— this narrative of sixteen months adultery, of three years seduction, of all this fondling and resistance and final prostitution. " She had stated with great modesty and delicacy and womanly feeling." Well, there was no emotion about it ; that is plain. She had played this difficult fantasia with all the skill of a practiced musician. She had told this narrative with all the delicacy of touch and sentiment that be- longed to a novelist speaking of a third person, and you are to take that as a real narrative of a real occurrence, between a real wife and a real husband. MES. TILTON'S ALLEGED INTEECESSXON FOE ME. BEECHEE. Now he goes on and fills the space between July and December with her absences fi'om town, her dsit out West at Marietta ; that she had returned from the West a few weeks previous to this interview, I think, about the 1st of December ; that shortly after her return, or almost the first conspicuous incident that happened to her husband since her return, was the interview " which I had had with Mr. Bowen on the 26th of December, which had resulted In my demand upon Mr. Beecher that he should retire from his pulpit." Now, you see the Bowen matter comes in. But for Bowen, but for the destruction of his pecuniary inter- ests, this narrative, this pretension, this use of a domestic occurrence of some kind between husband and wife toward Mr. Beecher would never have "been resorted to. Six months pass by. The wife never Intimated to Mr. Beecher, although at her request he called and visited her in her illness in August after, and prayed with her ; she had not mentioned to Mr. Beecher that she had told her husband anything. Mr. Tilton had not sought Mr. Beecher, or made any complaint against Mr. Beecher, and here he draws In affirmatively and voluntarily the trouble with Bowen as the cause, the occasion, the opportunity, the reason of this matter ever having been brought to Mr. Beecher's notice. Well, you can understand how, after his sending this notice to Mr. Beecher and finding the destruction of his relations with Mr. Bowen, it did come to be brought in, and that is a part of our case. Now he accounts for it as arising out of that fact. " I told him that I had informed Mrs. Tilton of what I had done with Mr. Bowen, and that she received the in- telligence with an expression of heartbreak and grief. I told him that in regard to the statement which she ha ' written"— he didn't call it a " confession" which she had written— a statement that she had written ; it was the one that he read ; and yet they find it convenient in giv- ing their evidence always to call it a '* confession " of hers— we shall show you— you don't doubt what it was. It was an accusation— this paper. I don't mean that she had even told her husband, but this paper was an accu- sation against Mr. Beecher—" that in regard to the state- ment which she had written, that it had come about in this way. She had asked me, as soon as I had informed her of the letter that I had written through Mr. Bowen ; she had asked me immediately to send for Mr. Beecher- and to hold an interview with him in her sick chamber that she might hear me say to him that the letter shoul be withdrawn— that is the Bowen letter— that she migh hear with her own ears, immediately, and before h should have any time to be troubled about it." What an extraordinary proposition of a woman caught in adultery — desiring her husband to send for the para- mour, and tell him, in her presence, that that letter must not worry him ; and to do it quick, so that the para- mour need not be troubled about it ! Well, that did not strike Tilton as at all unsuitable, in itself, so far as the object and subject went, for that was the object of his interview— his interview with Beecher. "That though I had joined with Mr. Bowen in demand- ing Mr. Beecher's retirement from the pulpit, for my wife's sake and for the word of honor which I had pledged to her to do Mr. Beecher no harm, that I should send for him, and that she should hear me, immediately and with- out delay, take back that letter and assure Mr. Beecher that I would not unite with Mr. Bowen in making any assault upon him or in demanding him to quit the pulpit orthecHy. I told Mr. Beecher furthermore that I had refused to acquiesce in Mrs. Tilton's request that such a personal interview should be held between him and me in my wife's sick chamber ; I told him she had insisted four or five times on this very thing, that Mr. Beecher should be saved from beiug wor- ried about this letter that had been delivered to him, un- til finally she begged me to be the bearer of a letter to him ; that I had then declined that; that finally she asked me if I could not devise some method which would not be humiliating to my pride to have an interview with him— a friendly interview— as friendly as possible" (he corrects himself), " and, after thinking the matter over, that Thad said to her that if she would agree I would request Mr. Moulton to bring about such an interview between Mr. Beecher and myself. She said she was only too happy to hear me say so, and she wrote a state- ment, to which I have referred, to be the basis of an iu- SU2lMI2iG UP j terriew berween Mr. Beeclier and myself, whicli Mr. Motaton should, bring about, and sbe wrote it on tlie 29th. of December. Mr. Evarts intervenes again: Q. Is tbis wbat you told Mr. Beecher ? A. Yes, Sir. ToTvard the close of the story I again reminded him of the object for "svhieh I had sent for him, -which object was that tliough I had communicated to him through Bowen a demand for his retirement from The pulpit, yet that at my wife's earnest entreaty I revoked that demand, and for my wife's sake, and not his or my own, I pledged to him my word that I would not assist Mr. Bowen in the hostility which he had meditated against Mr. Beecher. Z'^Ir. Beecher did not ask for his friendship, for his co- operation, for his espousal of his cause against Bowen. Mr. Beecher had not shown auy fear of Bowen or the need of any fortification or protection against Mr. Bowen; and this husband, after introducing the narrative that his object was to get rid of any injuiious feeling that 3Ir. Beecher might have by reason of his having sent that challenge of the 26th. closed it by volunteering to say, Xow the object of all this, 3Ir. Beecher, is to have you imderstand that, though I did send that challeng3 which I now have revoked, I am not going to cooi)erate with Mr. Bowen in iny of his movements ag:.:nit you," " and I pledged to him my word, without his asking it, That I would not assist Mr. Bowen in the hostility which he had meditated against Mr. Beecher." Now, gentlemen, that about ends the narrative. This you so- berly are asked to believe as a just statement of a com- munication between husband and wife, and of a commu- nication between the husband and the paramom'. I will ventuie to say that whether you regard that portion of it which undertakes to produce a woman's treatment to her husband, or a husband's treatinout to the paramour; whether you undertake to weigh and estimate the man- ner in which a good woman is led away, or the length and breadth, the weight and value of the argument by which a woman's virtue is overcome by the tongue of man, it is the veriest trash that was ever written or printed. There is not a novelist that would not be ridi- culed from Dan to Beersheba, if, wicked in purpose and willful in malice against the good principles and conduct of society, he had used his art to make adidtery easy and palatable and pious. Why, gentlemen, the 'merest trifle of the yellow-covered literatm-e of Paris or Xew-York that is made for the coarse appetites and for the coarse mtelligence and for the vile morality of the e^-il classes has not anything as bad and vulgar and pointless as all this trash. And what is the reason of this invention ? It is because on the conduct of the people, their char- acters, on the wife's intellectual and moral character, as still sworn to (it is impossible to be believed unless it is immaculate), because under all the conditions of external observation to which they have been subjected there could be no reliance upon the contact of the body ever having taken place, except by this fictitious presentation f it, to carry a sort of notion with you that ME. JEVAETS. 717 there has been some proof of it as com- ing from somebody who saw and knew it. Why, gentlemen, what sort of adultery is that which is no contact of the body and no pollution of the soul i CaE it unilateral adultery ! Why is it adultery 1 It is whoUy transcendental. It begins nowhere, ends nowhere, rests upon no basis. But " transcendental" is a long word, I and those who use it most cannot give any very precise j definition of it. Twenty-five years ago it came into great I vogue under the lead of a gi-eat thinker now famous, Mr. { Emerson, and got into the language of youug women and of 3'oung students, and the clergj-meu talked about it, but still the cLuestion was what " transcendental" meant. Well, on one of the Mississippi Paver steamboats, wlien a parcel of eminent divines were retm-ning from a general couveution of the Presbyterian Church, they were in a high discussion about orthodoxy, and the old faith and transcendentalism, and a lajmian who enjoyed their con- versation, one of the lay delegates returning with them, still felt a little puzzled about what " transcendental" and " transcendentalism" meant. So he ventured to ask the di\dne in whom he had the greatest confidence—" I hear you use this word transcendental" and " trau.,- cenJentalism." Now, what does it mean? "Well," says j the doctor of divinity, '•' that is a question that is more I easily asked than answered." But they were passing by j a bliiff on the river. Says he, " Do you sje that bluff here I on tlie river r' "Yes." "Do you see how pierced it is j with sw;'Jl..w"s holes V " Yes, I see that." " Well, now," I says he, " you take away all that bluff and leave nothing but swallow's holes, and thai; is transcendentalism." MR. TILTOX'S APOLOGY FOR HIS WIFE. Now, you understand what adulteiy is. Take away pollution of the soul, prostitation of intellect, de- filement of body, and that is transcendental adultery. [Laughter.] Nothing but the swallow's holes left; j nothing of the earth, earthy ; all transcendental. Now, j gentlemen, let us see what invention is used here. After I the cross-examination, on the redirect, my learned friends thought it would be woith while for Mr. Tilton to explain a little what he means by this notion that his wife was so pure, and never violated her mar- riage vows, and all that that he had been swearing to, and they asked him if he couldn't give us a little informa- tion, the same as this layman wanted of the doctor of divinity about transcendentalism. It was a pretty long question by Mr. Fullerton, and Mr. Tilton's first answer is, " Well, Sir, that is a sad CLuestion." " Well 1" says his examiner, and Mr. Tilton proceeds : I can answer only for I'-y o^vn judgments of her be- havior, not for other people's opinions. You must re- member. Sir, that I knew Elizabeth when I was ten years old ; that I became her confessed lover at sixteen ; that I was married to her at twenty; and that, for fifteen years of her married life, I held her in my reverence perhaps 713 IHE TILTON-BEEGEEB TBIAL. almost to tlie point of maMng her an idol of my worship. The idols are spoken of, you know, in the Scriptures as lying gods, and he has written to her a letter telling her that if she continued to lie he should not ideally worship her. He proceeds : And when she came to her df>wnfall, it was the neces- sity of my own heart — - That was not Elizabeth's narrative, then, that she had told him, how she had preserved her purity and merely lost her matronage ' It was the necessity of my own heart — I must find some excuse for her ; other people might blame, hut I must pardon her. I found that excuse in the fact that she had been wrapped up in her religious teacher and guide ; she had surrendered her convictions to him ; she followed his beck and lead trustingly ; she would go after him like one blinded. That is the reason, I suppose, she went up to Ms house. " I think she sinned her sin as one in a trance." So my idea that she had been carried from Livingston- 8t. to Columbia Hights in her sleep was not so much out of the way, after all. Her husband thought she had done it an in a trance : I don't think she was a free agent. I think she would have done his bidding if, like the heathen priest in the Hindoo-land, he had bade her fling her child into the Ganges or cast herself under the Juggernaut. That was my eacuse for Elizabeth. Good Heavens ! We had supposed that this was Eliza- beth's narrative that she had detailed to you, and that you had repeated to Mr. Beecher. Now, gentlemen, that shows you where all this talk came from. Then, after some discussion between us, the matter comes back in this way : Well, go on and answer the question, Mr. Tilton. In what way did she maintain her innocence in the presence of her mother ? By way of showing her guUt they introduce evidence of her innocence. She always used to say. Sir, that she was not to be judged, either by her mother or by me, b ut by God. She believed God would judge her tenderly. She said she loved God, and she didn't believe that God would have permitted her to enter into those relations if they had been sinful. So you gee the last consummation of impiety comiag from Mr. Tilton's lips— for we don't know that it ever came from anybody else's— is that God was responsible for this I She didn't believe God would have permitted her to enter into those relations if they had been sinful. She thought that God was mistaken in propounding the Seventh Commandment from Mount Slnai. And she said particularly that neither her mother nor I had made it the business of our lives to understand what was right and wrong as Mr. Beecher did ; that Mr. Beecher was a clergyman ; that he was a great and holy man; that he had repeatedly assured her that their relationship was not sinful, and she didn't see how it could \)e sinful ; that he had told her that love justified all things ; that love had various expressions ; that one expression was the shake of the hand, another expression was the kiss of the Ilpi, another expression was sexual intercourse, and it made very little difference what the expression was. If that love Was right, the love itself made rightful or Justi- fied by the various expressions of it, and that she believed before God that her love for Mr. Beecher was right, and his love for her was right, and therefore she didn't see how any of the various expressions of it could be sinful. She said she rested on Mr. Beecher's authority for that, that he had told her so over and over again. Well, well, gentlemen, that is Mr. Tilton's mode of over- throwing the Decalogue and defending adultery. It is as old as any of the falsehoods of the devU ; it is as shallow and contemptible as any of the silly eflCorts of a country clown to overcome the instinctive virtue of an honest milkmaid ; and the milkmaids have slapped the clowns' faces ever since the world began, when they have ap- proached them with any such folly as that. But it is for the conspicuous clergyman, that deals not in abstractions, not in dogmas, but in practical faith, by works of morality, of charity, of duty, of the elevation and beautificatlon of life, it is for him to have uttered all this driveling and contemptible nonsense in the ear of a woman who, besides the instincts of chastity as great as any woman ever had, her husband says, had been edu- cated into the very saintliness of heart, and accompanied it with practical charity for the erring and the fallen— a woman that had an intellect that made her the companion of all the literary and moral studies and pursuits and speculations of her husband, and who had the companionship of all the eminent men that mad© up the circle of his friendships— it is for him to utter this and for her to yield, and without a consciousness of sin or violation of conscience, to what the milkmaid throws in the face of the booby that talks to her ! Now, gentlemen, when the necessary case of this plaintiff requires that he should propitiate your under- standings and obtain your verdict to a particular fact that has no external proof whatever, and that you know violates »U that the intellect, the morality, the instincts of all our elevated. Christianized, as well as natural characters demand in con- duct, to ask you to accept his story is to ask you to make»yourselves accomplices of this frivolity, and to be as great boobies as he displays himself in your presence. Why, gentleman, from Indianapolis down Mr. Beecher has been a preacher of active and actual benefi- cence ; has been a oondemner of all the wicked passions, all the sensual indulgences, of aU the coarse and vulgar sins. My learned brother, Morris, who does not lack a flow of Invective and con- tumely, when his cause required it, could not make out a suflScient volume of imputation and of con- demnation without quoting against this defendant a long and eloquent, vehement, living invective against the sin of incontinency that he had delivered years ago to young men, and that has done more to save young me' through- SUMMI^'G UP BY ME. EYAETS. 719 out fhis country than any utterances of any other mouth In it. Ah ! gentlemen, my learned friends can gain noth- ing from us hy the scoiu-ging that they will administer to Mr. Beecher, if they will only prove him guilty. If they ask us to go one mile with them in their invective against him, proved guilty, we will go with them twain. If they ask us to strip him of the cloak of his hypocrisy, we will tear the coat and every fragment of his clothing from him. If they ask us, and they prove him guilty, that he should be smitten on one cheek, we will turn the other to them, ^ and deliver up his whole hody to be beaten with many stripes. But we do require that, driven from external evidence, and groping in the region of moral evidence, they will at least show us that moral evidence that car- ries down into this severity of punishment so great and noble a character as, but for this imputation, and until it is proved, this defendant has shown to all the world. MR. BEECHER'S VERSION OF THE INTER- VIEW. Now, gentlemen, before I proceed further it is but lair that I should lay before you Mr. Beecher's ac- count of this interview, and you will see whether any violence is done in that to the great lines of human char- acter, or the particular lineaments in the character of these individuals that is demanded by the plaintiff's story. I pass over everything except the interview itself. When Mr. Moulton had brought Mr. Beecher to Ms, Mr. Moulton's, house. Mr. Moulton said : " Mr. Tilton is in the room above the parlor, fi-ont room, waiting for you." I said to him— wishing a witness, be- lieving that we were going to have a bursiness discussion— I said to him, " I would rather you would go up with me, Mr. Moulton." He said, "You had better see Mr. Tilton alone." Now, Mr. Moulton, on his rebuttal, I beUeve, says that that was not said; but these incidental differences of statement come to nothing. We go for the substance of things. He (Mr. Tilton) pointed to a chair and asked me to sit down, which I did, near the door. He drew out from his pocket a Uttle paper, very "mch that shape [producing a piece of paper about ^ inches by three), just about that size, a little '...'-.ciwer, and, on sitting down, said: "1 have rc' or "I have summoned you," I think he h^i'X, to this interview on matters of importance. I suppose that you received from me, by Mr. Bowen, a letter demanding your resignation and departure from Brooklyn." " Yes," I told him " I bad received it." So they agree that that was the topic. Mr. Beecher proceeds : He said, " I wish now to recall that letter, and I wish you to consider it as not written. It was a grand thing to write that letter ; it would have been a grander if I had not." Now, what a happy condition a man is in when what- ever he does is grand, and if he had n't done it it would have been grander. [Laughter.] I have never known such elevation in this life before. Whatever you do sure to be grand, but if you had n't done it it would have been grander ! [Laughter.] Judge Neilson— OflScer, will you step down and pay that musician to go away. [Referring to an organ- grinder outside whose work was disturlDing the proceed- ings.] Mr. Evarts— Perhaps if your Honor were to invite him iato the court-room it might amuse him as much as he amuses us. [Laughter."] Well, Mr. Beecher says : He then began to aUude to Mr. Bowen, the bearer of that letter, and to Mr. Bowen's treatment of him, not going into it in any considerable detail, but characterizing it as very base and very treacherous. He then charged me with having an understianding with Mr. Bowen in these matters, and furthering them — I am not using his language, but only the substance of the things urged upon me by him— that I had accepted injurious stories of him, and that I had reported them again, that I had ad- vised against him, and much more to that purport, which I cannot recall in detail. I think at this point I was disposed to make some explanation, when he warned me to be silent, and I was silent, and then he proceeded to say that I had not only injured him in his business relations and in his reputation and prospects, but that I had also insinuated myself into his family, and under a cover of friendship I had wrought him a worse mischief there. He said that I had in a sense superseded him, had taken his place, so that in matters of religious doctrine, and in matters of the bringing up his childi'en, and of the household, his wife looked to me rather than to him ; that I had caused her to transfer her affections from him to me in an inordinate measm-e ; that in consequence of the conditions which had sprung up by reason of my conduct, his family had well nigh been de- stroyed ; that I had suffered my wife and his mother-in- law to conspire for the separation of the family ; — And I have shown you, gentlemen, Mr. Tilton's charge that that was a conspiracy of INIrs. Beecher and IMra. Morse —that I had corrupted Elizabeth, teaching her to lie, to deceive him, and hide under fair appearances her friend- ship to me ; that he had married her one of the simplest and purest women he ever knew, and that under my in fluence she had become deceitful and untrustworthy. He said that I, that had tied the knot in the sanctuary of God, by which they were to be boimd together in an inseparable love, had also reached out my hand to untie that knot, and to loose them one from the other. He then went on to say that not only had I done this, but that I had made overtures to her of an improper character ; and again I expressed some surprise, probably by my attitude— I don't recollect that I talked— but he drew from his pocket a strip of paper about like that, [describing it] and read to me what purported to be the statement of his wife to him that Mr. Beecher had solicited her to become his wife, to all the intents and purposes which were signified by that term, or sub- stantially that. He said the statement which he had just read— very recently ; she had done it the day be- fore, on the 29th, after the Bowen trouble needed some assistance and aid ; " that he had for shame and for pride's sake burned up the original, and that now he would tear up the only copy that there was in existence, that til ere should never be a line or lettw against tha 720 TEE llLTO^-BEECREli TRIAL. reputation of Ws wife; and with tliat lie took tlie fragments in liis hand and stepi»ed to the side of the room and threw them down. " And now," said he, turning toward me, " I wish you to verify these charges by going down and seeing Elizabeth your- self; she is waiting for you at my house." I said— that last blow staggered me " — reading something in Ms wife's name—" I said to him : ' Mr. Til- ton, this is a dream. She never could have made in writing a statement so untrue.' " Said he, " It is but a few blocks off ; go down to her yourself." I turned and went out of the door, and walked down stairs, meeting Mr. Moulton at the foot of the stairs. He said to me— without a word from Mr. Beecher— " he took his hat and overcoat "—at any rate, he went out. Q. Did you in any manner invite Mr, Moulton to go with you to Mrs. Tilton's? A. No, Sir; I didn't want him. Q. Did you in any manner inform him before he asked you whether you were going to Mrs. Tilton's, that you were going there ? A. I did not. Q. Now, he attended you to the door, did lie % A. He did, and he went in. WHO SUGGESTED MR. BEECHER'S MIDNIGHT VISIT TO MRS. TILTON. Now, gentlemen, before I go to the inter- view with Mrs. Tilton at the house of Mr. Tilton, I want to bring your attention to the part of Mr. Tilton's testi- mony that has to do with this last matter, so that his own story may be told. Now, after Mr. Tilton's statement of what he said to Mr. Beecher, Mr. Tilton says : At the close of the narrative Mr. Beecher sat in his chair, and I thought he was about to speak. I waited a moment. His face and his head and his neck were blood- red, and I feared for the moment that there would be some accident to him. He burst out with these words : " Theodore, I am in a dream ; this is Dante's Inferno." And that is the way Mr. Tilton tries to cover up with a classical reference what was his real statement — " This is an a dieam." Ah, Mr. Tilton told Mr. Moulton that night, when Mr. Moulton came back from accompanying Mr. Beecher down to Mrs. Tilton's, that what Mr. Beecher did say was, " Theodore, this is all a dream." It was not anything about Dante's " Inferno" then. But Mr. Tilton told another man, only three days afterward, what it was Mr. Beecher said when he had got through with his, Tilton's, narrative to him, and mark how it concurs. He gave on the 2d day of January, to his friend Storrs, a narrative of how the matter went on between him and Mr. Beecher. He told him how he had sent for Mr. Beecher to Mi-. Moul- ton 's house, and that Mr. Beecher came there, and when he came there he made this charge against him of improper propositions to his wife, and he said Mr. Beecher seemed to be astonished, and said that could not be so, and Mr. Tilton made a motion as though he was taking something out of his pocket, and said— that le, he made it when he was talking with Mr. Storrs, suit- ing the gesture to the word— I took out a piece of paper ; I forget whether he said «e read it or gave it to Mr. Beecher to read, and he said Mr. Beecher seemed surprised and said that could not be so ; said Elizabeth could not have said so because it was not true. Two days after, having said that night that all that Mr. Beecher said was, " This is alia dream," he told his friend Storrs exactly what Mr. Beecher had said, and then he goes on to teU Mr. Storrs what Tilton had said to Mr. Beecher, that he had said that Elizabeth could not have said so, because it was not true, and then Mr. Tilton says to Mr. Storrs that he said to Mr. Beeclier— " "Well, if you don't believe it, go and ♦ ask Elizabeth ;" and he said that Mr. Beecher did go and see his wife, and got from her a retraction that there never had been any improper proposals, " and when I found it out I was very angry, and told Mr. Moulton, and he was very angry." Well, I have no doubt that he was angry tliat he had got into the same position with Mr. Beecher by the result of that night's accusation, and Mr. Beecher facing it, that he had got into on the preceding Monday, the 26th,. in respect to his missive sent through Mr. Bowen. Ah ! gentlemen, when you undertake to assassinate a man in a dark alley, and the man is unwounded, and all that has happened is that there is evidence of that attempt to assassinate him, you have not gained much by that movement ; and when this second weapon of assassination, sharpened on the 29th, had been used to pierce Mr. Beecher's breast on the night of the 30th, and all that he had said was, " Theodore, this is all a dream ; Elizabeth cannot have said so, because it is not true;" and this man, thinking that he could hold his wife's heartstrings at least for a single night, says to him, " If you doubt it, go and ask her ; " and he goes and asks her, and brings back the evidence that the husband has forged, through the unwilling hand of the wife, a false accusation that has been withdrawn, he don't feel, when he finds it out, that he has made any more by that second attempt at assassination than he had by the first. Now, gentlemen, we may as well fix this. He told Mr. Belcher in 1872 that he had had an interview with Mr. Beecher at Mr. Moulton's house, and that at that inter- view he charged Mr. Beecher with the act, and read him this letter. Mr. Tilton's letter-that is, the letter of im- proper solicitations. I then asked him how Mr. Beecher acted on that occa- sion. He said he was astonished and confounded, and said that it was false, and that the woman must be crazy. And now, gentlemen, I have, under the hand of this plaintiff himself, a narrative. Under Mr. Tilton's own hand, in the " True Story," he says : As a further statement, still more unwillingly opened, yet necessary to an explanation of the subsequent com- plication of circumstances, I must aay that in the Sum- mer of 1871, a few months after T had undertaken, in addition to editing The Independevt, to edit also The Brooklyn Union, Mrs. Elizabeth R. Tilton, my wife, made to me a communication concerning Mr. Beecher— not a confession ; exactly what I hare shoAvn yon oti SUMMIXG UP BY MB. £YABTS. 721 of iis own lips was the trutli. that she had made him a statement, in his judgment and in hers, as she told the story to him that night, only a third person— a communication concerning Mr. Beecher. "which (to use her ovra words, lest I wrong him hr using mine) she afterward noted down in a memorandum, as follows : " Mr. Henry Ward Beecher, my fr.eud and pastor, so- licited me to he a wife to him, together with all that this Implies." I horrow the above facts from my wife's hand- writing, and forbid myself from pausing at this point either to blacken it with an epithet, or to lighten it with an explanation, Now, that was read to Mr. Beecher, and on Friday eve- ning, as :Mrs. Tilton's statement : December 30.— I went to 3Ir. Moulton's house. Mr. Moulton went after Mr. Beecher and brought him. This was early m the evening, Mr. Beecher leaving his prayer meeting, usual on that evening, to go without his leader- ship. My interview was with Mr. Beecher alone. I read to him my wif e s letter, and said to him what I shall not here repeat. He sat like a starae under my brief re- marks — three columns of a newspaper we have here, and Mr. Beecher's narrative comprises It within, within one column — my brief remarks, and at the close he bowed to me and said, "this is aU a di-eam." He af- fected to disbelieve that Mrs. Tilton had written the let- ter, and denied everything with a royal negative. I then said, "It is but a few squares to my house; go and ask Mrs. TUton for yourself whether or not she wrote the let- ter." He went and rettirned in half an hour. I did not see him. Is ow, he read this note to Mr. Belcher : Mr. Tilton came too, and read me what purported to be a note from hii* wife, a letter from his wife to him, in which he stat-ed Mr. Beecher had made a proposition to her, during Mr. Tilton's absence, to become a wife to him, and aU thai that implied ; and I said to Mr. Tilton when he read that paper, " Is that paper in Mrs. Tilton's hand- writing?" and he said, " Xo, it is a '^opy." I asked where the original was, and he said that Frank Moulton had it. Xow, I want to read you, under the light of those actual statements by Mr. Tilton to witnesses, when the thing was fresh in his mind, and under his former state- ment, under what he characterized as a story that should put the thing right, what he now says when he wishes to put a somewhat different view of the visits of Mr. Beecher to Mrs. Tilton ; he says after his saying " this is all a dream " — after Mr. Beecher saying that, that he (Tilton) said to him : You are free to retire. He rose and walked towards the door, a< if he were going out, without saying a word. Then he suddenly tumed. and, looking me in the face, he said, " May I go once again, and for the last time, to see Elizabeth?" I instantly ansAvered "'So.'' and then " Yes." And then he says he can tell why he did that, and ho is allowed to. Then he goes on to state what he farther said, and does not give his reasons : But in going to see Elizabeth, see to it. .Sir. that you do not chide her for the confession that she has rcrade. She is at home sick, broken-hearted. I charge you that you visit upon her no reproach for confessing to her hus- band ; or, if you >mite her with a word, I will smite you in a tenfold degrf e. T have hitherto spared your life when I had power to de.stroy it. I spare it now for Eliza- beth's sake ; but if ynu reproach her I will smite your name before all the world. Xow, on the cross-examination I got out of him a very' clear concurrence with Mr. Beecher and with his own record in the " True Story," and with his own present fresh recollection, as he gave it to Mr. Storrs two days afterward. I said to him : Now, Mr. Tilton. do you remember Mr. Beecher express- ing a duubt. or iuii.uciiiUi a doubt, as to whether 3Irs. Tilton liiul AvriTti/u ;aiy such paper? A. Xo, Sir; he nev.--r inrimatt''! ntiy -nch thing. Q. You are quite sure of that ? A. Xo, Sir ; I am quite certain. Q. N'ow, don't you remember that on an expression of doubt or surprise concemins: Mrs. Tilton having written any such pap'"^r as that— and I stopped — you bad no orig- inal before you ? A. Xo, Sir. He had not anything in her handwriting that he could show Mr. Beecher that she had written : he didn't mean to have, as I will show you when I comment upon the planned arrangement. I then said to him ; Now, don't you reni'^'mber that on an expression of doubt or smi)rise concernius- Mrs. Tilton's havingwritten any snch paper as that, you then said to him, '• It is but a few squares to my hous" : go an l ask Mrs. Tilton for yourself whether or not she wrote that letter." and his answer is : " Ah, but that was my suggestion, and not his." Gentlemen, there is some virtue in cross-examinatioiu In answer to an expression that yuu describe as sur- prise, did you say, •■ It is but a few squares to my house ; go and ask Mrs. Tilton for yourself whether or not she wrove that letter ]" A. Well. I may, perhaps, have used some such expression as that ; I don't remember, but it was not in reference to any doubt. Q. Well, no matter, you used the expression? A. But only as to surprise. Q. Xow, thereupon, did he indicate a purpose of going t Did anything happen that made him thmk he was go- ing 1 Mr. Tilton had made that suggestion to him. Q. Xow, thereupon did he indicate a purpose of going f A. He went staggering down stairs. Q. Did he indicate to you a purpose of going to your house 1 A. Xo, Sir ; he did n't say anything on the sub- ject that I remember now. Q. Didn't you know that he was going to your house then ? A. I presumed he would go ; I don't remember that he said he was going. Q. I ask you if he didn't indicate to you, so that you understood him, that he was going then and there to your house ? and finally the answer is. He and Moulton went out together, and I understood they ^vem to my house, and afterwards I learned that they did go. It is after 4 o'clock, if your Honor please. Judce Xeilson— Get readv to retire, gentlemen. Please- return to-morrow morning at 11 o'clock. The Court thereupon adjourned until Thursday at 11 o'clock. 723 THE TILTON-B. NINETY-SIXTH DAY'S PROCEEDINGS. MR. EVARTS ON MRS. TILTON'S LETTER OF RETRACTION. THE INTERVIEW AT MR. MOULTON'S HOUSE FURTHER LOOKED INTO— MRS. TILTON'S LETTER OF RE- TRACTION AND THE LETTER EXPLAINING IT EX- AMINED—MR. MOULTON'S GETTING POSSESSION OF THE RETRACTION REVIEWED — OPPOSING TES- TIMONY COLLATED. Thursday, June 3. 1875. The continuation of the argument of Mr. Evarts for the defendant in the Tilton-Beecher trial to- day covered, among its principal topics, the nature of the accusation against Mr. Beecher made by Mr. Tilton in the interview at Mr. Moulton's house, Mrs. Tilton's letter of retraction, and her subsequent let- ter explaining the letter of retraction, and the in- terview between Mr. Beecher and Mr. Moulton when the latter obtained possession of the letter of retraction. The orator resumed the discussion of the interview of Dec. 30, 1870, between Mr. Beecher and Mr. Tilton. The character of the slip ofpaper which Mr. Tilton had read to Mr. Beecher was a principal subject of inquiry. The testimony of the plaintiff and the defendant on this point was collated and carefully analyzed in connection. The same process was pursued with other contradictory or varying evidence. Mrs. Tilton's letter of retraction, and the circum- si anccs under which it was written, were dwelt upon at considerable length. This, together with Mrs. Tilton's letter explaining the letter of retrac- tion, formed the main topic of the day's argument. In treating these letters the orator exhibited an analytic power and keenness that attracted admir- ing comments from the auditors. Without excite- ment, or unusual force of voice' or gesture, he held his hearers in a sfcate of the most careful attention, by the mere intellectual strength and brilliancy of his address. A portion of the argument was devoted to an ex- planation of cei*tain rules and presuiriptions of the English and American law concerning the relation of husband and wife, and the influence of the for- mer over the latter. Several authorities were cited on this subject, and the rule of law which prevents a wife from testifying against her husband or for her husband ai:;;iin3t others was enlarged upon. The letter of Mrs. Tilton explaining her letter of retraction was fully elucidated according to the heory of the defendant's case. It was a letter of ]EGREB TBIAL, explanation, Mr. Evarts asserted, and not one of ac- cusation against Mr. Beecher. It had been procured, like the first letter of accusation against Mr. Beecher, by coercion. The object of bringing about the in- terview between Mr. Beecher and Mrs. Tilton was defeated by the terms of the retraction, and to re- trieve this misstep Mr. TUton got the letter explain- ing the retraction. Mr. Evarts frequently makes use of very apt com- parisons to illustrate his argument.. These he devel- ops very f uUy, and they usually are much appre- ciated by the audience. By one of these argu- ments from comparison, he produced an interest that came near culminating in an outburst of ap- plause, which was only suppressed by the warning sound of the court officers' staifs. He supposed the case of a murderer, who, to conceal his crime, should procure the fatal bullet, melt it up, and then accuse another and appear as wit- ness against him. The suspicious anxiety to get rid of the tell-tale bullet would lead to the murderer's condemnation. "Where is the bullet would be the demand of the court and the jury. A mold would show that the bullet fitted the pistol of the witness, and not that of the accused. So the de- stroyed ** confession" would convict Messrs. Tilton and Moulton of the crime of moral assassination. " We bring you the mold of it," exclaimed the ora- tor, " in the retraction which was twined around it." The inter\T.ew of Dec. 31 between Mr. Moulton and Mr. Beecher was made another subject of con- sideration by the orator. The accounts of thisjn- terview as given oy both of the participants in it were read in connection, and, on the basis of proba- bility and consistency, their respective claims to b©- lief were reviewed. THE PEOCEEDINGS— VERBATIM. MR. EVARTS RESUMES HIS ARGTOENT. The Court met at 11 a. m., pursuant to ad^ journment. Mr. Evarts came in about 11:15. Mr. Evarts— Have the jury been called, your Honor. Judge Neilson— Yes. Mr, Evarts— I liave to apologize for the detention of ths ferry-boat in the stream, which kept us unexpectedly. THE CONTENTS OF MRS. TILTON'S WRITTEN ACCUSATION. As you have no doubt, jgentlemen, upon the absolute certainty, and the volumiuous concurrence of the evidence, what the slip of u-aper mat was ia the SVMMIXG UP BY ME. EYARTS. 723 possession, of Mr. Tilton tliat niglit, and from wMch lie read to Mr. Beeclier, was, I Ilo^Y wisli to ask youi- atten- tion to its cliaracter, as comporting witli the Laterview in tlie version tliat Mr. Tilton lias given of it, or in tlie ver- sion tliat Mr. Beeclier lias given of it. Mr. Beeclier lias told you wliat it contained; lie heard it read. Mr. Tiltou and Mr. 3Ioulton, on being recalled, have not either of them given you a different statement of what it con- tained. Mr. Tilton is asked the negative, *' Was it so ?" aud he says, "Xo, guite a different statement;" but what the different statement was he did not tell you ; and Mr. Moulton had had the copy— that is, the original, for it was only the copy that Mr. Tilton had— had had the original in his possession from the 30th day of December, 1870, to immediately after the " Tripartite Agreement," in April, 1872, and he had opporrimities enough, and firmness of memory enough, to reproduce that little slip of paper, in its contents, after that long period of meditation and examination of it. He could tell you word for word the speech that Mr. Tilton made when he introduced Victoria Woodhull to the good graces of a Xew- York audience, . although he had never looked at any report of it since. He could do that. Xow, it was vastly important for this prosecution to show this paper to have been something different from what Mr. Beecher's memory gave it, from what the " True Story " ga^ e it, fi-om what Mi-. Tilton's statement to Mi-. Charles Storrs, two days afterwards, gave it, from what he gave it in subseciuent interviews in 1872, to Mr. Southwick, to Mr. Schultz, to Mr. Harman, aijd Mi'. McKelway. Why didn't they do iti Did any scruples of accommodation, or invention of evidence, restrain them ? It is vital to their case. Without a contradiction of this paper and its contents, without a substitution, in your acceptance, and in the truth, upon accredited evidence, that it was something else, their case is gone. Ah, gentlemen, if they had sworn to a different reading of that paper, it would have been willful, deliberate, and conscious state- ment, and there was too much of written and recorded evidence, as well as of the oaths of numerous witnesses, to repel the substitution ; and the Hps of these men have not been opened and never will be opened, to substitute new reading for that paper. Now, gentlemen, that being the character of the wife's accusation, that Mr. Beecher had proposed to her to be a wife to him with all tliat that implies, you will see how utterly it is at variance with the long narrative of seduc- tion, of adultery, of prostitution, and of justification of prostitution, that he has deliverec) in. your hear- ing. Where would yon put it, a wife's confir-mation, that Mr. Beecher's attention even may be drawn ? Would you put it as a climax after that long narrative, that In addition to all this, all this seduction, aU this adultery, " Mr. Beecher has proposed to me to be every- thing to him that a wife is;" indecent propositions as a climax to the history of 16 months' adultery. Now, where did thLs slip of paper come in ? IMi-. Tilton, in his direct examination, would start off, as it were, in that part of his interview that took up his grievance after he had got through v\i.th the conciliation of Mr. Beecher, and with the vituperation of Mt. Bowen, as if this slip might have been— and you would perhaps naturally iaf er that it waa —the mode in which he introduced his narrative of hla wife's affairs. But on the cross-examination I called his attention to this question of stage and relation to the narrative. I ask him : Had you this memorandum before you, made as you have now stated, when you went on with this discourse with him that you have given 1 A. I cannot say it was a discourse. Q. Well, address? A. No, Sir; it was not an address; it was a statement. Q. Well, a statement to him 1 A. Yes, Sir. Q. It was interrupted by him, was it 1 A. I remember his making a little attempt to interrupt at one time, and I told him to hear me to the end ; there was prac- tically no interruption on his part. Q. What form of demonstration did you recognize as an attempt to interrupt you \ A. I thought he was going to speak. Q. He made a motion as if he was going to sneak? A. I don't distinctly remember it. Q. Something you treated as a purpose of speaking I A. Yes, Sir. Q. At what stage of your statement was that purpose interrupted ; do you remember ? A.I think it was at the conclusion of my reading Mrs. Tilton's confession. Q. This little paper which you had— you call it a confes- sion? A. Yes, Sir. Q. It was this little paper which you had on that table f A. Yes, Sii' ; that is my present recollection. Q. Did you read that at the outset of your statement to him ? A. I read that ; it was not the first of the iuter- view ; the first part of the interview, as I remember, was my reference to his having received a letter. Q. Oh, well, I agree ; but after you got through that, after you had got upon the matter of his relations witli your wife, was the reading of that paper the fljst thing that was done ? A. I don't remember whether that was at the very beginning, or whether it was somewhere in its proper place in the narrative ; that I do not recall at the present moment. ***** Q. Then how did you arrest that purpose? A. I said, " Hear me to the end," * * * * * Q. Now, do you remember Mr. Beecher expressing a doubt, or intimating a doubt, as to whether Mrs, Tilton had written any such paper i And then we go on with what I repeated to you yester- day, and he admits that it was a surprise, and that there- upon, on that intimation of surprise at the paper, he said to him : It is but a few squares to my house. Go and aslcMrs. Tnton yourself whether or no she wrote that letter. Now, gentlemen, that shows you that on his own repro- duction of this interview he brought this paper in as the climax and clincher, the hight, the front of his charges, led up to by what had gone before, and this the damning proof, as well as imputation, upon which he expected to touch the conscience and humiliate the pride, by this ex- posure of the imlawful purposes of Mr. Beecher. Now, 724 THE TlLTON-BEKiUIEB TRIAL. ■wliac sort or a climax was that for liis narrative ? But eee how excellently it fits into Mr. Beecher's narrative of how the charge, and course of relations with his fam- ily, was presented hy Mr. Tilton to Mr. Beecher, upon that. I won't repeat the whole interview, hut only its heads, after he came upon the snhjects of hi? family : It was ahout the Bowen matters ; advisino; against htm ; saying that I had not only injured him in his busi- ness, in his reputation and prospects, hut had insinuated myself into his family, superseded him, taken his place ; in matters of religious doctrine, bringing up the chil- di-en, the household, his wife looked to me rather than to him ; caused her to transfer her affections in an inor- dinate measure ; that in consequence of the differences which had sprung up by reason of my conduct, his fam- ily had been well-mgh destroyed ; I had suffered my wife and his mother-in-law to conspire for the separation of the family ; that I had corrupted Elizabeth, teaching her to lie, to deceive ; and he went on to say that not only had I done this, but that I had made overtures to her of an improper character ; and again I expressed some sur- prise [exactly what Tilton says] ; he drew the paper and read it, and then it was, turning to me, he said, " I wish you to verify these charges by going down and seeing Elizabeth yourself ; she is waiting for you at my house." Was there ever a more conclusive test of what the course, what the measure, what the length, the breadth, the severity, of the imputations against Mr. Beecher were, when you have permanently, wholly unequivocal, and wholly indisputable evidence of what the written climax was. Proof can go no further. This fiction that I have read to you, so contemptible and frivolous in itself, is utterly knocked in the head by this firm feature of the evidence that is produced before you, and is shown to have been the climax which arrested Mr. Beecher's atten- tion, which struck him with surprise ; for all the rhetori- cal and inflated propositions which, on Mr. Beecher's statement, Mr. Tilton had given him, of interference with his family and conspiracy of his wife and Mrs. Morse, and all those things, produced no serious impression upon him then. He considered them the exaggerations, per- haps the honest imputations, of a man placed in a most distressing position by his own conduct toward his family ; but they agree that the moment this lady's name was brought in as the sponsor for an imputation, Mr. Beecher, whose respect, whose re- gard, whose affection toward this lady had been the growth of many years' knowledge of her and association with her, at once produced the impression on him, ** Why, this indeed is, as it were, a thunderbolt from a clear sky; this, this is son»ething that a man well may wonder at, if such an imputation as that is made." Well, now, take the confessed answer to that : " Elizabeth cannot have said that, because it is not true," and the recognition of the justice of that impression on Mr. Beecher's part, by the husband's concession : " Go and ask her ; she will tell you." No, gentlemen, there is no escaping, from your unfailing confidence in the character of this paper, that ifi displayed in every form of evidence, with no contra- diction, no substitution, with a destruction of it by the parties that never could have faced it in Court one mo- ment, and kept their footing before this jury. MR. BEECHER INVITED TO GO AND SEE MRS. TILTON. Now, gentlemen, before I advert any more fully to the magnitude of this evidence in regard to this paper and its final blow to the pretensions of an accusa- tion of immorality beyond that, I will go with you to the interview that, on the suggestion and invitation of Mr. Tilton, took place between Mr. Beecher and his wife. Whatever criticism there may be as to there being any diversity of form and circumstance and words in which this interview was brought about, as a conse- quence of the interview between the husband and the paramour, there can be no doubt whatever that the in- terview between the adulteress and the paramour, or between the honest wife and the falsely accused, upright clergyman did take place that night, and did take place between them alone, and did take place upon the suggestion or acquiescence of the husband, and when he remained absent from his house— his own house. Now, there is a fact upon which you can repose, and whatever are the just inferences from that fact you will draw, and you will not be distmbed m yom- logic and your reason and yom* responsible deductions by any flimsy or frivolous feelings or views about these particular people. You will judge of this fixed fact and all that led t[r. Beecher has never offered any improper solicitations, hut has always treated me in a manner becoming a Cliristian and a gentleman. " Elizabeth E. Tilto>-." Q. Did you during this conversation, Mr. Beecher, say anythmg to Mrs. TiLton as to the form and manner in which injury might come to you from ihis charge ? A. I did. Q. TThat-^as that? A. "When she spoke as ohjectlng that it would make dtflSculty "between her and her hus- band, I said to her that there should he no difficulty of that kind, so far as I was concerned, and I desired this in no sense as an offensive thing; but that some rumor of this matter might come to mis chief imakers, it might get into the church, there might in the future be a call npon me, and that I wished something in my possession that in any such exigency as that would be a defense — in sub- stance that, * * * * I said to her that it was not an Injury to me that she had done, alone ; that no woman could make such a statement without injuring herself, and that it would be an injury both to herself and to her children shoxild it be brought out and believed. * * * * There was some little conversation fm-ther— I spoke some — I am afraid with severity, sometimes ; and in the converse preceding, and when I went away. I felt very Borrowful ; I was sorrv that I had said so, and I said so to her that I hoped my visit would be for peace, and that it would not be the means of throwing her back in her aickness, and some other kind expressions. THE EETEACTIOX. Now, gentlemen, jon liave an immediate "^mtten paper coming from the wife spontaneously on her part, or, if you believe that Mr. Beecher aided or as- sisted in any degree in the form and manner of the state- ment, coming from his recent knowledge of the nature and form and degree of the charge, and yon have here, immediately, a note that shows conclusively to the com- monest understandrag that the charge was of improper Bolicltations. Why, good heavens! gentlemen, IE the charge had been the prostitution of her body anci adul- tery, why -would Mr. Beecher or this woman have had this idea in their heads that the gravamen injurious to Mr. Beecher, as involving immorality of purpose, ec[ual, so far as intent goes, and desire, to the consummation of the wickedness, if it had not been the charge that over her name had been maTERVrEW OF DEC. 31. Now, gentlemen, the next interview in the history of this case (and we are getting rapidly thi-ough all that seems to me very important in it) is that on the 736 THE TILTON-BEECREE TEIAL. 3l8t of December, whicli occurred between Mr. Moulton and Mr. Beecher at the house of the latter. One element of confusion, of misrepresentation, as to the situation of Mr. Tilton and his affairs as presented hy himself, to wit, his secure possession of fortune, of employment, and of livelihood up to and until after that interinew of the 31st of December, as described upon the evidence of their own witnesses, Mr. Bowen, who tells you that at 10 o'clock of that morning of Saturday he had presently terminated all relations between Mr. Tilton and his employ- ments, and that that ended Mr. Tilton's pres- encd at the office of either of those papers. He has tola you that on the 26th he told him that would be the result, and that he had made up his mind, so that what Mr. Beecher said could not have had any influence in settling what had already been determined. The fact, then, is that that is out of the way. Now, the object of the interview of the Slst of December was to retrieve the false step that had been taken in the false use of the wife's pliant disposition, and its discovery, and the confusion of face into which Mr. Tilton was thrown by it. The interview of the 30th, as is abundant- ly proved by their own evidence, was to get the sympa- thy, cooperation, commiseration, the compunc- tion of Mr. Beecher ; but alas ! the final test had ended, not in any efl:acing of the impres- sion of the injury and ruin to that family that had fallen upon it, but in the withdrawal of the wife's support to the false charge ; but yet, yet, with no assur- ance that the same waxen nature could not at any time be molded, under the same cruel pressure, to renew the charge. Nevertheless it was of grave importance to Mr. . Tilton, and was so appreciated by the crafty and shrewd agent, attendant, that he had secured to hunt Mr. Beecher in couple with him, that this false step should be re- trieved, if possible ; and so Mr. Moulton goes to Mr. Beecher's house to get back that retraction. He went there for nothing else. He wei^ there, and he succeeded in getting it back— not back as sur- rendered, and given up, and going into the custody or the control of either Mr. or Mrs. Til- ton, but as deposited for safe-keeping in Moulton's hands, and with the common guarantee, to Mr. Tilton, 5 hat Mr. Beecher should not use it against him— that Mr. Beecher should not use against Mr. Tilton the retraction, and that Mr. Tilton should not use the charge against Mr. Beecher— without both being coupled and controlled by-an impartial and friendly production, by an insepara- ble union of the two. And how was Mr. Beecher to be influenced to that 1 Why, it was necessarily by impress- ing upon him that this proceeding, while it was reasona- ble and justifiable as a protection to himself, was not suitable, was not in accordance with a just and charita- ble and merciful dealing with this family, in whose misery he felt some complicity, and for whom he felt unmeasured sympathy, and ftiat it did not conduce to the reparation of the domestic peace of that family that Mr. Beechei should possess and control evidence of the husband's authority over the wife, exerted to obtain a false charge, which the wife had confessed to be false. WeU, there is a great deal in that ; any one can see that. Then came Mr. Beecher's plea : " "Well, but supposing hereafter— not Mr. Tilton— for he disclaims all desire to make trouble ; he had a whole long interview with me to find out how I felt toward him, and how he could be sure that nothing would be brought into discussion that would in- jure him, his feelings, or his wife's— but supposing in the future other occasions and exigencies arise, and other malicious or honest purposes shall seize hold of the fact that this woman has held up my relations to her as the subject of complaint and aspersion, what shall I do for my family ?" Nay, he might have had, and doubtless did have, in mind what I have no doubt was in the mind of Mr. Moulton and of Mr. Tilton also— if this sick woman should die and should leave a written charge without a written refutation, what would then happen i Her life certainly was precarious, and, as Mr. Beecher has testified, she struck him almost as dead, as not des- tined long to live. Then it is that Moulton,, pressing these considerations and these alone, that Mr. Beecher must not think of himself, that he must think of the restora- tion of this family, that he must think of their misfor- tune, their calamity, and that all he can properly desire or ever require is that this paper should be safely pre- served so that if the current circumstances ever should bring, from malign or casual influences, the publication or the circulation or the insinuation, of any such sug- gestion, of his relation to this family, this direct and com- plete refutation and retraction of it may be at hand in safe hands and ready for production when and as it sliaU be required. Accordingly, you wiU find in Mr. Moulton's narrative of this that the whole object of this interview was to re- trieve that false step ; just as the object of the interview of the 30th was to get out of the false position he had got mto by his acticn witb Bowen against Mr. Beecher on the 26th. Now, Mr. Moulton says : " Do you remember that I asked you last night if anybody had seen the letter that Mr. Tilton sent to you through Mr. Bowen, and your answer was, 'Jfobodysave myself had seen It?' He re- membered that." You see, gentlemen, none of these people could come to Mr. Beecher that week without be- ginning the matter about the Bowen letter, about its suppression, and now we have a direct (though from a collateral point of view) confirmation of the great point being to get rid of the eft'ect of that Bowen letter, and restore the sympathy and regard of Mr. Beecher, if possible. And therefore Moulton wanted to know whether anybody else had ever seen that letter, or knew anything about it, and he was reassiured by Mr. Beecher's telling htm. He had not re- membered this, you know, when he was giving the ao- SUMMING UP BY MB. EYART8, 737 connt of the SOtli. Mr. Moiilton said : " Do you remember that I asked you last night if anybody had seen the letter that Mr. Tilton sent to you through Mr. Bowen, and your answer was that * Nobody save myself had seen it.' He remembered that. I said, * Mr. Beecher, I want to read you a letter from Elizabeth Tilton asking for the return of the paper which I have, and the paper which she gave you last night at your dictation. I will read also to you another letter in which IVIrs. Tilton has in- formed her husband '* Well, he read the letter of explanation of the retraction which I have just read to you. Now, what reply did Mr. Beecher make to that % For that was Mr. Beecher's first notion that Mrs. Tilton had done anything in the way of expla- nation, or contradiction of, or subtraction, or detraction from, the force of her letter which she had given Mm. " He said he was surprised." Well, I should think he would be. Moulton says, " I said to him, * Mr. Beecher, I think you have been guilty of a great meanness in getting the permission of a husband to visit his house, and then going there to his wife and procuring from her what you know to be a lie.' " Well, on the cross-exami- nation he says it was " in procuring from her what I am Justified in calling a lie," doesn't he % [addressing Mr. Abbott.] Mr. Abbott—" What I must term a lie." Mr. Evarts— *' What I must term a lie." Well, we get rid, then, of the appeal to Mr. Beecher's consciousness. I said to him, That won't save you. I said, I didn't see this morning much of the guidance of God in what you did. Well, I have never been able to understand what this "guidance of God " referred to, for it is introduced here out of the whole cloth, and there had been no interview between Beecher and Moulton, and none between Beecher and Tilton, so that it must be Mr. Moulton's re- flections in the morning as to the guidance of God in Mr. Beecher's conduct; it was not a phrase of Mr. Beecher's. But perhaps it will all turn out for the best (that is, your having got this retraction), for I hold the confession of Elizabeth Tilton, and if you will return that retraction to me I will burn both in your presence, or I will preserve both; and he said to me, " In ease of my death this would be the only defense that my family would have against Buch a charge," and I said to him, " Mr. Beecher, I don't think that now you ought to take merely selfish counsel of yourself ; the truth is the truth; you have got to abide by that. Where is the retraction?" I said to him, '-I want it." He went to the closet and brought it and handed it to me. I told him I would protect the confes- sion—I would not give that up to Tilton, and I would protect this paper that he gave me with my life ; and sitting there. Sir, I felt my pistol, and I said, " to this extent, with my life." The pistol was brought for emphasis. Well, now, this man that had told you this was shameless enough to tell you that he gave the confession to Mr. Tilton, and that Mr. Tilton gave it to his wife, aad his wife. In his presence, destroyed it ; and yet this whole interview was on the proposition that charge and retraction are to be kept together; and then, before this infamy of the destruction of the paper was brought to their notice in the way of argument, meeting a present and lesser necessity, to wit, to show that there was not any blackmail in the $7,000 operation, they ignored utterly and protested that there was not any agreement or in- struction or license whatever to destroy any paper grow- ing out of that. ^ MR. MOULTON GRIEVED AT MR. BEECHER'S ■ WICKEDNESS. Ah, gentlemen, you wish more and more that you had that paper, or at least the production of it, if you need it more than you have got it from those that could give its contents. Well, then, he goes on to say, according to this witness, about what his defense would be if Theodore should make a charge ; tha^- he should deny it, of course ; and then, with that abandonment of secm'ing him in his denials which seems to characterize this gentleman, according to this man's stories, he said : But I will throw myself on your friendship and what I believe to be your desire to save me. And so, at an interview that had not anything to do with confession, that had no object on Mr. Moulton's part to get a confession, no possible motive on Mr. Beecher's part to give a confession ; and when they passed through the ordeal of the night before on the testimony of every- body, with an absolute denial of there being a word of truth in the charges, and had in his hand besides the woman's statement that there was not a word of truth in the charge, if you believe Mr. Moulton as making out words for Mr. Beecher, he voluntarily says : And he told me— he said to me, in addition— he con- sidered his sexual intercourse with Mrs. Tilton was the natural expression of his love for her, are the words he used. He said he felt justified in his own accoimt of the love he held for her, and which he knew she held for him, and said at the close of the conversation : " My life is ended. When to me there should now come honor and rest, I find myself on the brink of a moral Niagara, with no power to save myself, and I call upon you to save me." Now, here is the point where he said that his inter- course with Mrs. Tilton was a natural expression of his love, and then corrected himself and put the word "sexual" in, and he did it several times: and when his attention was called, in a cross-exam- ination, to how it happened that whenever he undertook to tell the story about Mr. Beecher speaking of his expressions of love he said " expressions'* first, and then Interpolated " sexual ;" he said it was a mere slip of the tongue. WeU, well, gentlemen, it won't do to break down character and destroy life and hap- pmess of many families on the question of whether there is not a slip of the tongue in the witness. Hja tongue slipped—" dropped a word," he said. It is exactly the word that makes the differenoe. 788 THE TILION-BIJEGHUB TRIAL. But that is, after all, very unimportant when the absolute ahsurdity of the whole proposition of the originating, spontaneous, unextraeted confession of Mr. Beecher to Mr. Monlton that night, when Mr. Moulton was there to get back a retraction, and which Mr. Beecher said he wanted for his protection. But it is of a piece with several other items of testimony that we shall find, as we go on, in this statement. Now, there was a very cui'ious other passage of this very interview on a cross-examination about this mattei', which I have never been able to read without amuse- ment. Now, the cross-examining counsel asked him what lie said : " I am giving his language as nearly as I recollect it, Bir : That that paper would be the only defense of his family in case he was attacked." Now, let us hear what Mr. Moulton says : " And I said to him, * Mr. Beecher, I don't see how you have erred as you have ; I don't iinder- standit; you have had criminal connection with Mrs. Tllton, and you go down and you get this paper ; I don't see how you could have performed two such acts.'" Only think of it. Two such acts ! Mr. Moulton, the moralist, talking to Mr. Beecher, and piercing his con- science with the accumulated horrors of two such acts- one of seduction of three years, and adultery of sixteen months, and the other going to see Mrs. Tilton, on the invitation of her husband, and telling her that the charge she had made was untrue, and taking from her a state- ment that it was not true. Those are the two such acts that puzzled the mind of Mr. Moulton, how a man could have such an accumulation of guilt. Either one alone would not have amounted to much; but two such acts was too much for Mr. Moulton. [Laughter.] He was in the position of Lord Dundreary, that no fellow can understand. [Laughter.] But that is not all : Tilton's disposition last night when I went home,or when I saw him after going home, was peaceful. He said that no matter what might come to himself he would protect his wife and family, intended to do that, and Mr. Beecher then said to me with great sorrow, weeping, that he had lOved Elizabeth Tilton very much, and through hia love for her, if he had fallen at all, he had fallen. :Mr. Beecher was in doubt, you know ; Mr. Beecher was lU doubt whether he had had those three years of seduc- tion, and these 16 months of adultery. Now. if 1 have fallen at all— if I have got into that ^ilt at all Now, see how good his reasoning is. He had fallen through love; "that the expression" — now, we have got the same stuiubling which is called dropping a word— * that the expression, the sexual expression of that love was just as natm-al, in his opinion, he had thought so," is the language that he used to her, " that if he had fallen at all, he had fallen in that way, through love and not through lust, or words to that effect." Well, gentlemen, truth shows itself agamst the most malignant eiforts to suppress it. " The expression "— " sexual expression"— * II Me had fallen "- " if he had faUen at all "—twice over — " he had fallen "— " if he had gone into adultery it had been thi-ough love and not through lust." That is a proposition that proves itself. Now, see how it comports with the truth. Mr. Beecher tells you in his testimony, tells you in his statement read to you, as made to the church, as the statement prepared to stand the ex- amination of the Judgment Day^ how he had been drawn into admiration, affection, intimacy with this lady of the nature that he describes, and how he, heedless of the impressions upon her nature, and her sympathy, and her affections, was blind and deaf to any suspicion that there was to come out of this with- drawal of affection from the husband, or confusion of her duties to him and her children, and the discord and in- iury and calamity to the family was now displayed before him as the evil that had happened from some cause, and Mr. Tilton had accused him the night before, the 30th, as having been the cause of this subtraction of the wife's affection and this attraction to himself of the woman's worship. Now, Mr. Beecher, if he talks, talks on that, and, oh! it was a sur- prise to him, and he^takes woe to himself for his blind- ness, and yet cannot understand how it should be that all this should arise without his present, concurrent con- sciousness and observation— talks to this man, Moulton on the very topic that Mr. Moulton is pressing upon him. You are introducing new mischief between this wife and husband by holding on to this accusation of the hus- band by the wife of having forced a false charge out of her against you. That is not the way. You must not " consult for your own safety and your own selfish inter- ests and protection. You must restore this family, And.flnally yielding to that,he surrenders the paper, and then he says, speaking of what he was conscious of, and what he felt compunction for on this sudden revelation of the mischief that had come— he says, " Well," this is the nature of the observation, if anything to support it ever arose, and I think even false witnesses like to have some shelter of conscience. Well, if Ijhave, m my mtimacy and my blindness and my enjoyment of the society and of the traits of purity and piety of this woman, drawn her aftections, warped them toward me, centered them too much in me, and pro- duced this estrangement, thank God my visits, my inti- macy, my sympathy, and my fall into the iL^sehief of in- jury to her— if it be true, as you now charge, that this ca- lamity is ascribable to me — I have fallen into it only in the intercourse of chastity and affection, and not with any purposes or desires of lust. Thus explained, comporting with all the truth, you can understand why Mr. Beecher might reason in that way ; but if you put it ui>on the fact of a sexual, abominable, and gross immorality, and adultery, what can explaui this idea, twice repeated, that if he had fallen at all, he had fallen through love and not through lusti Now, Mrs. Tilton had not denied her undue affection, nor had there ever been displaced from the ground of Mr. Tilton's complaint, urged I think in no very measured or SUMMiya UP BI ME. JEVAETS. 739 honest terms on his part, but for a purpose, as I shall show you hereafter, against Mr. Beeeher, that he had been actually and practically the means of breaking up ■what should be the relations between husband and wife, the entire unity of feeling and of regard. Ifow, Mr. Beeeher gives an account of this interview, and you will judge, first, of the respective credit of the two witnesses, and secondly, that whether this view does not comporc with the probabilities, nay, the necessi- ties of the occurrence, and refute the opposite view given by 3Ir. Moulton: After he came in he made some introductory remarks, which I now cannot give, but he drew a letter from out of his pocket from Theodore Tilton, purporting to be, in which Mr. Tiltou stated that after going home last night he found that I had taken advantage of my interview to procure from his wife a retraction of the charges that had been made against me. That was the substance of it. There was some little more which I do not remem- ber. He then proceeded to say in substance that he presumed that that was so. I said it certainly — that I had. He said that he thought I had acted a very indiscreet part— a dishonorable one ; that I had no right to take advantage of such a situation, and to obtain such a retraction ; and I claimed the right of self-defense. He then said that such a course was indiscreet and inexpedi- ent on my part, no matter what my reasons were ; that it tended to increase the difficulty between Mr. Tilton and his wife and between Mr. Tilton and me, and that instead of leading to peace and quiet, it tended ex- actly the other way, and I ought to give up her retrac- tion. I argued with him on that matter, and for some little time there was an. interchange backward and for- ward of thought. He then drew fi-om his pocket a letter pmporting to be from Mrs. Tilton. "5\Tiich was read : Saturday Morning. Mt Dear Frienb Fra>'k : I want you to do me the greatest possible favor. My letter which you have, and the one I gave :Mr. Beeeher at his dictation last evening, ought both to be destroyed. Please bring both tome and I will burn them. Show this note to Theodore and Mr. Beeeher. They will see the propriety of this request. Youi's truly, E. B. Tilton. Q. "vMiat succeeded 1 A. Well, I was perplexed a little at the existence of that letter, for Mr. Tilton had told me that the letter was destroyed— [Mr. Tilton, you re- member, told him on the 30th that he tore up the only copy, and that the original was destroyed]— and Mr. Moulton and Mrs. Tilton's note, implied the existence of that letter containing charges. Q. The accusation 1 A. The accusation. Q. Yes. A. However, that was a mere transient i;hought in my mind, and then, the end of the conversa- tion being what would tend to peace and reconciliation. Q. Go on with the conversation, please 1 A. There was considerable said ; I said to Mr. Moulton that my objec- tion to giving up that retraction was that I should be left open, without defense, if I were in any way brought to account on such a charge as that. He said in substance that he would stand between me and any such renewal of the accusation, that he would defend the documents, that he would bum them both in my presence, if I wished Q. If you wished i A. If I wished, or he would keep them. That is the substance of the matter. There is nothing more except the great distinctness with which it was de- termined that the two papers were to be kept insepar- able, as indeed Mr. Moulton plainly stated in his cross- examination. Q. Was anything said by you at the interview on the 31st about :Mr. Tilton having invited you on the 30th to go down and see his wife '? A. Mr. Moulton introduced it that Mr. Tilton had sent him down to see his wife ; there was no difference of opinion about it ; if there is any it is of later origin. Then he stated how ]SIr. Moulton urged the idea that it was not gentlemanly in him to keep a paper, and I should give it up, and that would tend to peace. He thought, he said, it would be a work of conciliation, and that it would tend very strongly to it. He represented that Mr. Tilton was under the impression that I was an active enemy, and that any coui-se on my part that was a c jurse of self-defense, aggressively in any way, was hold- ing a defense of myself in such a way as would be a rod over him— would strengthen that impression, and that every conciliation that I could make would weaken that impression, and help him (Mo alt on) to hold Tilton to kindly thought and feeling about me. He contradicts entirely the idea that anything was said that night about his having procured a lie or anything that Mr. Moulton was justified m calling a lie. Now, when they returned to the stand Isli. Moulton didn't con- tradict any of these parts that I have read to you. You see what stands as an enormous anomaly, if this great central fact of tD,1ury to Mr. Tilton by Mr. Beeeher, and of power of Mr. Til- ton over :Mr. Beeeher from that fact— if that had been in the consciousness of Mr. Beeeher or ]Mr. -Tilton, or the knowledge of Mr. Tilton, the least idea that there was any substantive fact, you see the enormous anomaly of all the operations of that week to secure friendly feel- ings on iNIr. Beecher's part toward Mr. Tilton. And here we have a repetition of it. Mr. Tilton thought he was an active enemy, and wanted to be sure that he (3Ir. Beeeher) would not injure him. He needed friendship. He was in a calamity, and getting these new facts of his (Tilton's) treachery, and of his abuse of his wife's compliance to make a false charge, and the evidence of all that into his (Mr. Beech- er's) hands against him, made him think still more that he must have some secm-ity that Mr. Beeeher did not in- tend to pursue him (Tilton) as an active enemy. Xow, did you ever hear of such an absurdity as that I And, yet, it runs all thi'ough, and when we come to the 1st of January you wiR find it impregnates that interview fi-om end to end, and when you come to later matters, which I shall run through rapii^f, you will see that the whole purpose is to keep kindness in Mr. Beech- er's heart and fidelity in 3Ir. Beecher's feel- ings, so as that ]Mr. Beeeher needn't injure, persecute, destroy Sir. Tilton. Now, in respect to any casual impression or notion that any of these, as I regard them, frivolous and self-convicted falsehoods in INIr. Moulton's statement, stand as it they were his evidence, 740 TRB TlLTOl^-BEECHBR TEIAL. to be credited as his evidence, and without contradicting I have only to suggest to you that throughout, with solemnity, with distinct- ness, with completeness, Mr. Beecher has denounced them aU as false, so far as having occurred, and you must judge, at your charitable judgments, whether they are not false in the consciousness and pur- pose of the witness that speaks against him. The Court here adjourned until Friday at 11 o'clock. NINETY-SEVENTH DAY'S PROCEEDINGS. CONTimiED SUMMING UP FOR THE DE- FENSE. ANALYSIS OF LETTERS RELIED UPON BY THK PLAINTIFF — EXPRESSIONS IN THE CATHERINE GAUNT LETTER AND OTHER COMMUNICATIONS EXPLAINED— TESTIMONY FROM MR. MOULTON, MR. WILKESON, AND OTHERS TAKEN UP— MR. TILTON'S STATEMENTS AS TO PHOTOGRAPHS OF HIS WIFE AND DAUGHTER REVIEWED — UN- SUCCESSFUL ATTEMPT OF JUDGE NEILSON TO HAVE A SATURDAY SESSION— MR. BEACH DE- SIRES TO HAVE THE SUMMING UP FOR THE DE- FENSE LIMITED. Friday. June 4. 1875. To-day was the sixth day of the argument of William M. Evarts m summing up for Mr. Beecher. At the etid of the afternoon session Judge Neil- son told the jurors that he shojild have to appeal to them to consent to the court's sitting on Satur- day, because there was such a large amount of other business waiting to be disposed of by him that it was imperatively necessary to hasten the completion of this trial. Mr. Evarts objected to a Saturday ses- sion on the ground that it would be a hardship for him to continue speaking another day af fcer talking continuously the previous four days. Mr. Beach sus- tained Mr. Evarts in his request that there should be no Saturday session, and Judge Neilson consented to adjourn until Monday morning as usual. Mr. Beach then insisted upon knowing definitely when the sum- ming-up for the defendant would close, and appealed to the Court to fix some limit to it. Judge Neilson referred him to Mr. Evarts, who said that he had no thought of speaking longej than next Tuesday night, and he was strongly desirous of closing before recess on that day. Mr. Beach said that his argument would be comparatively brief, and he privately stated that he had no idea of exceeding three days. The defend- ant's counsel have already taken 11 days for their siunming up, and if Mr. Evarts closes when he says he will the whole time consumed by them will havo^ been 13 days. Mr. Evarts says that he has now cov- ered the main points of his argument, and what he will have to say hereafter will be of somewhat minor importance, although necessary to the full treat- ment of his client's case. The argument to-day was confined principally to some of the famous letters in the case. Among^ these were the "Catherine Gaunt Letter," the "Nest-Hiding Letter," and some others. The al- leged equivocal expressions in these letters, some of which were analyzed by Judge Porter in his address, were explained by Mr. Evarts with great care, and with a clearness of argument that excited the admiration of many in the audience. Some of Mr. Moulton's testimony was considered, as well as the testimony of Mr. Wilkeson, and other evidence that had been brought forward on both sides. Several of the minor inter- views between Mr. Beecher and Messrs. Tilton and iMoulton came under consideration, and the relations of Messrs. Bo wen and Tilton were subjected to a further analysis m new relations. Almost the only peculiarly striking passage in the address was in reference to Mr. Tilton's contradiction of some of Mr. Wilkeson's evidence about the interview between the two in Washing- ton. Mr. Wilkeson said that Mr. Tilton had shown him a photograph of his wife. This Mr. Tilton de- nied, saying that he had shown photographs of his daughters, Florence and Alice, and that Mr. Wilke- son, supposing Florence to be Mrs. Tilton, apostro- phized her picture over a glass of wine. "And, " snid Mr. Evarts, humorously, after read- ing this portion of the plaintiff's testimony, "Florence was a little girl 6 years old. I think it would take more than one glass of wine, gentlemen, to confuse as clear a head as Samuel Wilkeson's into the notion that a girl 6 years old was the wife of this Apollo." As he said this the orator half turned toward Mr. Tilton with an ironical smile, while a burst of laughter from the audience appeared to deepen the color in the flushed face of the plaintiff. THE PKOCEEDINGS— VERBATIM. THE CATHERINE GAUNT LETTER. The Court met at 11 a. m. pursuant to ad- journment. Mr. Evarts— I need now to consider a lew matters touctiing the relations of Mrs. Tilton and Mr. Beecher, brought out, no doubt, in the letters I shall ask your -eA' SUMMING UF B tention to at a later period than the dates that I am now •discussing, bait coming as tliey do in the earlier pari of the year 1871 they throw a reflex and confirmatory light upon the real nature of the Indiscretions, the mlsfor- times, the errors of whatever degree they may have been, that attended the intimacy between Mr. Beecher and Mrs. Tilton. You will remember that we put in evidence a letter which had been published by her husband in the newspapers, bearing date on the 29th of June in the year 1871, and written to him by her during a temporary ab- sence from the city, at a place of Summer resort. It has become famous as the Catherine Gaunt letter, and was before the Committee of the Church in their investigations, and has been much in the public mind, and much doubtless in yours since this trial began. It has but one meaning, and it is an absolute refutation of all pretenses of carnal inter- course, or bodily Impurity of any kind on the part of this woman. Not only does the letter itself, but the whole story, and plot and morale of the work of fiction which it inti-oduces to notice, and on which it builds certain conclusions in the mind of this woman, is, and is known to every one to be, an exposition of how there may come to be unsuitable disturbances of domestic peace, unsuit- able exaggerations of grounds of religious discord be- tween husband and wife, by the entirely innocent, the entirely pure and religious relation between a clergyman and a penitent, or a devotee. This letter reads as follows : Ju>'E 29, 1871. Mt Dear Theodore : To-day, through the ministry of Catherine Gaimt, a character of fiction, my eyes have been opened, for the first time in my experience, so that I see clearly my sin'. It was when I knew that I was loved, to siiffer it to grow to a passion. A virtuous woman should check instantly an absorbing love. "But it appeared to me in such false light. That the love I felt and received could harm no one, not even you, I have believed imfalteringly until 4 o'clock this afternoon, when the heavenly vision dawned upon me. I see now, as never before, the wrong I have done you, and hasten imm ediately to ask your pardon, with a penitence so sin- eere that henceforth (if reason remains) you may trust me implicitly. Oh ! my dear Theo., though your opinions are not restful or congenial to my soul, yet my own in- tegrity and purity are a sacred and holy thing to me. Bless God, with me, for Catherine Gaunt, and for all the sure leadings of an all-wise and loviug Providence. Yes ; now I feel quite prepared to renew my marriage vow with you, to keep it as the Savior requireth, who looteth at the eye and the heart. Never before could I say this. I know not that you are yet able, or ever will be, to say this to 7)ie. Still, with what profound thankfulness that I am corns to this sm-e foundation, and that my feet are planted on the rock of this great truth you cannot at all realize. When you yearn toward me with any true feeling, be assured of the tried, purified, and restored love of Elizabeth. "Written from Schoharie. Now, gentlemen, you see exactly how Mr. TUton. in the jonfnsed relations of the affections and the appetites that he himself had displayed in his connection with the r MR. EYARTS. 741 loose theories and the careless speculations that he had allowed to intrude themselves even into the columns of a professedly religious and Christian newspaper. The Independent ; how the wife, having before her, and al- ways insisting upon in the strongest manner, that the preservation of the purity of the marriage relation on the part of the husband and of the wife, was at the very bottom of the dignity, the morality of the nature and character of Christian men and women ; and how, urging her husband in 1868 to beware of these moral con- fusions and these bodily contaminations, and pointing out to him in a letter, the burniag force of which he could not bear to publish till he had mutilated it and pre- sented it as a confession, or a hint of her impurity, in- stead of an expostulation with him for his willful grati- fication of his desires ; how in that state of things Mr. Tilton finds it easy to say she did not for a year afterward, after she had made the communication to him in July, 1870, understand or feel that she had violated her mar- riage vow to him, that on her part there had been any injury to the marriage relation or any just cause of com- plaint by him ; that whatever she had stated to him concerning this entanglement or subtraction of affec- tion rested there and only there, and he knew it and she knew it, and she had used this form of seK-reproaoh and self-abasement in the degree of having allowed af- fections to disturb the unity of subordination to him in all affairs as a means of renewing upon Mm the impressions that had been so pow- erfully produced by the solemn interview of the 26th of Januaiy, 1868, and had then worn away. And it was only when she read Catherine Gaunt, that novel to 'vhich her husband had referred, in her letters to him, during the earlier periods, in 1867 or 1868, that she perceived that under the powerful exposition of this writer of fiction a relation between a clergyman and a married woman, that had no pretense of impurity in it, had yet come to be a ground of discord in the family, of controversy in the divided allegiance of the wife to the church, in which her husband did not believe, and of an estrangement, and of the consequences of driving the husband into actual adultery, of which he late repented, and for which he was pardoned by the wife. Now, you see how this work of fiction played into the inmost heart of this woman, Mrs. Tilton, on both of these points, that purity, unity, absolute subjection to the husband, must discard even the attraction of the affections, through the infiuence of a pious clergyman ; and then she saw, as un- der the burning light of the sim, how it could be carried into the sad impressions upon the husband and his con- duct, of plunging him in actual guilt ; and then was re- produced before her all that situation whereby, by her own abasement, her own self-reproach, her own tak- ing on herself of sin, in not being so acceptable to him and so compliant to him as to satisfy, and attract, and absorb all the passions and attra^-tions of 742 TEE TlLTON-BmWRER TRIAL. the sex for him— she really made herself think that she was responsible for the overflow- ing appetites and indulgences of this hushand. And then she saw how this woman, Catherine Gannt, had under this exposition of the powerful writer, furnished a lesson to her that, for a wife, the first tendency to allow an image, even, to intervene in competition with the hus- band's portrait engraved upon her heart is an error; and that out of that grow, without bodily impurity and with- out any sin in the sense of the loss of chastity on one side, or proposition of dishonor on the other, mischiefs that cannot be measured and the results of which may be deplorable. CATHERINE GAUNT'S FAULT. The first two sentences of this book of Mr. Reade's, " Griffith Gaunt," show you at once what the nature of this lesson taught by this fiction was. The husband says to the wife at a certain stage of passion, excited against the intimacy betv/een the priest and the wife— the husband says: " Then, I say, once for all, that priest shall never darken my doors again ;" and the wife replies : " Then, I say, they are my doors, and not yours ; and that holy man shall brightenthem whenever he will." And there you have the declaration of the resistance, of the controversy that may spring up in an entirely pure and pious woman's mind, when the circumstances bring her into that form of contrariety with her husband. Catherine Peyton, become Catherine Gaunt, was a Catholic, and her husband was a member of the Es- tablished Church of England. She was pious and devoted, an earnest and honest believer in the Christian faith, a worker in all the good ways of the Church, a sup- porter of all its great teachings, and a lover of all its great helps to the conscience and the soul. The husband, well- meaning enough, and moral, if you please, but careless and indifferent to religion, having no sympathy, not with the Catholic opinions but no sympathy with the piety and the orthodoxy of the wife, and the confessor, the Father Confessor in whose company, and in whose purposes, and in whose faithful labors, the wife sympathized ; whose intellect she admired, whose rapt devotion she wor- shiped, and whose purity and power as a servant of God she sat above the husband and his indifference and his coarse conduct ; came into such relations of mutual regard, mutual esteem, mutual appreciation, that this husband was led into controversy, and, being like a great ma«iy people, that, If they are not good Christians are yet good Protestants, or good Catholics, or good Episco- palians, or good Methodists, or good Congregationalists, as the case may be, into the antagonism between the churches and the faiths, and having his feelings in- flamed (not, to be sure, by the studied art of an Tago, not by the close attendance of some modern English Sir Philip Sydney, but under the impulses, natural to the heart of man m seeing the greater Inrtiellect, and the greater piety, and the greater aspirations, and the greater labors, filling the wife's imagination and sub- tracting her by degrees from the earthly and vul- gar sympathies that belong to every-day life- gets finally into that heat of jealous passion which swears that the priest shall never darken the doors again ; and she, replying, not very po- litely, that the property was hers, and the holy man should brighten the doors as often as he chose, began the covirse of discord and separation and destruction, which finally ended in the profligacy of the husband, in the ex posure of the actual pmlty and fidelity of the wife, and in the restoration of the husband to her -aftections, him- self redeemed from the stains of sin. And yet, with a literary appreciation of that novel, and of all the senti- ments at the bottom of it. Mr. Tilton has not hesitated to make this a ground of imputing carnal pollution in the place of what he knew was nothing but some withdrawal of affection from him and some submission and devotion of it in the relations of the clergyman and the communi- cant, of the same general nature as that between Cat' erine Gaunt and the piiest. Now, this is where Fath Francis comes in. Father Francis had been the first co" fessor, or spiritual director, of this pious lady, and he wa a man apparently of that large practical knowledge of human nature which, though it did not interfere with his piety and his devotion to his church, and his duty as a priest to penitents and communicants, yet understood better the line of division so as to avoid the possibility of any confusion between the duties of the wife to a hus_ band— any sentiment, I mean— and those to the priest. And when Father Leonard, the man of genius, and of fire* and of rapt devotion, with whom this disturbance of the wifely relations to the husband had grown up, had with- drawn, and Father Francis had returned, he thus talks with the woman : " Mj' daughter," said Father Francis, " and you, who are her husband, and my friend, I am here to do justice between you both, with God's help, and to show you both your faults. Catherine Gaunt, you began the mis- chief by encouraging another man to interfere between you and your husband in things secular." " But, Father, he was my director, my priest." " My daughter, do you believe, with the Protestants, that marriage is a mere civil contract, or do you hold with us that it is one of the holy sacraments 1" " Can you ask me ?" murmured Kate, reproachfully. " Well, then," continued Father Francis, " well, then, those whom God and the whole Church have in holy sacrament united, what right hath a single priest to disunite in heart, and make the wife false in any part whatever of that most holy vow ? I hear, and not from you, that Leonard did set you against your husband's friends, withdrew you from society, and sent him abroad alone ; in one word, he robbed yom' husband of his com- panion and his friend. The sin was Leonard's, but th© fault was yours." SUMMING UP B WHAT ME. Tn.TON OMITTED FROM THE PUBLISHED LETTER. You see, now, as lu a mirror, the heart of tMs woman, the life of this woman, and you see this plain- tiffs knowledge of tliat heart and of that life ; and you see, now, how, under this letter, she can say, " I see, now, how there must "be no toleration nor hospitality to pos- sible affections that may interfere with the whole moral, the whole spiritual, the whole practical adhesion of the wife to the husband in all things, small and great, taking her fate with him, using her ministry with him, submit- ting even to a vicarious sacrifice of her own life, so that she may keep those vows that attend the union and are to preserve the unity of their souls." And thus she says : "Now, althougn your opinions are not restful or conge- nial to my soul"— that is, his religious opinions, his social opinions, his notions about family, and about faith—" yet my own integrity and purity are a sacred and holy thing to me. I now feel quite prepared to renew my marriage vow with you— I have always kept it in the other sense— and to keep it as the Savior requireth who looketh at the eye and the heart. I know not that you are yet able, or ever will be, to say this to me." And this is the part of the letter that Mr. Tilton omitted when he published it, and put in no asterisks to show that there was a gap made : Still, with what profound thankfulness that I am come to this assured foundation, and that my feet are planted on the rook of this great truth, you cannot at all realize. Down to this word " realize " all was left out of the letter as Mr. Tilton published it. Now, what do you gather from the mutilation of a wife's letters ? It was bad enough, base enough to publish them, and that this plain- tiff has found out, in the estimates of his fellow men and the women of his country, long before this. But it was a baseness to put a misconstruction upon a wife's letters "by this mutilation, and to murder her fame by falsifying her communications to himself. But this is not the first or the only instance of that nature. The inferences are terrible, they are inevitable, they are conclusive. THE BEARING OF THE LETTER ON THE CASE. And now, another letter introduced by the plaintiff, following this one by only five or six days' in- terval, written from the same place, and being, no doubt, the first communication after this Catherine Gaunt Let- ter. [Reading.] Mt Deak Theodoke : I had expected you all day yes- terday and to-day. But now your letter was put into my hand instead. I feel the bitterest disappointment. But we are both in God's hands, and I now hear Him say, by my heart's intense yearnings, " Eeturn to the love of your youth." Oh ! my dear husband, may you not need the further discipline of being misled by a good woman, as I have been by a good man. I rejoice in your happy lace and peaceful mind, though I am not in any wise the cause. It will be God's gift alone if ever your face Ulu- mLnes, or heart throbs, with thoughts of me. " As for Y MB. EVABTS. 743 me, I will wait on the Lord." I tliank you for the suffer- ings of the last vear. Turning, now, to the conclusions produced in her mind and expressed in the Catherine Gaunt letter : You have been my deliverer. Destroy my letters, nor show them to our mutual friends. The fear of this would prevent me writing my inmost self. So that Moulton had come to be the mutual friend of Elizabeth and Theodore, as well as of Theodore and Mr. Beecher ! Now, gentlemen, it is undoubtedly very hard that Mr. Beecher should be judged at all, either by the Catherine Gaunt letter, or by this letter, which were let- ters in which he had no act, iu which he was not passive as the recipient, of which he had no knowledge, and which simply constituted a portion of the manner in which this husband and this wife deal with their own relations, and with the best manner of pleasing one another by their forms and manners of stating them. I have shown you enough of the plasticity of this woman's heart under the touch of this man's dominion. I have shown you enough of the strangeness of its own opera- tions when caught in currents of impression and of ac- tion unsuitable to the quiet, devotional spirit, disturbing to the practical charitable labors of a pious woman, in the ordinary conditions of life, and with a measure of intelligence no doubt considerable, and of education, no doubt adequate, and of practical knowledge which be- longs to qmet and pious families in Broo klyn, not so ex- tensive as that that is gained in other and larger expe- riences of the world. I say it is hard that this kind of evidence should be brought to bear upon Mr. Beecher. The first letter we Introduced no doubt for its exhibition, but we do not thereby indorse it as being a correct ex- pression, or a sincere feeling even, or a just and honest view of what on intimate inspection would be shown to be the relations of the husband and the wife. Enough for us— that letter purges at once all possible suggestion of there having been any improper relations between Islx. Beecher and the wife beyond this confusion of affections, and this division and disturbance of alleficiance. Now, 1 drew from Mr. Tilton, on the cross-examination, that when he was using this letter, when he was publishing it, he knew perfectly well that there was no adultery on the part of the wife Catherine m " Griffith Gaunt ;" he knew there was an abundance on the part of Griffith, the hus- band. And yet he published that letter, mutilated it, falsified it, and produced an impression throughout this land in the newspapers that that was a confession of adultery, and that it was only from the morality of this writer of fiction that his wife had found out that adul- tery was an impurity and an impropriety. It is a good thing to have a husband, especially to have him repre- sent you to the rest of the world ; and that is the way this husband has represented his wife throughout this land, with the perfect consciousness that he had muti- lated her letter, and that he had deceived the unreading 744 Ta£j TILION-BBEOHUB TBIAL, puljlic into an Impression that Catherine Gaunt liad opened to lier tlie sin of camal pollution, wliicli liad not seemed to her to be a sin before. Now, let us see how any of these other letters of the ■wife naturally and honestly carry any impression against her in respect of the relations between herself and Mr. Beecher. These are the letters that passed on her part from the 8th of March, 1871, the second on the 2l8t of April, and the thu-d on the 3d of May of that year. Dur- ing this period of the effort and the success at restored relations between Mr. Beecher and Mr. Tilton and Mrs. Tilton, so far as the husband's wishes were concerned, and so far as it was possible that there should be any re- newal going beyond, as it was not, going beyond sym- pathy, regard, and pity on the part of Mr. Beecher, and something in the nature of compunction, regret, and suf- fering on the part of the woman. The reason these let- ters—for they were brought to Moulton— the reason these letters have been used, either by this husband or by his faithful friend, Mr. Moulton, or any advisers of theirs, has been in the hope of inspiring some vile and filthy sus- picion of equivoque, or a double meaning. I have de- nounced that once in the course of the observations I have had the honor to submit to you, and I don't think that any renewal of that construction will be presented to you here, if indeed during this trial there has been no disposition to take that view. Now, the letter of the 8th of March is just a month after the three letters of the 7th of February which passed between these three parties in the nature of a written restoration, and which will be brought to your attention, however, very briefly, as they are sufficiently in your minds. Waiting a month, the wife writes to Mr. Beecher : My Dear Fkiend : Does your heart bound towards all as it used ? That seems to be a quotation made in previous letters from Hannah More, and nobody ever suspected Hannah More of pruriency. So does mine. I am myself again [underscored.] I did not dare to tell you until I was sure. But the bird has sung ia my heart these four weeks, and he has covenanted with me never again to leave. "Spring" fwith quotations] "has come." Because I thought it would gladden you to know this and not to trouble or embarrass you ia any way, I now write. Of course I should like to share with you my joy, but can wait for the Beyond j_with a capital B] the future life. When dear Frank says I may once again go to old Plymouth I vnU thank the dear father. Now, gentlemen, I have nothing to explain about that letter. It needs no explanation. There was no conscious- ness of any need of concealment on Mr. Beecher's part, for he brought it to Mr. Moulton and the husband saw it. There never was any idea that there was any wrong in it till somebody's foul imagination seized upon it, and, by imputing filthy doubles entendres read it before the land envenomed— envenomed by those juices that were bred In the head of the toads that gave it this meaning which never came out of the pure heart of this woman. I think you need have nothing more about that. Obviously plain. This woman was suffering— why shouldn't she suffer under the discordant parts she had played in the written accusation, the retraction, the explanation, the efforts to undo the mischief in the production of which bhe had so large a share 1 And, when these letters of the 7th of February came to her and they showed her hus- band's disposition and Mr. Beecher's disposition toward her, and Mr. Beecher's disposition of friendliness, and wish for the welfare of her husband, she meditated upon them during the month, and she watched and perceived and received evidence on her husband's part, in his demeanor, of how much there was really of restoration of the broken peace of the family, and at last, at last, when Mr. Tilton had weaned a little from his trouble by the hopeful dream of llie Golden Age, then just established, and looking out for prosperity and strength, she found his face brighten, his troubles lighten, his domestic attitudes less cruel, less moody, less vengeful in regard to and in condemnation or accusation of Mr. Beecher, and everything was re- stored on the surface, and everything would have remained restored and undisturbed in the future if the external prosperity of Mr. Tilton, If his restoration toward good opinion and good work and good position and good income and respectable relations to society had been built up as was the effort, and the wish, and the prayer of Mr. Beecher ; and if that hopeful scheme founded upon a change of morals, of conduct, of senti- ment, and of action in Mr. TUton had gone on in its legitimate and expected strength and amplitude and not been overthrown by the foolish wickedness or the wicked folly of his relations to the doctrines and hia admiration of the character, and his implication of him- ^ self before the coxmtry in sympathy with Victoria Wood- ^ hull, her life, her character, her teachings. Well, now, on the 21st of AprU another letter is written, and it sheda great light upon the situation then. MRS. TILTOIf WANTS THE LETTERS DE- STROYED. Everything was over then ; the errors and faults, the misunderstandings on all sides had been ex- plained, understood; they were all measurable; they were all pardonable ; they had all been made the subject of consideration, of explanation and of pardon, wherever the faults were. And this poor lady, assuming that open- ness and straightforwardness was the real character, the real aiid honest traits of this conciliation, writes thlc simple note to Mr. Beecher : Friday, April 21, 1872. Mk. Bebchbr : As Mr. Moulton has returned [that is from his visit South] will you use your influence to have the papers in his possession destroyed. My heart bleeds night and day at the injustice of their exlatenoe. Those papers were, as she apprehended, her acensatioB Sn^IMl.NG UF BY ME ot improper advances, her retraction (that liad also made an accusation against her husband of forcing her to a false charge), and her explanation of this retraction "Which, of course, when read one after the other, pre- sented a pitiable record to have come from one mind or one hand, and they were craftily put by Mr. Tilton as coming presumably from the mind and the hand of his wife, for they had her signatures, and their test was traced by her pen. And she says : BYABTS. 745 Jvow that Mr. Moulton is baclr, let me ask you to use your influence to have the papers in his possession de- stro^ ed. My heart bleeds m.s-ht and day at the injustice of their existence. And this was handed by Mr. Beecher to Mr. Moulton and came to Mr. Tilton's knowledge, and if the piteous pleading of this woman to her husband, and her hus- TDand's friends in this, her language could not produce tbe response of destroying the papers which seemed to her in their continued existence so great an injustice, and for which her heart, bled night and day, what selfish argument of IMr. Beecher could have availed % He made none. He feared nothing. His solicitude was always for the pain and suffering of others. But why was not this wish of the wife attended to % Why, on this 21st day of April, when that prayer came to the husband and the husband's friend that, now that peace had been made, that explanations had been given, that her retraction had withdrawn the charge, and her explanation had withdrawn the evil and injury towards her husband that -was em])©died in the retraction ; when they were in peace, and when Mr. Beecher was restored to intimacy with the family, so far as he regarded it suitable, by the express action of the husband, why should n't they be destroyed? Who had purposes against their destruc- tion ? Who had hopes and plans and schemes of further insidious, secret use of them ? DEDUCTIONS FEOM "THE POLICY OF SI- LENCE." Under what is called the policy of silence— and, like so many other things in this cause, tui'ns out to he unilateral silence— silence on one side—" Don't speak except through us ; we are going to be silent under mo- tives of the strongest guarantee for our silence. All we want is some security that you, Mr. Beecher, won't tell of these things, of this disorder, of this disaster, this dis- grace in Mr. Tilton's family." Did they think that Mr. Beecher was in danger of telling of it if it was adultery— if it was to destroy his life, wreck his home, break up his hold upon this city, this country, this world % No ! " We want you to keep silent, now, about this matter, this charge that has been made against you, that has been retracted, and accompanied in the retraction with a charge that it was false on the part of the husband and procured by force, this evidence that I have tried for my purpose to entrap you into a notion that my wife believes I Porter has shown you how utterly monstrous and how that you have been impure In your purposes and your proposals to her, which she has rejected. We don't want anybody to know of the existence of that turpitude and that disgrace." It was the same feeling that led Mr. Moulton to be so solicitous on the Slst of December to know whether Mr. Beecher had shown anybody Mr. Tilton's letter of the 26th of December, and in regard to which IVIr. Beecher's answer that no- body but him, Moulton, had seen it, relieved any fear that 3Ir. Tilton was to be cudgeled with public oppro- brium and public denunciation for such a bold and brag- gart letter as that. So here unilateral silence is imposed upon Mr. Beecher, for Mr. Tilton does not hesitate to tell you that all through those months he told whom he pleased, and just as much as he pleased, of his version, and accompanied it with just as much of the garbled ex- hibition, and, of course, the partial inspection, of those to whom he showed this, or with speck or scrap of writing, separated from the rest. There is but one other letter : Bkookltx, May 3, 1871. Mr. Beecher : My future, either for life or death,would be happier could I but feel that you forgave while yoa forget me. Well, now, that is a very extraordinary letter for a woman that had been ruined by confidence in a man towards whom confidence was almost an absolute duty, that had been involved in the final sacrifice of personal purity, for which she had, I will not say a morbid rever- ence — for no worship of chastity by a woman can ever be „ deemed morbid; it is the very health of her as a woman —but that was as exacting as imiversal, as clear-sighted as ever was proposed by priest or poet as the rule and the guide and the safeguard of woman's life— it certainly is very extraordinary that she, with those relations, should write to IMr. Beecher: My future either for life or death would be happier could I but feel that you forgave while you forget me. In all the sad complications of the past year Oh ! how sad they must have been between her and her husband when such a wreck came at the close of it, as this submission to his will in falsehood and in calumny ! In aU the sad complications of the past year my en- deavor was to entirely keep from you all suffering ; to bear myself alone, leaving you forever ignorant of it. My weapons were love, a large untiring generosity, and nest hiding! [Underscored and with an a»Jmu"ation mark. J That I failed utterly we both know. But now I ask forgiveness. THE TERM "NEST-HIDING" INTERPRETED. Now, this letter handed to Moulton has been made the subject of publication and of comment in " statements" not within the limits of this ti'ial, and the world must consult them if it wishes to know how vile an imputation, from some man's mind and heart, has been put upon that word "nest-hiding." My learned brother 746 THE TlLTOJ^-BEhJCHEB TBlAIu shallow and frivoloiis this interpretation is, giving an ui decent meaning to the word "nest-hiding," to wit: the meaning, as hy a slang term, of the adulterous enjoy- ments that had passed between paramour and mistress. Now, separated from the paramour, with all connections of any kind terminated, with these impure connections, if they ever existed, confessedly terminated more than a year bef ore.she writes to him that, dtiring the time and pe- riod of the present troubles, " my weapons have been love, a lari^e, untiring generosity, and "—adulterous enjoyments ! Pray, with whom a mode of solace so delightful t Well, gentlemen, husbands and husbands' friends and husbands' advisers are hard pressed when they jump into such another bramble-bush as this is. When the bramble- bush of the fii'st accusation has scratched out both their eyes, is this to scratch them in again 1 They certainly are " wondrous wise" in the attempt. Ah, gentlemen, what is the " nest-hiding" that has been the solace and the weapon against the wickedness of others and the pains of the doubts and suspicions and accusations that have been circulated 1 You have all heard of the embodied scorn with which men have, in a proverb, denounced the " evil bird that fouls his own nest," and you have all heard of that symbol of devotion and self-sacriflce, the wounded mother bird, which, while her life is ebbing, hides from the pui'suing fowler the young in her nest by smothering the groans of a dying bird lest they should be- tray the nest ; and that is the weapon by which a pious woman and a loving mother seeks to protect her young, even the nest that the evil bird has sought to foul I So much for the letters ! • MR. BEECHER'S REMORSE. We now come to tlie interview on the day after that, which I exposed by, I thinlf, a just criticism to your attention yesterday, I mean the interview of Sun- day the first day of Januarj^ at Mr. Beecher's house, be- tween Mr. Moulton and himself. Now, gentlemen, what was the purpose, what the tone, what the temper of that interview? Mr. Moulton seems to have stuck pretty close to Mr. Beecher from the time that he commenced operations on the 30th. He followed him all that night around the streets and did not let him get out of his sight ; he followed him up on Saturday, certainly with an interview that was not sought by Mr. Beecher, that was wholly unexpected, and that had a very definite object, to reprieve certain errors and impose upon the feelings of Mr. Beecher and induce him not to do anything that should make Mr. Tilton think that he, Beecher, had an ill disposition toward him ; and then he comes to another interview that occupies all Sunday afternoon. Mr. Beecher, it is said, at the close of that interview, on Saturday, had suggested that Mr. Moulton should let him know whether this notion of his, that giving up the re- traction to tbe custody of Mr. Moulton would tend to harmony and peace, was correct, and whether It wa« likely to be nroductive of those results. Now, Mr. Moulton comes to Mr. Beecher's in the after* noon of Sunday, and I will read you from Moulton's testi- mony what plainly was the whole object of that inter- view : " How did it happen that you went there 1" He says it was by his invitation ; and then he began : " I told Mr. Beecher that I had taken the retraction to Mr. Tilton, and that I had told Mr. TUton that it would have been very foolish for him to have carried his threat of the morning into execution. I told him that Mr. Tilton was pleased with my haviug procured the retraction ; and I told Mr. Beecher that Mr. Tilton seemed to me to be — I told him that I thought that I told him that Tilton told me— [that is the only way the law allowed him to give it, to tell it]— that he had made up his mind that, no matter what came to himself, he would under- take to protect the reputation of his wife at all hazards. Then Mr. Beecher said to me that he was in misery on account of the crime that he had committed against Theodore Tilton, and his wife and family ; he said that he would be willing to make any reparation that was within his power; he said that Mr. Tilton, he thought, would have been a better man under the circumstances in which he had been placed than he had been; that he felt that he had done a great wrong." ■ Now, see Mr. Beecher's reasoning : He felt he had done a great wrong, because he w Theodore Tilton' s friend, he was his wife's friend and p tor, and he wept bitterly. Now, look at it. They never can tell a story about t emotions and an elevated mind or a purified heart — ^the. never can tell a story about a crime or an iniquity, with- out missing the whole point of its guilt or its wickedness. Oh, no, Mr. Beecher was not troubled art his having, wliile a clergyman, a man prof essing faith in God and love to man, and ministering at the altar of religion, himself the husband of his own wife and the father and grandfather of his own family— there was not a notion in his mind that committing adultery with the wife of another per- son had in it; any touch of sin, for which a man should feel remorse and acknowledge misery ; but he felt this miseiy for the wrong he had done " because he was Theodore's friend and pastor, and his wife's friend and pastor, and he wept bitterly 1" Now, see how that fits entirely the area and character and nature of the offense for which Mr, Beecher then, and ever since, and now— so far as the situation be truthfully supposed, under the evidence, to exist as it existed in his mind under the representations of others at that period— has felt, feels, and will always feel that, if indeed he, the friend of Mr. Tilton, the pastor of Mr Tilton and his family (whether Mr. Tilton was a faithful and devout worshiper or not at his church), and the friend and the pastor of Mrs. Tilton, had heedlessly and blindly allowed an intimacy that began and proceeded on the footing of pastor and parishioner to come to a point where it led to the wrong that is portrayed in this " GritHth Gaunt " so pointedly by Father Francis in commenting upon the SU]\1MI^'G UP BY ME. EYARTS. 747 conduct of Father Leonard and tlie wife, Catlierine Gaunt, tliat if tbis were so he was indeed greatly to blame. You see it here, just as before in the interriew of Saturday night, when :Mr. Beecher says, " If I have fallen at all, if I have fallen into this mischievous situation at all, if it is true what he told me about the wife's aftec- tions, thank God I have not fallen except by errors of a course of respectful attention and affection, and not under any pursuit of carnal sin or under the impulse of any carnal passion." But, now, we have it on Mr. Moul- ton's own showing that the whole point, the whole weight, the whole fact of error and proportionate suffer- ing on Mr. Beecher's part is, not that he has committed a mortal sin that is a mortal sin in everybody, but that he has, through his pastorate and imder the guise and cov- ering of his friendship, created an intimacy that has pro- duced this mischief. Well, Mr. Moulton sees the working of the heart of this large-hearted man ; he sees how Mr. Beecher feels for this suffering and this wrong, and how he puts reproaches on himself that he has had this unconscious and yet, as he now sees and feels, not innocent share in it ; and what does he say then ? Why, he says : Mr. Beecher, why don't you say that to Mr. Tilton ? Why don't you express to hmi the grief you feel and the contiition for it ? You can do nothing, more than that ; and I think I know Theodore Tilton well enough to know that he would be satisfied with that, for T know he loves liis wife ; and Mr. Beecher told me to take pen and paper and to write at his dictation. And then he wrote, Moulton says, this letter. Now, what was this threat that Mr. Moulton told Mr. Beecher that Mr. Tilton had made and that he, Moulton, had told him, Tilton, that he was wise in not carrying out % When Mr. Tilton had discovered and, if you believe him, denounced the adultery of his wife to Mr. Beecher, the guilty paramour, he had not shown any emotion or any purpose of smiting Mr. Beecher— no touch of resentment or of threat about that ; but when Mr. Beecher, after telling him it was all a dream, his ac- cusation, and that Elizabeth could not have said so be- cause it was not true, had gone to Elizabeth, upon the invitation of the husband, and got her admission that it was not true, and so Mr. Tilton had been got into that new awkwardness, then Tilton began to thi-eaten, and what was the threat ? I told Mr. Beecher that Mr. Tilton had said that for the offense of having gone to his wile and procured that retraction he would smite him. And after Moulton had had his interview and obtained the surrender of the retraction he had told Mr. Tilton it would have been foolish, and he told Mr. Beecher that he had told him that. Now, this affair of January 1 1 caU your attention to. In a manner not connected with the main in. terest and purpose of it, or with this written letter, as It Is called, or memorandum, but there came to be, on Jan- uary 1, somehow or at some time in the interview, something of this kind. Q. Up to this time had Mr. Beecher told you when those relations existing between himself and Mrs. Tilton ceased 1 A. He told me that. Sir, on January 1. Q. W^hat was said upon that subject 1 A. He said that Elizabetli Tilton had sent for him to come to her house, and told him that she believed that their relations were wrong, and he told me that he said to her, " If you believe these relations wrong, then they shall be terminated ; '* and he told me that he prayed with her— prayed to God mth her, for help to discontinue their sexual relations. Well, but I thought that on the husband's theory Eliza- beth didn't think it was wrong at all ; that it had never entered into her head that there was anything wrong in it except under the inspiration of Catherine Gaunt, a year after, and that she thought she never had violated her marriage vows ; but now we see that as soon as the idea is introduced to Mr. Beecher's mind that anybody could think there was anything wrong in it [laughter], why, of course, he would not wish to do anything that anybody in the world would think was wrong, and then, with that piety and devotion which should characterize a clergyman even when an adulterer [laughter], he pro- poses that they shall seek Divine aid in terminating their sexual relations. I tried to get from Mr. Moulton, on a cross-examination, whether this specific phrase " sexual relations," was in the body of the prayer, or whether it was only sufficiently referred to to an all- seeing and all-knowing God to have it understood [laughter], but I did not suc ceed. That termination by prayer, he thinks, occurred in July, 1870. Well, now, that shows the confusion of mind. Why, this affair between the wife and the husband, this communication, or whatever it was, about the priestly interference in their household, was made in July, and in the very tenns of his story it appears that all these relations had been terminated a considerable time before that. But see the confusion. THE GETTING OF THE CONTRITION LETTER. Mr. Beecher had said to Tilton, or Moulton, or somebody, at some time or otlier, that it was very ex- traordinary that there should be this story, or this feel- ing, or this trouble between the wife and the husband, about this estrangement and about his interference with, the f amUy, and the bringing up of the children, and all that, and that that should have been in July, and that lie should have been sent for by Mrs. Tilton to visit her in her illness in August when he had visited her and given her such advice and aid as the suffering of her mind as dis- closed to him required, and that he then should have prayed with her, as he did, as her pastor, and that, 11 there had been any such rupture between husband and wife, or occasion of complaint in regard to his relations and influence in the family, she never should have men- tioned it ; and out* of that slender state of facts Mr, Moulton concludes to pat his oonstruction, and his al>< 748 IHE T1LT0N-BKE(]EEU TBIAL. surd and mixed and Maspliemous representa- tion of the dealing of this preacher and of this pious woman on the subject of adultery. On cross-examination Mr. Moulton says : I said, *• Mr. Beecher, if you feel in this way toward Mr. Tilton, it seems to me that if you would so express yourself to him it would make an end of all this trouble [Trouble !] ; it seems to me that it would be the best thing that you could do to so state to him." Now, what is Mr. Beeclier's account of it 1 Mr. Moulton said that Mr. Tilton was set against me ; that he felt that I was his enemy, and that I had done wrong to hi in, both in his business relations and that T had sought to undermine his influence in the community. It was the harder because the implication was, or the statement that I had made use of my acquired reputa- tion, and my position as the head of a great churcli, and my relation to the community— tliat all those, aside from my mere personal action, had gone to overshadow and in- jui'e him. I protested against any such* idea. That he liad occasion to think that I had done him wrong in the matters of Mr. Bo wen, I was ashamed to be obliged to ad- mit. That I had done him intentional wrong in his family, I denied ; but that had wronged him there, it was very evident, it seemed to me, from the present condition and action of Mrs. Tilton. WeU, we went over the same ground a good many times * * * * On the whole, I Mr. Moulton was far less severe with me than I was with my- self, and at times, as it were, deprecated my own strong language against myself, and said, as the interview drew toward a close, that if TUton could only hear what he had heard, he was satisfied that it would remove from his mind animosity, and the conviction that he had that I was seeking his ruin. " Well," said I— I said to him, " state what you see and hear ; I have opened my heart to you." Said he, "Write— write these statements, or some of them, to Mr. Tilton." Well," said he, " let me write it," or something to that effect, and I said, " I have no objection to your writing it," and he sat down at the table, but the conversation didn't stop. I ampli- fied and went on, and finally he said to me, " Well, I will say so and so." And then lie went on with the memorandum, which I will for the moment omit, in either of the modes of stat- ing it ; but before we come to the memorandum I called Mr. Beecher's attention to what Mr. Moulton said in tliat conversation in regard to the eouriition of misfortune and disaster in which Mr. Tilton and his affairs were placed. The answer was : He spoke of Mr. Tilton as being a man of great ability and of great reputation, standing among the highest in the land, and that he had suddenly, by the ill-will or the misconduct of Mr. Bowen, been preciptated from, i)er- liaps, the proudest position a literary man could aspire to; that he had not simply lost that place, but lost it under circumstances that damaged his reputation, and tliat not only had it, the means of his reputation, or, rather, not only had the means and influence gone with liis reputation, but that, suddenly, with a large family on his hands, or expensive family— some word to that effect —Ms means were cut off, and he had no prospect in life except to rebuild, but all the accustomed channels were suddenly shut up to him. He then said that the man had nohometo which he could fall back; that there was dis- cord there and alienation, and that he* had not only thus jost all public position, but his domestic position was also stormed. He described the condition of his family and ol the little children piteously. Q. During this interview, was anything said by Mr. Moulton as to your blaming yourself more than you ouglit— anything of that kind ? A. Yes, Sii* ; on several occasions he said he thought I was putting it too strongly ; that the matter was not so severe as I had laid it upon myself. He thought that the family relationship might with kindly care be repaired. Q. Did he, while you were stating to him what you understood to be the fault or misfortune from your con- nection with his family affairs, say that it was anything different or other than what you stated it ? A. No, Sir ; no. Sir; he did not. It was not a condemnatory inter- view ; it was a sympathetic and most friendly interview between him and me. There was nothing in his tone, nothing in his manner, nor in his language or charges, that savored of it. Q. How did he express himself as regards any object, or the result of the interview 1 A. He was laboring to bring to pass such a reconciliation between Mr. Tilton and me— such a better understanding, each of the other, as should avail for the peace of that family and the restoration of Mi'. Tilton to prosperity and to good name. ME. TILTON'S THREAT TO MR. WILKESON. Now, compare with tMs light thrown upon this interview, and upon this situation, and upon the na- ture of Mr. TUton's feelings in measuring his own griev- ance, his own disaster, and the relief he needed, and the resort to Mr. Beecher, and whatever complaint he had to make in regard to that resort, as given in the testimony of Mr. Wilkeson, and you see at once how the moment you get outside of testimony that comes from Mr. Moulton and Mr. Tilton, you get at confirmation in a manner that does not touch discrepancies of language, but determines which is the true basis upon which you are to pass as a fact in determining whether or no there ever was any fact of guilt between Mrs. Tilton and Mr. Beecher, or any grievance on the part of Mr. Tilton as toward Mr. Beecher of the grave, distinct, unequivocal nature of the ruin of a wife, and the husband's and childi'en's honor. You may remember that Mr. Tilton stroUed into Mr. WUkeson's, and proposed to publish an article, to wit, The Golden Age slip article. I asked him if he really mtended to publish that article. He said he did, unless justice was done him by Mr. Beecher. He wanted $7,000 from Bowen. I remon- strated with him against the publication of that arti- cle. I told him that it would be enormously mischiev- ous ; that it would produce a scandal that would extend throughout Christendom ; I told him it would do infinite wrong and work infinite mischief. Well, there is no doubt that Wilkeson was right in his forecast : He said that It was his purpose to publish it unless justice was done him. Look at the nature of the man. Unless he got $7,000 out of Bowen, he was going to publish to the world what he did not deny would be an infinite mischief, what he did not deny would Involve conflicting opinions, con- flicting comments, conflicting views, divisions in society, SUMMIJSa UF BY MB. EVABTS. 749 argumeiits against religion and morality, triumpli of the "wiclced, predominance, tov tlie time toeing, ot tlie evil influences of society, and hanging the head and shame on the part of the good that believed in the elevation of human nature and in its future hopes. " Well, I don't care for all that. I am going to do it unless justice is done to me." And you will find throughout that to Mr. TUton Mr. Tilton Is the central figure in the universe, and interests that are hounded only toy Chris- tendom—in Mr. Wilteson's phrase— and feelings and sen- timent that touch the heart-strings of his wife and the happiness of the children, have nothing to do with it. " I am going to putolish it unless justice, in the matter of $7,000, is done to me." That is what he is going to do. " Justice shall be done although the Heavens fall." That is, justice to Tilton shaU be done, although all manner of injustice and injury come to all the rest of the world. And yet he has told you that at the outset his whole object in going to Mr. Beecher was to be secure that In the inflammation of the calumnies of Bowen against him, and the publicity and discussion of them, there might come some side wind, and he was determined to protect his wife and children that even a side wind should not visit them too roughly. And yet he says, "I will inflame that fls:ht between Bowen and Beecher ; I will put it in every newspaper : I will make the war, if I don't get $7,000." " Then he went on to speak of Mr. Bowen ; he said that Mr. Bowen had dismissed him from his employment on Ihe Independent, and on The GhrisUan and on The Brook- lyn Union, and that he had violated his contracts with him to render editorial services for certain salaries on each paper; that he had— that Mr. Bowen had deprived him ot his income ; that his dismissal from those papers had ruined his reputation, and had destroyed him ; and he went on growing m excitement, and he said "—now this is the share Beecher had in it—" that Mr. Beecher had not come to his help; that he was a man of such power that he could with his little finger have lifted him up in his troubles; but that as he laid on the sidewalk in Brooklyn, crushed and ruined by Bowen's treatment of him, and by the consequences of his loss of employment on those two papers, and the injury done to his reputa- tion, that Mr. Beecher. who with his little finger had the power to Lift him up and reinstate him, had passed him by indifferent, and had not helped him, had left him lying there ; and moving across the room back aud forth, in great excitement, he said he would pursue Mr. Beecher into the grave." —for that. Now, what a flood of light that sheds back on the grievance, on the purposes of these interviews, in the last week of December, on the truth that breaks out from Moulton, that Tilton wanted to be sure that Beecher did not hate and abhor, and did not mean to visit upon him, Tilton. the consequences of the injuries that Tilton had done to him. Schullz says the same thing. He says : His statements [that is, Tilton'sj then were that Bowen had committ(;d a great wrong to him, and that Mr. Beecher had failed to reach out his hand to save him, as he could have done ; that he failed to manifest that inter- est in him which he had a right to expect. That was the substance of his statement. And Mr. Moulton told Mr. Charles Storrs about this business, and this situation, at this date: Mr. Moulton stated it was all wrong, his being dis- charged, and that it was a mistake, and that he, Tilton, should be reinstated; he said that Mr. Tilton was the same to The Independeyit as Mr. Greeley was to The New- York Tiiibune, and that he should see Mr. Bowen, to have him reinstated. Now. gentlemen, Mr. Tilton was brought back to the stand after Mr. Wilkeson had told all this story, and he didn't contradict it. Did he overlook Mr. Wilkeson's tes- timony, or bis counsel overlook it % Oh, no ! He was asked to contradict one passage in it, and if he contra- dicted it at all, he meant to contradict it in a way that would carry conviction to yovu" minds that Wilkeson lied, and that he, Tilton, spoke the truth, because the fact was at the bottom that would show which spoke the truth ; the same as about the gray hairs, and about the portrait at Moulton 's house, when Moulton wanted to give evi- dence that he spoke the truth and Mr. Beecher did not. He is asked about a conversation that Wilkeson had given as occurring about the y^ar 1865, I think, at Wasliington, in which Mr. Wilkeson had described a conversation between Mr. Tilton and himself at a dinner table at a hotel at Washington, when they were both there, and when Mr. Tilton came over and exhibited to Mr. Wilkeson the portraits of his wife— Tilton's wife— and some of his children, such as he had, I suppose, at that date, and that he made some not very polite comments, Tilton did, about his wife ; that Wilkeson would be disappointed about her ; that she was of a mean appearance, and had not been developed as he had been since their marriage ; but stUl he spoke of her as his wife, and, of com-se, in a suitable manner. Now, Mr. Tilton wants to deny all that, and he says that he had an interview, tliat if he should state it exactly as it occurred, it would be a personal injury to Mr. WUke- son. We have had a great many suggestions of what infinite mischief would come from telling the truth. Well, he was not tender about IVIi-. Wilkeson ; because in his first examination, before Mr. Wilkeson come on the stand, he said Wilkeson was a liar. He did not measui-e his words. He propitiatei your attention to Mr. Wilke- son's testimony, if he should happen to be called as a wit ness, by giving you his, Tilton's, opinion that Wilke- son was a liar. So this delicacy about Wilke- son's feelings — Wilkeson since that had given this testimony, that went right into the heart of this conspiracy, and exposed the whole, through and through ; and he has done it purposely, too, as he avowed, that he was determined that this scheme of unilateral silence should not be kept up for ever ; that a man of honor and of conscience scrupulously keeping silent, and harrowed in his feelings lest harm sl: )::^ 1 750 THE TlLTCm-BEECHEB TRIAL, come to others, should not be continuously kept in that position, while Moulton and Tilton were going around, teUing Victoria WoodhuIL, or anybody else, and having statements in the newspapers. " No," he says, " I will have a stop to that ; I will have the policy of silence broken up.** Now, what is the only point in Wllkeson's evidence that Mr. Tilton corrects I Q. Did you say that about your wife ? A. No. Q. Did you show him a photograph of yom* wife % A. No, Sir. I showed him a photograph of two of my chil- dren, one of whom he mistook for my wife, and he made It the opportunity to make some incoherent Q. Which of your daughters ? A. It was my daughters Florence and Alice. And he apostrophized the card of Florence, supposing it to be a card of my wife, over a glass of my wine. And Florence was a little girl of six years old I [Laugh- ter.] I think it would take more than a glass of wine, gentlemen, to confuse as clear a head as Samuel Wilke- son's into a notion that a girl six years old was the wife of this Apollo. [Laughter.] The Court here took a recess imtil 2 p. m. THE AFTERNOON SESSION. Judge Neilson— Mr. Evarts, Mr. Beach has sent word that he is not quite well enough to be here promptly, and may not be able to come at all ; and he desires you to proceed without him. Mr. Evarts— I regret extremely, if your Honor please, that my learned friend should suffer any inconvenience in regard to health, and am obliged to him for not desir- ing the protraction of the cause on that account. "We are now in a position, gentlemen of the jury, to judge of the value, the proper interpretation and the im- port of certain papers imputed to Mr. Beecher as argu- mentative confession of guilt. I never attached much importance, as a lawyer, to any of the looser reasonings by which mean minds have been turned or affected by a contemplation in that light of expressions of grief, self- reproach, compunction, or remorse, for it is confessedly only within the region of moral reasoning that any in- ferences, thus remote and far-fetched, can be adduced. When the law bas said that of so grave a crime, there must be that positive evidence that leaves no hypothesis of iunocence consistent with the proved facts ; when the law has said that confessions reported, or confessions pro- duced in writing, are ever to be scrutinized and doubted, and if there be any contradiction, anything that saves them from being substantially evidence of confession before the Court and the jury, in the absence of the proof of the adultery as an occurrence noticed in its proximate steps, in Its betrayed vicious purposes, in its opportuni- ties, in its occasions, as equivalent to the proof of the act, such an occasion as you had your attention called to iDCidentally in a case that I cited of a confession where, on board a steamboat of the North River a state-room had been taken by the alleged paramour in the name oi: the husband, and the paramour and the wife had occupied it ; that kind of f act— sometliing of that kind— unless you have that confirmation you withhold your verdict. But, then, when, without the confessions, you have a situa- tion of divided opinions and views as to what the facts are, and in the absence of controlling evidence that brings facts and conduct to your notice, you are turned over to produce a measure, and form, and circumstance, and date of guilt out of emotional aspirations of regret, and pain, and mortification, and pity, why you L, v ; at once all the region upon which the Court and juiy can proceed abandoned, and you are led at once into moral reasoning to supply the place, either of ext rnal evidence or of explicit confessions. And the moral reasoning pro- ceeds upon this most uncertain and untrustworthy of aU gTounds, of imputing the measure and form of actual guilt, according to your moral estimate of what is the moral result of a man's emotional nature and his emo- tional expression. Where before, since the administrac tion of justice began, was there ' ever the notion tha you could tell whether a man had set fire to a barn o a dwelling-house, or had robbed a bank, or had co~ nutted murder, by the strength of his feelings at some mischief or other that he had done, without the body of the crime being proved otherwise, without the evidence that he had said it was a buiglary, or an embezzlement, or an arson, or a robbery that you are to measure, out of grief, mortification, concealment, distress, the proof that the crime was committed, that he referred to that crime, and that he committed it % But yet, such is the nature of irresponsible reasoning, such is the inatten- tion to the necessary safeguard of practical judgment, and definite and important consequences of pimishment, when these matters are dealt with in the piece-meal dis- cussions (however intelligent) of men that are not brought down to feeling that within the waUs of evideno and under the rules of law there must ever be som notion that there may have been this or that degree o guilt, or that there must be a definite conclusion exclud ing any opposite conclusion; and when you com to that, all this loose region, in clouds, o moral reasoning ceases to affect men's judgments. No man in his senses wishes when the verdict strik( to the heart a woman and her children, and destroy their fame, strikes to the heart an honorable repute o the alleged paramour and involves his family in ruin an disgrace— discarding, for the moment, any of the graver responsibilities that grow out of the public and the im- portant character and relations of this defendant and the pftrticularly pure character of this alleged adulteress —leaving all that out, no man wishes to put a verdict, and when he is appealed to to know by what he justifies it— " Did anybody ever see them in a lewd connection, or treading a devious path from the proprieties of society for a single instant '\ " " No." " Did anybody bring you a conl'es.sion of the fact i " "No. But they brought Sr21MISG UP BY JJB. £rAFTS. In tlie handTrriting, if you please, or under the report bitten under dictation of tliis or that expres- sion of emotion of self-reproacli, of self-compunction, and there must have heen something behind it, and ^ve thought that this "vras hehind it" And then, Tvhen sud- denly hy the admission of falsehood, or "by the discovery •of fact, all tliis ruin that h.as heen ^vrought by hasty judcrment is sho^^ to have been through a departure from legal OTidence and legal reasoning into this "^Id and illimitable region of moral inference, ho^ does the conscience — hovrever inuocent at the time — feel at the recMessness -svith -vrhich they have rushed out of the re- gion that requires proof into the region that really acts upon suspicion. THE SOURCE OF IME. BEECHER'S EEMOESE. Now, I have introduced a consideration of this paper of the 1st of January, and of some other papers that I may need to call attention to, not because in them I find, nor that I suppose you vrill find, any reason of distrust for what seems to me, upon the facts as you understand them, and certainly upon the theory of these facts and the testimony concerning them, as given by this defendant and supported by our vritnesses as vrell as the plaintiff's a sufficient reason and support for every expression to vrhich is imputed a just inference of guilt in the sense of an adulterous connection beTween those parties. But yet, as is the nature of all judicial proceedings, when the plaintiff, selecting his evidence and producing it with that attention to it and Its effect and concentration upon a result that he desires, proceeds throusrh long weeks of his evidence, and the defendant is not heard and the Ciuallfying shades, the cross lights, the falsiflcarion, the perjuries that have been practiced and the corrections of the treacherous memories that have been introduced before you— when they all have been made, and the defendant's nesses, Mr. Tilton and Mr. Moulton, to displace from the scene and area of fact, as obtaining at this interview on the 1st of January, all ground for any feeUng or any ex- pression from Mr. Beecher as towards Mr. Tilton and his family, or in respect of Mr. Bcecher's conduct, except the injury to that family from his relation to Mrs. Tilton. That left, to be sure, the undisturbed, the entire, and sulBcierit basis, in our judgment, and I have no doubt in yours, of almost any degree of se- verity, of self-reproach, ana of commensurate expression of grief and of pity from the admitted situation of chagrin and sorrow and self-mortiflcation. on Mr. Beecher's part, if these relarlons between him and Mrs. Tilton in the sense and ^-iew that was presented to him of the estrangement of affection and nothing more, and of the lamily discord and the break and ruin of the imity of that household had been the real view of his relations. But, gentlemen, we have wholly overpowered, on the proofs of this case, this great effort of the plaintiff. We have shown you that the resort of the wife in her .flitrht from the cruelty of her husband and from the broken home to Mr. Beecher and his wife's intervention, was a real fact, the gravity, the sincerity, the force of which is as gi'eat as it is possible to conceive of as a ground for resentment of a husband against such inter- ference, and as a groimd for self-reproach on the part of Mr. Beecher if he had rashly been led into that by slanderous and unsupported representatioiws, if he had trusted in his simplicity tu the necessarv truth and accuracy of the representations of the mother-in-law, and of the wife, and of Bessie Turner, that had been brought to him. So, too, the other principal fact of whether Mr. Beecher had intervened, had espoused, had acted upon and in reference to the situation between Mr. Boweu and Mr. Tilton that they struggled against, and strove to represent to you in that record of the true relation between 3Ir. Tilton and Mr. Bowen to have been. ease and view of each situaiion is put in your power up to the end of this interview between Mr. Moulton and for comparison with the plaintiff's, then you are in a position, for the first time, to judge upon this remote, this unsubstantial, and, as I think, frivolous argument to produce anything like a substantial conclusion of guilt, even against a character of an unknown or of a sus- picious complexion, much less against a man in regard to whom it must be admitted, that if there be truth in the charge it is at variance with every repute concerning him that either those who knew him well or knew him slightly ever entertained. What then— before we take what professes to be a record of Mr. Beecher's emotions and their expression— what was the situation in his own mind and upon the facts as lie understood them, as he has sworn to them now, and as constitutes the basis upon which, as we agree, he was expressing himself, if you can only get accurately at his expression? A great struggle was made by our learned opponents, in which they had every aid from theri' wit- Mr. Beecher on the 31st of December which I have gone through with, up to that time of sure i"'osses- sion of his power, hi? ^ authoritv, his income, his credit, his prospects, his expectation— all that has disappeared, and we have proved, not only that 3Ir. Beecher and r^Ir. Bowen. early in that week, did act, did talk, did confer, and that :Mr. Beecher's influence and representations all went to the destruction of Mr. Til- ton's prospects in confirmation of Mr. Bowen's purposes. We have shown all that, and we have shown, too, that this intervention of Mr. Beecher had to do, not merely with the displacement of :Mr. Tilton, not merely with the break of his then employments and the then expected support of his family, but went on a ground, to wit, his broken character and his profiigate conduc that in re- spect to both, to family, and to his relations to society and his emplo}-ments, were a final break ; that the familv could not he restored without a rebuilt ohnracter 752 lEE TILTON-B in domestic affairs on Mr. Tilton's part, and that his re- lations to society, to the public, to his vocation as an ed- itor never conld he renewed except by the obliteration or correction in point of fact of the charges against him or a reconsideration of its downward course, ana a recon- struction of his moral character in these relations. Now, then, what had happened in reference to these very grave acts and very grave responsibilities of Mr. Beecher to- ward Mr. Tilton before and at the end of this Interview on Sunday, the 1st of January ? Why, Mr. Beecher had been attended by IMr. Moulton as the friend of Mr. Tilton to call his attention to these evil surmises, these evil sto- ries, both touching the question between the wife and the husband, and the maintenance of the family unity in which Mr. Beecher had acted so decisively, and, as well, in regard to the imputations of Bowen and the basis of them, which had been laid before Mr. Beecher, and which he had reenforced in tiu'n, himself, by bringing in the scandals of the household and the stories of Bessie Turner. And that friend had said to Mr. Beecher, " Why did you accept these stories so rashly, and act so definitely and yet so precipitately % Why didn't you ask Mr. TUton's attention to these things before you acted ? Why did you suffer Bowen 's maligmty against you, that had brought you that letter of the 26th of December, to close your heart, and shut up your sympathies, and turn you into a cooperative aniniosity in persecution, with Bowen, against Tilton ? Why did you assume that Mrs. Morse and Mrs. Tilton and Bessie Turner, in the domestic nar- rative of disaster and grievance, and of fault, were ne- cessarily correct % I tell you that I know Mr. Tilton as a familiar friend, as a man of the world, as his companion and his conflidant, and I tell you that all these stories of his immorality are unfounded, and, in respect of Mr. Bowen'p basis of complaint against Mr. Tilton, look at the catalogue of Mr. Bowen's charges against you, Mr. Beecher, which he made on the forenoon of the 26th of December to Mr. Tilton, and which inflamed Mr. Tilton into his espousal of Mr. Bowen's animosity to you, and which urged and supported him in sending that missive of the 26th to you to be backed up by Bowen. What do you think of your hasty credit to Bowen's stories about Mrs. Tilton, when there is a so much longer and more grievous catalogue of imputations made by him, Bowen, to Tilton, against you, Beecher, in the early part of the same day ? And, in re- gard to what Mrs. Tilton has said about her husband and her resort to her half-crazed mother-in-law" (which was Moulton's representation of that combination) "and then Mrs. Beecher's well known and recognized aversion to Mr. Tilton and reprobation of him— how do you justify that when Mr. Tilton has brought to you, under his wife's signature, a charge against you of immoralities in design and in invit.'ition and in tempta- tion inside of her family of the grossest character EEC REE TIUAL. ] a charge, you will see at once, gentlemen, that, in respect j of the depravity imputed to Mr, Beecher, of the enor- mity of his meditated guilt, his perversion of his trust as pastor, and of his fidelity as friend, in respect to his pur- pose of corrupting a virtuous woman, a design to com- mit this grievous iiyury towards Mr. Tilton, and this grievous sin on his part, had all the moral qualities of a consummated guilt. And, to a man who, like Mr. Beecher, deals in moral reasoning and believes that the view and tone of the Scripture is right m ascribing to wickedness of heart the guilt, and not making it depend upon the opportuni- ties or facilities, or prosperity of external fact, you see, at once, that that imputation carried to his conscience, if it were true, and alarmed his fears if it were false, just as much as if it had been of the crime itself and not of the frustrated piu-pose. *• And now," says Mr. Moulton, " see what you have done upon the credit of a combina- tion between this wife and her mother-in-law who has ma- ligned Tilton for years. You have allowed Mrs. Beecher's judgment of Tilton to carry you into a rash and sudden maintenance of his domestic situation (a publication, so far as you are concerned), as being such that his wife cannot properly remain with him an hour, and that con- tinuance with him is more likely to breed increased hatred on his part than to tend to restoration. You have permitted yourself, as toward Mr. Bowen, to pour into his ears against Tilton, and urged his purposes declared to you by him against Mr. TUton to their absolute and rapid execution. And now, look at the misery in which this family is placed. Tilton, who stood a week ago in a position which, if you take his own estimate of it, as declared by him by Mrs. Putnam (and testified to you by her) was a prouder position than that of a Senator at Washington, or an ofiicer in the Govern- ment, of the hisrhest grade, is tumbled from that throne, and trampled in the dust. Tilton, who has the expensive tastes and careless habits which have made him run through his income, however liberal, and left him with- out accumulation or support, that supposed himself secure in new arrangement that gave him an ample as- surance of independence, and of luxurj^ even, struck with one blow penniless, and in regard to his f :imily and his wife in this disordered state by which this woman fled from him and has obtained your vindication of her course, your power, your credit, your assurance that he is an unfit inmate of the same house in which she should live. And now that family lies not only absolutely destroyed for the moment, but destroyed on grounds, on reasons which forbid the hope that there can be any restoration, so long as those grounds remain unchanged. It is not a Winter that has withered the leaves and stripped the limbs, but it is the fatal thrust that has killed the root, and stopped forever the flow of the sap." Well, now, when Mr. Beecher, confessedly a man of SUMMING UP BY MR. EVAETS. 753 iust sympatliies, of the most exaggerated sentiments of dnty and fidelity, finds sucli a situation displayed before Mm, and then finds the ground of his reliance for his hasty action cut from under him by these two principal facts, " that if you believe Bowen against Tilton, by the same rule you must believe Bowen against Beecher ; and if you believe Mrs. Tilton against her husband, by the same rule you must believe Mrs. Tilton against yourself," you see at once that he is necessarily in a situation where he must reproacb himself, for execution has taken place upon this man Tilton and his family, and nothing but the slow business of restora- tion to life and happiness can be hoped for. But look, then, at the bewilderment now of what must have happened through some fault of his, if it be true that this woman whom he respected and admired as the very embodiment of truth and Christian virtue and gi'ace, has come to a situation in which she has thus charged him falsely. And, it has not relieved that, at all, for him to have discovered that it is false, and that she has retracted it. The misery, the overthrow of character of the woman that has come about through some unhappy influences of his intercourse, and the unguarded expressions of his fa- miliarity, is thereby made a positive fact. That a woman should have such relations to her husband, and that her husband should have such power over her, and that the result should be such an accusation, seems to me a most sad and a most deplorable exhibition,— I mean not to say to a deeply or exquisitely sensitive mind, but to a mind of correct moral training, and a heart of just moral sensi- bility, one of the most extraordinary situations that could possibly be produced. MR. TILTON'S DISTEESS. And now when a man who, by every rule of his character, whether as known and imderstood and displayed through his whole life to everybody, or as de- picted upon this evidence, and as assured and described out of the mouth of Mr. Tilton as being all heart, all magnanimity, all self-compunction, all self-reproach, if you can once touch him with the feeling that he has been in complicity with, or has been the innocent occasion, even, of injury or ruin to another— when you come to see how a man wall act and talk with these impressions upon him, you must, of course, as you will desire, and as the commonest principles of justice require, judge him in h is emotions, and in his expression of them, and in his esti- mate of the situation, according to his character, moral and intellectual- sensitive, devotional, open, frank, un- measured in his words. You have then before you only to determine whether upon these facts, and this estimate in Mr. Bee Cher's mind of the mischief a nd the evil that existed, this expression of feeling was natural to him. And was there ever a more deplorable situation of a man and his family than that of Mr. Tilton as that last day of the year 1871, or one more sudden in its culmina- tion, although the moral causes that led to It had been^ long and inevitably at work 1 What more pitiable ? Why, take his own description of it, that he was thrown down and trampled upon the sidewalk, and Mr. Beecher, as he represented, did not come to his aid, when, with his enormous power and influence, he could have lifted him with his little finger. Don't you think that Mr. Beecher is a man that would feel that t Why, you must tliink so, or you must disbelieve all that has been said by these witnesses, and especially by Mr. Tilton, about him, that the way to make Mm an unmeasured cooperative agency in repairing the dis- aster was to make him feel that he had some measure of responsibilitj^ for its occurrence. Now it seems to me the merest folly in the world, when you approach this in the light in which the facts have been laid now open be- fore you, to feel the least difficulty in treating this memo- randum of expressions, even if you accord to it the full trust that would belong to a paper written m his own name, and in his own hand — even if you accord to it that, it seems to me the merest absurdity in the world to say that you need to infer bai-kward from these expressions any more grave occasions of pity, of lamentation, of compunction, of self-reproach, than upon Mr. Beecher's own testimony and upon the facts in this case, as is conceded to have been the light of things as then bearing upon his mind. For you will ob- serve that Mrs. TUton had not, in that Interview at her bed-side, denied the entanglement of afi'ections, and the alienation of true conformity to her husband, and his, the husband's, resentments on that account. And the representations that were pressed upon Mr. Beecher by Moulton, that Mrs. Tilton loved his little finger more than she did the whole body of her husband, remained on his mind when this occurred, for it was at that interview that Moulton said it ; and they remained, as Mr. Beecher has told you, for no intercom-se between him and Mrs. Tilton ever was renewed to any extent, or in any sense of formality, or confidential conferences, or writing of any kind, until Mrs. Tilton's statement to the Church. Committee showed that this, too, had been an imposition practiced upon Mr. Beecher's intelligence in introducing this as an element (and it was the gravest element) in procuring his magnanimous devotion to Mr. Tilton's restoration, and the reparation of the evil he had done him. That statement corrected the idea in Mr. Beecher's mind and assured him that it was an imposition upon him, and that there had been no real subti-action of the wife's affections, however much she, to please her hus- band, and under her strange system of self-sacrifice and self-depreciation, as shown in her letters, had professed^ 754 l^E TILJON-B NO NEED FOE A CONFESSION BY ME. BEECHER. Now, gentlemen, yon will see at once that on this first day of January there was not the least occasion for making a confession of any kind. There was not the least occasion for conveying the least information to Mr. Tilton, or Mr. Moulton, for they had gone through all their interviews of the 30th and the 31st of December ; there was not any occasion for making any record of the disas- ter, or the injury, or the disgrace, of this family of TUton's, whatever might have been its form and its measure, for the whole effort and purpose of all that had passed dur- ing the previous interview had been to secure the impos- sibility of anybody's ever knowing that there had been any such disgraceful conduct, whether you treat the dis- graceful conduct as having been the pollution of the wife, or as being the husband's false accusation, in the wife's name, of this eminent preacher, Mr. Beecher. So there was not any need, or motive, or possibility, of a rational impulse to convey, information in the way of confession, or record in the way of proof. What was there, and what has Mr. Moulton himself stated there was? Having displaced the feeling in Mr. Tilton's mind that Mr. Beecher had possession of the evidence of the false charge and would use it for his, Tilton's, injury, by the great concession that Mr. Beecher made of placing it in deposit with Mr. Moulton for the common interest of all concerned, Mr. Moulton then renews his object, which is carried out afterwards through a series of months, to satisfy Mr. Tilton that Mr. Beecher will cooperate in repairing the disasters that have overtaken him, and that he does not harbor resent- ment for the missive of the 26th of December, or the false accusation of the 30th of December; and thus, when they find that Mr. Beecher's magnanimity and his simplicity have not been overestimated by Tilton, and he lias yielded to this impulse of his nature, then they want to have some evidence that will be definite, that Mr. Beecher feels that the situation in which he is placed as a matter of fact, requires him by the necessary impulse of duty, to repair what he feels to have been wrongs rashly committed by himself. THE ORIGINAL PURPOSE IN GETTING THE CONTRITION LETTER. That is tlie object of the interview, and the only way, on Mr. Moulton's own statement, that there comes to be in existence this memorandum at all, and now you are asked to believe that it is not a memoran- dum of expression in that design, recorded and reported to {hat end and for that purpose, but that it is to be treated by you as a disguised, argumentative, remote moral persuasion, that the view of the difiiculty imputed to him by these coarse charges, and not the estimate - ^ 7. Tio hirmself felt, was the occasion of. Mr. Moulton <:eceeb trial. tells you himself that he said, " Why won't you write this to Tilton, to satisfy him that you are not his enemy % " Good heavens !— how often shall I repeat it ?— an injured husband, bringing himself into relations with the paramour, wants to feel that the paramour won't pursue him, the husband 1 Nobody can. understand that. No. He wanted to know, to be as- sured, that what was enough to inflame, inspire, inflate all sentiments in an ordinary mind of animosity and of punishment, by reason of his having dared to send that foolish missive of the 25th of Docember, and then to use this wretched accusation wrung from the wife's compli- ance on the 30th, had not soured the last drop of the milk of human kindness in the breast of Henry Ward Beecher toward him, and made it hopeless for him, Tilton, to expect aid from that quarter, in the absolute ruin of his affairs, domestic and othei-, and the hopeless destruc- tion of his character which threatened him, un- less some help from the charitable consider- ation of Mr, Beecher could be gained. Well, Mr. Beecher says : " Why write this? You tell Til- ton. I have unbosomed my feelings to you— my heart ; you tell him." " Well, it would be better if you should write him." Well, I think it would have been better that Mr. Beecher had written him, if Moulton was to be trusted to make, and continue, and preserve a report — not stenographic— the work of an inexperienced reporter — of his language and his ideas. THE CONTRITION LETTER ANALYZED. But yet, it was only by reducing you and the truth down to the point that there was no fact on which Mr. Beecher's mind could have been working when he thus talked, except the fact of the imputed adultery— nothing but that, for which they had so long labored in a series of falsifications, that could have ever made their argument that this paper carried any weight or force worthy the attention even of an irresponsible public, much less of a responsible jury. I ask through you Theodore Tilton's forgiveness, and I humble myself before him as I do before my God. Well, Mr. Beecher has given you his view of that sen- tence, which he does not recognize as to his own at ^11. He says that he did say that he humbled himself before God for the error that he had committed, and he was willing to humble himself before Mr. Tilton. or to ask his forgiveness, or some such phrase. And he was— he felt it. He says : He would have been a better man in my circumstances than I have been. What did he mean by that ? for he says he did say so— substantially that. He says that he remembered, and it brought tears to his eyes, how even in a slight, but which Mrs. Beecher's exaggerated style of emotion made a grave matter, in his Son's misfortune, trivial and temi>;>- rary, and that would have been wiped out by President SnMMMG UF BY ME. EVABTS. 755 Lincoln and all his Cabinet at a moment's suggestion of anxiety to tMs great prop and supporter of tlie policy and the principles of tiie then current politics of the country— that when Mr. Tilton heard of it he dropped his business, went to "Washington and inter- vened, and brought back promptly to him, the father, agitated by these feelings, information that the pranks of his son had been overlooked, and he was restored to his position in the army. He remembered that— and I don't think he ever forgot a favor done him in the world, or ever failed, in his exaggeration of it, to make it an occa- sion of unending gratitude, of unmeasured affection. He remembered that, and he said to himself : Well, now, I have not returned that good with anything but evil ; when they came to me with these stories, whether of the domestic difficulties and from a domestic source, or of the btisiness ruin that was to follow from loose imputa- tions, I did not send for Tilton ; I did not say, " Now, what can I do, what shall I dol How can you give me the means of helping you, of aiding you, and explaining these things!" But I assumed that all was right, and true ; and, unhappily, I acted, in the last case of my interference, under the irritation of what should not have irritated me, this demand of the 26th of December. I believe Theodore Tilton would not have acted toward me as I have acted toward him in this respect. Well, I tMnk it was a charitable view of Mr. Tilton ; it was Mr. Beecher's, but it was a view that he would never have taken if he had been present at all the private consultations between Mr. Bowen and Mr. Tilton which we have had disclosed to us. But how ludicrous it seems, if you are to impute the application of this proposition to the condition of Mr. Beecher's iaterference with the piu-ity of a wife by seduction and adultery—" T think, now, in reference' to the seduction of a wife and prolonged adultery with a married woman, Mr. Til- ton would have acted better toward me than I have acted toward him !" The absurdity of a man of common sense being supposed to have framed any of these com- punctions or comparisons upon this heinous offense as it is now imputed 1 What is natural and easy (although it may be extravagant, and although there may have been considerable imposition to have induced it) iu reference to the conduct for which Mr. Beeeher supposed himself to be actual!}" responsible, is apparent upon the reading. Well, the rest is very general. I can ask nothing except that he wm remember all the other hearts that would ache. I will not plead ior my- self ; I even wish that I were dead ; but others must live and suffer. I wlU die before any one but myself shall be inculpated. AH my thoughts are running toward my friends, toward the poor child lying there and praying with her folded hands. Now, you wiU. perceive, IMr. Beecher has given you {and I shall refer to it) his views of how much of this, in form or in substance, in respect to emotion, or in regard to fact, is justly imputable to him. All I ask of you is to understand that it la confessedly a report by Mi Moulton of emotional expressions intended, on ^SlouUon's oicn shoic- ing, to convince Jlfr. Tilton that JTr. Beecher did not hate him and would like to aid him. That Is the point, and that we have out of their own mouths. Well, well, gen- tlemen, has not Mr. Beecher aU. through this shown (as I shaU demonstrate to you at the various stages where he has resisted this policy of silence) that he has been ready to meet |he charge at any time, if others cotdd endure it ? Has he not always shown that he saw that an investigation and ex- posure of the state of things in that family, and in re- gard to that family, that had been laid before him during that week and during the preceding weeks of December, and on the -svif e's flight and complaint to him— that an exposure of that would produce a great degree of suffer- ing, and injury, and mischief to the Tilton circle and family 1 and was he not wise in his forecast of the results that must foUow if it should be made to appear that a woman of repute and of piety, in his congregation, of his church, had, under any circumstances that women's minds and men's minds, women's tongues and men's tongues, would differ about, made a charge against a Christian teacher that he had made improper proposals to corrupt a wife — a charge of that atrocious quality that, while it involves every degree of guilt, if it be true, on the part of the person charged, furnishes none of those guarantees against its being falsely charged, either in respect of the husband or of the wife, and of the scrutiny of fact and truth, that would belong to a charge of actual adultery? Actual adultery charged carries the guilt and shame of the wife and the family and the disgrace of the husband, and deals with a fact concerning which external proof can be given and will be required; but how can you strike at the heart of a clergyman so conclusively as by charging, not a fact that is capable of scrutiny and of beinfr turned over and over so as to find out whether it is true or not, but a charge that in heart, in word, in wicked suggestion, in corrupting, infamous intent, the clergy- man has made the approach, while the wife's honor has been saved and the husband's disgrace does not exist and the children are not involved ? Well may a clergyman feel dismayed if that is the form in which he has to meet imputation. It is not a ground for an action for dam- ages, it cannot lead to a judicial inquiry, audit cannot lead to a judicial refutation. It is the most terrible form within the region of malicious imputation, impossible of refutation, except by the generalities of opinion whether it is possibly compatible with his character, and then they say, " Well, it is not possibly compatible with the character of a good woman that she would change the charge;" and so you have, all through Christendom, the minds and the tongues of men and women loosened upon the cunning malice of such an imputation. Well might Mr. Beecher feel and say, how many hearts will suffer. 756 ItlE TILIOJM- BEEOHEH lJUAL. vv^hat immense interests will be imperiled, if this strang:e inexplicable emanation from this ruined bGuseboicl is made tbe subject of public discussion ! And tlien Mr. Beecher was under tlie impression, dou.btinglj", as lie lias told you, yet not rejecting the idea, that Mr, Tilton thought that the wife's charge was honest, and that he might beliere it himself. That has long ago been abandoned ; but Mr. Beecher has told you, " I didn't know w^hat to believe ; sometimes I thought that Mr. Tilton was honest in the notion, and wondered how the wife could have thus originated it herself, and sometimes I thought that he did not believe it." And the fact that the wife disclaimed it, didn't make any diflference ; the same woman that disclaimed was the woman that had made the charge. So they went on and on. She is guiltless, sinned against, bearing the transgres- sions of another. How is she guiltless if it was not the situation that Mr. Beecher recognized, that he should take upon himself all the blame, because his superior age and experience should have foreseen the disaster of an injury to the hus- band's supremacy in the wife's affections, from the en- joyment of this iatercourse between a clergyman and a parishioner, chaste, honest, religious, and of the highest and the holiest affections ? In that sense he was right in taking all the blame upon himself, and that satisfies it ; but in any other view how, how, can anybody be guilt- less of such a heinous offense— married woman of matm^e years, and with a family around her— unless you accept the balderdash of " innocent adultery?" " Her forgiveness I have." How had he her forgiveness ? How had she forgiven Mm? Nothing had pjxssed between them of that kind; nothing whatever. The question was in that interview which he had with her, of accusation to her, of inquiry how she came to have made a charge against him when it was not true, and of her withdrawal of it, and of his final leave-taking, that he hoped nothing that he said (which he then felt might have been severe) would disturb or Interfere with her peace, and, as I have read to you from her letter, written only three months afterward, she wrote to him expressing the hope that he forgave her while he forgot her, and closed her note with a new prayer for his forgiveness. This expression Mr. Beecher denies, of course. There was no fact to support it. I humbly pray to God that He may put it ia the heart of her husband to forgive me. Well, that is entirely consistent, no matter whether it was stated in those words or in that sense or not, with the situation in which Mr. Beecher confessed himself in fault, in sorrow and in chagrin, mortification, and grief. THE ALIASES OF THE CONTEITION LETTER. Now, gentlemen, how was this paper charac- terized ? Nobody ever called it a confession. Lately it has been spoken of as a " Letter of Contrition." Well, contrition for what? That is the question. You must draw out of it, as retroactive evidence, some definite guilt its contrition iiroves — some definite crime. Its con- trition proves onl;.* what I have stated to you, its own existence upon the support and reasons that I have ex- posed, but the whole tone of the testimony on this sub- ject has shown that it never was treated as a confes- sion. Mr. Tracy testifies that Mr. Moulton said the paper was a memorandum or notes of a conversation he had with Mr. Beecher. Mr. Belcher, Mr. Wilkeson, Mr. Storrs, and Mr. Claflin testified to its being always spoken of by Tilton and Moulton as an *' apology." And the letter of Mr. Tilton to Dr. Bacon characterizes it throughout and repeatedly as an " apology." The pastor communicated to me in writing an apol- ogy signed by his name. And he says, as a justification for the publicity that lie now gives : Had the fair spirit which I had a right to expect from Plymouth Church, at least lor its pastor's sake, been shown toward me, I would have continued to rest in si- lence on Mr. Beecher's apology, and never during the re- matuder of my life would I have permitted any pubUo word of mrue to allude to the offense or the offender. And another phrase in whicli this Bacon letter refers to this memorandum as an " apology " is this : But my duty to continue this forbearance ceased when the spirit of that apology was violated to my injury by its author or his agents. Well, the spirit of an apology for an adultery, if you can apply in the first instance, without contemptuous derision to him who uses it, the phrase of an " apology for an adultery," and that enables a husband and paramour to walk down thfe street afterward together, and to be friends because an unintended insult or injury has been met by a suitable apology— you cannot understand how the spirit of apology for adultery is violated by some depreciatory remarks to the prejudice of the injured party, that have been made by an apologizing person or his friends. So, too, in Mr. TUton's proposed verdict for the Church Com- mittee : The Committee further find that Mr. Tilton, in his relar tions Avith the pastor, had a just cause of offense, and had received a voluntary apology, and he gives as one of his reasons for not going more particularly into it, that the apology was designed to cover a complicated transaction, its details difficult of exact or just statement. Well, now, adultery is not a complicated transaction. It is very simple and intelligent in its features ; but on the view of what this paper called an apology was to meet you see at once the truthfulness, the unconscious trttthf SUMMING UP BY ME. EVABTS. 757 xulness of Mr. Tilton's characterization of it, as an apol ogy for a complicated transaction wiiicli there is no use of going more fully into. A NEW YEAR'S GIFT FOE MR. BOWEN. Now, at tMs very time that Mr. Tilton was so anxious to remove any grounds of offense or animosity on Mr. Beecher's part toward Mm absolutely, do you suppose that there is any sense in that propositlou, if he had the power of compelling Mr. Beecherto he his friend? But at the very time he was trying to stir up the emo- tions of Mr. Beecher's heart in his favor and to displace the ground of enmity which he knew Mr. Beecher might rightfully feel toward him, he was himself writing a let- ter to Bowen setting forth in detail all the impu- tations against Mr. Beecher that Mr. Bowen had made, according to Mr. Tilton, or that he had not made, if you cannot helieve Mr. Tilton, in perma- nent form, with a view— for it is a strange history that that letter has— with a view of having in possession and for use not Mr. Tilton's charge against Mr. Beecher, not Mr, Bowen's charges against Mr. Beecher, but Mr. Tilton's statements of Mr. Bowen's charges, and not in the form of a communication to the public, not in the form of a communication to Mr. Beecher, but in the form of a letter to Mr. Bowen. And he did make good use of it afterward for definite purposes and with definite results. But what happened to that letter in those early days nobody can tell. Bow en says it was not shown to him. Beecher says it was not shown to him, though its contents and its preparation, and the purpose of making it in- cluded a record of the Bowen charges, and the purpose in reducing it to writing to use with Bowen to make him pay, tor fear that he, Bowen, should be exposed as hav- ing made these charges against Beecher. Beecher did not care anything about the charges. Of course he did nc*?. want them published against him, but he '^tld these people in regard to Bowen, " I navo no fear of him." And Mr. Tilton says in his slip— his Golden Age slip that he had put in type and then broke up the type because three copies was all he wanted to use— he says that Mr. Beecher denied every one of those cliarges; and the testimony here shows that he never cared a straw, in any of his conversations with Mr, Moultou or with Mr. Tilton, about those charges of Mr. Bowen, which Mr. Tilton represented Bowen as having made. They did make a sort of stumbling eflfort to revive the enormous wickedness of the Proctor scan- dal, that has been exploded in a neighboring court, and like whipped dogs have submitted to the vengeance of public reprobation, and the judgment and the payment of the judgment for that enormous injury of the fair fame of a woman ; but Mr. Beecher denies even these lame and stumbling propositions, these new instances of "I dare not" waiting upon "I would." And pray, pray, what was this letter which Mr. Tilton has so jauntily charac- terized in his " True Story" as a New Year's gift that he prepared for Bowen, as he had made a Christmas gift for Beecher ? It was to put in the form of writing, under his (Tilton's) name, a recital to Bowen of what he (Tilton) said Bowen had said, and thus make Mr. Beecher feel that Bowen had been the author of tZiese enoi-mous slenders, which Beecher knew had no foundation, and which Bowen knew had no foundation, and which had been faced down 'by Mr. Beecher so far as they ever did come from Mr. Bowen ; for, unluckily, Mr. Bowen has not been brought here by Mr. Tilton to correct his, Mr. Tilton's, view of Mr. Bowen's cLa -acter and conduct — unluckily for Mr. Bowen. And yet this malicious paper is brought iuto existence in order to affect Beecher's mind, and in order to affect Bowen's mind. Bowen says : " Tt was not shown to me until somewlicre near this ar- bitration "—as I understand the evidence. Beecher says : " I did not see it at that time ; they talked about it; it was afterward shown to me." Moulton, to be sure, and Mr. Tilton both, I think, speak of the text itself of the letter as hav- ing been laid before Mr. Beecher some time that Winter. Now, you see that the effort was completely disclosed on this evidence, to bring Mr. Beecher back to feeling that Bowen was the injurious and malicious contriver of Tilton's downfall, as he had been the injurious and mali- cious contriver of what turned out to be sure to be a very harmless assault upon Mr. Beecher, and attempting his downfall. And so you will find all through these inter- views, that run along on the 3d and 4th of January, and then, somewhere between the 7th and 10th of January, all along, the effort and the purpose to enlist and con- firm Mr. Beecher in cooperative means to help Mr. Til- ton, and in a constant state of animosity and animadver- sion against Mr. Bowen ! And Mr. Moulton tells you, ac- cording to Mr. Beecher's version, and the truth is equally discoverable in his own statements, that all through that period of those interviews the purpose was not only of getting this money, if that should be proper, but of rein- statement ta Mr. Bowen's employment, and in his former contracts, of Mr. Tilton ; and it was the adherence to this higher and more beneficial purpose that led to Mr. Moulton 's rejection of Mr. Bowen's desire for ar- bitration and desire for peace, an arbitration that as Moulton repeats, and as TUton repeats at this early stage, was desired by Mr. Bowen to cover his relations with Mr. Beecher, and get out of that difficulty and make peace all round, though they afterward deny that these facts had anything to do with the arbitration. And when Mr. Moulton uses what Mr. Beecher had given him, showing his, Beecher's, defiance of Bowen, he says: " WTiy, everything has been settled; it is business, and nothing else. Here are the heads. There is Bowen's own memorandiim of any difficulties, or any com- plaiats, and they have all been settled." And then 7<58 IHE TLLIO^-BEECRMB TRIAL. Moultun says, " I will use it with Bowen," and tlien liaving drawn from Mr. Beecher a narrative of liow Bowen, after liaving made tlie peace, bad, withiQ a very short time, professed to have some great secret that would destroy Plymouth Church, and drive him away, and how he had heen brought to account, and how that had been ended, Moulton says— at least Mr. Beecher says Mr. Moulton reported to him that Mr. Moulton got Mr. Bowen up there into his (Moulton's) house, into his parlor, and there attacked and accused him, exposed his treachery to Beecher, his malignity, and shook the paper in his hands that Beecher had given to him, and made Bowen turn white, and Bowen says, " Oh ! how can I ever look that man (glancing at the portrait) in the face again?'' He then came hack to Beecher and reported the interview, and Beecher said, " Why didn't you nail him on the spot, and make him pay the money ?" " Oh," says Moulton, " the time Jias not come for that ; the point is to get him to take Tilton hack ; not pay damages for removing him, hut get him hack and pay him the sal- ary and reinstate liim." And then Mr. Moulton is brought back to the stand, and all this statement of Mr. Beecher concerning his action with Mr. Bowen and his report of it to Mr. Beecher, involving the interviews in which Mr. Bowen had laid out this apology to Mr. Beecher, and drawn the facts from him to use with Bowen, and this actual interview with Bowen, and his report to Beecher— Mr. Moulton is brought back to contradict it, and he contradicts it in respect to the point of whether Mr. Beecher looked at the portrait and said he could never look that man in the face again. Mr. Shearman— Mr. Bowen. Mr. Evarts— Mr. Bowen— in the point that Mr. Bowen looked at the portrait of Mr. Beecher and said, "Oh! how can I ever look that man in the face again 1" and he puts that on the fact that there was not any portrait there. That shows how the memory reposes not upon what was the thing to be remembered, but upon the question of whether it was accurately stated in mode and form, and then a conclusion that as the portrait was not there that mode and form could not have been the statement. That is another instance of an attempt to substitute un- known facts concerning which the witness supposes his word will bo the say-so, and not understanding that if facts exist there is very probably some mode of prov- ing them ; and we have proved by the landlord that he saw It there ta that Winter, and by Mr. Caldwell that when he watched by the flickering life of Mr. Moulton for 15 hours in that Winter of his sickness, in 1871, he saw it there; and by the testimony of Mr. Moulton that that portrait was sent there in the Summer or Autumn of 1870 ; and the evidence is clear that they did not go to Remsen-st. untU May, 1871 ; that there is no dispute about. Now, where was the portrait, and why did not Mr. Bowen say, " I never can look upon that man's face again ?" If he did not say it it was not be- cause that portrait was not there. THE PTTTTING OFF OF THE PEW RENTING. The 2d of January, gentlemen, is spoken of as an occasion of an interview, but it was not of very much importance. Mr. Beecher says there was none ; he was occupied with his callers ; and Mr. Moulton makes it an occasion of some talk about whether the pew-renting should be put off, " whether," as Mr. Beecher said " it would be safe for me to go on and rent my pews. " Well, this is for argumentative confession. Of course when you get the diverging line of facts set, between these two opposite theories, why whatever is consistent with Mr, Beecher's view, whatever is consistent with his either self-reproaches or his alarm at there being a dan- ger of an explosion, of the nature which he understood is just as ready and just as successful a mode of account- ing for any solicitudes of his, provided those solicitudes comport with his theory, as any other notion of their views. All that happened then on the 2d, further,, was that Mr. Bowen called and mentioned to Mr. Beecher the fact that he had finally and absolutely disposed of Mr. Tilton's connection with The Independent, and there- fore Mr. Beecher's letter to Mr. Bowen, written on the 2d day of January, and sent and promptly received toy Mr. Bowen, and here produced by him, to endeavor to avert the blow or correct any impressions toward the blow that he, Mr. Beecher, had given, came too late. THE SECOND MEETING AT MR. MOULTON'S. Now on the 3d of January— on the 3d or 4th of January, for there is some difference perhaps, or doubt, as to which day it was— and it is not at all import- ant—there occiu?red at Mr. Moulton's house what is spoken of as a casual meeting between Mr. Beecher and Mr. Tilton. Well, Mr. Beecher was at Mx'. Moulton's house, and in his sick room, and was conversing with him always in this interest which Mr. Moulton was pursuing of the restoration of Mr. Tilton's fortunes, when Mr. Til- ton came in, and whether it was casual or whether it was prearranged that Mr. Tilton should come there is probably a matter that we never shall know except from the statement of Mr. Tilton or Mr. Moulton, but at any rate it is an interview professed to be of some importance. It was an interview that came immediately after the "Letr ter of Contrition," as they call it, the memorandum or notes of Mr. Moulton, as we describe the paper which I have just descanted upon, and there went on between Mr. Tilton and Mr. Beecher, under the conservative guid- ance of Mi-. Moulton, of reconciliation in form and feeling according to what Mr. Moulton thought was the neces- sary and proper gentlemanly conduct on the part of Mr. Tilton towards Mr. Beecher, which Mr. Beecher's attitude, as described by Ws scmmi:ng uf by me, eyabts. 759 feelings and their expression during tlie inter- view of Simday afternoon, as Mr, Moulton had conveyed it to Mr. Tilton, was suitable and proper. Mr. Moultou's account of that interview confirms Mr. Beecher's much more than it does Mr. Tilton's. Mr. Tilton makes, un- ioubtedly, this interview a vehicle of some confessions, as they are called, hut all of them are entirely denied by Mr. Beeoher, and the concurrent evidence of the conduct of all the parties shows that all that occiu-red at that interview was that Mr. Beecher, meeting Mr. Tilton, readily and gladly expressed to him in person the feelings, the dispositions, the regrets, the grief, the commiseration of his affairs which he had expressed to Mr. Moulton on the Sunday preceding, and which Mr. Moulton had undertaken to convey to Mr. Tilton in the form of this written memorandum, and which he tells you he had shown Mr. Tilton on that very Sunday night after he had gained possession of that memorandum. And then thereafter everything was of accord between this injured husband and this guilty defendant, if he were guilty, and Mr. Tilton accepted and desired, through his agent and friend Mr. Moulton, cooperation and aid in respect to his reinstatement, in respect to the collec- tion of what was due, and what was denied to be due by Bowen, and every degree of favor and aid that one man would accept from a friend was accepted by Mr. Tilton thereafter from Mr. Beecher and from Mr. Bee Cher's friends down to the time when, as Mr. Tilton says, "these friendly relations ended by Plymouth Church undertaking to seize me (Tilton) by the throat," a period that certainly carries us to 1873, if not to 1874. JUDGE NEILSON WANTS A SPEEDY END OF THE CASE. Judge Neilson— Grentlemen of tlie jury, I find occasion to appeal to you. You will remember that heretofore when I sugg-ested that you should work on Saturday, I assented readily to your suggestions that it was not desirable to work on Saturday ; but now there are very pressing reasons which I feel very strongly. Some of you have been iurors in this court here- tofore. You know that on the first Monday of every month, except July and August, we have a calendar of 250 or 300 causes to be tried, and that two of the judges act upon those trials, two coui-ts going on with the calendar until exhausted, and we have such a calendar for next Mon- day morning, and I feel a strong desire to be back to my • ordinary duties, inasmuch as my associates have been burdened these last five months, not only with the work appropriate to them, but with the work which I should have been performing with them. I wish to get back to my customary labors as soon as possible and relieve them from the extra burden. And, beyond that, gentlemen, in all cases of appeal where the appeal is from an order or judgment of mine, my associates can sit, but in thos* cases where the appeal is from a judgment or order made by one of them, the appeal at our General Term awaits the time when I can act with ono of the other two, and we have a large mass of those cases lying in arrears, although we have occasionally heard a case. We did so this morning, or rather Judge Reynolds and myself heard an argument this morning in a case of that kind, but the attorneys need a week or two notice to get ready, and there is a large amount of General Term business lying in a neg- lected state,, and these considerations, as well as the gen- eral desire of all of us, make it imperative that I must ask you to attend to-morrow, and probably you will cheerfully do so. Mr. Evarts— I might, if your Honor please, be allowed to say a word on that subject myself. I am willing to submit to any necessary instructions of your Honor, and shall feel the greatest desire both to oblige your Honor in these interests of the public, and the jury in their wishes^ which I have no doubt are very considerable, that the argument should be protracted in time no longer than is necessary. But I confess that I am not disposed to feel entirely indifferent upon the question of whether after four days of full measure of oral argument and the pressure of preparation each night for it, when I have come to the accustomed period of adjom-nment, I should feel that I could retain the strength for the argiunent to-morrow, and then submit to the necessity of going on without the ordinary tutervals of rest. T have asked very few favors, I think, on my own account in respect of strength or health, and I have gladly, cheerfully, and spontane- ously met any suggestion of that kind from our oppo- nents. I shall submit to your Honor's direction and the. conclusion of the jiuy. Mr. Beach— If I understand from the intimation of my learned friend, he thinlis it would be oppressive to him to contiuue his argument to-morrow, and that his prepa- rations have not been fully made and cannot be fully made without imposing upon him unusual labor for that service upon to-morrow. I am excessively anxious^. Sir, and it is imperative with me that this case,, so far as I am connected with it, should be speedily closed. At the commencement of this argument, it was intimated by our learned friends that they would require five days to submit what they pro- posed to say to your Honor and to the jury It was said that Mr. Porter would probably occupy two days and Mr. Evarts three, or the converse, I don't know which, and when it was found that Mr. Porter was taking all the time which was assigned or intimated for the whole argu- ment of the defense, we were assured that it would, not lengthen the aggregate period which they would oc- cupy, and we have now been eleven days. Sir, in this ar- gument, all occupied by the counsel for the defense. Your Honor knows, and they know, that there is to be- lUI^ TlJ/ION-BinjJaBEE IIUAL, '^ut an answer from one counsel upon the part of tlie plaintiil', and under these circumstances I appeal to yoiu" Honor that there should be some limitation to the debate, iihat we shall know when it is to end upon the part of the defense, and that we shall not drift on in this in- definite and apparently interminable course of argument. I certainly do not mean, Sir, by any remark to criticise now the mode of argument adopted by my learned friend ; that will be more appropriate hereafter, if any exceptions are to be taken to it, which I do not intimate. But I cannot, Sir, having experienced what my fi'iend properly calls the voluntary and spontaneoiis courtesy -which he has extended to the counsel for the plaintiff under peculiar and necessitous circumstances, notwith- standing all my desire to close this case, and the oppres- sion which I feel from its continuance, I cannot, so far as I am concerned, insist that my friend should be called upon suddenly to continue his argiunent to-mor- row. Certainly four days of continuous labor, speaking labor, is a pretty severe tax upon any gentleman, although I think my friend talks quite easily and with but little personal oppression; and besides that, it is un- expected, and it may very well be supposed that, while there is never any want of preparation on the part of my learned friend, he may not pre- cisely have settled the line of argument proper to adopt upon a succeeding day. I do not know, Sir, what the views or wishes of the jury may be ; and it is only because I have heretofore spoken to your Honor about my desire of having some expression either fx-om the Court or from the counsel, of the additional time that they will require to conclude their argument that I have interfered at all, and out of a sense of grateful courtesy to the action heretofore of my learned friend. So far as I am concerned, therefore. Sir, and on the part of the plaintiff, I trust your Honor will give heed to the wishes of Mr. Evarts upon the subject ; but I stUl in- sist, Sir, and I appeal to your Honor to assign some limit to this debate, that I may know when, on behalf of the plaintiff, I can have the ear of this Court and iury for the comparatively brief time which I shall ask la submitting the case of the plaintiff. Judge Neilson— I was forgetful of these considerations when I appealed to the jury, as if the jury only were to be considered ; I did not at the moment recall the cir- cumstance that the learned counsel who had been speak- iug duiing the week might need time for thought and preparation, or even for rest, we having adopted the notion that he was the only one of our whole number that did not need any rest, and as to the time when prob- ably Mr. Beach will have an opportunity to be heard. I have no doubt counsel will consult about it. Mr. Evarts— I recognize my learned friend's kindness and courtesy, and of course it was not at all unexpected by me. Gentlemen of the jury and your Honor and my learned friends on both sides may see that there is every reason why I should wish to conclude this argument as soon as my sense of duty to my client will permit, and I wiU say to ray learned friend, for I think it is due to him, that I have disposed of, in my judgment, the main iuterests and purposes of this inquiry, as called for from mq, in addition to what Mr. Porter has done, and that I have not the least expectation of going beyond Tuesday in my summing up, and I have a strong desire to be able to close by recess on Tuesday ; but as my learned friend is only concerned that I should have a limit that I won't fall short of, I think we must take Tuesday night. The Court then adjoui-ned until Monday, June 7, at 11 a. m. NINETY-EIGHTH DAY'S PROCEEDINGS. ARGUMENT FOR THE DEFENDANT NEARLY ENDED. INCREASED INTEREST IN THE SUMMING UP OP MR. EVARTS— EVIDENCE CONCERNING MR. TILTON'S CHARACTER REVIEWED— MRS. WOODHULL'S PART IN STIRRING UP THE SCANDAL NOTICED— THE ADMITTED FALSE STATEMENTS OP MR. TILTON AND MR. MOULTON IN REGARD TO THE CASE SEVERELY COMMENTED UPON— INTERVIEWS BE- TWEEN THE PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT EX- AMINED—MR. TRACY'S TESTIMONY EMPHASIZED. Monday, June 7, 1875. Mr. E varts's historical metliod of treating his case to-day brought him to a range of topics appa- rently less important than those which he had be- fore considered, but still sufficiently interesting to hold the attention of an audience somewhat larger than those which occupied the Court- room last week. The orator has followed, in hia argiunent, almost the regular chronological se- quence of the events which make up the story of the scandal. Mr. Beach still seemed to feel somewhat unwell, and he carefully avoided sitting in a draft of air, leaving his chair and seating himself at the side of the bench. He was kept away in the afternoon by a case in another court, but he left word for Mr. Evarts to go on with the argument, notwithstanding his absence. The topics covered by the argument to-day were treated more briefly than those that have gone before. Mr. Evarts spoke, much of the time, with unusual rapidity. He reviewed several of the dec- larations of Mr. Tilton about Mr. Beecher's alleged statements, considered some of the interviews be- tween the plaintiff and defendant, referred to Mrs. Morse, Mrs. Davis, and Mrs. H. B. Stantou, BUMMING UP BF ME. EVABTS. 761 enlarged upon the relations of Mr. Tilton with Mrs. Woodhull, pointed out contradictions of Mr. Tilton's evidence, analyzed the testimony of Gen. Tracy about the interview between himself and Messrs. Tilton and Moulton, and touched upon a variety of other subjects. There were several stirring passages in the address, and a good deal of humor, which sometimes depended more on the orator's manner than his words. A playful allusion to Mrs. WoodhuU's aspirations to the Presidency of the United States was hrought out by the orator in a way which set the audience and the jurymen laughing. Mr. Moulton received another thrust from the ora- tor's wit. Referring to Mr. Moulton's having said that, in a certain case, he had lied for IVIr. Beecher, the orator exclaimed, " Well gentlemen, a man who lies for Beecher will lie for himself." Then turning toward Mr. Tilton, he pronounced one the most striking passages in the day's argument, in a severe tone of voice, and with stinging sarcasm. " It may be a hardship," he said, " for this plaintiff that he has no witnesses to prove his case but men who, like himself, and as himself confessedly out of his own mouth, and as Moulton confessedly out of his own mouth, have lied, and lied, and lied to put Sl wrong face on this matter." One of the most carefully elaborated por- tions of the argument was that in reference to the early relations of Gen. Tracy to the case, and his interview with Messrs. Moulton and Tilton. The orator asserted that Messrs. Moulton and Tilton had got permission from Mr. Beecher to tell Gen. Tracy the facts, and that they must either say that they were telling Mr. Tracy a series of lies, or they must stand upon his testimony, if the jury accepted It as true, of what they did tell him as the truth. This part of the address attracted very close atten- tion from the audience, and it was delivered with much force of manner and clearness of statement. THE PROCEEDINGS— YEKBATTM. MR. BEECHEE'S TESTIMONY AGAINST MR. TILTON'S. The Court met at 11 a. m., puisuant to ad- journment. Mr. Evarts— It does not accord vritli my pm-pose, gen- tlemen of tlie jmy, nor does it tit witii tlie limitations of time wlilcli my own sense of my duty to you imposes upon me, to treat of all the random and scattered inter- views tliat are thrown in here and there during the years that follow this important and decisive period between these parties, of December, 1870, and .January, 1871. I have proposed to you that upon the occurrences of that week, as respects charges or confessions, that week in December, the line was set between these people, and that thereafter, in any view, there would come to be no new expressions or renewals either of accusation or of admission ; and in that view I pass but lightly over an interview of the 3d of January, in which there are con- tained several passages that perhaps may be brought to your attention, or may already exist in your memory; and I will only ask your attention brieHy to them that you may see whether or no I am correct in my view, that whatever is added after the period of the last week in December is of no importance, whatever view you shall take of what occmred during that week. Now, Mr. Moulton having insisted upon Mr. Tilton, who came in, treating Mi*. Beecher with respect and con- sideration and com-tesy in his house, a very difficult proposition to accept, if you believe that this injured husband and this paramour stood in one another's pres- ence with this imputed injury still existing as a matter of feeling or resentment between them ; now, after Mr. Beecher had said, as I have stated to you, that the expressions he had made to Mi-. Moulton were sincere, and that ho had this commiseration, this regard for, and this desire to aid Mr. Tilton, we have, according to Mr. Tilton, this fm-ther statement. He says— tiiis is Mr. Tilton's view : He then said, "I do not put in any plea for myself, but only for her. Indeed, if you wish to carry out the demand which was communicated to me in your letter of Christmas Day, that I should retire from my pulpit, you have only to say the word and I wHl retire. The renting of the pews shall not go on." Now, the utter impossibility of either of these state- ments is obvious upon the undisouted evidence. In the first place, how could Mr. Beecher say to IMr. Tilton, " If you wish to carry out the demand in the letter made ou Christmas day "—when the whole agony of IMr. Tilton in the interview^ of the 30th of December had been to obliterate that letter and that charge, and to conciliate Mr. Beecher to the point of not resenting it, but treating it as if it never had occurred ? And how could Mr. Beecher, on the 3d or 4th of January, 1871, talk of the renting of the pews not gomg on, whew that had already happened ? I have this request to make— that if it be necessary for you to make a public recital of this case What an extraordinary idea to come from Mt. Tilton's mouth, when the solicitudes of his wife, as he says, had prompted him to resort to Mr. Beecher to see to it that by chance even, from any exacerbations between Bowen and Beecher, nothing could possibly come out you will give me notice in advance of your intention to do so, in order that I may either go out of the world by suicide, or else escape from the face of my friends by a voyage to some foreign land. And, furthnrmore, I ask you to do me this favor— that whoever else in the wide 763 TEE TlLTO:N-BEhir)HEB TRIAL, woild is CO be informed of tlie facts of this case, at least my wife shall never know anything on the subject, for filie is not only your enemy, but may very readily become mine. If you can spare her the pang of having these facts communicated to her, I will consider that it is an additional occasion of gratitude. Now, gentlemen, look at the absurdity of this. The object of this is to make a vehicle of narrative that may introduce confessions ; and wherever any go-cart can be found that can take anything of that commodity in, Mr. Tilton always drives it up, in season and out of season. But the absurdity of that situation between them, of Mr. Beecher's suggesting : " Well, if publicity on your account " which TUton had been struggling against with all his might all through that week, and urging Mr. Beecher not to permit a chance of publicity— he says, •* If it shall become necessary for your purposes to give any publicity to this, why give me notice, in order that I may commit suicide, or short of that, that I may retire to Europe ; but finally, if you do publish it in New- York and Brooklyn, if it does become known to the world at large, see to it that it does not reach Mrs. Beecher, be- cause that would be an additional pang to me that you well might spare me. She is no Mend of yours now. Mi'. Tilton, and she might become an enemy of mine if she heard this narrative." He said also that he did not wish me to understand that he solicited any mercy for himself alone, but only for his family, and particularly for Ehzabeth. He said : " I do not beg at aU for myself, but for her ; she was not to blame ; I was altogether at fault ; my sacred ofBce and my years should have combined to have made me her guardian, not her tempter." Now, you will observe, gentlemen, that some conversa- tion might arise between these persons concerning the state of things as it had been proposed in the evening of the 30th of December, and had been made the subject of regret, of disorder, of feeling, and of astonishment, in Mr. Beecher's mind, at the revelation of the disaster in the household, and the feelings of this wife. AU that is con- sistent with there being no charge and no confession in the sense that is claimed here. But that I have suflB- ciently insisl 1 upon. Suffice it to say that tn all future conversations you see at once the great danger of having your intelligence imposed upon by substituting phrases that seem applicable to the impossible charge of adultery, instead of phrases that have relation to this disaster tn the family. Mr. Beecher certainly reproached himself, too, and in regard to which he expressed himself without measure. He f;irthermore told me that the relationship which had existed between himself and Elizabeth had not always been marked by sexual intimacy ; that the earlier years of it were free from any such talot and crime, and f liat only during the last year, or a little more than a y ear, he said, and that year shortened by a country vaca- tion, had that sexual intimacy existed. He fm'thermore *aid that he did not know how he could offer any mitiga- tion or excuse for hiruscll", uTid yet lie snid he wanted me CO believe, for Elizabeth's sake and also for his OAvn, that he had never sought her for any vulgar end, but that their sexual conunerce had been through love, and not through lust; that he had never met any woman whom he had loved so weU; that he had sought companionship in her mind; that he had taken manuscripts to her that she might be his critic; and that the blame— and this he repeated two or three times over—" the blame," he said, " belonged to me^ and not to her." And he added— and when he did so the tears came into his eyes— he added some words like these: "Tell me, before you go away, can you possibly ever instate Elizabeth in your respect and love 9" Then ho said " that he was in great grief through Mr. Bowen's ac- tion in my case, the termination of my engagements with Mr. Bowen's papers, and said he felt that Mr. Bowen's suddenly changed mind had been largely due to state- ments which Mrs. Beecher had made to Mr. Bowen and to statements which he himself had made, though he said that Mrs. Beecher had been more mischievous in her ut- terances than he. He mentioned also that he had volun- tarily written a letter to Mr. Bowen, either that day or the day before, in which he had taken back some of the unkiud references or Injurious statements which he had made to Mr. Bowen concerning me." No doubt you see in this last part the entire conflrmar tion of the idea that Mr. Beecher at this time felt and expressed to Mr. Tilton— I mean at this period from the time that the matter was brought up as a matter of dif- ference between them ia the misf ortimes that had at- tended Mr. Tilton— felt and so expressed himself that the mischief of Mrs. Beecher's and of his own intervention with Mr. Bowen was chargeable in some degree with hi» disasters in a pecuniary point of view. Now, Mr. Beecher, tn his evidence, gives substantially this view of the matter : I turned to Mr. Tilton, and with far more words than I am usiag now— I epitomize now, and state the sub- stance—I turned to Mr. Tilton, and spoke to him of the profound regiets that I felt that I had in any way been a party or subsidiary to the injuries inflicted upon him by Mr. Bowen ; and I also said that the disturbance in his household which had -been occasioned by me, was with- out intention, and without my recognition at the tirae^ but that I did regard it now as being very serious, and that I had the most profound sorrow for the distm-bance that I had occasioned, the rupture between him and his family, and the miseries that he must have suffered ; that I asked his pardon for the one, and for the other— that I felt I had been in the wrong, and that I ought to ask forgiveness for it. Now, Mr. Moulton's statement of this interview agrees much more nearly with Mr. Beecher's than it does with Mr. Tilton's, and this passage that I have now read ta you is not denied by either of them. Then Mr. Beecher, as you will remember, is asked dii ectly about all these odious statements, in terms specifically that I have read to you, as forming apart of this interview in the narra- tive of Mr. Tilton, and he denies them entirely and with emphasis, and in a manner and with a sincerity and em- phasis which you all recall. You wiU see, then, that this interview, as narrated by Mr. Tilton, and the expressions imputed to Mr. Beecher, are all a rehash and reproduc- tion of the narrative and scheme of the seduction and the SUMMING UF BY ME. EVAETS, 763 adultery whlcli Tilton, in its perfect form, delivered to you as the narrative of tlie "wife to tiimself and liis repetition of it to Mr. Beeclier on tlie 30th day of Decem- ber. Whatever fate befalls that interview of the 30th of December, in your judgment, carries with it necessarily these subsequent reproductions of the same ideas and of the same expressions. THE INQUEST ON THE PATERNITY OF THE CHILD RALPH. There comes then to be a very extraordinary- interview as stated by Mr. Tilton, to which your atten- tion has been called by my learned associate, Mr. Porter, and which doubtless lives in your minds. It is an inter- view about the middle of Februai-y, after what was suj)- posed to be a very full accord and settlement between these parties, of the grounds and racasm-es of complaint, of the groimdp and measures of reproach and apology on Mr. Beecher's part, made up in a circuit of letters bear- ing date the 7th day of February ; and thereafter, Mr. Tilton says that he invited Mr. Beecher to come to his house for an interview, a house at which he should find Mr. Tilton and the wife; and this is the first invitation of Mr. Beecher to his house, and the first visit to the house that had occurred. He tells you that the object of that was to relieve his mind concerning the genuineness or spuriousness of the offspring Ralph, the baby of the family then, I think something like a year and a half old, nearly two years old perhaps. Now. gentlemen, if this interview is not in the conception, suggestion and description of it bj' Mr. Tilton absurd, it is not in the power of any imagination or addition to make it so. It proceeds upon nothing, comes to nothing, and has no possible existence in the nature of things. The object of it is to furnish what was regarded as a necessary, and if not unimportant link in evidence, to give time and place to these amours which nobody had detected or suspected, and which no evidence could ever approach even with the eye of jealous suspicion, and furnish a single witness or a single hint about it. And that is the whole Object of this need of the interview, but not this evidence that is produced by Mr. Tilton. He says, after they have gone up stairs : I have called you hither in order that you may remove, if you can. a shadow from the future life of the little boy Ralph. His mother has assigned to me a date at which your criminal intimacy with her began. This little boy was born a few months after that. Well, he was bom about eight months and a half, wasn't it? [To Mr. Abbott. | He was born eight months and a half after that— called a few months here, to make it a satisfying result to him, to find out that the inter- course occiurred at a date that he suggested, and concern- ing which he seems, as he thinks, to have received the doubting assent of Mr. Beecher. Now, that was the date he had m his mind, accordmg to his own story, (where he got it nobody knows) -the iOth October. 1868, and the child was born the 20th of June following, and he wanted to be sure that this intercourse between Mr. Beecher and his wife was on the 10th of October in order to relieve him of all uncertainty as to whether this offspring of Ma was genuine or not. Now, he states it in his evidence, ** a few months after," in order to carry (at least while he Is talking) some degree of probability or possibility ia wlia* he is going to say. If the date which his mother has given is correct, it will save a dishonor attaching to his name. I want you to tell me, as before God, whether or not that date is right. I want, if possible, to shield him ; but I want, more than that, to know the truth. Tell me the truth. Aud he told me on his word of honor, as before God, that the date which Mrs. Tilton had assigned was the correct one. At that moment Mrs. Tilton herself, who had followed me up stairs, came into the room, and when I stated to her the point of conversation she burst iuto tears. Q. AYell, now, Mr. Tilton, state whether in that conver- sation that morning in your study the date was named 1 Mr. Fullerton asks him. Now, the witness having had his attention called to the fact that he had n't named any date after all, left it a few months before the birth of the child, which would have carried it somewhere four or five months (in any proper sense of the words " few months") later than the assigned date— Mr. Fullerton is allowed to call his attention to whether the date was named. A. I told him Elizabeth had named as the date at which tiieir criminal intimacy began Oct. 10, 1868. He replied that he had no faculty for dates and had made no record, but he believed in his soul that she had told me the truth. Now, gentlemen, that is the way we dispense with evi- dence of any act, or proximate act, and get out of this defendant's mouth a corroboration, or support of the time and place that they allege for the first prostitution of the wife. Well, gentlemen, if you can conceive of any such interview, and if the circumstances of the dates made it possible that there could be any reassuring influ- ence on the mind from it, and therefore the whole thing is not overthrown by this proposition of the plaintiff, of the object of the interview, it would be overthi'own by the exquisite absurdity of the form and manner in whicli the admission or corroboration is drawn from Mr. Beecher. For, you must take it as he says it, if you take it at all— as Mr. Tilton gives it, that Mr. Beecher in the presence of this husband and with the wife in the house, and with the wife ap- parently coming in afterwards, should say this, that he hadn't a good memory for dates and that he had made no record of this transaction, and with all gravity and decorum, but that he could upon his honor, befor© God, he must think that the view that Mrs. Tilton had communicated to her husband most be the correct one. Now, gentlemen, you must compare Mr. Beecher's state- ment of this interview, and see which comports the best with the relations now established between the pai ties. 764 THE TILION-B "With the views tliat you take of tlie preceding evidence running tlirough. the months of December and January ; the final settlement ; or friendly relations in the begin- ning of February, which were never broken, as Tilton says, until Plymouth Church began to put its hand on his throat. Now, after Mr. Beecher has given this nar- rative, Mr. Tilton is brought back to the stand and he denies only one single passage in it, and his attention, therefore, was called by the counsel to this interview, and what he could deny he did deny, and what he could not deny he didn't ; for it is in vain to say that this narrative that he gives in the bald terms that I have read to you is a sub- stitution or a previous placing of the interview. Mr. Beeoher's interview is an afl3rmative, independent, wholly unconnected interview with anv such narra- tive, topic or sublect as that of the paternity of the child. Mr. Beecher denies, as you remember, and with indigna- tion, the very suggestion that any such topic or any such conversation— any such on Mr. Tilton's part, any such on his part— ever took place. Now see what Mr. Beecher saj'-s, which, as I say, remains wholly uncontradicted by Mr. Tilton. He found them at breakfast : Mr. Tilton met me as if he had expected me, and intro- duced his conversation by the recognition of the fact that we were to act harmoniously togetner, and that it was necessary, therefore, for a more perfect effectuation of that, that we should have a conversation in regard both to himself and myself. There was a renewal, some re- newal, of the conversation in respect to the manner in which Mr. Bowen had treated him in a business point of view ; I cannot recall that very distinctly. The other part impressed itself more upon my mind. He passed on fi'om the statement of Mr. Bowen's having slandered me to the statement that he himself had experienced a like treatment at the hands of Mr. Bowen. He proceeded to Instance the stories that had been told by Mr. Bowen, if I recollect aright, one by one. Q. About you ? A. No, about himself. It was an inter- view far more clearing himself than clearing me. He said that the story of his having made improper ad- vances, &c., in the back oflSce of The Brooldyn Union was an absolute falsehood. He said the story of his going with a woman to Winsted, in Connecticut, was absolutely false and had no foundation in fact, and that he could not understand how it should have started, except that there W9S another Tilton bearing nearly the same initials as his, who was a dissolute man, and an intemperate man, and that he had been about the country, and that this story probably was true of him, and had been trans- ferred by those who did not know the difference of personality to him. Now, this last, about the namesake of Mr. Tilton, is the only part of this statement of Mr. Beeoher's to which Mr. Tilton's attention is called by the counsel, and the only part that he denies, and he denies that (as he seeks occa- sion always to deny whatever he must deny) by intro- ducing the support of a fact, and so relieving himself from the absolute and inventive falsehood. He says, *' I did not say this about Mr. Tilton, because I did not know then about his immorality." But he says that this EBCHKE TIllAL. Mr. Tilton was divorced from his wife in the beginning of June, 1871; that is in his tes- timony—he knew the day and he gave it to you, that he was divorced June 9, 1871, and Mr. Morris asks him : Q. And about the Spring of 1871 did you hear any- thing concerning Theodore H. Tilton 1 A. Not at the time Mr. Beecher mentions. Q. No, but subsequently, or about that period? A. Yes; Mr. Theodore H. Tilton was divorced on the 9th of June, 1871. Well, if the decree of divorce had come on the 9th of June, 1871, it is likely some knowledge of the profligacy of Theodore H. had come to Theodore during the preced- ing months of that year. And thus you have ready in- vention, iustaseasy of discovery and conviction; the whole reason that he falsifies this view of Mr. Beecher as to his explanation about Theodore H. Tilton having had sins that were carried to Theodore's, his own, charge is, " WeU, I didn't know about it then." But Theodore H. Tilton was here, of Brooklyn and New- York, and identity of name, if there were no relationship (I don't know how that is) but character, profligacy, all the traits that made it natural for Theodore to pick him out to serve as a turn to hang the falsehood on applied, and he seeks to distm-b that by telling you that he heard of his divorce : that his divorce took place, and he knew of it on the 9th of June, 1871. Well, gentlemen, you must judge whether this ready escape from apparent falsehood is to serve his turn in this case, any more than in the numerous others I have exposed. It must be held, then, as absolutely true that this interview with Mr. Beecher was in order to contirm the good dispositions, and to secui-e the good offices that he needed from Mr. Beecher. And here he threw off at once, upon this scapegoat of Theodore H. Tilton, all his sins, especially those connected with the Winsted affaii". He said the stories told to him by Mr. Bowen or hinted in respect to his improprieties in the West and North- west he defied anybody to prove ; they were absolutely false. He then went on to say that my wife was not al- together guiltless in til e matter 6f propagating stories; that she and Mrs. Morse had joined hands against him ; that Mrs. Morse had repeated stories of his intemperance, and of his improvidence, and of his neglect of his family, and one by one he gave to them explicit denial. He stated then to me, in regard to his family, that, while he acknowledged that perhaps he had been at times hasty or inconsiderate, or something to that effect, he had never violated his marital vows ; he declared that he had from his youth up been immaculate in chastity ; he narrated to me the scene that took place between him and his father when he first began to launch out alone into the city, who took him and talked with him about the great dangers that he would have from the other sex, and from an undue intercourse with them ; there was considerable that was very specific in that coun- sel of his godly and patriarchal father, as he rep- resented to me, and he said that that made such an im- pression on his mind at that time that it had held him up ever since ; he stated then that he did not know but tliat his life had come to a premature termination ; his useful- ness seemed clouded, bis opportunities seemed shut up ; SUMMII^G UP BY MR, EYABIS. 765 bis ho'iseliold seemed desolate. I spoke tlieii words of sympathy and words of courage to laim, and was pro- foundly impressed with his trutMuliiess, and I felt worse than I had ever felt before, that I had lifted my hand against a man who, whatever might have been his weak- nesses or his follies, had not deserved any such treat- ment, and I expressed myself so to him, and we had a kind of recognition again ; and he said that in view of what had taken place through the kindly offices of Mr. Moulton, through interviews with me. that, as w^e were to co-operate in the future, he wanted to have this con- versation to say what he had said, and so on, and he wanted also to say that he should desire me to visit in his family again just as I had done in former days, before any of these troubles arose. This was not said just as I have said it— that is to say, it was much more largely opened rhetorically, and yet this is the substance of it. We left the study and went down stairs. I have forgot- ten exactly how it came to pass that I found myself with him in the bedroom with Mrs. Tilton— in the back bedroom on the south side of the house ; but there I recollect there was a supplementary conversation between us three, or rather there was a supplementary discourse to us two, in which he stated again to his wife that he had had a long and satisfying interview with me ; he said that he did not know that he should ever again be put in such prosperity as he had lost, and spoke tenderly and sadly about that, and yet terminated with a kind of reassurance — he was young and he was energetic, and he meant to recover himself ; he spoke also in respect to his family; he said that he thought it only right to say to Elizabeth, address- ing himself to her, that " Mr. Beecher, in aU this diffi- culty, has acted the part of a man of honor toward you, and he has taken in every case all the blame to himself ; and I feel bound also to say to you, Sir," said he, "that Elizabeth has pursued the same course toward you," and said, " If there is any blame, it is mine," He said, then, that he did not know that he should ever be happy agam; his home seemed to him to be a divided and a desolate home, but he did not know but out of this very condition of things there would spring up again an affection that would be purer and stronger than if it had not been tried by these difficulties ; and with that — we all kissed each other, and I departed. Now, gentlemen, there is an invention by Mr. Beecher of most unblushing efeontery, or it is a true narrative. You must compare the oaths, the characters, of these two men. You must apply your intelligence and yotir com- mon sense to determine whether Mr. Tilton's statement of that interview has any possibility of truth in it, even if it were supported by a witness that yon would fully credit and was uncontradicted ; and then you must de- termine whether you believe that this interview that I have given you in IVIr. Beecher's statement of it does or does not comport with the objects which IVIr. Tilton had in hand, with the objects which he had been pursuing, with the views and purposes which he and his fi-iend Moulton had been expressing in every possible way to Mr. Beecher as the reasons governing their conduct. Now, when Mr. Tilton says, a^ he does in his interview, that There w^ere some things said that he does not remember, and then when Mr. Beecher comes and gives this narra- tive, and no denial either of the principal narrative or of the cause of reconcUiation, you must understand that it is absolutely proved before you upon every rule of evi- dence, even if the witnesses stood equal, that this narra- five of Mr. Beecher's is correct. OTHER EVIDENCES OF RECONCILIATION. Now, there came to be an interview in May again, and this was at Mr. Tilton's house [reading] : There was some— there had been some, either they had not fulfilled some agreement, or there was some kind of dissatisfaction with me, but I cannot recall it, what it was. [He was sent for to come there.] I only know that when I went in Mr. Tilton received me moodily, and then, after a little conversation and explanations which took place, he became gracious, and we fell into an easy and unbusiness-like chat, and that in the course of it, sit- ting there in the old-fashioned way in his house, I went up and argaed— sat down on his knee, as it were, to make the appeal closer, and when I was sitting there Mrs. TUton came into the room and burst out laughing. I recollect that interview, and I think when she came into the room she came up and kissed me very cordially. Now, this is followed by this statement of Mr. Beecher : Q. During this Spring and up to this time that you have now named, the latter half of May, did you understand that the Ul-feeliug between you and jMr. Tilton, or misun- derstanding, was removed 1 A.I did ; I thought the diffi- culty was all dissipated, and that the only thing remain- ing was the performance of the undertakings in which we had engaged. Now, when Mr. Tilton is recalled for this interview in the last half of May, concerning which he had girsn no evidence in his direct testimony, he disposes of it 'oj saying that this sitting on the knee he thinks occurred ten years before. Well, we have bis say so far that he doea not connect it with anything, except that it was about some book that he had written ten years before. But he does not deny the cause of reconciliation, although he does not think that the sitting on the knee occurred at that time. But he shows you that the sitting on the knee did occur ; the fact occurred, and therefore you have only this question left. He does not dispute the character of the interview ; he does not dispute the, harmony and the cause of the reconciliation, but he tries to dispose of the absolute assurance that there was a removal of all ill- feeling or show of ill-feeling in the harmony between him and Mr. Beecher, and in the renewed purposes of co- operation for the improvement of Mr. Tilton's condition which Mr. Beecher had so readily acceded to. MR. BEECHER NEVER VERBALLY ACCUSED OF adlt:.tery. And now, gentlemen, let me once for all caU yom- attention to a final question which was put by the learned counsel for the plaintiff both to Mr. Tilton when he was on the stand, and to Sir. Moulton also, and that was : During all these interviews (taking them in a body), did Mr. Beecher ever deny the adultery % And the answer is, " No, he never lid,"— and for the best of reasons, for when I asked Mr Beecher, not only 766 TEE TILTON-BM displacing one by one all the supposed admissious, all tlie implied admissions, all tlie recited admissions, I Mked Mm — Mr. Beeclier, did Mr. Monlton, did Mrs. Moulton, did Mr. Tilton ever, fi-om the beginning of this matter in December, 1870, down to your last interviews with either of them, ever accuse you of adultery, and ever impute carnal connection, ever suggest this impurity in any form or degree % He says : No person ever did m my house, in either of the houses, from the lips of either of these persons. And adds that the first word of that kind from any lips would have been the last moment of any intercourse be- tween them. So you see how easy it is by a form of ques- tion and answer to get apparent proof, until it is searched and probed and shown to be worthless. Mr. Beecher never did deny adultery, never did deny carnal connec- tion, never was accused by word, by hint, by suspicion indicated in any form. And the whole course of this afiair shows the utter impossibility of Mr. Beecher's hav- ing submitted to any of this intercourse to get his friend- ship, to obtain his aid, and he is quite justified on every principle of human nature when he says to you in his evidence: The whole course of my interviews with all these par- ties— Mrs. Moulton, Mr. Moulton, Mr. TUton— was utterly inconsistent with there being an idea of that form and degree of criminality, without imputing the utmost in- famy to all of them. And we recognize that. How are these respectable people, as they would have themselves considered, to ex- plain this long continued intercourse and effort to get the services either in money or in aid, in help, in sup- port, in reinstitution of Mr. Tilton in employment, or in character, or in credit— how are they to accommodate those courses of conduct to and with him on their part, with anything but the basest compromise and money settlements of this great disgrace % I ask your Honor's attention to the case of Giles agt, Giles (6 Notes of Cases in Ecclesiastical and Maritime Courts, p. 161) : The facts were : A witness, a gentleman of great respectability, who had been called in as a mediator, testified til at he visited the hus- band and communicated to him the charges made against him, and that the husband in effect admitted the charges. The witness testified that he considered the husband's conversation to be an admission of the truth of the charge, but the witness also stated that, before leaving, he took wine with the husband, entered into general con- versation, and shook hands at parting. Held, not suf- ficient proof of guilt. *' Now, considerins:," the Court say, " the nature of the expressions said to have been made use of by Mr. Giles, I cannot possibly conceive how all this conduct is to be reconciled with the belief that he was guilty of the of- fense imputed to him. How is it possible to conceive that a gentleman in Mr. Hume's situation, having re- ceived this communication from Mrs. Giles, and a confes- sion fiom Mr. Giles, could sit down with him, drink a glass of wine with him, talk with him, as he sa.ys he did, of the road he had been making to Qiaeen's Chailfon, shake hands with him at parting, and conduct himself EORER TlilAL. as he admits he would not have done if Mr. Giles had been convicted of the offense? The belief of Mr. Hume at this time was that Mr. Giles was not only guilty of the offense, but that he had confessed it, and where Is the difference between that and his being convicted of the offense % It is impossible to reconcile the evidence of Mr. Hume with his conduct upon the occasion.'* And that is the way the law always deals with words of witnesses when they are confronted and compared with their conduct. It does not hesitate to say of Mr. Hume, " You profess to be a respectable gentleman ; you come here to report after information from the wife of charges against her husband, the confessions of the husband— and you go on and describe the interview just as it would have gone on if this gentleman had had no guilt, no dishonor, no criminality that he was avowing before you. You tell us you would not so treat a man if he had been convicted, and yet you teU us that the wife had told you, and the hus- band had assented." Gentlemen, the law says people must understand that here, as in the practical intelli- gence of mankind actions speak louder than words," and, even in a matter like that, where Mr. Hume had no relation with the matter except that interview and that conversation, the experienced court of England rejects his evidence, and charges " That is no confession that we can believe in, for your conduct shows that you could not have believed in It ; your conduct shows that it never coiHd have happened." But when this test, thus remorselessly applied agaiost a mere intervening witness, comes to be applied to the conduct of the parties, to the social relations renewed, to the adulterer reintroduced iato the family and kissing the wife before the husband, and having this talk: " Now, this misunderstanding that has arisen, this degree of difiiculty, of interference, which you, Elizabeth, have stated, and which Mr. Beecher has taken blame to himself for— that is aU over; let everything be as it was before ; come to the house just as before ; each of you has honorably said that for all this beguilement, this irregu- larity in these affections, each was to blame," though Mrs. TUton, according to Mr. Tilton, on the very act of adultery never admitted that she was to blame at all, or that there had been any sin committed by any- body, but insisted that it was all pm-e and right and justifiable, but now it is exposed, and each of these parlies, the clergyman and the parishioner, feels that this never should have occurred, that grounds for opin- ion, even, on the part of the husband, and much more in real fact, co sustain such an opinion of the attraction of the wife's allegiance from the husband and its implica- tion even in undue affection toward the clergyman, never should have occurred, that the wife shoiild have pre- vented and the clergyman should have prevented it, each exonerating the other and each taking blame upon himself or herself— when, I say, you apply this test to tbo parties themselves instead of to a mere Intervening witness, how nuich more forcibly it applies ! Now, geo- SUMmNG UP BY ME. EYARTS. 767 ^emen, you must tliinlr that tlie comraunitr in wliicli l HalU(Lar,Iamnotamemberof yourcMircli.butiny wtfels, live, the people tliat make up respectable society ^vitlL us, are upon a mucli lower level of integrity of conduct— ■wMcli must comport witti alleged conversations, wliicli- jnust sustain -words, or else tlie word must fall— tlian tbese people in England are ; or else you must suppose tliat this whole family had gone mad and were different irom other people, or else that your judgment and that of this learned Court is less elevated, less penetrating, less serene, and less severe than that of the English courts. THE EENEWED SOCIAL RELATIONS. And now what were these renewed social relations 1 Take them as they show themselves in un- disputed evidence. Mr. Tilton and Mr. Beecher were re- peatedly together at Mr. Moulton's after the starting of The Golden Age, after the active movement that was ex- j?ected to elevate Mr. Tilton's fortunes and restore him to influence as an editor and to credit in society. Of that there is no dispute. Mr. Tilton and Mr. Beecher met at Xhe Golden Age oflBce ; Mr. Tilton endeavored to get, through Mr. Southwick, Mr. Beecher's influence on Sir. Claflin, Mr. Southwick's uncle and Mr. Beecher's parish- loner, to take stock ui The Golden Age; there was a yacht excursion in which they both took part, and both by the invitation of Moulton, and perhaps another excur- jsion, even, besides — if the two were not confoimded by the different witnesses when really there was but one. You find them dining together at Moulton's house in the Fall of 1872 and having that talk about the prospects and the future of both, and the Interest in the political campaign, and the speeches that each of them was making on the one side and on the other ; cordial greet- ings— no pretense that they were not cordial— when they jnet ; the kiss at Mr, Moulton's, about which the only doubt is whether Mr. Beecher kissed IVtr. Tilton on the forehead or on the Hps, TUton puttiag it on the forehead, so as to escape anything like participation, I suppose, except that of a passive recipient, but Mr. Beecher saying of the kiss that what Mr. Tilton has disclosed Is all right as to the time and place of its occurrence, but that it was on the lips and not on the forehead; and certainly Mr. Beecher would have needed to have got up on a chair, or Mr. Tilton must have surrendered himself to this em- brace much more decidedly if it were on the forehead than if it were on the lips ; at all events he did not ap- parently repel it. Then, after Mr. TUton's return from New-Hampshire, after this scandal had burst out, there is cordiality and shaking of hands with Mr. Beecher on his return, about which there is no dispute ; and then you have what Mr. Moulton and Mrs. Moulton said to Mr. HalUday. Mi-. Moulton said to Mi-. Halliday, when he was inquiring about this affair of Mr. Beecher, or this Wood hull charge and Mr. Moulton's knowlerlge of it, " 3Ir. and do you suppose, if Mr. Beecher were a bad man, I would allow him to come and sit here at the table with my wife as a guest, as he freq.uently does 1" That is not contradicted by Mr. Moulton. Now, gentlemen, you see what the English judge saw— you have it out of Moulton's own mouth that he said to Mr. Halliday, when Mr. Halliday wished to get at whether Moulton had any foundation for these stories, or whether there was any- thing to support them as they had been promulgated by the WoodhuUs, " Mr. Halliday, do you suppose il Mr, Beecher were a bad man I would allow him to come and sit here at the table with my wife as a guest, as he fre- guently does ?" And IMrs. Moulton said to the same gen- tleman: "Mr. Halliday, Mr. Beecher is my pastor and has been from my childhood, and I believe in him, and there is nothing that they can say that wiU affect my confidence la him, or my affection for him, one particle." Now, when Mrs. Moulton was asked, as she was in ad- vance before we called ]SIr. Halliday upon this point, when her attention is called to the evidence proposed to be dravm from Mr. Halliday, how does she negative it f Only thus : that she remembers saying to Mr. Halliday, " Mr. Beecher is my pastor, and has been from my child- hood;" but she cannot remember that she used the latter part of these expressions. She does not say that she did not use them, as I understand it ; and what under heaven she should have uttered the fii'st proposition for— that Mr. Beecher had been her pastor from her childhood— and there stopped, no man can understand. It was the intro- duction of the asseveration: "Talk to me a« to whether there is any truth in these charges against Mr. Beecher ! Why, I have known him since my childhood ; he has been my pastor ; I became a member of his church in youth, and I have known him ever since, and nobody can make me believe evil of him." And this is not contradicted when Mr. Halliday says : I never saw Mrs. Moulton at the church except she came around at the foot of the pnlpit stairs where I used to stand, at Mi*. Beecher's request, at the close of the service— came around, and if Mr, Beecher was not where ho could shake hands and speak with her she would wait imtil he came and did so ; and I think T invariably shook hands with her on those occasions ; I don't think that the number of times exceeded six. Q. On every one of these occasions did she shake hands specially with Mr. Beecher ? A. I think invariably. Nobody has contradicted that. Now, the portrait. The portrait was sent from Mr. TUton's, ru the Fall of 1870, to the Clinton-st. house of the Moultons, and remained there until they moved; it was hung in their parlor in Clinton-st., and hung in their parlor in Remsen-st., in their new house (the house which they at present occupy, I suppose), tmtil it was taken from the parlor sometime duriajf the last year and placed up stairs in one of the principal bedrooms, either of the wife or of the husband, of that family. Now, gentlemen, you see with what im- 768 TRB TILTON-BJE mense force these facts (wbich a jury always wants to have) of the conduct, of the way people did, hear upon the relations of these parties, in connection with the views of a sensible court, as I have read them to you and to his Honor from the case in the English Ecclesiastical Courts. Now, you have no doubt whatever of the move- ments during this period toward a newspaper, in which Mr. Frank Carpenter was made the agent of Mr. Tilton, and in which he went aroimd seeing Mr. Beecher's friends, and seeing Mr. Tilton's own friends, for Mr. Schultz was his friend, Mr. Southwick was his friend— Mr. Claflin was Mr. Beecher's friend, if you please, especially the interview with Mr. Charles Storrs and with Mr. Schultz— all these efforts in which Mr. Carpenter was active in Mr. Tilton's behalf, and which led afterward to conversations directly be- tween these parties and Mr. Tilton, in which Mr. Tilton was accused of attempting to build himself up out of im- putations against Mr. Beecher, and of blackmailing, when he knew there was no foundation for the matter, and he denied the blackmailing, and they had a club arbi- tration, and called in a bystander, Mr. Bailey, to hear both sides, and he decided that Mr. Tilton was a black- mailer : that is, that this proposition of his, in the way that he put it— of getting up a newspaper in which Mr. Beecher and himself were to be coadjutors, was in the nature of a coercion upon Mr. Beecher and Mr. Beecher's friends, upon his own, Tilton's, showing, to do this thing in his, Mr. Beecher's behalf, not on the merits, not on the inducements that would affect Mr. Beecher's own con- duct, but on the ground that he, Tilton, had some story or otber against Mr. Beecher. But now I am only look- ing at the evidence of the disposition of Mr. Tilton, as manifested by this open activity, not to call it merely action— this open activity on his part to promote inter- com-se, combination, cooperation, association, in the res- toration of his, Mr. Tilton's fortunes, between Mr. Beecher and himself. So, too, we have not only the invited restora- tion of the old habits of intercouse, but we have a course of conduct on Mr, Beecher's part of great discretion, no doubt, but which shows clearly that no such relation as the plaintiff pretends existed— shows it in the notes that passed between Mrs. Tilton and himself on occasions where a pastor could rightly address a parishioner (few in number, to be sure), and in the several cases in which he met her in the street, once or twice perhaps, and on a visit to her house when she sought his aid and counsel in the difficulties of her household, and when Mr. Beecher disposed of this application of hers in a manner certainly extremely creditable to him and most effective. When, after hearing from her, in the latter part of 1871, her distresses and her troubles and her desire to have him furnish her such aid as a religious teacher should furnish to a woman in that form of distress, he heard her, and, without saying another word, took the Bible, marked a passage for her perusal, and left the EtmnR TBIAL. house. Nobody can say of that interview that he had again given any right to think that he would listen to (in the sense of encouraging) or that he would interfere In (in the sense of promoting) any difficulties between the husband and the wife. This was the passage that he marked, this was his suggestion, in the language of the Apostle, as to the course by which she must deal with the discomforts and the disturbance in her household which she experienced at the hands of her husband : Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not ; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up. Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own,, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil ; Rejoiceth not in iniiiuity, but rejoiceth in the truth ; Beareth all things, belie veth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. THE SOURCE OF MRS. WOODHULL'S IN- FORMATION. Now, gentlemen, a particular occurrence took place, which I will briefly advert to. In the Spring of 1871, in this very month of May in which this last inter- view took place between Mr. Tilton and Mr. Beecher at his house, and where there was an absolute wiping out of ill-feeling, of evil opinion, of evil purpose, ap- parently, within a week after that there was published by Mrs. Woodhull a card in two of the leading morning papers of the City of New-York, in which what must be considered as a very open reference to the condition of adulterous intimacy between Mrs. Tilton and Mr. Beecher, continued for years, was clearly made. . The evidence, as I submit to you, gentlemen, clearly shows that this publication was promoted by Mr. Tilton himself. On this evidence it is impossible to douDt that the source of Mrs. Woodhull's information was Mr. Tilton. The scandal proper was not published untU November, 1872, but this card was published on the 22d of May, 1871, and at the very period when, apparently, if there were any sincerity in Mr. Tilton, if there were any pos- sible fidelity on his part to the duties to his wife and family that he has suggested, any possible honesty in his relations with Mr. Beecher, and any pos- sible confidence to be put in the attitude and condiict of Mr. Moulton, everything was at an end when everything had been explained, and when it was perfectly under- stood that the extent to which Mrs. Tilton ever had gone— to which she unhappily had been brought in the way of accusation— was of that written slip which she had re- tracted the next day after she gave it, there comes out this direct imputation in Mrs. Woodhull's card ; and this introduces a certain episode, so to speak, in the course of this direct narrative, brought in by the plaintiff, and made to serve the turn, in his mode of showing it, of in- culpation of Mr. Beecher, as requiring, cr at least de- siring, or at least acquiescing In and approving, a course of action on the part of Mr. Tilton and Mr. Moulton and Mrs. Moulton of association with Mrs. Woodhu'l. di>- SVMMING UP BY ME. EVAUTS, 769 reputable to tbem— that is, to Tilton, IMoulton and Ms wife— distasteful to them, injuring their credit "With the community, but submitted to by them as the willing aids and helps of Mr. Beecher in a course of concealment. True, Mr. Tilton professes that a zeal, an interest to keep his wife's fame from exposure, and the disorders of his family, whatever they might be, grave or less serious, from publicity and comment, fur- nished a motive also, on his part, for this odious associa- tion that he maintained for more than a year. He in- troduces it upon oath in this way : That he was sent for by Mrs. Woodhull, with whom he had no previous acquaintance, though he admits he had seen her once in some promiscuous company, and that she put into his hands that card, and he read it with astonishment and kept the best face he could, and tried to conceal any con- sciousness that it related to anybody .that he was con- cerned in or that he knew anything about, and that thereupon Mrs. Woodhull informed him that it related to his wife and to Mr. Beecher. Now, gentlemen, this was the 22d of May, 1871, and, as Mr. Tilton played the role of intimacy on his own show- ing, and of complete intimacy on the evidence that we have adduced, with this lady for certainly a period of twelve or fifteen months, pnd we think much longer, and at some time or other— to wit, in November, 1872— there came to be a full publication, however wild and exag- gerated and extravagant, for the purpose of cover that was, that included not only the facts, the original scan- dal as between Mrs. Tilton and Mrs. Beecher, but of all the maneuvers between Mr. Moulton and Mr. Tilton, the interviews, the secret confidences to which Mr. Beecher, Mr. Tilton, and Mr. Moulton alone were parties, during the week in December and the early part of January, as finally all those things came out, Mr. Tilton, by one of those judicious falsifications that is to protect himself against a necessary implication, begins by telling you that in that week, in May, 1871, Mrs. •Woodhull had in ner knowledge, and detailed to him substantially, all that she published in December, 1872. Cunning Mr. Tilton! To get rid of a necessary imputation, that there had been a growth of the woman's knowledge during her association with him, he tells you that she had it at the beginning of that association. Ah ! Mr. Tilton where did she get it thus early ? Well, you may remember that I asked him if he thought Mr. Beecher had told her, and he did not think he had. If Mr. Moul- ton had told her 1 "Oh, no! it astounded me when she pointed her finger at that paragraph inher card." "Well, who do you think did tell her? " And then I called his at tention, that it was not a question whether some of the notions of the scandal itself had transpired through the whispering galleries of his malicious heart, accusations and insinuations against Mr. Beecher and his wife during the preceding year, but that it carried knowledge of the Interview between him and Mrs. Tilton, and Mr. Tilton and Mr. Beecher, about the charge, th& confession, the retraction, the wife's action,, and about the pistol, and the resumption of the retraction, and all the narrative of the private councils which had for their sole object absolute secrecy — " where did all that get into this woman's head in the * month of May, 1871, at the time, as you say, when you had your first interview with her 1" Well, it was a little troublesome, no doubt ; no doubt of that. But he says, " Well. I suppose it must have come through Mrs. Morse." Whenever any trouble in the Tilton family cannot be imputed to anybody else, then poor Mrs. Morse has to take it. [Laughter. J Mrs. Morse, the mother-in-law I " Well, Mr. Tilton, did you feel at liberty to mention any of these matters that occurred between Mr. Beecher and yourself, or between Mr. Moulton and Mr. Beecher, dur- ing this period that you were trying to arrange to dis- arm his resentment and get his aid ? Was it not your ad- juration to Mr. Beecher that for your wife and children's sake there should not be a collateral whisper get out when he was fighting Mr. Bowen and Mr. Bowen fight- ing him, if they should have a fight again? Did you then feel at liberty to speak to anybody about any part of those confidential confidences!" WeU, there was no choice between a direct pouring of it himself into the ears of Victoria Woodhull and his in- venting some possible channel, however much he was cornered as to the baseness of the latter by my questions and his answers. " Well, I did speak to some persons about it, and I said some things." " And you felt at lib- erty, did you, to choose to whom you would speak, and to say as tnuch as you pleased about those private coun- sels when you started with the proposition that secrecy for your wife's and family's sake lay at the bottom of the whole ? " " Well, I did." "And so you told Mrs. Morse^ did you % " " Yes ; and out of her open mouth "— is his own expression—" came, I suppose, these stories of these confidential Interviews that reached Victoria Woodhull. " Now, nobody ever pretends that Mrs. Morse ever saw Victoria Woodhull^ or had any interviews with her, and I said to him, " Well, when you told Mrs. Morse yoii knew her infirmity, didn't you?" "Yes," said he, "I did." And there the poor man was in the condition, for immediate purposes of falsehood, of representing himself to you as having dur- iug those months of February and March, 1871, made a confidant of Mrs. Morse, when one of his most important interviews is a warning to Mr. Beecher to be careful not to allow Mrs. Morse to take alfrout even at her letters not being answered, for fear she will, by some mode or other, in her inventions and imaginations, mingle herself with the matter. Well, it stood so until the next morn- ing, and you had for half a day a possible chance, on Mr. Tilton's evidence, that what Mrs. Morse knew might be- come known to other people and might have reached Victoria WoodhuU, but the puzzle was if Mrs. Morse^ 770 TEE TlLrON-BE knew it, and T^as the cliannel hy wWcli Mrs. WoodTiull knew it, and only by the open-mo vithed circulation of Mrs. Morse's ideas, how happened it to have been a private and secret communication be- tween those two ladies that astounded you when you read it 1 That is not easy to get over. But the enormity of his proposition that he had been disclosing hither and thither and to Mrs. Morse these interviews with Mr. Beecher, of his own, and of Mr. Moulton, was too much lor his case, and the next morning he came in and said that he wished to correct his evidence, that he didn't liave any communication of any kind with Mrs. Morse after the month of December, 1870, and so he could not have told her (Mrs. Morse) anything about what occurred between Mr. Beecher and Mr. Moulton, or between him (Tilton) and Beecher, or him ^Tilton) and Moulton, or between him (Tilton) and his wife in respect to the retraction, &c. Now, there is an instance of the memory that comes and goes— comes at night and goes In the morning. There is an instance of the memory that the necessities of counsel fetch and carry, and yet it must be natural, as they said in " The School for Scandal " of Miss Vermillion's complexion. Now, let me show you how the testimony is about the relations of this gentle- man with Mrs. Woodhull. Mr. Andrews comes and says : At Mr. Tilton's desire I brought him into connection ^ith Mrs. Woodhull in the early days of May, 1871. And there was time enough during the running of t3iOBe weeks of May before the 22d for Mr. Tilton to have told this story as he pleased ; enough to sustain that eard, and Mr. Tilton had not yet got any practical proofs of reinstitution; he had not collected any money from Mr. Bowen, and he had not got restored to The Independ^ ewi, and he had nothing but the contribution of respect- able gentlemen, in which Mr. Beecher certainly was not a participant, nor Mr. Beecher's friend, Mr. Clafliu, in the constitution of The Golden Age, and he thought it was quite as well, while he was healing the wound ostensibly, and saving his family, nevertheless to find some open mouth of irresponsible imputation that should keep alive excitement and sustain solicitudes. There you have the first open proposition through the convenient agency of T'oodhuU & Claflin's card to make this charge, and for fear that that would not be evidence enough to show that they knew anything particular about it, I brought you Mr. Tilton's testimony, that at that time the woman knew all that she published in the Pall of 1872, and he was horror-struck to find it out. Now, I shut Mrs. Morse's ears by his testimony, if I have not shut her mouth. Now, besides this, we have evidence, entirely trust- worthy, that, although Mr. Andrews has given us three weeks' start nearly of acquaintance, invited by Mr. Til- ton, with Mrs. Moulton before the publication of this card, yet from our witnesses, Mrs. Palmer, Woodley and Gray, we take this intimacy between the Woodhull lady iJKOEEB TBIAL. and Mr. Tilton into the late Winter or early Spring of 1871. Now, Mrs. Palmer says that Mrs. Woodhull read to her (Mrs. Palmer) that card of the 22d of May, 1871, before it was published. Q. Can you recollect whether before she read the card to ' you in that way there was any conversation between Mr. Tilton and Mrs. Woodhull on the subject of the charge against Mr. Beecher and Mrs. TUton 1 A. Yes, in tho back office. Mrs. Woodhull was speaking of this charge against Mr. Beecher and Mrs. Tilton, and Mr. TUton started up, his face fiushed, and says, " Vickey, that is not true ; my wife is as pure as snow, and no such rela- tion ever existed between Mr. Beecher and my wife ; it is false." Q, Did he say anything about never having told her so I A. He said, " I have never told you so. You may have inferred it from what I have said." Q. What was Mrs. Woodhull's reply to this f A. Mrs. Woodhull stepped up to him and laid both her hands on his shoulders, facing him, and said : " Theodore, Theo- dore, you know it is not in the nature of things that a man and woman should be thrown together as Mr. Beecher and Mrs. Tilton were and have nothing of that kind take place between them," and he soon left the room. Now, when Mr. Tilton is recalled, all that h«5 denies la the "Vicky." He says he never called this woman Vicky. Vi^ell, that doesn't deny a cohversation. That may be an error of a narrator, or it may be true. You have the oath of one and of the other on the " Vicky." We have conceded " Victoria" and " Theodore" as the or- dinary method of address between this gentleman and this lady, and the " Vicky" is all that he denies of that conversation. Now, there is some effort to make out a sort of aUbi, but that, I believe, is the next year— that is also In refer- ence to some statements of Mrs. Palmer — or 1872. Now, gentlemen, Mrs. Woodhull's statement, when she does finally publish it, in 1872, gives two persons as sources of some large information to Mrs. Woodhull about this matter, but she gives her narrative, and bases it upon what Mr. Tilton told her. Her story, therefore, of it is that Mr. Tilton told her, and we will see what Mr. TUtoil does in regard to the pretensions of Mrs. Wood- hull's article, that Mrs. Paulina Wright Davis, a great intimate in Mr. Tilton's family, had poured into Mrs. Woodhull's ears considerable informa- tion, and Mrs. H. B. Stanton had had a long interview with her, and told her the same, or the rest. Mr. Tilton fui'uishes this refutation of both of those stories of Mrs. Woodhull's Information in the publication which he makes as a part of his " True Story." Fortu- nately this part was preserved, and was produced from the original in Mr. Tilton's own hand. It is the tail-piece of the " True Story," of which we furnished the introduc- tion. He publishes this refutation of Mrs. Paulina Wright Davis's share in it : Mrs. Paulina Wright Davis was given as a chief witness in Mrs. Woodhull's scandalous Beecher-Tilton's libel, but in a note just received from her in Europe, Mrs. Davis SUMMISG CF BY Mli. EVAKIS, 771 thus utterly repudiates, in gross and in detail, the state- ments concerning lier relation to the ease, and gives the most damaging direct blow to the whole lihel that has yet heen rendered. And then CLUoted from lyirs. Davis : In relation to the Tilton agt. Beecher affair, I have only this to say : I was never on any terms of intimacy with the families of either party. I never visited the Tiltons but once in my life, and that was ten years ago in company with Mr. and Mrs. Johnson. A year or two ago I called at Mr. Tilton's house for some "boolis which I had lent to T. I then saw Mr. Tilton for ten or fifteen minutes. I have met Mrs. Tilton two or three times at the houses of mutual friends, but at no time has there been the slightest approach to confidential conversation between us, nor have I insinuated that there had been. If :Mrs. T. has ever in my presence spoken of Mr. Beecher it has been in terms of respect as a man of honor and her pastor. I did believe that Mrs. Woodhull was going to do a great work for women. I am grieved that she has failed in what she gave promise of doing. And ZSIrs. H. B. Stanton, in a letter to a friend in New- York, which Mr. TJton produces as a voucher that Mrs. H. B. Stanton didn't communicate anything to Mrs. WoodhuH, writes: XOVEilBEE 5, 1872. I have had a great time visiting friends here, hut my pleasure has been fearfully marred by this Woodhull paper. I thought it dead. " False in one point, false in all" is a good old Latin motto. And certainly no greater authority for the common law in this State has lived for a century than I^Irs. H. B. Stanton's father, Daniel Cady, a great lawyer. The filthy language she puts iuto my mouth is utterly fal?e. I never spoke to that woman but once on the subject— about five minutes— fortunately ia the presence of one witness, a gentleman, and simply replied in general terms to a question that I had heard about this rumor. Say this to T. T., and tell him I shall stand by him ia the hour of need. Now, Mr. Andrews tells you that he was the gentleman that was present when Mrs. H. B. Stanton had her inter- view with Mrs. Woodhttll, and nobody has undertaken to j»roducethat interview as covering any greater length and breadth of communication than is given in this letter of Mrs. H. B. Stanton's. Now, I produce this statement of PauliiiL- Wright Davis, and this letter of Mrs. H. B. Stan- ton, not because they are ia themselves evidence, but hecause they are made evidence by Mr. Tntons producing them as a correct and truthful statement of the connec- tion of these ladies with any communication co Mrs. WoodhuU, falsifying the proposition that either of them made any such communication, and putting it as a part of his narrative, under his own hand, that precludes the idea that either of them had. It is evi- dence agaiast him, and it is true, for the letters speak for themselves, and the ladies are not impeached in character or ia any way. WeU, now you see, haviag shut :Mrs. Morse's ears, I have now shutMi-s. H. B. Stanton's and 3Irs. Paulina Davrs's mouriis, and what mouth and ear was there thiit could i come together for the communication of this scandal but Mrs. Triton to Mrs. WoodhuU. She so published it ia her paper that he told her, and she put it on his telling, although she had, as she said, these previous communi- cations from these ladies, and more or less of them. But 1 don't put much upon that. The Court here adjourned until 2 o'clock- THE AFTEENOOX SESSION. Tlie Court met at 2 p. m., pursnant to ad- journment. Judge Neilson— Mr. Evarts, Mr. Beach has a case in another court, and requests that you proceed without "him, Mr. Evarts— Yes, yotir Honor. Mr. Beach mentioned it to me. You will perceive, gentlemen, very readily, that any movements or disposition either on the part of Mr. Beecher, or on the part of Mr. Tilton, or on the part of Mr. Moulton, as the friend of either, to prevent pub- licity of scandal, carries no imputation or recognition of fault of any kind ia the jtist consideration of candid minds. Who does not wish to avoid scandal i If there ever was a viadicettion both of the rectitude of such a disposition, and of the solicitudes that rightly may be felt and of the sacrifices that rightly should he made to prevent scandal and agitation concern- ing reputations, and controversies concerning neighborhoods and famiLLes and churches and sects, de- nominations, divisions of society, religious opinions and religious connections, the experience of the enormoua mischiefs which, by persistently maligned influences, have prevented the necessary and proper desire and duty of every honest man connected with this matter, to pre- vent scandal— this history, I say, will exhibit in the strongest light the propriety of such dispositions and of all such eflbrts. But the plaintiff has thought it neces- sary for him, in the failure of all direct proof of any acta tending to support his charge, and ia the great risks of any credulity accepting the stories of confessional con- versations, and the clear knowledge that a correct read- ing, an intelligent and honest interpretation of the writ- ings of Mr. Beecher, so far from giving countenance to the idea of his guilt, are the strongest evidence, as I shall have the honor to impress upon you before I close my address, of his innocence — has tried even the more remote method of affixing to certain lines of conduct an argumentative or inferential A'iew of guilt as lying at the bottom of those lines of conduct. And the fact of this intimacy of ^Ix. Tilton with Mrs. Wood- hull, however successful they might have hoped to be in limiting the evidence of it to such a view and estimate of it as might suit Mr. Tilton's purposes— that fact existing and the fact of this warning card, in May, 1871, and of the final promulgation of the scandal, and all the mis- chiefs that followed therefrom in the end of 1372, being 772 IHE TILTON-BFjEOHEB TBIAL. facts that could not be displaced, an adventurous scheme worthy of the superficial ingenuity of this plaintiff, that presents a very good view of things until the cover is lifted and the feebleness and folly of the contrivance are exposed, led to the aflBrinative introduction of the theory on his part that all this association and operation with Mrs. WoodhuU, was to be set down as a con- tinuous and impressive condition of guilt, concealed on the part of Mr. Beecher. Now, as I have said, the suppression of scandal may worthily be imputed as a motive to any and all of these parties ; and Mr. TUton has taken pains to give the most direct and the most conclusive evidence that that was his desire and his purpose. MRS. WOODHULL'S RELATIONS WITH THE PRINCIPALS. Now, we come to take up the challenge thrown down to us, that this intimacy of Mr. Tilton, and Mr. Moulton, and Mrs. Moulton with this lady, Mrs. WoodhuU, is a concession to their purpose of aiding in protecting from public gaze the faults, errors, crimes, guilt, of Mr. Beecher. We then probe that intimacy. We lay it before you in its true dimensions, forcing, step by step, this plaintiff from every cover of falsehood with which he seeks to disguise and to limit it, and exhibit it to you as an enthusiasm of his for Mrs. Woodhull's principles, and an infatuation with the charms of her so- ciety and her person. We show you in various ways how completely enraptured he was with her ; his life of her, his letters for her to public men, his presiding at her meetings, his personal familiarities, or habitual association with her, and all that makes up the intimate association of a man with a woman of whose charms of mind and of person he feels a strong impression. Now, with regard to this lady, never suitably to be brought into this in- quiry, except as. it was forced upon her attention by the course of the plaintiff, she remained a vailed priestess to our mortal gaze untU the very last days of the trial ; and I am sure, whether she be most a Pythoness, or a Phryne, a Sappho, or an Aspasia, through the long com-se of dis- tant allusion to her that marks the course of this testi- mony, it would be very difficult for any one to determine ; but yet behind all there seems to be a general impression that there is no danger of her being misconstrued or mis- understood, that with her great and public repute she is one of those persons whose character evinces itself, and needs not to be explained, or commented upon. All I can say of any personal observation of her is to be drawn from the few moments in which, for the first time, in the court-room, I set eyes upon her ; and I can only say that if the delicacy of trust and of honor which she exhibited, and for which she should have fair credit, in disclosing to the public the correspondence which had only the implied obligation of privacy because it occurred between a gentleman and a lady— that if the least approach to that sense of hono* and of duty had characterized the Sir Philip Sidney of this cause, there would have been no occasion for this trial, no opportunity for these long perversions of truth, and these tangles of misrepresentation and falsehood. Now, for some reason or other Mr. Tilton found it neces- sary to present his relations with this lady upon the nar- rowest possible footing of personal appreciation, regard, and familiarity ; as if his character somehow was to lose by every touch or trait in this intercoui'se. I do not see, from anything disclosed on this trial, how Mrs. WoodhtQl has ever deserved any such treatment at his hands, or at the hands of Mr. Moulton, or at the hands of Mrs. Moul- ton. I find no evidence that she has ever courted their favor, and I see abundant evidence that she had, in large measure, that favor accorded to her by all three of these persons. Now, we have shown you that this iati- macy was of the closest character, in the sense of habit- ual enjoyment of one another's society, the great fre- quency of Mr. TUton's resort to the office, and the lunches of Mrs. Woodhull da . by day ; and the only ob- jection to the truthfulness and accuracy of our evidence in that behalf, that I have noticed, is the production of a witness who proves that Mr. Woodley, the colored waiter and clerk, or office lad, was mistaken in thinking that they went up stairs to lunch at Delmonico's. And Mr. Longhi, the superintendent of that house of Delmonico's now for years and years, knowing every- body in the world, and well known as a man of the high- est character— he comes to you to prove the fact that the second floor, now used as a restaurant, was not then used, but he proves the fact that you had to ascend a flight of steps to get to the floor that was used, and that there was near by, within 20 feet of it, a descent into another restaurant beneath ; and Mr. Longhi, knowing Mr. Tilton, knowiag Mrs. Woodhull, Miss Claflin and Col. Blood, his near neighbors, having habitually resorted to his caf6, was not asked at all to say that Mr. Tilton and Mrs. Woodhull and Miss Claflin and Col. Blood ('id not limch at his establishment day by day, as Woodley had stated it. You learn to discover how feeble and foolish are these little touches of appareut contradiction, to bring into doubt accuracy about a matter in which ac- curacy is of the least account, and confirmation of the main substance of the story, by the omission to contra- dict that. So, too, there was not any reason why Mr. Tilton should deny that he went in bathing with Mrs. Woodhull, except that he did not wish to have the fact appear, and he thought there could be no mode of prov- ing it if he denied it ; and that step simply brings him face to face with Mr. Gallagher, the man who drove them to Coney Island as a resort for bathing, took their watches from them, missed them from his cariiage for tbe time that would be taken for a bath, and received them, if not dripping from the sea, at least to resume 1 possession of their watches and ride home. Wh^ this i SUMMJJSTG UP I 'what is its value! First, as slio^ving the particular false- hood itself ; second, as showing the f alsiflcation in pur- pose of the relations between Mr. Tilton and this lady, as not being personal and of Ms own choice, and with his own satisfaction ; and then to put off upon Mr. Beecher the minimum of cessation possible on Mr. Tilton's part as ascribable to Mr. Beecher. Then, when we come to the house : " "Were you about the house up-stairs 1 A. Never, except once. Mrs. "WoodhuU took me up to show me how empty it was when it had been stripped of all its furni- ture, and I went over the house in that way, and that is the only time." "Well, that ends it, if nobody can contradict him. He says that his familiari- ties were not of a personal character; that he was up-stairs only by chance, to have the nakedness of the house exhibited to him. But the witnesses come— their witnesses and our witnesses. Mr, Andrews re- peatedly saw him up-stairs, repeatedly sa-^- Mm in the rooms of resort up-stairs, the rooms of Mrs. WoodhuU and of Col. Blood— a sort of library bedi'oom, as I imderstand it. Cook speaks of it over and over again, gives instances of its being the habit of Blr. Tilton to be familiarly up- stairs, openly up-stairs, calling to him, " Tom, wait for me till I come down ;" " Tom, are you going? wait for me till I come down," and every degree of familiarity, of what we call " having the run" of a house, thus brought home to Mr. Tilton. Then Mr. Cowley comes, and de- scribes an evening there in one of these salons that Mrs. "Woodhull held, in which, greater than Madame Roland, she had guests greater than the philosophers of France ; and he gives you a conversation between the three, himself, Mr. Tilton, and Mrs. Wood- hull, in which aU this scandal about Mr. Beecher is talked about, and Mrs. Tilton is talked about, and Mr. Beecher's mistresses are talked about, and Mrs. Tilton's relations are talked about, and the necessity and pui'pose of bringing Mr. Beecher to the maintenance of free love doctrines are talked about ; and although Mr. Cowley, "being rather a hard-headed man, a practicing lawyer of twenty years' standing, who obviously knew very well what he was about, undertook to represent to Mrs. Woodhull that if she would put her logic to this or that statement, she would see that, although it might be pos- sible that a leading clergyman should have a liaison with one woman in the congregation, it would be very difficult to keep up such relations with two, let alone a dozen* But we have the narrative of this intimacy, and the char- acter of it, and that touching little dialogue where Mrs. Wo >dhull with proper delicacy dropped her voice so that Mr Tilton shoidd not hear it, and which our learned f ricf ds insisted upon bringing out on the cross-exami- natirm, because the rules of evidence did not allow us to prov(» it, and they thought that our feint to get it was only a feint, and they might discover something; they brought out this interesting little colloquj' that Mrs. Woodhull told Mr. Cowley that Mr. Tilton was her ME. UVAETS. m very ideal of a man, and Mr. Cowley ventui-ed to suggest that apparently Mr. Tilton reciprocated that sentiment toward her as a woman, and she replied witis emphasis, " Indeed he does !" Now, there isn't any im- propriety in that. Nothing is more beautiful than that the affections should be cultivated, even under glass, so to speak, and forced a little. But let us have a statement of the truth about it ; don't let us have denial of all these agreeable indulgences, and put upon us the necessity of proving them. And then that letter that is finally un- earthed, which Mr. Tilton writes to Mr. Davis, the hus- band, isn't he, of Paulina Mr. Shearman— Andrew Jackson Davis. Mr. Evarts— Oh, Andrew Jackson Davis, the very head, I believe, of the spiritualists, more spiritual than a spirit- ualist, in which he commends to his attention his, Til- ton's, " Life of "Victoria Woodhull," and desires his crit- icism upon it, Tilton himself, I think, expressing a favorable opinion about it : I want you and your wife to read carefully my narra- tive of the Uf e and spii-itual experiences of Mrs. Woodhull, and then to give me your exact impression of the tale. Some people refuse to believe what is so marvelous, but I understated rather than overstated the facts, which were originally communicated to me by— [I suppose it should be "her authority;" it is printed "my author- ity"]. Tell IMrs. Davis to write more for The Golden Age. and do the same yourself. Fraternally yours, Theodore Tilton. Now, see how this intimacy had progressed. Mrs. Moulton tells you that Mrs. Woodhull was at least a dozen times at Mrs. Moulton's house during this period of intimacy. Her narratives of her own visits to Mrs. Woodhull's I shall make the subject of particular remark. But all this is the true exposition of the relations of this plaintiff and of Mr. Moulton and of Mrs. Moulton, to thisi lady. If I be right in the propositions that the first knowledge must have come to Xirs. Woodhull from Mr. Tilton, of all that part of her publication, all that pavt of her knowledge which she possessed in May as to what passed in the end of December in the private rooms of the Moultons, and of Mr. Beecher's house— if I be right in that you will see how the stream of the same purpose and influence ran on in Mrs. Tilton's name and interest with this lady, that the somewhat irresponsible publica- tions of her wild rhapsodical sheet would answer the purpose of promoting the knowledge of the scandal without carrying trace or responsibility to Mr. Tilton, and in a form and guise that would enable him to say such wild, extravagant slanders— I don't remember how opprobrious his terms were, but he certainly coudemnet! them in the severest manner— how all that could be com- patible on his part with the publication that he had de- sired to promote. I Now, gentlemen, this leads mo to consider what is I called the whole policy of silence ; and before taking up 774 THE TILTON-BEEOHEB TEJAL. that Ir. Beecher says, " Very well," and furnishes the money. But, as has been exposed to you, the decisive and conclusive disposition of this matter of Bessie Turner is shown in the guarantees against her story that were taken by Mr. Tilton before she went away, and they were guarantees against the stories about his, Mr. Tilton's irregularities with her, and nothing else. And of these two letters, in respect of which there is evidence when Mr. Tilton is recalled, he only denies dictating the short letter. The short letter is : " The story that Mr. Tilton once lifted me from my bed and carried me screaming to his own, and attempted to violate my person, is a wicked lie." He denies dictating the short letter. Bat the long let- ter, which is the one that he did dictate, as Bessie Turner testifies, he does not deny having dictated. That letter confesses the facts of his approaches to her, but gives 776 THE TILTON-BEECBEB TEIAL. them an honorable character, and throws off upon poor Mrs. Morse the responsibility for having made Bessie think that there was any wrong intention about it. Well, then they say there was suppression shown in the disposition that Mr. Beecher was induced to make of a letter that Mrs. Morse wrote to him in the end of Jan- uary, 1871. Mr. Beecher was induced on Mr, Tilton's representations to write what seems to me a very sensi- ble letter on his part, in any Tiew of the case. [Read- ing.] Mrs. JuDGB MOBSE— jlf2/ Dear Madam : I shovild be very sorry to have you think I have no interest in your troubles. My course toward you hitherto should satisfy you that I have sympathized in your distress. But Mrs. Beecher and I, after full consideration, are of one mind, that under present circumstances the greatest kindness to you, and to all, will be, in so far as you are concerned, to leave to time the rectification of all the wrongs, whether they prove real or imaginary. This, you may remember, is the letter in which Mr. Moulton called Mr. Tilton to account before Mr. Beecher as to whether he had told twelve persons of this trouble that had taken the life out of Mrs. Tilton. There is no other description of the matter than that, and certainly there was trouble enough, and it was crushing trouble, and certainly had taken the life out of her character, her force and control of her conduct. Well> he said, he hadn't told twelve ; he had told quite a number of people more or less, which simply means that he had whispered in- sinuations against Mr. Beecher in his relations of improper solicitations, or of interference with the family, without much care for what he had done. But the point was, that he denied that this was true, and that Mrs. Morse could not be credited because it was not true, that he hadn't money enough to pay for his break- fast, and appealed to Mr. Movdton that hs had a balance at bank. "Well, Mrs. Tilton's view was that she did not have money enough to pay for breakfasts, not that he did not have money in bank. But that is the way these people argue. They say, " Oh, no ; there can't be any truth in that, because that is wholly untrue that I had not any money.* This letter, you will remember, of Mrs. Morse was brought by Mr. Beecher to Mr. Moulton and Mr. TUton. ^ WHEKE THE POLICY OF SILENCE WAS DIS- EEGAEDED. Now, there comes a letter from. Mr. Perkins to Mr. Beecher, in which he tells his uncle : Mr. Tilton has been justifying or excusing his recent intrigues with women by alleging that you have been de- tected in the like adulteries, the same having been hushed up out of consideration for the parties. Ajid, as he says, " you will do what you please ; I suppose you think such talk dies out because unanswered." And then he puts in a postscript : " I cannot say Mr. Tilton said * adulteries.' He was referring to his late intrigues with Mrs. and others, however he may have described them. What I am Informed of is the excuse for implicating you in similar afiairs." Well, now, that is shown to Mr. Moulton, and to Mr. Tilton, and Mr. Tilton suggested this answer for Mr. Beecher to send to his nephew : My Dear Feiekd : Whatever Mr. Tilton formerly said against me, and I know the substance of it, he has with- drawn, and frankly confessed that he had been misled by the statements of one who, when confronted, backed down from his charges. Now, that is Mr. Tilton's meeting of Mr. Fredericlc Perkins's suggestion that the stories that Mr. Tilton set forward as faults of Mr. Beecher to cover his own, TH- ton's, admitted profligacy. But I find I am mistaken, gentlemen. Mr. Tilton's proposed card is this : An enemy of mine, as I now learn,»poisoned the mind of Theodore Tilton by telling him stories concerning me. T. T. being angered against me because I had quoted some stories against him which I had heard from the same party, retaliated. Theodore and I, through a mu- tual friend, were brought together and f oimd, upon mutual explanations, that both were the victims of the same slanderer. It is a little more fuU and explicit in this regard as Mr. Tdton proposes. Now, look at that, gentlemen. Here in this very month of February, when Mr. Beecher's nephew, a reputable gentleman, hears of these insinuations— not a great observance of "the policy of silence" on Mr. Tilton's part^and communicates them to his uncle, Mr. Beecher brings it to Mr. Tilton's notice, and Mr. Tilton says : " Send him as an answer that these adulteries are the charges of Bowen— these adulteries that have been talked of are the charges of Bowen ; send him that answer." Mr. Beecher then having, so far as Mr. Tilton is concerned, that form of answer, does proceed to writ© what I consider a very proper note to Mr. Perkins ; Mt Deae Fred : Whatever Mr. Tilton formerly said against me— and I know the substance of it— he has with- drawn and frankly confessed that he had been misled by the statements of one who, when confronted, backed down from his charges. That is quite within the permission and authority ot Mr. Tilton's card. In some sense I am In part to blame for his indignation, for I lent a credulous ear to reports about him which I have reason to believe were exaggerated or wholly false. After a full conference and explanation there remains be- tween us no misunderstanding, but mutual good-will and reconciliation have taken the place of exasperation. Of course I shall not chase after rumors that must soon run themselves out of breath if left alone. If my friends will put their foot silently on any coal or hot embers and crush them out, without talking, the miserable lies will be as dead in New-York in a little time as they are in Brooklyn. [Thia was only in February, 1871.] But I do not any the less thank you for your affectionate solicitude and for your loyalty to my good name. I should have replied earlier, but your letter came when I was out of town, i had to go out again immediately. If the papers do not meddle, this slander will fall stiU-born— dead as Julius Caesar. If a sensation should be got up, of course there are enough little enemies to fan the matter and create annoyance, though no final damage. Now, you see, gentlemen, how, in this very month of SUMMING UP 1 Februarj, Mr. Tilton -waa maWng these imputationa against Mr. Beecber, not observing the policy of silence, and when they are hrought to Mr. Beecher's ear, then Mr. Tilton says, " Oh ! well, that can easily he answered; answer it so." ]Mr. Beecher does answer it in a truthful manner— in a suitable manner, and takes it for granted that Mr. Tilton has not been circulating any such reports, but that these are only echoes of some older rumors that had been running before there had been an explanation. Well, then, you see, when Mrs. Woodhull's card in May, let alone, had not produced any disturbance, IVIr. Tilton in the Fall, in November, when he finds that things are quiet, and that Mrs. Woodhull is not moving any further, tindertakes to publish, for the sake of the poetry, he flays, with no motive whatever, but the same that actuates an author in publishing any produc- tion, this " Sir Marmaduke's Musings," containing a phrase that refers to " a woman's breast, who proved, alas ! she too, false like the rest," a vagiie poetical in- sinuation, equally compatible with either view of the * case, either that this woman to whom he referred (and he admits it was his wife) had not preserved entire fealty of undivided affection, but had become entangled in her relations ; and he therefore pronounced her false, too, in the absolute devotion that he had expected— equally compatible with that as with the other view of the case, of complete violation of the obligations of a wife. Well, now, he has the effrontery to tell you that when he wrote that poem he didn't think anybody supposed there was In it any reference to his wife. It struck him with astonishment when Mr. Beecher said, **What do you do such things as that for ?" and when Ms wife said, " What do you do such things as that for !" He was astonished that anybody could imagine that there could be the least reference to his wife ; and yet he signed the poem " Theodore Tilton," you know; and it contained a biographical sketch of his downfall in other particulars which nobody could fail to recognize. Then he comes along and writes to " a complaining friend." That is at the end of 1872. Then comes what he says he had no responsibility for, but concerning which we have given you considerable evidence, that is the publication of the Woodhull scandal in all its fla- grancy, in the Fall of 1872. Now, gentlemen, I think the evidence shows this as the true theory of Mr. Tilton's re- lations to that scandal. I think that in that Spring of 1872, there was within the meditations of Mr. Moul- ton and Mr. Tilton a very effective blow of some kind to the proper, natm^al solicitudes of all that were concerned to prevent public Comment upon the relations of Mr. Tilton and his wife and the situation of- that family, and a purpose of resorting then to a full publica- tion by Mrs. Woodhull ; that the slips were then brought Into existence in that Winter and Spring, and that they were shown, as the witnesses have testified ; and if 4he eaginery of the fortunate visit to Mr. Wilkeson had T MB. JEVAETS. 777 not produced the effect on Mr. Bo wen of procuring the payment of the $7,000— if that sUp of his, the threatened publication of the Bowen letter, had not brought about the results aimed at, then these ships that were in existence of Mrs. Woodhull's article would have been resorted to as a more powerful engine to ac- complish the same result ; and then you would see the operation of cause toward effect, of motive and of object. Now, we have given you abundant evidence from wit- nesses whose truth cannot be questioned, that these slips were in existence ; but this threatened publication of the Bowen letter in TTie Golden Age slip, answered the pur- pose and secured the money ; and this engine could be saved for some futm-e use. But then there came into play two facts — one, that the Woodhull publication stopped in that Spring and did not issue a single paper until the end of October, when the one that contained this paper of Mr. lllton's was published ; and second, the fact that Mr. Tilton broke his friendship with Mrs. Woodhull. Why ? There was the same need of keeping it up for the sake of suppression, if you believe that he had been working for the suppression of this business ; but he broke it when Mrs. Woodhull placed before him the slips of another article called the " Tit for Tat " article, and showed that if Mr. Tilton could expect her aid in the movements of publications that might suit his interests, about his, Mr. Tilton's scandal when he wanted it pro- mulgated, she might also perhaps use the the same fac- ulty and independence iu promulgating some scandals that he did not want to have published ; and as he said to you, this " Tit for Tat " article— I am sure I know noth- ing about it except from his testimony, and I would not wish to have Mrs. Woodhull harshly judged upon Mr. Tilton's testimony— this article, he tells you, touched the reputation of some dozen very respectable ladies, prom- inent in the public life of these organizations, whatever they may be ; and then he broke with her; and then, alas for ambitions, ]Mr. Tilton's devotion to Mrs. Woodhull, thus unhappily snapped asunder, led to the withdrawal of his polit- ical supiiort to Mrs. Woodhull's expectations of the Presidency of the United States. [Laughter.] And there occmTcd one of those great movements in the public affairs of the country which wise statesmen deliberate and speculate about, but in respect to which they never get at the real secret history ; for the difference between Mr. Tilton's support of Victoria Woodhull and her loss of that support, who can estimate in the future destinies of this country 1 [Laughter,] It was this Little " Tit for Tat " article, a wholly private matter, that produced these immense public conse- quences, not only the withdrawal from her, but his ad- hesion to the fortimes of the great Democratic party, with which he had not before been in unison ; and we should have, to be sure, a stronger argument for these hypothetical infiuences upon our history, if Mr* 778 THE TILTON-BEECRER TEIAL. Greeley had been any more fortunate with Ms support than Mrs. Woodhull was without it; but, nevertheless, who can tell what the union might have produced in the way of a settlement of this final struggle for the priority of the sexes 1 For who, in this country, after having had the experience of one lady for a President, would ever liave been impolite or rash enough to desire a repetition of the experiments which have been constant failures on the part of the men who have been President ! [Laughter. J But it was all broken up, you see, this relation— and then this operation of Mrs. Woodhull comes in the most inopportune manner and at a time when it serves no use- ful purpose of any kind, in influencing payments of money or the attainment of any ultimate purposes ; but this lady no doubt had a will of her own, and what had been prepared for Mr. Tilton's use in the Spring of 1872, while she and he were friends, came In after the election, and her disappointment at that election, as something in the nature of retaliation for his desertion. Now, the actual importance of all that is the introduction of this publicity and the course of things which followed, in determining whether or no they should do this, that, or the other thing. Mr. Beecher never had any doubts or difficulties about this matter. He never had any occasion to think it worth his while to make contradictions of this extravagant and wild publi- cation. But then there came to be a great anxiety in the camp of Moulton and his firm, as to what should be done about it, for Mr. Moulton was represented as being an actor in one of the scenes portrayed in this lady's pub- lication, and it was a natural imputation that it must have proceeded from him or she could not have had the knowledge of it. Then there was a statement direct that Mr. Moulton had furnished infor- mation out of which the staple of the story was made, and it was natural enough to ask, " Well, why doesn't Til- ton say something about it 1" bt^t as nobody had accused Mr. Beecher of being the source of anv of the informa- tion of this lady, why, there didn't seem to be any actual call upon him. The consequence was that, it is said, Mr. Moulton's partner, Mr. Franklin Woodruff, and his other partners perhaps, and the Produce Ex- change people, seemed to think that Mr. Moulton ought to say in some definite manner that there was some truth in this, or that it was all false and he had furnished no support for it in any form ; and you have heard Mr. Moulton's statement of how the Produce Exchange people, its prominent men, its most sagacious men, its most respectable men— I don't mean all of them, but these gentlemen seem to me to be properly included in that description; there are plenty at the Produce Exchange of the same character, no doubt- but these gentlemen all came about Mr. Moulton, and Mr. Moulton has told you how, sometimes with Bolemnity and sometimes with indignation, and some- times with an oath (I suppose according to the tempera- ment of the people that were talking with him) he put Ma foot on the scandal, said there was nothing in it, and ob« jiurgated anybody that could demand of a man of Mr. Beecher's life and character any refutation of any such story. A familiar form with him seems to have been, that if it was true the publication was infamous, and if it was false it was diabolical. Well, we have called a dozen people to tell you what he did say, and they put it in a much more explicit and definite form. He tells you that he was lying all that time, and lying for Beecher. Well, gentlemen, a man who lies for Beecher will lie for himself. [Laughter.] You may rely on that. I think so. It is said upon the best authority, that " peradventure for a good man one will even dare to die," but it is not said that he will even dare to lie for a good man ; and if a man confesses that he will lie, lie, lie, on a motive and for another, he will lie on a motive for himself, and on no other motive than that it is for himself. Ah I gentlemen, it may be a hardship for this plaintiff that he has no witnesses to prove his case, but men, who like himself, confessedly out of his own mouth, and Moulton confessedly out of his own mouth, have lied, lied to put a wrong face on this matter. The trouble is that when they present to you the various circumstances under which each of them teUs his present story, and the circumstances under which each of them told his other story, you see that the motives for falsification then were trivial compared with the motives for falsification now; and therefore if you are to judge between the two stories, you choose their statements as they first made them, and you find for that the additional reason that every written scrap of paper that is produced confirms their then story and rejects their present one. But the difficulty is, thai when you are asked to give a judgment against Mr. Beecher, and you only have the word of these two men as to which were their falsehoods and which their truths, the law and common sense and common honesty do not allow you to take that testimony from such corrupt lips. Well might they laugh at you for believing theiA now, when they have exposed to you their habit of falsi- fying when and as they chose during a series of years. When the gravity and danger of trusting to these con- fessedly lying lips come to be brought home to whoever has trusted, well may he feel that he has no refuge against the reproach : " Why did you trust a man who in the same breath told you that in the same matter he had told exactly the opposite story, and it was a lie? " GEN. TRACY'S APPEARANCE ON THE SCENE. These gentlemen then got to think that the interests of Mr. Moulton's firm required something to be said or done about this imputation of responsibility on Mr. Moulton's part for this scandal, and Mr. Moulton says to Mr. Beecher : " My firm think that we ought to SUMMING UP BY MB. EVABTS. 779 have some intelligent, sagacious, and upright counsel's advice about this on our account," and Mr. Tracy natu- rally suggested Mmself, as lie would to any one in Brook- lyn, as tlie best man for that purpose. " But in talking with Mr. Tracy as to what we should do about this scan- dal, its refutation, or denial, we may have to tell him the truth, the facts of your case, and we should not do that without your consent." Mr. Beecher has no objection to the facts of his case being told; of course he assumes that they are going to tell the facts of his case, and it is a reasonable proposition. There Mr. Beechers's connection with this matter begins and ends. Now, out of that and its sequels grows a most important "result, of great value to Mr. Beecher, and of great reliance on your part, as to getting at the truth. The learned counsel for the plaintiff, de- sirous of having certain advantages from what he ex- pected to prove through the interviews with Mr. Tracy, of complicity by Mr. Beecher in the " policy of silence," and even in justification of the habit of lying, seeks some legal basis to support the evidence of conversations between Mr. Tilton, Mr. Moulton, Mr. "Woodruff, and Mr. Tracy. On all the ordinary relations of men, of course talks be- tween these four men, including Mr. Tracy, could carry no more weight against you or me or ]Mr. Beecher than it could between any four men, and there was found, therefore, in what passed between Mr. Moulton and Mr. Beecher of the character that I have stated, a basis for the proposition that Mr. Beecher, by assenting to Mr. Tracy's being made a conferee with Mr. Moiilton about his (Moulton's) interests and his firm's, and to receive therefor information of the truth about which Mr. Beecher's affairs— remember that word— could be treated as if IMr. Beecher himself formed a party to these conferences ; and the evidence, therefore, of those conferences has been displayed before you. Now, Mr. Tracy, without representing Mr. Beecher, and as a voluntary witness on our part, might, upon all the rules of evidence, have been brought as our witness against Mr. Tilton and Mr. Moulton (for his conversa- tions were with them), and we didn't need any aid of any artificial rule to entitle us to prove these conversations ; but by that proper sense which restrains our profession from giving testimony in causes in which they are coun- sel, unless of absolute necessity, this plaintiff might very well have counted upon the fact that Mr. Tracy would not have brought into view these conferences, and struck at the very center of their counsels and of their case. But mark how the designs of men meant for evil turns to good. This devious course of theirs, which they flattered themselves was so useful to them in trying to make out, through Mr. Tracy's acquiescence, that Mr. Beecher acquiesced in separation, and even patronized and approved lying, leads to a release of Mr. Tracy by aecessity fiom any of the constraints of feeling in not coming into the cause with his proof when they have in- troduced the proofs upon this artificial rule as treating him as Mr. Beecher, to be fired at in conversation, of necessity he come* as a witness to tell what the conver- sations were, and will give them the benefit, on the testi- mony of Mr. Tracy and their own, of either of these no- tions, that Mr. Beecher, through Mr. Tracy as his repre- sentative, favored silence or that he favored lying; but you must take It on the evi- dence, and on that it comes to this, according to Mr. Tracy, according to them, the question then to be disposed of was what publication should be made denying that story, and Mr. Tracy thought there should be publications made, insisted on it, argued it hour after hour with Mr. Moulton and with Mr. TUton, that this scandal in the WoodhuU and Claflin paper could be strangled at once by Mr. Moulton's denying the part that was at his charge, and Mr. Tilton denying the part that was at his charge, and then a foolish, circuitous argument of Mr. TUton and of Mr. Moulton of the abso- lute regard for truth that didn't permit them to deny the great falsehoods which they both protested were con- tained in this publication of the Woodhulls without they purged their consciences into a publicity of the real facts,, whatever they were. Then Mr. Tracy argues with them, and they said: "Why, that would be a sort of lying "—sort of lying 1—" if we don't go on and narrate all the truth of this diflSculty in Mr. Tilton's household, these estranged affections, these false accusa- tions, this retraction, this recantation of the retraction,, in other words, a publication of the whole matter." Mr. Tracy then argues : ** Well, I don't understand the right of a person, by making a false charge against another, to preclude that other from exposing the falsity of the charge without imposing upon the other the necessity of disclosing the truth about private affairs. If you call it lying to do that, why, make the most of it. I don't call * it lying. If you call it lying, it is a kind of lying that the circumstances of this case, in my judgment, make the duty of people here ;" that is, of denying these falsehoods and not disclosing private complications between these parties that anybody has a right to know. Now, I will spend no more time upon that part of it. I now call your attention to what constitutes the sub- stance of the Tracy interview, to wit, this fact, that Mr. Moulton got permission of Mr. Beecher to tell Mr. Tracy the truth, that the only possible support of the good faith toward Mr. Tracy and their interview was, and is, that they did tell him the truth— are they going to stand up here now and tell you that they told Mr. Tracy a series of lies,, as they had the Produce Exchange people, and Mr. TUton his friends, when they wanted to know something about this matter ! Now, they must either say that, that they were telling Mr. Tracy a series of lies about the facts in Mr. Beecher's case, or thoy must 780 THE TILTON-BEEOHEE TELAL. stand upon his evidence, if you believe liim, as to -what tliey did tell him, tliat tliat was the truth. And, when you find that what the.y thus told him comports in every point with eA^ery written paper in this case from one end of it to the other in respect to the charge, the re- traction, the recantation, the narrative of the "True Story," the denials of impurity both on the part of the wife and on the part of Mr. Beecher which Mr. Tilton has incorporated in his " True Story," and which I shall read to you, and what he told Mr. Storrs, and what he told Mr. Belcher, and what he told Harman, and Schultz, and McKelway, and Wilkeeon. Ah, gentle- men, you have now, out of their own mouths, In an inter- view that they sought in their own interests, obtained npon the proposition that they were to tell the truth to Mr. Tracy, and with the full and free allowance of Mr. Beecher that they should do so, and now we will see what they did. Now, the interview was held, and we must either stamp Mr. Tracy as a perjured wit- ness or condemn him as incompetent to understand the nature of that conference and the character of the state- ment that he heard, and which he repeats, and the argu- ments that were made there, or you must draw out of this providential admission of testimony, out of the folly and contrivances of the other side of Mr. Tracy's truth-discerning and truth-speaking mind— you must draw what is an absolute right, an extorted confession, an exposed conspiracy, by an exhibition of what in their private counsels, when they had driven him by necessity and under motives of importance to them- selves, a cool judgment and an honest heart— you must stamp this conspiracy as confessed upon the statements of what occurred that night between Mr. Tracy and these people. THE PAPERS SHOWN TO GEN. TRACY. . Now, they liad there, first, Mr. Moulton, be- fore Mr. Tilton came in, and the first thing Mi-. Moulton did, in order to make a good impression by putting the most damaging piece of evidence, as he regarded it, for- ward, he put in his hands this " Letter of Contrition," as it is called, this report of Sunday, Jan. 1, in Mr. Moulton's handwriting, and put that into Mr. Tracy's hands with- out note or comment or advice as to its origin or chaiac- ter, and Mr. Tracy takes it up, and says, after looking it over : The first thing that attracted my attention was the character of the handwriting, and I said to him : " Mr. Moiilton, is this Mr. Beechev's handwriting 1" He said, **No." I said, "Whose is it?" "It is mine." I went through it that way [turning the leaves quickly.] I said, " How do you wi ite a letter to yourself ?"— it begins " My Dear Frank," you know— and at that time I went through it in that way [turning fl« leaves over.] I said qnick, "It is not signed." Because Mr. Tracy looked at the place where it should be signed, on the right hand of the page, and as he held it in ihis hand, and turned it over so, it covered this part of the leaf in, and he looked down at the place where it ought to be signed and said : " It is not signed." He said : " Yes it is." And just at that instant my ej'e caught this indorsement or mem- orandum at the toot of the sheet, not seeing it as I looked at them first in that way. He said, " Yes, it is signed by Mr. Beecher ;"andl saw the form of the signature of Mr. Beecher. Q. What did he say ? A. He said, in that connection, •* It is a memorandum, or notes of a conversation I had with Mr. Beecher 1" Now, this clause which I have just read to you, Mr. Moulton denies, but he does not deny the question that was asked him, and he has not given us any other answer that he gave, but I am willing to put Mr. Tracy against Mr. Moiilton. I would not want any safer conflict of evidence, if I had got to stand with a contradiction of one witness by another, than that between Mr. Tracy and Mr. Moulton. It is a note and memorandum. That is proved as a matter of fact. The only question is how ac- curate it is, and he described it properly. I then read the paper over sentence by sentence and studied it for some minutes. I said, " I don't see that this paper prevents a denial of the Woodhull publication. That publication charges that Mr. Beecher has lived a life of adultery with Mrs. Tilton for years. This paper states, I see, that ' she is innocent— sinned against— bear- ing the transgressions of another. Her forgiveness I have.' " Isaid, " It seems to me that that language would not be used by the woman with whom a man had lived in adultery for years." Mr. Moulton said nothing. He showed niie the next paper, a retraction. I read that. And then he showed him also the explanation of this re- traction. Then I asked Mr. Moulton, after further conversation, " Well, what does Mr. Tilton charge Mr. Beecher with 3 jJoes he now charge him with adultery ?" For he struck right at the matter without regard to these papers, and all of these matters. What is it now ? Does Mr. Tilton accuse Mr. Beooher with adultery with his wife 1" He said, " No." That is, Mr. Moulton said " No." Isaid, "What is the charge?" He said, " I would rather Mr. Tilton would state that to you in his way, if you will consent to hear it." Now, when Mr. Moulton and Mr. Tilton returned to the stand they don't deny this conversation, and P.Ir. Wood- rutr doesn't remember about it. Then Mr. Tilton came In. After, you will observe, Mr. Tracy had been put in pos- session of the principal documents that are now relied upon by that plaintiiF, and after he had been advised by Mr. Moulton that the charge of Mr. Tilton against Mr. Beecher was not adultery, and he was to come in to tell whatit was, Mr. Tilton, coming in at that stage of the matter, begins by asking, as he was about to make a statement of his case against Mr. Beecher, whether the etiquette of the profession would allow Mi-. Tracy to take up against him, and Mr. Tracy very frankly saya, without considering the question of etiquette : SU3J311NG VF BY ME. EYAETS. •781 I shall not take up against yoa, Mr. Tilton, upon a case tliat you state to me now. Then Mr. Tilton goes on with a paper which was of con- siderable volume, and which professed to he a narrative, with the documentary pieces either in it or spaces left for them, and which Mr. Tracy understands to be the prelim- inary studies if not the actual first draft of the *' True Story," and this paper came in this form, " Exhibit No. 2," aud Mr. Tracy says : I know that Mr. Tilton either read or spoke in connec- tion with that letter, a sentence complimentary to his "Wife for having resisted the amorous pleas of her pastor. I remember that phrase. I heard the document read This true story, or its equivalent. Then Mr. Tracy said to him : Well, Mr. Tilton, what is your object in drafting such a document as that 1 He said he "was trying to see whether he could frame a successful answer to the Woodhull pub- lication. I asked, " With a view of publishing it? " He said that was to be a matter for consideration. If he could frame an answer satisfactory to himself, he pro- posed then to submit it to Mr. Beecher. and If Mr. Beecher would be satisfied with it, to publish it. " Well," I said, " do you think Mr. Beecher will be satisfied with such a publication as that ?" He said he did not know ; that was the question. "Well," I said, "I don't think he will." He said: He will have to be satisfied with what is true." I said, " Certainly ; but the question is, whether that is true. Your wife says in her retraction that your charge against Mr. Beecher is not true." And that charge was of improper solicitations. Now, you have it fair and square, face to face, between Mr. Tilton and Mr. Tracy. Now, the question, Mr. Tilton, is what is the truth 1 You have read to me a charge of improper solicitations as the sole charge made by your wife against Mr. Beecher, and you have read me her retraction, in which she says that charge is not true. Well, that question ex- cited :Mr. Tnton. and he spoke vehemently against Mr. Beecher for having obtained that paper from his wife. He said it was a mean thing ; his wife was sick, unable to resist his demand ; he took advantage of her weakened condition and dictated to her that answer -with her signature to it. His wife had taken it back. Mr. Beecher had admitted that the charge which he had made against Mr. Beecher was true. I asked, " Has Mr. Beecher admitted that that is the charge of improper advances—" Why, he says so in the letter of apology, in that letter or paper." I said, " 3Ir. Tilron, I don't think you can say that Mr. Beecher has made any such admission in that paper." I then took up the paper and went over it again, and I went over the Letter of Apology again carefully, and I said to Ml-. Tilton, " the language of this letter or this paper is so general I do not see that you can apply it to anything speciflcal, and your wife has said that Mr. JBeecher never made any improper solicitations to her." In that conversation, while he was excited in denouncing Mr. Beecher, he said Mr. Beecher was an adulterer aud he could prove it ; and I said to him, " With your wife 1" and he said, "No; with another woman," or "other women ;" I am not certain which phrase he used. Now, Mr. Woodriiff confirms the first part of this busi- ness that I am now upon ; and that Mr. Tilton, in using that phrase, " was an adulterer," was asked the question. but he doesn't remember that Mr. Tilton said "No;" he doesn'tremember that he said anything else ; and neither Mr. Tilton nor Mr. Moulton denies this ; they were both present. After he had finished the reading of this paper, I said to him in substance— I don't remember the phraseology— " Yom- statement, Mr. Tilton, settles one thing, that you did not accuse Mr. Beecher with adultery." Not that "you do not now," not that " for policy you do not now," but "you did not charge him." " That was not a charge you had against him !" He said, " No ; my wife is a pure woman ;" I remember that phrase and that sentence occurring. Then, further on in the conversation, Mr. Tracy then having nothing left but the question of the charge of im- proper proposals, means to sift that to the bottom and find out whether there is any proof of that, or any opiu- ion that that is time. He has the charge that Mr. Tilton has made, that the wife it is said has made ; but then she has retracted it, and Mr. Tracy says : I asked him whether he didn't think there may have been misconstruction on the wife's part, or his part. Mr, Tilton contradicted what the wife said. He thought not ; he thought there was no mistake about it. I said, " Mr. Tilton, do you want to say that Mrs. Tilton, in the lan- guage she has given you, quotes precisely the language which Mr. Beecher used to her 1" There is a lawyer's question, and a sensible man's question : " You say that youi' wife says * Mr. Beecher made proposals to me to he his wife, with all that that implies 1' Do you mean to say, Mr. Tilton, that that ia the language that Mr. Beecher used to your wife ?' • Why, certainly,' says Mr. TUton. I said, ' Do you say that Mr. Beecher said to Mrs. Tilton, "Mrs. Tilron I desii'e you to be a wife to me with all that that implies," did you say that Mr. Beecher used the phrase " with all that that implies " to your wife ? He said, * I won't say that he used these precise words to her, but that was an inference from the suggestion that she was to be a wife to him.'" Wei), you have got rid of " all that that implies " on its being an inference and not a statement of Mr. Beecher, so you have got it reduced down to this, that Mr. Beecher asked her to be a wife to him, and the testi- mony went on the inference that ^Ir. Tilton or Mrs. Tilton or somebody said, " with all that that implies." Well, it might be a just inference, but we would like to have the words if we are to be judged by them. " Well," I said " if that is an inference, Mr. Tilton, why may not all of it be by inference from what he said ?" And he pressed that consideration with a proper and honest and just argumentation of it. Now, the question still being pressed, Mr. Tracy said, " You want to deny that publica- tion, declare it to be a lie "—that is, the Woodhull publica- tion. " And destroy the document that yoa have here." Mr. Tilton at that remark of mine turned aud said, " I will not permit the destruction of the documents— these doy- 783 lEE TILTON-BEECHEB TRIAL. uraents. If these documents were destroyed, Mr. Beecher would turn and rend me." I said, *' Mr. Tilton, I can conceive no possible object wbicli Mr. Beecher could have to revive this scandal or this story. It seems to me that every consideration must lead him to wish it buried, and buried out of sight, and if it is once buried I can imagine nothing that would induce him to revive it for the purpose of spiting you." That seems rational. Well, he said, he thought he would, or if he did n't, members of Plymouth Church would. I said, "What have members of Plymouth Church got against you? What motive can they have for reviving this ?" He said that the members of Plymouth Church felt that he had been slandering or injuring Mr. Beecher ; and in that connection he stated that in 1871, 1 think it was, when this thing was discovered, he had spoken harshly of Mr. Beecher— that he had felt harshly toward him, and had spoken very harshly against him, and members of the church thought that he had been slandering Mr. Beecher, and it was these documents— I won't say that he said that— he said If these docrmients were out of the way Mr. Beecher would not restrain the members of Plymouth Church who wanted to attack him. The Court then a(^oumed imtil 11 o'clock Tuesday. NINETY-NINTH DAY'S PROCEEDINGS. LAST WORDS FOR THE DEFENSE SPOKEN. 4N IMMENSE AUDIENCE LISTEN TO MR. EVARTS'S FINAL ARGUMENT— THE SESSION OF THE COURT PROLONGED TO ENABLE HIM TO FINISH— SOME OF MR. BEECHER'S LETTERS SCRUTINIZED— MRS. MOULTON'S TESTIMONY WEIGHED— MR. BEECHER'S ALIBI ON JUNE 2— MR. MOULTON'S FINANCIAL RELATIONS WITH THE PLAINTIFF SIFTED— GENERAL FEATURES OF THE CASE RE- VIEWED. Tuesday, June 8, 1875. The close of tlie defendant's case was reached at last to-day, and the result of the great suit against Henry Ward Beecher was left, on the side of the defendant, by his counsel, to the judgment of the twelve jurymen* who, for nearly half a year, have patiently listened to the developments of this extra- ordinary trial. There were unusual circumstances cctonected with the close of the long argument of the senior counsel for the defendant. An immense audience assembled to hear it, the orator exhibited a power of reasoning and an eloquence that stirred the greatest enthusiasm among his hearers, and the session of the court was protracted far beyond the usual hour of adjournment in order to permit him to complete his peroration. The argument was closed at half-past 6 o'clock. Mr. Evarts exercised the same power over his audience to-day which he showed diiring the first few days of his argument. Near the close he ex- cited an interest which held the auditors in the perfect silence of unbroken attention, while his words were full of thrilling earnestness and his man- ner was solemn and deliberate. The jurors attended to the orator's words even more closely than the audience did. Mr. 'J ilton looked thoughtful, and Mr. Beecher and his friends who sat near him wore looks of rapt attention. Once or twice, when the orator spoke in praise of Mr. Beecher, a muffled sound of applause broke out, which could not be im- mediately suppressed by the court officers. Tears sometimes came into the eyes of Mr. Beeecher and his wife, as well as of many persons in the audience. The final sketch of the career of Mr. Tilton was given with solemnity rather than severity, and it contained no violent denunciation of the plaintiff, and none of the keen thrusts of sarcasm which dis- tinguished some of the earlier parts of the address. The alleged egotism of the plaintiff was dwelt upon at considerable length, and pointed out as the source of all his troubles. The parable of the houses built, one on the rock, and the other on the sand, was ap- plied with all the skill in analogy for which Mr. Evarts's address has been remarkable, to the con- trasted characters of Mr. Beecher and Mr. Tilton. Into his final words Mr. Evarts seemed to throw all the earnest feeling of his nature. He spoke in a low voice, which sometimes could not have been heard in the distant parts of the court-room, and oc- casionally there seemed to be tears in his eyes. Mr. Evarts addressed himself in complimentary terms to Judge Neilson and to the jurymen. As the last words dropped from his lips, the audience, unre- strained by the decorum of courts of justice, or the fear of the officers of the law, broke out into a per- fect storm of applause which lasted for a full min- ute. Mr. Beecher, who appeared to be much affected, arose and pressed through the crowd toward Mr, Evarts, who was warmly congratulated by his friends. The topics covered were Gen. Tracy's relations with the plaintiff and Mr. Moulton, the " ragged edge letter," the financial transactions between Mr. Moulton and Mr. Tilton, the yellow slip of paper that was alleged to have accompanied the Bowen check, the proof of the alibi for Mr. Beecher on June 2, 1872, and the evidence in contradiction of it^ Mrs. Moultou's testimony, and the great salient feature* of the case. srjiJiiyG CF 1 THE PROCE-EDIXGS-VERBATTM. GEN. TRACrS TESTIMONY AGAIN'ST THE PLAIXTIFFS. The Court met at 11 a. m., pursuant to ad- iournment. Mr. Evarts — The grave importaBce, tlie convincing •weight, the natural attraction of absolute confidence to the testimony of iMr. Tracy, makes this point of our present attention more thoroughly conclusive in what- ever depends upon oral statements, than whatever views we take inre gard to the manifold interviews that have been gived in one complexion and in another by opposing wit- nesses, could reasonably be expected for them. Now, the only remaining question is, when, if this scene is pro- duced to you correctly it ends all controversy, in what degree is it reduced or disparaged by any counter proof on the other side 1 In the first place, it is of their own showing that the interview was invited by them, and for the purpose of laying out the strength of their situation toward the public, in consequence of the promulgation cl the Woodhull publication, and that that situation pressed upon them so that it must be met by an intimate inspection and a thorough investigation of the whole area of this scandal, and every point and tittle of its proof; and as this interview would so re- quire for their purposes, why, it necessarily involved a free and honest statement of Mr. Beecher's situation in these matters ; and you have in the proposition of :Mr. Moulton to Mr. Beecher, and in the frankness and readi- ness with which Mr. Beecher conceded the exploration and the unbosoming of the facts of the case, absolute se- curity that neither Mr. Moulton nor Mr, Beecher had the least idea that it could be a permitted point in this mere- ly incidental and external dilemma in which Moulton and Tilton were placed by the talk of the streets, to have a confidence and a disclosure of the wickedness of these many years, if there were any such wickedness in them. It is like a man, to avoid a whipping for some minor fault, exposing himself by his excuses and disclosures to be hanged for a murder. Then what do we find from these witnesses, at any stage of their testimony, in dis- paragement or reduction, I will not say of every word or phrase of the conversation as detailed by Mr. Tracy, but of every substantial trait and characteristic of it ? 2^Ir. Woodraff says that he did not pay much attention; whether he was asleep more or less of the time did not seem clear to his mind, Mr. Tilton does not say that he communicated to Mr. Tracy any fact to the contrary of anything that Mr. Tracy says. Moulton says the inter- view, after Tilton came in, commenced by Tilton's saying to Tracy, "You know all the facts, and have seen some of the papers." Now, when Moulton, Tnton. and Woodruff are recalled, after Mr. Tracy's testimony has been given, they deny only the r J/if. ETARIS. 783 following merely fragmentr.ry parts of his testimony. Moulton denies calling the apology " notes or memoran- dums." Well, that might be a denial that was entirely consistent with his having used— I mean in this witness's fashion of telling the truth on the stand — entirely con- sistent with Ms having said, " Why, that is in the nature of notes or memorandum," or, " That is the statement I made from Mr, Beecher's mouth, as he said it." He gave some answer, I suppose, to the question, and gave some true description of how there happened to be a paper in his, Moulton's, handwriting, addressed to himself, un- signed by any letter writer, and intrusted to him in con- fidence. Mr. Moulton denies a part of Mr. Tracy's ac- count of his, Tracy's, interrogating Tilton on the precise language of the charge in the wife's letter; but Mr. Tilton does not deny any part of it. They both deny that the "True Story " was read; but Tilton, on his cross-exami- nation—his previous cross-examination — stated that lie readevery word of the "True Story" to Tracy during this same period, at some time or other, and there was not any other time to read it but this. And then we have every opportunity for evasion and prevarication between the " True Story" in its last and final touch and finish, and the " True Story " in its study or meditations which occu- pied a very considerable time, the object being, as ZVIr. Tilton has said, to turn it over and over, and consult with, this and that friend, great men or small men— men who could give a fair index of what public opinion would be as to how this unpublished manuscript would strike the public, whenever it should be put in print ; and under that insidious and cowardly mode, Mr. Tilton was poison- ing this and that source and channel of public opinion with th.e concealed slanders against Mr. Beecher, that in that paper are contained. And they do not deny that tie substance of it— the charge of improper proposals— was read at this interview. Mr. Tilton has a fashion of thinking that the absolut€ly perfected "True Story " in- cluded the letters of Mr. Beecher and his wife, which form its close, and which came into existence in the end of December ; but in his testimony he has drawn the distinction between the " True Story " as it had ad- vanced in hifl mind and in his composition, up to that point, and how that termination in regard to the re- corded denials of Mr. Beecher and Mrs. Tilton formed the final close of the paper ; and it is in that mere pre- varication, a " True Story " as a completed paper, and " True Story " as it was prepared to take its completion, that the changes are rung and the excuses are found for saying the " True Story " was not read to this or that man when it answered that purpose, or it was read to this or that man when it answers that ptirpose. Just a* in respect of the WoodhuU scandal, the effort has been made— the effort, perhaps, in arg\iment, before jow, will be made— that all this theory of the Winter and the Spring of 1372, not having brought into existence the 784 TEE TlLTON-BKE(mER TRIAL. "body of the Woodlmll scandal, and its representations in Blips ready for publication, then in the needs of Tilton required, is answered by the statement of Mr. Pearl Andrews that he did the final editing upon the paper as it appeared in Novenaher, 1872 ; hut on his own statement you see the disclosure and the discovery that the body— the body of the paper exactly as it was printed— was ready, and that was handed to him as the matter on which his literary and philosophical genius were to operate in making a head and a tail piece, and he did make a literary and philosophical head and tail piece to it ; but the body of the play was this drama as it had been in existence in slips for six months, and it was only the prologue and the epilogue of literature and philosophy that came into existence in October of that year. And yet by such feeble devices as that the prevarications of witnesses are to be sustained that the Woodhull article is shown not to have existed prior to October, 1872, because Mr. Andrews put these finishing touches to it. And so Mr. Tilton expects, when occasion needs, to impose upon you that the " True Story" was not complete at this or that stage, be- cause the final letters were not ready to be inserted as its fit conclusion until the end of December. But Belcher makes that clear. We do not need to rest upon Mr. Tracy's knowledge and memory for that. Belcher makes that clear, and Belcher makes it also perfectly clear that any attempt to impose upon you that the reading of this passage : " My friend and pastor proposed to me to be his wife with all that that implies," comes out of some other piece of writing than this original accusation, by picking up a letter prepared under the husband's eye by the wife, and used with Dr. Storrs, which repeats this ac- cusation in its termis. Any attempt to impose upon your understanding that that letter was the matter, in his wife's handwriting, which he copied— it would not help the substance of his case at all, but any attempt to con- fuse your minds or impose upon you in that regard must utterly fail, because Mr. Belcher tells you that in his in- terview, sought, compelled by Mr. Tilton, when the whole documents were read and read, and when Tilton was questionad and questioned about this slip of paper, whether the very language under his eye was in his wife's handwriting, or not, and the answer was : " No, it is in Moulton's possession, the original ;" at that inter- view originated the idea of any consultation with Dr. Btorrs. The question was asked of Mr. Belcher by Mr. Tilton: "Who is a good man to ask, a man of great authority, of great credit, a man of level jfidgment, of sober, ciscumspect thought T' and the suggestion ia made to Tilton that Dr. Storrs would be a good man ; and out of that, and after that, comes the interview with Dr. Btorrs, and the letter prepared to introduce that inters view, which was in itself the reproduction of this rilp that was in the *' True Story," and that had formed the gravamen and the text of the "wife's accusation. Now, Mr. Moulton does deny, on his rebutting evidence, tliat Mr. Tracy made a particular remark on the subje of the apology, implying an unsuccessftil attempt on Mrs Tilton's virtue; and anotlier as to the best mode of terminating all controversy as to the facts, and as to what could be done for Mr. Tilton— that is, about going to Europe, &c. — but on the main substance, that Mr, Tilton intelligently, faithfully, directly undertook hon- estly to perform the duty, give the service, for which he understood the real solicitudes and the real responsibUi* ties of these parties had resorted to him in respect of, and that in that he dealt as you would do, as you would do, as you would do, as any man of common sense and clear purpose would do, pricking all these bubbles at once: " Well, what is that you charge Mr. Beecher of l* —and that is the charge. Well, a part of that is infer- ence. " Oh ! no ; no part of it is inference." " Well, but that last part, 'with all that that implies '—Mr. Beecher certainly did not say to the woman, • I want you to be my wife, with all that that implies.' " " Oh, well, that, to be sure." "Well, now, what is your purpose? Do you want to end this scandal, or do you want to keep it alive?" "I want to end it." " Well, then, the way to end it is to deny what the Woodhull publication says about your communicating, and which you say is all false; put an end to this matter, burn up all these papers and have it closed." Well, why should not that be done? But it could not be done; and why? Mr. Tracy says, " Well, why can't it be done, if you want to suppress it?" "WeU, if these papers were destroyed, I having circulated various charges against Mr. Beecher, he would turn and rend me." " Well," Mr. Tracy says, *• that is very absurd. Certainly, Mr. Beecher has no ia- terest in having these matters made the subject of pubUo discussion, merely for the satisfaction of pursuing you as a slanderer." "Well, if Mr. Beecher would not do it his church would." And so you find Mr. Tilton, for the first time brought face to face with an intelligent, an honest, a disinterested scrutiny about the matter, is obliged to retreat under the fog of a desire to suppress, but yet an unwillingness to give up the means of contin- uing ; and that, gentlemen of the jury, has been the dif- ficulty that Mr. Tilton has been in. He wished, indeed, never to be brought to the test that he has suffered in this trial before you. He never wanted the resistance of Beecher, and exploration, and weighing, and measuring of this matter — a man that had been so quiet as he tells you, under all the load of these injuries, imder all the horrors of these wounds to his pride, his feelings, as that he slept undisturbed by his wife's side always ; and when he came to Beeoher'S face wanted always only to be sure of Beecher's friend- ship. He says, when at a later stage to which I shall call your attention, Mr. Moulton had said to him: "Now, Beecher says he will stand secrecy no longer, he will have no more of this policy of silence in your behalf, broken ever by your promulgations at your will. Great as is SUMMING VP BY MR. EVAUTS. 785 Tihe terror and the evil of Bcandal wliicli a man feels for the manifold complications in which he stands to others, and which he feels especially in the relation in which he stands to your, Mr. Tilton's, famUy, your wife, your chil- dren, this matter he will stand no longer. He is going to put himself directly at issue now, and by throwing dov\Ti the challenge for facts, and stripping himself of all impediments of the interests, the feelings, or the pride of Plymouth Church, he is going to meet you as man to man." Then Mr. Tilton has all the lion roused in him, and says : " If he does that I wUl shoot him in the street." Now, that is a time for shooting; that is a time for spirit; that is a time for pride; and the threat that he had made— that of publication that TUton had made, expecting that Mr. Beecher's solicitude for his (TUton's) family, and for the great interests that surrounded him— would make him yield to some accommodation even in that, the threat to publish was at once withdrawn, and the matter came to an end. But I wHl not anticipate the details of that situation. 1 only show you throughout that Mr. Tilton, having a moderate (immoderate It mighf seem to Mr. Beecher) cause of offense and accusation, was always outrunning it in his tongue, outrunning it in his written letters, outrunning it in his printed slips, con- tinually involving himself in the guUt and the shame and the treachery and the cowardice of these malignant, secret stabs in the dark; and whenever there came to be a question of disclosure and confronting the truth and each other before the public, then there was always a desire to have some concession from Mr. Beecher in his magnanimity, in his generosity, in his sympathies, that could save Mr. Tilton from the absolute discredit and dis- grace of the discovery of his arts. Although Mr. Beecher did not know or suspect, and charitably refused to admit aspersions of bad faith, of whisperings of treachery, yet Mr. Tilton knew that whenever, under any examination, the daylight was let into this matter, all this treachery of Tilton and maneuvering of Moulton, brought in front of the boldness of Beecher, would leave no doubt in men's minds of the true nature of what had been going on for years. GEN. TEACY AGAIN DEFENDED. Now, gentlemen, I shall have occasion to comment upon some parts of Gen. Tracy's testimony in connection with wholly independent interviews and events in the year 1874. But now it becomes me to say what, I am quite sure after what has fallen from his Honor, the Judge, and from my learned brother. Porter, will be quite superfluous ; yet very briefly to say what I say with great pleasure and entire frankness, on the sub- ject of an imputation sought to be thrown upon Mr. Tracy in regard, not to his being a witness, for that everybody concedes was forced upon him by the course they take of making him represent Beecher in order to be admitted themselves as witnesses against Mr. Beecher — I mean his professional employment. Now you wiU observe, gentlemen, that the trust and duty of our pro- fession is not one of personal inclination or choice. In general we may say that a lawyer is somewhat free to take or declme an employment as his convenience, his emoluments, his comfort, or his taste may indicate, but always upon condition that that refusal shall not preju- dice the client who, either as plaintiff or defendant, or as accused before the criminal bar of the courts, has a right to the services of our profession. It is, then, not unfrequent that a lawyer in manifold en- gagements, and In a constantly changing succession of clients, now opposing one, and now acting for him in another case, has presented to him inquiries which he is not at liberty to discharge on the careless method of "Well, i ^on't propose to bother myself.* There are rights and there are corresponding duties, and- the mo- ment these flippant commentators on the duties of our profession in regard to the espousal and maintenance either of plaintiffs' or defendants' causes, or of an accu- rate observance of duty, irrespective of possible evil comment, reduce the independence and intrepidity of the bar to that standard, the administration of justice will cease to be what it must and should be in a free country. For, how pitiable the condition of suitors in a court if their lawyer j of their choice, and to whose service they have a right, are either to be taken fi'om them by any trivial scruples, or torn from them by malicious interfer- ence of their opponents ! And now look in the face of the situation, and see how utterly there falls to the ground any suggestion that Mr. Tracy was placed in any disability or relieved from any duty he was under In respect of sharing the professional responsibilities for his friend and this client, JMr. Beecher. "Why, gentle- men, Mr. Woodruff approaches him with the idea that it is not a professional relation that he is to be called into. And Mr. Tracy begins by saying, " I won't go even into a friendly conference of advice unless it is understood that I go there as I am ; that 1 go there as I am in fact a friend of Mr. Beecher, only to a conference that is sup- posed to be without hostility to him." And then, when he goes there imder the idea of having the truth told him, his advice given, his relations determined upon the good faith, the sincerity, the completeness of the disclosures that are made to him, he is accosted at the outset, " Now, the whole truth is to be told you ; if, on the case which you are to have the whole truth about, there comes to be antagonism, will the etiquette of your profession justify you in espousmg Mr. Beecher's attack upon the fidelltj of the truth as now disclosed to you ? " Mr. Tracy at once says, " Whatever you give to me as the truth of your case to-day, without reference to any etiquette of my profession, I will not take up the opposite for a client ; " and then they tell him the truth ; tihey are under every obligation as towards him that it should be the truth. What ! Are you going to engage 786 TRE TILTON-BJEBCHUR TEIAL, the honest and responsible friendly advice concerning the situation of a man who warns you in advance that he will hear nothing from you if it is to be of proposition of hostility against Mr. Beecher, and then, when that truth all being told, when the Bessie Turner, and the money, and everything that could make a fault against Mr. Beecher if It could make » fault against Mr. Beecher should have been told, when it is omitted, because there was no fault in it, but nothing which generosity and pity, and when, at the end, Mr. Tracy sees and says, ** Why, there is not anything here that can be made the subject of a litigation, of a lawsuit, of an accusation," and dis- misses the matter from his mind as anything that came tmder any professional exclusion from a controversy that had these dimensions, then when in 1874 the charge is to be changed and is changed, and notice sent by Red- path, "Don't believe if we go into covtrt we are going into a libel suit, when all this talk of these minor difficulties may be the subject of j.udicial inquiry, but we are going to make it adultery and when Mr. Tracy Is so advised then he originates to Mr. Tilton the proposition, " Well, Mr. Tilton, you must remember that if I gave you a promise concerning the case as you laid it before me, that I would not take up the opposite side, if you now mean to say that what you told me was false and an imposition, and ypu are going to make a different or other charge in which my profes- sional duty and the rights of Mr. Beecher to my services If he chooses to ask them must not be impaired, I wish you to understand that that promise does not cover any opposite, any new case that you now bring into the light and into the coui'ts." Now, see how a little matter discloses a ' great deal. The narrative is complete, undisputed, and imcon- tradicted by Mr. Tilton, for it occurred in the pres- ence of several witnesses before the Church Committee. Mr. Tilton, instead of saying, " I join issue with you on the question of fact ; this is the case ; it was the charge of adultery. This pretense of yours, that now the body and offense to be introduced is new, an afterthought, an invention, if you please, is all subterfuge, Mr. Tracy. In fact that interview did have adultery with my wife as the body and substance of it"— admits that the interview and the inquiry and the charge were different then, but says, " On the question of law and ethics I don't think that makes any difference in your proposition." What could there be from disinterested witnesses (for it does not depend upon Mr. Tracy's testimony, and Mr. Tilton don't contradict it— there were two or three witnesses that could speak of it) 1 but when we come to the pre- Tious statement between Mr. Tilton and Mr. Tracy alone at the club, why, then, Mr. Tilton contradicts that ; that Is only oath against oath. Now, gentlemen, you will see at once that Mr. Tracy, no doubt like every other lawyer, regretting that there should be a situation about which men's minds should differ, yet, with that clear- and decision which characterizes him, said, "Well, IVIr. Tilton, you may not think go; I do. You called me into a scandal and said you told me the truth, and there was no adultery and no lawsuit in it. Now you are getting up an adultery and a lawsuit. Now, understand that nothing that you told me there covered anything of this kind, and I only undertook not to engage in a lawsuit that should arise upcn the case as you thus solemnly prefaced your purpose of making a confidential and thorough statement of it." And so Mr. Tracy, when he acts, as he did, for the Church in their inquiries, merely directing with a sort of legal lead tho investigations before the Committee, comes flnaDy to reserve the question of whether he shall act as counsel, and submits it to his associates, in whom he had confi- dence, whether other people have or not ; and their answer was decisive : " This entrapping, this delusion, this deception, this holding of what was, as they now say, not their case, as a terror and a confusion over you, in your professional duty and in the rights of your client in respect to your services, must not be tolerated for a moment." Whenever that libel suit that was talked about that night, that istrs. Woodhull would bring against Mr. Tilton if he published that " True Story," or if he published an open denial — whenever that suit should have been brought into court, then it might well be said that Mr. Tracy should not take up for Mrs. Woodhull against Mr. Tilton. And so that matter, which has no other relation to any of the merits of this case than as it is sought to be an occar sion of invidious suggestion m respect to a leader, if not the leader of the Brooklyn bar, your fellow citizen, well known to all of you, would not have received any com- ment from me, as it has nothing to do with the clew of the merits of the case. THE EAGGED EDGE LETTEE. Now, gentlemen, there came to be a very curious and very curiously proved course of delicate maneuvers on the part of Mr. Tilton and Mr. Moulton, to force this $7,000 out of Bowen. And, curiously enough, we have in one of Mr. Beecher's letters that on its own merits, as it is supposed, has been treated as of very grave significance— we have in that letter the first underground movement toward what came to the arbi- tration and the demand of $7,000, first disclosed. The necessities of Mr. Tilton bad then become complete. There was an intei-view in the cars which Mr. Beecher regarded as a friendly one, and it has been given by Mr. Beecher and by Mr. Tilton, and about which I shall not speak. If there is any gravity in it, it has escaped my attention. Whatever Mr. Beecher has said, whatever Mr. Tilton has said, is but an incidental run- ning out of the views on one side and th» other, if you ptease, of their then relations. But in the month of February Mr. Beecher spontaneously writes a letter to SUMMING UF BY MR. EYAETS, 787 Mr. Moulton— tlie letter of Feb. 5 — sometimes called tlie ** Eagged Edge Letter," whicti iti some unaccountable way In men's minds, pardonable perb.aps, wMle tlie trutli and facts of tliese relations were undisclosed as they are now brought to light by the evidence, has been treated as evi- dence of guilt. But my present purpose is to show you how cunningly Mr. TOton and Mr. Moulton were beginning to operate upon the sympathies and self-reproaches of Mr. Beecher in regard to his feeling of compunction and of duty, of aid and reparation in respect to Mr. Tilton. The letter shows you several other things besides that that I have now noted. It shows you the absolutely restored relations, in the open knowledge of Mr. Tilton and of Mr. :NIoulton, of Mr. Beecher, so far as he thought it judicious and useful to maintain either correspondence by letter or inter- com-se by visits with Mrs. Tilton. Monday, Feb. 5, 1872. I omit the mere introduction [readingj : About three weeks ago I met Tilton in the cars going to Boston. He was kind. We talked much. At the end he told me to go on with my work without the least anxiety in so far as his feelings and actions were the occasion of apprehension. That is to say, " Understand that the diflaculties are all over ; tmderstand that there is reparation between me and my wife at home ; understand that my affairs are such as satisfy me in the hopes and prospects before me." On returning home from New-Haven I found a note from Elizabeth saying tliat Tilton felt hard toward me, and was going to see or write me before leaving for the West. Eight after this pleasant interview in the cars we see a prepared ebullition of the opposite kmd. She kindly added: "Do not be cast down. I bear this almost always— I bear the moods and tempers of this man almost always— but the God in whom we trust will deliver us all safely. I know you do, and ai'e willing abundantly to help him ." Now, don't you see what the trouble was I I know you do, and are willing abundantly to help Mm, and I also know your embarrassments. WeU, Tilton wanted help. Tilton indicated at home that Beecher was not doing as much as he ought to do to help him, and that he felt hard to him, and he was going to sfie him before he went off, and Mrs. Tilton writes him, and Mr. Beecher sits down and copies her letter to Mr. Moulton, and there you have the whole thing disclosed at the very beginning of the ripple that swells into the stream that dislocates the bowlder $7,000, and washes it into their coffers. Now, Mr. Beecher proceeds : These were words of warning but also of consolation, for I believe Elizabeth is beloved of God, and that her prayers for me are sooner heard than mine for myself or for her. But it seems that a change has come to T. since I saw him in the cars. Well, now that shows that Mr. Beecher's view of that interview in the cars was the correct one. Indeed, ever J«ince he has felt more intensely the force of feeling in society, and the limitations which environ his enterprise — that is, his Golden Age— he has growiiigly felt that I had a power to help which I did not develop, and I believe ttuit you have participated la this feeliag. It is natural you should, T. is dearer to you than I oan be. He is with you. All his trials lie open to your eye daUy. But I see you but seldom, and my personal rela- tions, environments, necessities. Limitations, dangers, and perplexities you caimot see or Imagine. Now, that is the only part of the letter that I have occasion to refer to at this moment and in this connec- tion. Mr. Beecher testifies the reason he wrote that letter, was that he had observed that Mr. Moulton, in the visits he made to him, began to play the part of offishness, was polite but not cordial, not demanding money, not talking about money, but with the idea which, inspires what Mr. Beecher says to him, Moulton, that he shared ui these feelings tliat he, Beecher, did not help Tilton enough. And then Mr. Beecher spontaneously sits down and writes this long letter, full, no doubt, of strong feeling, but strong feeling, whenever a word of it la probed, that shows precisely the same warmth of sympathy and tenderness of heart, unmeasured self-reproach and compunction for any share he had in these misfortimes and these disasters. Then Mr. Moulton does not seem to answer this letter. We have not seen any answer to it. It certamly was a letter that, if there were any sincerity in Mr. Moulton's relations to Mr. Beecher at that time, and if lie were not playing th.e part of getting Mr. Beecher ready to be affected in this generous disposition of his by the actual approach for money when it should be made, he would have answered ; but it served his purposes and ]Nlr. TU- Uon's to be thus frankly informed of Mr. Beecher's feel- ings, and then they were ready to take the next step, which was not to be an approach, by Mr. Moulton or an approach by Mr. Tilton, but this circuitous introduction of the subject through Mr. WUkeson, and the threat of the publication of the slips, and all that narrative which has been gone through with. :sm. MOULTON'S SHEEWD FINANCIAL POLICY. Now, let me take np ]VIr. Moulton'-s relations to money. The first time after this situation which he was nursing began, the first time he introduced the sub- ject of money to Mr. Beecher was by the suggestion tliat ilr. Tilton was badly situated, and that he thought that the secuiity of his home was of great importance to him, and that the mortgage on his house ought to be paid off, and the property ought to be settled on Elizabeth. " Well," says Mr. Beecher, " I am ready to do my share." And then ]\Ir. Moulton dropped the subject, and you will find no introduction of any subject of money aid in whicli Mr. Moulton was to do his share, proposed afterward bj him to Mr. Beecher, with one single exception, and then he did not make the mistake of proposing to Mr. Beeclier 788 TEE TILTON-BFjKCRER TULAL. o do his share if Beecher would do Ms ; t»ut he brought the Bessie Turner hills and said, " I am paying a good deal for Mr. Tilton, and I think this is your share." Now this $7,000 is a curious affair. I douht whether even Mr. Tilton has fairly got at the bottom of it, and at the immense disinterestedness of Mr. Moulton in the business ; for people have been puzzling their minds why this princely generosity of Mr. Moulton's should be troubling itself about little matters of a few thousand dollars. Have n't we heard that magnificent proposition of his, that he would rather pay Mr. Tilton the $7,000 out of his own pocket than run the slightest risk of Mr. Beecher's being disturbed for a moment by any agita- tions of the Bowen matters. But he knew there were no agitations of the Bowen matters that Mr. Beecher cared a snap of the finger for, and Mr. Beecher's answer to him was, " I care nothing about Mr. Bowen's charges, or his affairs ;" so that stands as the magnificent front, nay, the whole body, of Mr. Moulton's generosity to Mr. Tilton throughout this business. " Hypocrisy," says Mr. Burke, " can afford to be magnificent in its promises ; for, never intending to go beyond promises, it costs nothing." Well, they finally forced the arbitration to cover these difii- culties and to get the inoney, and they got it ; and Mr. Tilton could not refrain from a chuckle over the matter, which should move the cockles of Mr. Moulton's heart to laughter, and, as he was not in his presence, he wrote him this slip : '* Spoils from 'new friends' for the enrichment of old." And there are the check and the tell-tale pinholes that tied that slip to that paper, and Franklin Woodruff seems to be the partner in that concern whose careless honesty, I suppose, brings his more crafty partners into trouble. Now, .iust look what a heavy fall Mr. Moulton gave Theodore with this $7,000, and how the spoils from the new friends did go to the enrichment of the old. Mr. Tilton had a basis of capital and funds for the sui)port of his Golden Age through its contingencies and experiments, which was just the same as if he had the money in his purse. There had been a subscription of $12,000— $3,000 by Moulton, $3,000 by Franklin Woodruff, $1,000 by Jere- miah Robinson, $2,000 by a Mr. Mason, $1,500 by Mr. Schultz, and $1,500 by Mr. Southwick. One-half, $6,000, had been paid and was spent, and the concern was in want of money and this strike comes, and the money is got. The other $6,000 of the $12,000 he had in the en- gagements of these responsible parties to hand him the cash whenever he wanted it, and his only obligation to them was to return it if he was ever prosperous or able. The Golden Age then was situated with this $6,000 un- paid as if it was in its till, and the moment that this $7,000 of actual cash comes into Tilton's hands, then Moulton and Woodruff seize $6,000 of it at once, and leave only the small pittance of $1,000 for his share of he spoils. It must have gone against the grain a little, that, to get back Moulton's $1,500, and WoodruflPg $1,500, and Jeremiah Robinsou's $500, which was $3,500, they also had to put back $2,500 into the pockets of Mason, and Southwick, and Schultz, whom they didn't care anything about ; but " commercial honor requires that we shall make no distinction between ourselves and these co-contributors," and, so that the dullest under- standing might appreciate it when it is exposed, Mr. Woodruff says to Mr. Southwick, " Well, Johnny, if you lost $750 by going in, you have made $750 by coming out." [Laughter.] Now, you see what a heavy faU poor Tilton had with his $7,000 ; $6,000, that he was un- der no obligation to return unless prosperity wafted his bark to the haven where it would be found, taken right out of him bodUy, before his eyes, without his suspecting it, and he left to tide over the shoal, when he came to it, as best he might. And how did they tide him over it when it came, and these notes and this cash that he could have relied upon, had been swept away, and they had bagged this $7,000, and what there was was spent ? Why, then, Mr. Moulton says to Mr. Beecher, " See what a generous spirit can contrive, to help a friend. Look at this letter ! look at these notes ! look a^t this cash ! see what it is to be a friend to Tilton ! But then, alas, the delicacy of this being accepted at the hands of a lady will compel Mr. Tilton to decline it, and, alas ! alas ! these generous pui-poses will be of no real service;" and poor Mr. Beecher goes off, not understanding the delicate approaches of Mr. Moulton, and says to himself : ** Well, if there is need of this money to save the concern (as Mr. Moulton had intimated), if all is going to destruction for want of $5,000, 1 will mortgage my house ; " and he brought tiie $5,000 in a check, which it was thought better by Mr. Moulton should be in bills ; and so there came, out of Mr. Beecher's generosity, the replacement of the $5,000, as far as it went, for the $6,000 that Moulton and Wood- ruff and Robmson and their associates had subtracted from the Bowen money. Talk to me about generosity and princely friendship ! I have not seen, fi'om the be- ginning to the end, any such liberality. These original subscriptions for Tlie Golden Age, gener- ous if you please, were shared by comparative strangers who had no such duty and no such closeness of relation to Mr. Tilton. But, then, the fertile ingenuity which should thus cunningly subtract from Bowen's $7,000, six thousand of it, and then cunningly replace it, to the amount of five thousand, by this overwhelming gener- osity of Mr. Beecher, certainly deserves admiration, and I do not hesitate to say. Sir, that no parallel to it can be found in the admirable career of the original Sir Philip Sydney. fLaughter.J THE RAGGED EDGE LETTER ANALYZED. Now, gentlemen, I will dispose of the rest of this letter. The existence of this letter, the existence of SUMMING UP B other letters that wHl be brought to your attention, so far from possibly furnishing evidence of consciousness of guilt in any sense of criminality which the divine and human law and the public judgment denounce as in- famous, and the knowledge or disclosure of which would bring defeat, dishonor, contempt, upon the writer— the very existence of these letters is complete evidence that there Is no consciousness of guilt, and that they are not the vehicle of expressions of guilt, or confessions of gunt, of any just construction that could connect guilt with them. Observe, they are written spontaneously and to a person who knew what the length and breadth, what the alternative measures and character of this matter were, and written to him on a purpose and with a purpose, to wit, the explication to him of the utter absence of any just self-reproach in his (Mr. Beecher's) mind in regard to selfishness, want of alacrity or want of effort on his part, to help the mls'fortunes and distresses of Mr. Tilton, as he had abundantly professed his desire to do, and as Mr. Moul- ton had strenuously labored to urge hiin to do. And then the whole measure of this letter (and it is quite a long one) and all its contents have for their scope and purpose nothing but the representation to Mr. Moulton (to whom he undoubtedly did express himself as he would to his own heart) that it was wrong in him, Moultdn, to have this unjust suspicion; that it was wroug in Mr. Til- ton to have the idea that Mr. Beecher did not desire and was not trying to help him ; that it was wrong for Mr. Tilton to Ladulge the feelings which afterward and in a few weeks, at the end of March,^Mr. TUton expressed to Mr. wnkeson, that Mr. Beecher, who could lift him with his little finger, had not shown an adequate disposition to help him. So he goes on, and gives all his engage- ments and all his labors, and then the difiiculties that attended him, the impossibility, if this policy of silence in protection of Mr. TUton's secret, in protection of the wife's secret, in protection of his own, IVIr. Beecher's, share in the misfortunes which he reproached himself for— if that policy is to be maintained (for all the while poor Mr. Beecher thought all this trouble was springing out of the ground ; he did n't know that Tilton was scattering, as a tale-bearer, these mischievous suspicions)— the im- possibility, concurrently with that policy, of using what Mr. Tilton might think were readj^ means and enginery at hand, to wit, the impulse and suggestion to this man, that man, and the other man to aid Mr. Tilton — it was in explication of that subject, introduced by the wife's letter, that Mr. Tilton did not think he was helping him enough, promoted by Mr. Moulton's coldness to him, as if he, Mr. Beecher, was insincere, neglectful, inattentive to his duties in this regard, he opens the whole matter, and after laying out the immense burdens of his constant occupations he then comes to this part of 1^ Vbioli ia considered, I believe, as an indication of r ME. EYABIS, 789 My vacation was profitable. I came back hoping that the bitterness of death was passed. Well, that is an epithet ; he didn't convey any knowl- edge to Mr. Moulton by that ; Moulton knew what Mr. Beecher's notions of the bitt\irness of death were, and ot the occasion of them ; for he had poured out his soul to Moulton on that Sunday afteruoon. This gives no addi- tional information. There is no measuring of Mr. Beech- er's forms of expression, of his emotions of self-reproach, of commiseration for others, of solicitude that the mis- chief should not, by scandal and by brmt, be made any more than it was, "But T.'s troubles brought back the cloud " Now, what is the cloud ? For, all this Fall and TVinter I have felt that you did not feel satisfied with me, and that I seemed, both to you and T., as contenting myself with a cautious or sluggish policy, willing to save myself, but not to risk anything for T.— [that is, to succumb to these limitations, and not be willing to exert a proper activity, and thus run some risks. J I have again and again probed my heart to see whether I was truly liable to such feeling, and the response is un- equivocal that I am not. Then he goes on to enlarge on the difficulties that would show anybody that what seemed to them this sluggish, selfish policy — this selfish consultation for him- self—was a necessary part of the main policy urged by Moulton, pressed by Tilton, insisted upon by all the moral proprieties of the situation, that there should not be publicity and scandal ; and then, in the graphic lan- guage which he uses on all occasions, he says : To say that I have a church on my hands is simple enough— but to have the hundreds and thousands of men pressing me, each one with his keen suspicion, or anxiety, or zeal ; to see tendencies which, if not stopped, would break out into ruinous defense of me ; to stop them without seeming to do it ; to prevent any one ques- tioning me; to meet and allay prejudices against T. which had their beginning years before this ; to keep serene, as if I was not alarmed or disturbed ; to be cheer ful at home and among friends when I was suffering the torments of the damned ; to pass sleepless nights often, and yet to come up fresh and full for Sunday ;— all this may be talked about, but the real thing cannot be under- stood from the outside, nor its wearing and grinding on the nervous system. And that was a true description of what had been im- posed upon him as the "policy of silence " by the urgency and entreaty of Tilton and the pressure of Moulton. Now, he says, " When you say that I am not as helpful as I might be, and that the channels and the agencies that with my little finger I could open for the aid of Mr. Til- ton are not opened, just consider this, that I am under these suspicions, circulated somehow, God only knowl how, and I obliged to maintain this situation." The let- ter proceeds : God knows that I have put mc^re thought and Judg- ment and earnest desire into my efforts to prepare a way for T. and E. than ever I did for myself, a hnndred-fo] 799 THM TILION-BEECHEB. TBIAL. Then he saj'^s that lie never loses an opportunity of try- ing to repair the evils, and with increasing success. But tbe roots of this prejudice are long. The catastro- phe which precipitated him from his place only disclosed feelings that had existed long. Neither he nor you can he aware of the feelings of classes in society, on other grounds than late rumors. I mention this to explain why I Jcnoiv with absolute certainty that no mere statement, letter, testimony, or affirmation will reach the root of affairs and reinstate them. Time and m^ork will. If Mr. Tilton goes on with work— honorable, honest work— time and his work, showing his worthiness, will reinstate him, hut nothing else can. With a self-sacri- ficing .spirit, he says : If my destruction would place him all right, that shall not stand in the way. I am "willing to step down and out. No one can offer more than that. That I do offer. Just as in the next June, when the matter was pressing on him, he said, " Very well ; I will resign. I will stand this no longer. If Mr. Tilton thinks I don't do all in my power to heli» him ; if I don't do my duty ; if he desires to terminate the policj^ of silence, and have the truth known, I am ready for it at any moment." Sacrifice me without hesitation, if you can clearly see your way to his safety and happiness thereby. I do not think that anything would he gained hy it. I should he destroyed, hut he would not he saved. E. and the chil- dren would hav6 their future clouded. In one point of Tiew I could desire the sacrifice on my part. ***** I look ui>on death as sweeter-faced than any friend I have in the world. Life would he pleasant, if I could see that rebuilt which is shattered. There his anxiety is for others, wholly for this family. But to live on the sharp and ragged edge of anxiety, remorse, fear, despair, and yet to put on all the appear- ance of sincerity and happiness, cannot he endured much longer. I am well-nigh discouraged. If you, too, cease to trust me— to love me— I am alone ; I have not another person in the world to whom I could go. Well, to God I commit all. Whatever it may he here, it shall be well there. With sincere gratitude for your he- roic fiiendship, and with sincere affection, even though you love me not, I am yours, though unknown to you. H. w. B. Now, gentlemen, you can very easily see that if Mr. Beecher had had the consciousness of any of these meas- ures of guilt, he would not have invited, as an escape from the suspicions and coldness of Mr. Moulton and of Mr. Tilton, and of this great oppression to him, that any body should charge him in the tenderest point with the want of solicitude, and want of effort to restore the f or- tunes concerning wbich he felt himself thus to be re- proached. If he had had the consciousness that this seduction of a parishioner, this adultery with a communicant, that all these horrible im- putations were the facts that were to come out, do you think he, for a moment, even in the excitement of feeling, would have doubted that he would rather have that than these anxieties and these suppressions and these appearances of •prevarication and equivocation'? By no means. Why, gentlemen, you may hold this to be a fundamental proposition of our nature, implanted in na not less deeply than any other form and duty and senti- ment of self-preservation, that a man conscious of guilt never makes a record of it, never voluntarily writes it, never parades it through strong epithets in a voluntary, spontaneous repulse of mere coldness on the part of Mr. Moulton, and feeling of Mr. Tilton that Mr. Beecher was not doing enough for him. Why, gentlemen, the strongest selfish impulses that are likely to overpower a man will not brine: him to confession or disclosure even in the sacred relation of penitent and priest, or in the necessary confidence of patient and surgeon or physician, or in re- spect to property and life and character between client and lawyer, until the law puts its protection over those confessions, and for the good of the soul and for the cure of the body, and for the preservation and defense of property assures to those confidences seclusion against the power of disclosure before the law. The penitent that would seek the solace of absolution or spiritual consolation will keep the secret to the grave rather than risk it to disclosure by the law. The wounded or poisoned man will carry in his blood and bones the venom, or the secret hemorrhage that will take away his life, before he will disclose to the surgeon or physician the source of the wounds or the inflictions that are to be- tray him ; and the client will keep from his lawyer even what is to help his life and his fortunes, if at the same time it is a confession of guilt and of infamy that by any possibility could he disclosed through the source of his confession ; and yet, when society, recognizing those deepest principles of our nature, has thus covered with its protection against the prying eye of justice and its punishment all these confidences, we are told that this lavish use of epithets is to he construed as con- fession of guilt. Why, gentlemen, we all know that if you will trust men to portray their feelings, their sympathies, their honest and cred- itable emotions, there is no limit to the profuseness of their confidences, and the strength and point of their reproaches and epithets ; and all this letter, honest indeed, though overwrought, not wise, not the measure of a circumspect and careful thinker, but the outpouring of the unrepressed self-reproach that he, who had been working under impulses for the good of others, and had borne so much himself, and was himself so much im- pressed with the consciousness of fault that he had ex- pressed to Mr, Tilton, and expressed to Mr. Moulton that he, knowing that he was not open to these reproaches shoiild still suffer them, of coldness, I mean, and indiffer- ence, touched him to the very heart, and without a call, without the least occasion, and casting all these pearls under the rude feet of these men to be trampled on, and then to be turned on and ruined by them by this evidence of the treasure of his feelings, that indeed is a hard fate. You will see, gentlemen, that if Mr. Beecher is to suffer imder the average judgiutents of men it wUl be beottttse SUMMING UF BY MR, EVABTS, 791 they do not place tlvemselves upon the level of feeling, o:^ discipline of mind and heart, of long, long study of love and sympatliy and charity as the hasis of our religion, and as the . very hope and duty of society. It is because he is tenderer in conscience to the least touch of self-compunction that these expressions of ovei-flowing reproach, pity, and, if you please, despair at his inahility to repress mischief which he has unconsciously done, that are taken up hy other judgments and made the measui-e of crimes,- as if they had been uttered by hardened and wicked men. But hardened and wicked men don't confess at all, and, if they do confess, they don't dwell on. the circumstances nor exaggerate the fault, but yet exaggeration is the truth of this and of the other letters. It is exaggeration of feeling, and not exaggeration of fault. MR. BEECHEE WRITES AGAIN m A HOPE- LESS STRAIN. Now, there are two other letters that con- nect themselves. When the movements were going on which ended in March with getting the money, Mr. Beecher writes a very cheerful letter, apparently to Mr. Moulton for the most part, but it contains a phrase that has been thought to indicate something of the nature of conf ession of guilt. My Dear Priettd : I sent on Friday or Saturday the portrait of Titian to the store for you. I hope it may suit you. I have been doing ten men's work this Wmter [this was the end of March] , partly to make up lost time, partly because I live under a cloud, feeling every month that I may be doing my last work, and anxious to make the most of it. When Esau sold his birthright, he found " no place for repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears." But I have one abiding comfort. I have known you, and found in you one who has given a new meaning to friendship. As soon as warm days come I want you to go to Peekskill with me. I am off in an hour for Massachusetts, to be gone all the week. I am urging forward my second volume of " lAfe of Christ," for the night cometh when no man can work " fquottag the Scripture text]. With much affection and admiration, yours truly, H. W. B. Xow. you will observe that this is a continuance of that same feeling, greatly modified, to be sure, and he refers to the selfish sorrows of Esau, for they certainlv were selfish sorrows, that he had sold his birthright, and that he did not find, although he sought, a place for repent- ance — or whatever it is — " a place for repentance, though he sought it carefully aad with tears." In other words, " My position, my fault, my misfortune of this character, known to you, known to me " (for there is no exi^anation about it) "is one. it seems, that I can't expect entire re- lief from. But I, too, must expect to have this sorrow attend me, and to perform my labolP under it." But it is Bonow ; it is not crioie. We have afterward letter written in June. 1872, which has been referred to but really has no connection, that I can see, with this matter of Mr. and Mrs. Tilton, and it has been very much commented upon. Now, it seems that Mr. Bo wen, as soon as he had got his " Tri- partite Agreement" and unfortunately had to pay the money, and got back his Woodstock letter, though he seems to have been playing the same part that he did when he had made a settlement once before wif i Mr. Beecher in the beginning of 1870, and then had gone aroimd talking about how he could blow the roof off of Plymouth Church or something of that kind, and drive Mr. Beecher out of Brooklyn. Mr. Beecher writes to Mr. Moulton about Mr. Bowen and about; his affairs, it seems to me, entii'ely : On the way to church last evening I met Mr. Claflin. He says that Mr. Bowen denies any such treacherous whisperings, and is in a right state. Moulton, I suppose, had heard some of Mr. Bowen's treacherous whisperings, or what is supposed to be his treacherous whisperings, and mentioned them to Mr. Beecher : I mentioned my proposed letter. He likes the idek. I read him the draft of it (in lecture-room). He drew back and said : " Better send it." I asked if B. had ever made him a statement of the very bottom facts ; if there were any charges T did not know. Well, now, this letter has always been quoted as if those bottom facts that Mr. Beecher showed some conscious- ness of in the first place had to do with the Tilton mat- ter ; but you see they had nothing to do with that, and it was not any bottom fact that Mr. Beecher had any consciousness of, in regard to the Bowen slanders, or their basis, that he is talking about. " I asked him if Mr. Bowen had ever made him a statement of the very bottom facts." This is what Mr. Bowen supposed to be, and claimed to be, the bottom facts, for he repeats the idea in this phrase, that explains it at once : " If there were any charges I did not know." Has Mr. Bowen got to the bottom of his charges ? Has he told you aU of them, or are there some that I have not heard of and don't imagine ? Is there a depth in Mr. Bowen which is no lower depth of slander and imputation 1 That is the point. Let us know what it is, because what is the use of , having a tripartite agreement, having to cover up every- thing, and these careful words of friendship, of accord, of withdrawal of charges, and then have Mr. Bowen whispering around ? Is it the same charges or are there some bottom facts in Mr. Bowen's budget that nobody yet has ever heard of, I don't yet understand. " He evaded and intimated that if he had, he hardly would be right in telling me. I think he would be right in telling you." Mr. Bowen knew of nothing to conceal, that Is his captain would not be left to tell these confidences of Mr. Bowen, so he says, " Go and tell Moulton I have not sent any note, and destroyed that prepared." WeU, the rest does ru/. -leem to be of any importance. This last letter does 792 THE TILION-BBECJIEE lElAl.. not seem to carry a date of its own, but the memorandum of its date on which we have proceedt?d and noted on is June, 1872. ME. WILKESON'S HELPING HAND. I now come, gentlemen, to a position of con- siderable interest in this case, though I am quite sure, upon exploration, it will cease to be of any great impor- tance—but of considerable interest in this case, because it introduces a year later than the period I have been Just talking about— the situation in which there comes to be, for the first time, an open indication to Mr. Tilton and to Mr. Moulton that Mr. Beecher was not going to be kept under any of those impositions of silence, if, as was the object of the whole, and without which it was wholly unprosperous, the effect of silence was not to be accom- plished, but there was to be a continual threat, or fear, or need, of some publication or other on the part of Mr. Tilton. I mean the situation that showed itself about the end of May and the beginning of June, 1873— a sit- uation important and interesting in itself, and also made somewhat fresh by its introduction of a new witness to speak concerning it in the person of Mrs. Moulton ; for it is wholly upon that point, and at that date, that Mrs. Moulton comes at all into play. Now, I must very briefly attract your attention, and, perhaps, with some fear of obscurity, if your minds do' not recall the situation as clearly as mine does, to what preceded that 1st of June. On the 20th of May Mr. Til- ton had procured, permitted, winked at, or seen the pub- lication of the Bowen letter, or The Golden Age slip. The 20th of April the Bowen letter, or Golden Age slip, had got into print, and you remember the testimony given by Mr. McKelway and Mr. Harmau as to what passed in the way of Mr. Tilton's intrusting that paper to their dis- cretion in some sort and how finally it got Into print. Then there came, of course, from this publication in the papers of your city of this long budget of in- famous accusations against Mr. Beecher, pnt upon Mr. Bowen by , Mr. Tilton in the form of a letter by Mr. Tilton to Mr. Bowen, some certainly quite moderate but still some considerable ex- citement. Somehow or other Mr. Bo wen's bwdget of accusation did not seem to have attracted public confi- dence. If Mr. Tilton states them correctly they are very specific, they are quite numerous, they are quite heinous, and they ought to have some support or else not be charged. But, yet, his accusations seem readily to sink of themselves, and don't disturb people's confidence or set their tongues even much agoing. But there it was. Then, in the end of May following, May 30, Mr. Wilke- son— a pretty intelligent man, one of the most benevolent men that Dr. Nott ever educated, and one of the most prominent of lawyers and of public men if he hadn't had the misfortune to have had property — Mr. Wilkeson has learned even to mark the course of a serpent on the rock, and he sees in this trait of Mr. Bowen and Mr. Tilton the purpose to make public, while they are shut- ting Mr. Beecher's mouth under obligations of privacy in their interests, and he publishes the " Tripartite Agree- ment." Then, what does Mr. Tilton do i He was quite easy about his Golden Age slip getting published, although he had used it to get the $7,000, and it was supposed that the copy in the custody of Mr. Olaflin was the only copy preserved. However, that didn't disturb him ; he didn't think there was any reason for trouble about that; but when the "Tripartite Agreement," to which Mr. Tilton was a party, was published, and the newspapers dared to comment upon him, Tilton (and I would like to know who they don't dare to comment on), then it was scandalum magnatum, a thing not to be en- dured. The safety of society didn't permit that. He could not bear a newspaper paragraph in The Express newspaper about him. It touched his honor. There must be an instant refutation of this idea that Mr. Tilton had received any favor or consideration from Mr. Beecher, and it occurred to his ingenious mind that the best way to heal that publication, would be to publish what is called Mr. Beecher's " Letter of Contrition" or his " Apology," that that, would be an admir able mode of making a clear statement to the public. If there was one paper that could do that it would be this Moulton memorandum of Mr. Beecher's conversation on Sunday, and that that would be an excellent thing, and he pre- pared a card on the 31st, and had the effront- ery to propose it to Mr. Beecher—" I am going to put that in The Eagle this afternoon." What had become of his anxieties about his wife and children, of his solicitude lest instantly out of the Bowen matter there might arise a careless introduction of the Tilton-Beecher business ? It was all Bowen so far, was it not % It was all his letter to Mr. Bowen that had started the trouble, and that was about the Bowen budget, and the " Tripartite Agreement " had been pub- lished to meet that, and there was not any imputation of Mr. Tilton in that publication at all, and yet he says, " My answer to this will be the publication of that paper ; " and then Mr. Beecher says, " If you publish that, that is what I am going to publish. I have held for two years a position of silence on the matter of this calumny, to protect the fair fame of a family. I now resign my position of pastor of Plymouth Church and I will meet it," and Mr. Moulton hurries down stairs when Mr. Beecher showa him that and says, "Why, Mr. Beecher is going to answer your slanders, your seizure of confidence and betrayal of it in this paper in my hands, that you have had so far aa I was concerned, the means of publishing, and that you are going to publish ; that is the way he is going to answer you. The game is up. The truth must come out. Your misfortunes, your troubles will be re- duced to their true dimensions, and you cannot SDMin^G UF 1 make » bullet-mold of your mouth any longer to make weapons to assault Mr. Beecher. All mys- tery will disappear. Ttie tenderness of Ws heart, the tenderness of his conscience, his immeasured self- reproach will he shown to have related to what we all know it relates to, and no longer he capable of being fashioned into deadly weapons of destruction at your will. " Well," says Mr. Tilton, " I won't publish," and he didn't publish, and that was the end of that. That threat came to an end. He would shoot Mr. Beecher in the street. That didn't stop Mr. Beecher. Mr. Tilton was the man that stopped. The Court here adjourned until 2 o'clock. ME. BEECHER'S SPIRIT AROUSJTD. The Court met at 2 o'clock, pursuant to ad- journment. Mr. Evarts— Now, gentlemen, on Saturday night, the 3l8t of May, M:r. Beecher having confronted the situa- tion which Mr. Tilton said was to be secured by his print- ing something, and having drawn out the strange threat that if he, ]Mr. Beecher, published anything that indicated that the policy of silence had grown out of regard for others and was now ended, and the proposition to the public of Mr. Beecher, " Now, I am a man, free of all in- terests so dear to me, so dear to society, so dear to the world," Mr. Tilton at once saw that there was fiot any necessity for his publishmg anything, and said, if Mr. Beecher would publish something that would be enough ; and the miuimum of it was that, if he would publish something that would put a correct and truthful view upon the matter, that Mr. Tilton was not to be regarded in the matter of these slanders that had now become published, and of the con- cession and settlement of them of the " Tripartite Agree- ment," as necessarily the person that had done an injury and been forgiven, and have the thing rightly put, why Mr. Moulton thought that would do. But, that was not settled Sunday night ; and finally the adjustment of the publication on the forenoon of Monday, the 2d of June ; and on that Sunday there passed a letter from Mr. Beec^ier to Mr. Moulton, and a reply from Mr. Moulton, both letters undoubtedly of very great significance, and they follow after the parting on Saturday night in which Mr. Beecher had said, " I am going to meet this matter in this way," and the interview of conatei^nation between Mr. Moulton and Mr. Tilton from that announcement. Consternation, I say, because it was a termination of this unilateral policy of silence, a putting of an end to a secret and malicious circulation of slanders, while an honorable and upright man's mouth was closed even against confidence with anybody else but themselves; and Mr. Beecher writes this letter, in regard to which— although I understand from public comments, and it may be expected that it will still be insisted upon— may be still insisted upon before you, that it is a letter carrying F ME. EVAETS. 793 some evidence of guilt— a letter which, with the answer of Mr. Moulton to it, written then immediately and sent, utterly precludes any idea that there was in the common consciousness of those two men~Moulton and Beecher— any other state of facts, any other situation or occasion of chagrin, mortification, self-reproach on the part of Mr. Beecher, than what, in every man's mind that is worthy to be called a man, would arise upon the situation and the truth as Mr. Beecher then conceived it to be, and as he has re- presented to you that he then conceived it to be. Accept the situation of Mr. Beecher's sentiments concerning his responsibility, his association, his share in the troubles and misfortunes of this family, and all you need is to give him credit for being a gentleman, a man of honor, a Christian, and affected with right sentiments as to his high calling, his great responsibility for the mainteniSnce of a proper relation in the families of his parish, and of himself in particular in his special attitude toward Mi*. Tilton, Mrs. Tilton, and their family— all you need is to concede the one situation of facts as Mr. Beecher then conceived them, and to concede right feeling, proper character, just sentiments of a man of honor and of pure life, and you fill out every word in these letters with —I will not say a justification of them, but with an appreciative applause of them as suitable to the situation as he admits it, and to the sentiments that he ought to have felt. I have always wanted to have Mr. Beecher tried outside of any special circumstance of his position. I have desired to strip him as a defendant from any other attitude for your construction than what belongs to him as a man, standing on the same level with all of us ; but by saying that, I do not mean to say that he should be judged as a brute, as a profligate, as a selfish, sordid character that cares nothing for anybody )ut liliuself ; I mean that he shall be judi^cd as .i uike-menti of the fact. I know that if this matter is brought our we all know the facts are, you can stand it, and stand ro-mor- Tow as you stand to-day. But he says : You can stand if the whole case was iMi'tlished to- morrow, and in my opinion it shows a selrisii faith in God to — [and then he stops and he begins .i^ain.] My Dear Fiiend : Your letter makes this fir st Sabbath of Summer dark and cold like a ^ault. >'r MR. EYAEIS. 795 He has a little rhetoric inst-ead of starting right off at the substance of the thing : You have never inspired me with courage or hope, and if I had listened to you alone my hands would have dropped helpless long ago. Yes, they would have dropped helpless long ago if Mr. Beecher's wishes, il his desires, if his conceptions of deal- tug with this matter had been adopted. Moulton's hands would have dropped helpless long ago, and tliey never would have got into Mr. Beecher's pockets. [La ighter.] Ah, what a wretched exhibition and play upon the great heart and the noble nature of an honest man I And ho-w there is disclosed here that there has been no policy of sUence, and no disposition to cover things on Mr. Beech- er's part. It was the keeping open of slander and the indefiniteness of imputation that kept aUve the machme- ry of silence accompanied with the enginery of tale- bearing. You do not begin, to be in the danger to-day that has faced you manj- times before. WeU, I think that ZMr. Beecher was clearly in a shape then of getting out of aU danger. If you only look it square in the eyes It will cower and slink away again. The danger was that TUton was going to publish a card. He did look it square in the eyes and said to Mr. TUton : " Publish, publish ; and then we will have the whole matter published, and we will have your false ac- cusation, and the dilapidated morality which you have infiLsed into your family." " Look it square in the eyes ; it will cower and slink away again." He had looked it square in the eyes the night before and it had cowered and slunk away, and this was Moulton's mode of telling him thaf fact : You know that I have never been in sympathy wT.th, Init that I absolutely abhor the unmanly mood out of which yoiir letter of this morning came. Was it an unmanly mood to say he was going to pub- lish the whole truth, to say that the anguish it would in- - flict upon himself and upon others he was going to bear, and that he was going to appear at the judgment seat with rest and triumph ? Does that mean suicide ? Is that the way a man affronts by taking his exit from the world in defiance of the wiU of God I Ah, no. But the mood was this, this oppression, this disaster, this peace, is the passing away of earth and the final rest of heaven. This mood is a reservoir of mildew. You can stand if the icTioU case were published to-morrow. " Whole case " underscored by Moulton. Yes; that ia exactly what Mr. Beecher was going to stand. Tilton wanted to publish a piece-meal paper for insinuation and for comment ; and Beecher's remedy was the whole case. In my opinion, it shows only a selfish faith in God to go whining into Heaven if you could, with the truth that you are not courageous enough with God's help and faith in God to try to live on eai-th. "Live on earth," is it? "Truth"— well, "with the truth that you are not courageous enough to try to liv* 796 TaE TILTO^-BEECHEB TRIAL. on earth !" Well, tliat is bad rlietoric ; but still, it lias some meaning, doubtless. You know that I love you ; and because I do I shall try, and try, and try, as in the past. You are mistaken when you say that Theodore charges you as making him appear as one graciously pardoned by you. He said that the form in which it was published in some of the papers made it so appear, and it was fi'om this that he asked re- lief. Just as it was about the Bacon letter, that the comments that the papers made touched this thin-skinned man so that the man ruined his wife and family. I don't think it impossible to frame a letter which will cover the case. May God bless you ; I know he will pro- tect you. ME. BEECHER'S LETTER TO THE EDITOR OF THE EAGLE. Well, now, gentlemen, if anybody can find evidence of a guilty appreciation of the relation of Mr. Beecher and the family of Mr. Tilton in any other sense than that which Mr. Beecher has always admitted on the stand in his statements to the jury and otherwise . Let us see— Mr. Beecher made no answer to this letter of Moulton— he left the thing for them to settle ; and the -way that that night— Sunday night— they proposed to set- tle it by a card suggested, which Mr. Beecher took home with him that night, and which, with such altera- tions as he made in consultation with Mr. Kinsella the next forenoon or Monday, was actually published. I ^ve you now the publication on Mr. Beecher's part that took the place of the necessity of Mr. Tilton's publication when Mr. Tilton found that that was to put an end to the property he had in unmeasured and undefined imputa- tion with the public. " Dear Kinsella " [this is proposed for Mr. Beecher] : * I have maintained sUence under the continual slanders that have for some time followed me. I do not now pro- pose to defend myself. The recent publication of a doc- ument which bears my name among others was made without consultation with either Theodore Tilton or my- self or our authorization. If that document should lead the public to regard Mr. Tilton as the author of the cal- umnies to which it alhidedv or any other slander against me, it will do him great uajustice. Mr. Tilton's course toward me has been that of a man of honor and in- tegrity. Mr. Abbott— That is Mr. Tilton's proposed card. Mr. Evarts— I said so ; that is what he proposed, and you will see whenever Mr. Tiltou proposes anything, either beginning, middle, or end, there will be some cer- tificate to his honor. [Laughter.] Mr. Beecher did n't publish any such card. And now I read you from the newspaper in evidence what he did publish. It is in the body of an editorial in the morning edition, printed at 12 o'clock — 1 o'clock — of The Broolzlipi Eagle. Mr. Morris— Two o'clock. Mr. Evarts— Printed at 2 o'clock— that is, published at 2 o'clock ; issued at 2. Mr. Abbott— Yea, Mr. Evarts— Issued at 2 o'clock ; but th« editorials, &c., are written and set up in good season for the inside page. In a recent interview between the editor of The Eagle and the Rev. Mr. Beecher, the latter gentleman took occasion to regret, etc. In vindication of Mr. Tilton, and in confirmation of our statement of Mr. Beecher's views, we publish the following note, received this morning, from the pastor of Plymouth Church: "I have main- tained silence respecting the slanders which have for some time past followed me." He takes the first sentence Mr. Tilton had proposed to him to say, " I do not now propose to defend myself." That Mr. Beecher does not say. He omits it ; he sub- stitutes : I should not speak now but for the sake of relieving another of unjust imputation. The document which was recently published, bearing my name, with others, was published without consultation either with me, or with Mr. Tilton, nor with any authorization from us. That is a simple statement in fact, and follows in sub- stance, though not in actual words, what is contained in the proposed card. If that document should lead the public to regard Mr. Tilton as the author of the calumnies to which it alludes it wiU do him great injustice. But Mr. Tilton had proposed that he should say : If that document should lead the public to regard Mr. Tilton as the author of the calumnies to which it alludes, or any other slander against me " —and that, " or any other slander against me," Mr, Beecher does not certify to. He says, " If reading that * Tripartite Agreement ' makes you think that Tilton is the author of Bowen's slanders against me it will do him great injustice." But Tilton wanted a certificate from Mr. Beecher that he, Tilton, had not uttered any other slanders against him, and that Mr. Beecher refuses. I am unwilliug that he should even seem to be respon- sible for injurious statements whose force was derived wholly from others. That is, that he should be held responsible for tha Bowen slanders. And Mr. Beecher omitted this certifi- cate : Mr. Tilton's course toward me has been that of a man of honor and integrity. And yet Mr. TUton had to be satisfied, because he had to take that alternative or the alternative of the ex- posure of the whole situation and of his complicity in the movements and operations, which to be sure Mr. Beecher knew but.little of, but which Mr. Tilton and Mr. Moulton knew 'a great deal of, and knew that au investigation such as we have had here would expose. MR. BEECHER'S STATEMENT TO THE COM- MITTEE. Now, gentlemen, I will read you the state- ment that Mr. Beecher solemnly described then in June, 187.J, as to be iirepared by him, and then in July, 1874, as to be prepared by him that would bear the light of the Judgment Day, and which, because air. BeeoUer suuAiiya UP by me, evarts. 797 refused all efforts in 1874 to have any further ^^uppres- sion against an absolute investigation and publication, he did pr«ipare. And you, gentlemen, are to judge upon the evidence of this cause whether this is not such a state- ment as will bear the Judgment Day and scrutiny of the All-Seeing God, if it is not a statement that would bear to be the confession in the closet. And having heard it, you wiU then determine whether you have any difficulty in assigning to these various letters of Mr. Beecher that are introduced as evidences of guilt any other possible meaning than the overflow of his feelings at finding him- self responsible to the degree of responsibility that he ex- presses in this statement for the Judgment Day. WEDifESDAY, July 15, 1874. Deab Beethken : When at length the time came that I could break the long silence of four years, I thought it proper, and in accordance with all the principles which Plymouth Church has defended, that I should speak to you, and through you to the Church, the only ecclesias- tical tribunal whose authority I recognize as binding upon me. I asked the appointment of a large committee of able and impartial men, because though my own statement was to be in my judgment the chief element, yet there were many incidental and collateral questions which I desired to have investigated and fijially deter- mined. I do not propose to enter upon the details of a history running through four years. I shall state the facts which concern the original troubles, and leave alone the tangled seciuences. You may remember that the Committee had asked from the clergyman, as a preliminary basis of their Inquiries into the tangled sequences, or whatever else might be forced upon their notice, a statement from him upon the simple point of what in truth and in fact were the relations between him and Mrs. Tilton, and this paper is confined to that. My acquaintance with Mrs. Elizabeth Tilton dates ! from her childhood ; my intimacy in her family froni i about 1862-3. Her nature was strongly devotional. She I had a genius of religious sentiment. Had she lived m j other days, and in the Catholic Church, she has always [ seemed to me to be one of those who would have ' inspirations and ecstatic visions. My interest in her increased and she deserved the respectful afi'ection which she won from me. I loved her as one would his own chUd. She had grown up under my teaching, she had never known any other religious teacher, and she had associated with my name, and iUumined it by her imag- ination, whatever was worthy of affection and trust. Nor did I dream for a long time that in such a gentle and ap- preciative nature my admiration might beget an enthu- siasm which would mar the entii-ety of the love which a wife should cherish for her husband. It was at length the sight of the imhappiness disclosed in the family and the indignant reproaches of the husband, that aroused in me the fuU sense of the wrong done, in winning any part of that affection which belonged to her hoiisehold. 1 Leaving to others the unwelcome task of refined moral criticism upon this gentle, pure-minded woman, it is for me explicitly to defend her from any charge of criminal- ity of conduct, and to dissipate even the shadow of a re- proach upon her untempted honor, and to join with her husband, who has again and again, with loyal aftection, and with justice, defended the personal purity of his wife. Although the sincere affection which grew up in me for Mrs. Tilton was honorable m intent. I none the less condemn myself with unsparing "severity for bringing upon the most sacred of human institutions— the house- hold—great harm and distress, which have since flowed like a river. I do not measure the blame by a light standard. That our relations were not criminal in the ordinary and legal sense of the term does not exonerate me from blame, nor does it re- lieve me of the sharpest pangs of sorrow. My age, my experience, my knowledge of her sensitive nature, should have been a shield to her. When the full realization broke upon me of a household deeply wounded by my imprudence, of possible and threatened divisions and scatterings, and the long train of evUs that might befall father, mother, and the beauti- ful group of children, and that, instead of happiness, I had brought upon two persons, with whom I had been on the most affectionate relations, a ton-eut of misery whose influence might widen indefinitely— my distress passed all bounds. To a mutual friend I poui-ed out my soul like water. I did not measure words. I took uix)n myself immeasurable blame. I wished him to convey to Mr. Tilton, in language overcharged with feeling, my profoimd regrets, and apologies. The apology was accepted, a reconciliation was made, and kind social relations were for a time continued— and would have continued until this day, had not malign external influences interfered, in various unlooked-for ways, and spread abroad exaggerations, perversions, and falsehoods, whose dii'ect evil was aimed at me, but whose indirect influence was to place Mr. Til- ton in a false position, as one attacking me, rather than as one injured by me. Nor can any one who only looks upon affairs at the present stage of development be in a situation to judge of the motives and influences which have acted at vari- ous stages of a history, essentially private and domestic, and which, for the sake of society, of the family, of child- hood and of womanhood, should have had the i>rivilege of seclusion, which those most injured most earnestly sought. The policy of silence has failed. But it was the right one, and ought to have succeeded. I was called, at the earliest moment in this history, to determine my duty in other relations. I was pastor of a large church, the editor of a religious journal, and waa engaged in important literary enterprises, besides the multifarious public and private duties of a miscellaneous kind, not strictly clerical, which fall upon clergymen in our day. Profoundly suffering, it would have been an unspeak- able relief if I could have laid down my burdens. It waa not honorable or right to others to seek personal relief at their expense. I therefore determined to accept my sorrow as a schoolmaster sent of God, and to let no one know that I carried burdens, but to rise to every emergency, not only, but to grow stronger by the severe discipline laid upon me. It was in this mood that I wrote the " Life of Christ," which may well be called " Benoni "—child of my sor- row. I was led by my suttering to a profounder sense of moral evil, to a pity and sympathy for those doing wrong that I had never before kuown. The divine na- tm-e, in its compassion and in its healing power, which before was only as a star, has grown to the orb of a sun. And in no part of my life has my ministry sprung from so profound a sense of God's merej', nor gone forth with such an unspeaka'ble compassion tor the sorrowing, struggling human kind. It does not berit me to sneak of my own •i\-ork. rT: fa 798 THE TILTOI^-BEECHEB TRIAL. rigM to explain wliy I continued it under circumstances of very great trouble. I did not think tliat because I bad done wrong I ougbt not to do riglit. I ought also, solemnly and gratefully, to bear witness to the mercy of God. Every hour of anguish has opened at length into peace. The strife of tongues, the sorrow for others, the suffering for myself, have brought to me the God of all consolation, and he has, from time to time, ministered a peace which passeth all understanding. In conclusion, I am yet in vigor of health, with powers unimpaired. I have no use for myself, except to labor for the best interests of my country and my kind. If it please God, I shall make the Autuirn of my life as ener- getic as my earlier years. But in what fields, or through what channels, I leave to the Divine Providence. And Divine Providence has cared and will care for the fields and the channels in which he shall fill out the life tha t thus far is distinguished from other men's life only b.y its superiority, and never more than by its superiority in dealing with this sorrow, this fault, this misery, this self-reproach, which, while it would have crushed most innocent men in the calamity of public depreciation and assault, and which, if there had been one sense of con- scious guilt in the view that is sought to be impressed upon you, would have crushed this defendant or any one else, but which he met with that noble, faithful senti- ment to the Great Master of his life, " I did not find any warrant in the fact that I had done wrong, that I should not do right." Now, gentlemen, I do not need to criticise the language of any particular letter ; I have laid before you in the proof, the course, the conduct, the conscioiisness, and the sentiments that followed from that course, that con- duct, and that consciousness. If you believe that char- acter and life are not as great, as truthful a product as the looms of Time ever wove, you may think that this vile patch of calumny represents a part of the woven tapestry of Hemy Ward Beecher's life ; but you know, y«mknow, you know ( addressing individual jurymen], and I know that if there is anything in the world that transcends all truth as a product of this sublunary life, it is the truth of action, of conduct, of the very life itself that men live, and when you are asked to impose these years of wickedness, of treachery, of baseness, of misery, of trampling upon the feelings of others, defying the law of Sinai, and taking in vain all the solemnities of our common religion— when you are asked to impose five or six years of that wicked life upon the character of Henry Ward Beeeher, you are asked for a credulty that no evidence except of the senses could ever for a mo- ment force into the mind of an intelligent and upright MRS. MOULTON'S TESTIMONY. Now it is said that on Monday morning, when all this thing is over, there occurred an interview be- tween Mr. Beeeher and Mrs. Moulton, whose external circumstances and limits are very exactly defined. I am Bui-e I should be very glad to leave the matter of this lady's testimony, its explanations, charitable or severe, to the general situation of a wife adduced as a witness in a husband's behalf, and in great part that does explain the whole ; but yet, I am reauired to search this testimony itself and expose to you the internal traits of it, which would rob it of all credit, and to show you the external circumstances that make its occurrence impossible. Now, I am sure everybody would have been glad to have welcomed this new witness, a woman, with the same hearty acceptance and the same confident reliance with which we all met the frank, intelligent, scrupulously upright testimony of Mrs. Ovington, a witness in whose face you saw absolute frankness, and in every word of whose testimony you heard the careful ap- preciation of the solemnities of truth, and who, besides this noble testimony to the character of her evidence, carries off the palm of having overpowered the lawyer by a single phrase, and having won a concession that we tried and practiced advocates and cross-examiners do not often make to a witness— having obtained the triumph of making him lose his temper and give her an opportunity of more radiantly presenting hers. Now, Mrs. Moulton comes here with closely retentive lips and furtively glancing eyes, and she has many things not to say, and she has more things to say, I think, than are to be easily explained, except by the ready substitution, in remote occurrences, of images for facts. But she comes here with an interview on Mon- day, and without, apparently, the least notion on her part, or upon the part of the counsel who called her, that the situation of Monday had entirely been cleared from the fears, anxieties, solici- tudes, that occupied Saturday and Sunday, and without the least appreciation of the fact, that the foe had been fronted, and looked in the eyes by Mr. Beeeher, and that he had slunk and cowered, as Moulton said he would, and that this simple, bold proposition of Mr. Beeeher was master of the whole affair, and all that had happened was that what had been previously arranged and completed, except as to the mere phrase of the letter, which was finally composed between Mr. Kinsella and Mr. Beeeher through the forenoon of Monday— that excepting that, all solici- tudes were gone, all notions of perplexity or trouble were dispelled, and all there was present in Mr. Beecher's mind or in the mind of his family was that the3' were to get their pleasant excuiv sion to Peekskill and their fortnight's vacation in Boston and its vicinity. But such are the inexorable exactions of testimony that if you are going to give an interview and fill it with a long series of conversations and implied or conjectural confessions, some time and some place must be assigned for it, and so, in seeming forgetfulness of the considerations I have mentioned, this first Monday of June was poimced upon as ap- parently an unoccupied day, one where thert SUMMING UF 1 might be an opportunity for what confessedly never happened but once, a visit made by Mr. Beeoher to Mrs. Moulton alone, and for her own sake, and a visit long enough to bring in a series of conversations to which there could be imputed the meaning of implied confes- sions, by the way they talked together. So that day was fixed upon. Now, you will notice that you have sub- gtantially at the outset, an admission from this lady that during the previous two years and upward of the visits of Mr. Beeoher to that house, he had never made her the confidante of any confession, until that 2d of June, 1873, and why imder heaven he should begin then, nobody can understand. Why should he be- gin with a person that he understood knew the facts of his case already, unless it was for the pleasnre of rolling this subject of adultery as a sweet morsel under her tongue and his ] She says to you that, either in the Spring or the Fall of 1871, this very decor- ous and proper conversation • had occurred between Mr. Beecher and herself : that, meeting her one morning, I think it was in the parlor, before seeing her husband (which was the object of his errand), he said, when she shook hands with him, kindly : " Do you know of this great sorrow of my life 1" Well, that is a very mild form to describe seduction and adultery. She said she did. Then Mr. Beecher says to her, " Frank has told you the facts, then V Now, Mr. Beecher knew what he meant by tJie facts, and she said Frank had told her the facts, and Mr. Beecher therefore supiiosed that Frank had told her the facts as Mr. Beecher knew them, and as Frank knew them ; and I suppose he had, though I am not quite sure of the construction that Mr. Moulton would put upon human conduct in a man so entirely different from him- self, as Mr. Beecher was. Now, you will observe how that interview carries no impression in the least of Mr. Beecher's imagining that Mrs. Moulton ever knew or had heard of any other than the facts in the case of the great sorrow in which he, Mr. Beecher, had become In- volved by this mischief in the family of Mr. TUton, growing up as I have stated, and as has been exposed to you, and as is avowed in the paper that was prepared to bear the light of the Judgment Day." ME. BEECHEE'S ALIBI. From that time onward until June, 1873, there is not any profession or pretense that Mr. Beecher sought, or that Mrs. Moulton received, any statement at all, in the way of conversation or otherwise, that was in the nature of confession, express or implied, or that any conversation was assumed as exist- ing except what might be described as his " great sorrow," and the facts as Mr. Beecher conceived them to be. Now, you will see that a great many things may be said in the way of conversation be- tween people, one of whom, years afterwards, under- r MB. EVAET8.. 799 takes to recollect what was said and to inrpute to words, not remembered of course, for the moment a witness says he remembers every word in a conversation ot which no memorandum was made and which was not treasured up you discredit him— to im- pute to the conversatioa a meaning, made out, not of what the party talking said, but of what the party hearing imagined or supposed, and what her mind accepted as the basis of the conversation, and if you accept that kind of testimony you are involved at once in the midst of error. In the case of Derby agt Derby, to which I have already referred, so great an au- thority as Chancellor Zabriskie says : The whole efi'ect of the testimony of this witness de- pends upon her recollecting the words used by the de- fendant. If she afterward, from talking with Derby and others, drew a conclusion as to what the affair was, she would naturally construe this conversation to support it, and, in fault of recollecting the words, would, and might honestly, use such as would express that meaning. Now, then, this lady coming, as she said, after the re- sentments awakened against Mr. Beecher and in her hus- band's behalf by the declared hostilities of 1874, under- takes in 1875 to give you an interview. In the first place, gentlemen, it is proved beyond dispute, I think, that no interview occurred between Mrs. Moulton and Mr. Beecher on the 2d day of June — certainly no inter- view of the dimensions, the beginning and the end, that she assigns to it, and there is nothing firmer in her testimony than her assurance that it was an interview begun after 9 o'clock, lasting three or four hours, and ending at the hour of lunch ; that point is made firm by her recollection that her own usual hour of lunch had arrived, and that Mr. Beecher on leav- ing said : " Mother [that is his wife | will expect me at lunch," and that he could not stay and lunch with her. So, too, we have an idea that this occurred surely after she had received the note on Sunday, and a recollection that it occurred Just before another interview, when Mr. Beecher came back, as he had led her to suppose he would, to bring her some mementoes, you remember before he finally took poison. So, that you have got fixed. This is the occasion, the only visit to herself alone, and purposed, and there never was another, assigned that length of time to draw out these long conversations, ar- guments, reproof, advice, confession, expostulation ; and we find that the evidence shows that Mr. Beecher went in the 2 o'clock train to Peekskill, and therefore he was not here at 2 o'clock ; that he must have left here at 12 o'clock, to have lunched and taken the 2 o'clock train ; and so there go two hours of this lady's limit. Then you have the evidence of Mr. Cleveland that Mr. Beecher was over in New- York from 10^ to settle up the aflairs of his newspaper for his expected prolonged absence, which would bring it to 10 o'clock on leaving this side ; and then his own statement that he was not out of the house, but was 800 THl^ TILTON-B occupied all tliat morniiig witli Mr. Kinsella in deliberations about tMs card ; then tlie date, and Mr. Kinsella's statement tliat I liave read to yon, in the newspaper, to that effect, in the publication itself, as a part of the publication that forenoon after conning from Mr. Beeeher ; that a telegram was sent off at half -past 8 ; that there were no servants in the house, and that there- fore Mrs. Beeeher took the telegraphic message to the office, Mr. Beeeher remaining in the house— all that makes up a perfect run of the occupations of Mr. Beeeher himself, and an actual alihi. But when you come to look at the situation you will see that the moral alibi is even more complete. There was no place or chance for the feelings or for a resort to their expression on that Monday morning in the vein and tone that Mrs. Moulton portrays them ; and then when I come to show you her evidence you will see that, upon her own showing, it is impossible that her narrative of the time can be correct by its own reference to things as conjec- tural and future that had already occurred. Now, gentlemen, against this aliU the only evidence adduced is, first, Mrs. Eddy, the very respectable daughter of our most excellent frientt, Judge Sutherland of New- York, and I have no doubt the excellent wife of a very respect- able bookkeeper in the employment of the Eobinsons. But it is hard on Mrs. Moulton that the only possible wit- ness to sustain her interview with Mr. Beeeher has to part with three hom-s of it to start with. Mr. Beeeher was coming away at an hour quite early in the morning, as she says, when she went around to see her friend, according to her custom ; and it could not have been later than 11 o'clock, upon any fair estimate of her testimony, that Mr. Beeeher had got through with that interview. Then, we have another witness who un- dertakes to give you an impression, at least, of a possibility of Mr. Beeeher having gone to Mr. Moulton's house on Monday morning ; I mean this young Mr. Janes, who re- members, as he thinks, that somewhere about or after 9 o'clock, as he was going his usual route to take a ferry- boat—an every-day occurrence— to go to his business in New- York, he saw the side of Mr. Beecher's face ; and though they passed one another at right angles, and were never in any other attitude while near to one another than that, and although Mr. Janes does not seeaa to have stopped or followed Mr. Beeeher, but kept right on to the descent by those cavernous stairs, that nevertheless he did have time to slow (as they say of a steamboat) and to look around ; and, seeing around the coiner or through the walls, that Mr. Beeeher was going to Remsen-st ! I don't think that Mr. Janes really exhibits any of that certainty as to his movements and examination before his descent by those stairs that were to hide htm from the possibility otf looking back, even of that wariness with which a woodchuck always looks around before he pops Into his hole. Now, I don't think Mr. Janc^ EECHEB TRIAL. came here for anything but to advertise himself and the Butler Health-Lift Cure, and Mr. Beeeher as a patron of it. And certainly all Christendom knows those facts, be- cause Mr. Janes (not an ill-meanmg young man), when put to the point, has no means of association except that the 2d of June was his wedding day, and that he, in pur- sjiit of a celebration of it. like John Gilpin : " Although he on pleasure bent, Was of a frugal miud," and he lengthened his day of labor, as I understand It, in order to make the celebration satisfactory to himself and his wife. He went over an hour sooner to New-York, and only got away half an hour earlier. Well, now, the point was this (as you saw at once), that there was a week there ; that he had some occasion in his business, runmng from about the 29th of May (I think, he says, on for a week), to go over to New-York earlier than usual ; and that on some one of those mornings he saw Mr. Beeeher. Well, now, Mr. Beeeher did go around to Mr. Moulton's on Saturday morning, as everybody knows, as Mr. Moul- ton says, and as he says, and about this time. So, I don't think we can hang much on Janes. Well, tl»tn, Mrs.. Eddy, though sm^e that some day or other, at 11 o'clock about, she met Mr. Beeeher coming out of the Moulton mansion, has no mode whatever of fixing the 2d of June ; and so declares to you. So that you will perceive the external alibi is wholly unshaken by these witnesses. Now you will observe that on Saturday Mr. Beeeher went to the Moulton house about nine or half -past nine, or somewhere about that— had the interview with Mr, Moulton— occupied with him— [To Mr. Abbott]— Was Mr. Tilton there? Mr. Abbott— Mr. TUton was down stairs. Mr. Evarts- Mr. Tilton was down stairs when they had this talk about the threatened publication, though Mrs. Moulton formed no part or party in that conversatiou. Yet, the external facts of going to the house and coming away would satisfy Mr. Janes and Mrs. Eddy ; and, fot aught we know, that may have been the day or any other day, for there were frequent visits to that house by Mr. Beeeher. THE INTEEVIEW OF JUNE 2. Now, gentlemen, in regard to Mrs. Moulton's testimony (which I must be pretty brief with), she gives you to understand that the nature of this interview was of this kind : This is probably my last convewiation with you. I feci that if Mr, Tilton publishes my letter of apology it is useless for me to try any longer to live this down. Well, that was not the situation on Monday. Mr, Til- ton had withdrawn from the publication of the " Letter of Apology" when he was advised by Mr. Beeeher, through Mr. Moulton, "the moment you do that there is an end of the policy of silence, and I am going to have the whole truth." So that had disappeared, and there Us * rv," first moral alibi that ou «r of this lady's own mouth SUMMING UP BY MR. EVARTS. 801 displaces the occasion of any possible future talk of ttie tind tliat she narrates. Then this lady says : There is something better for you to do than that. You miglit as well go out of life. It is useless trying to live it down. I think she seems to have taken it as a deliberate threat of suicide, in that mild form of statement that " it would be useless to live it down." I think that would be a verj- cowardly thing for you to do. Go down to your church and confess your crime. They will forgive you. Well, now, gentlemen, if the crime, as this phrase in- terposed into a conversation where it never occurred— if the crime was of the nature that Mr. Beecher has dis- closed (and that you must find upon irrefragable ev^ denceis the only fault he committed), you can under* Btand how a lady might say to Mr. Beecher at some con- versation or other exactly what her husband had said in writing on the 1st of June : " If the whole case is made known you can stand." Bring out the pub- licity 1 Why, that is the very thing that Mr. Beecher had threatened to do on Saturday night ; and that was a bombshell in the camp of Messrs. Tilton and Moulton. " Well, well," he says ; " no, no ; it would make trouble- could not stand it." " Well," she says, " you could write for your paper ; you could go to your farm and write." And when Mr. Beecher deprecates that, and says, " No ; my position is that of a spiritual and moral teacher ; if I can no longer hold that position, then there is nothing left for me." Now, he comes out with a distinct an- nouncement ; I am resolved to take my life ; I have a powder at home on my library table, which I have prepared, which I shall take, and I shall sink quietly off as if going to sleep, without a struggle. I have not any desire to live, I have nothing to live for ; in fact I pray for death as a happy release from ail my trials and troubles. Did he pray for a release, by his own hand to commit the final crime of impiety to God and of cruelty to his family ? "And I feel that if I publish now a card in TJie Eagle "—if I publish now a card in The Eagle it will only be a temporary release ;" and the cferd was set up and in print already ! It was not a future publication that could be made the subject of conversation in the forenoon of the 2d of Jvme. " Well, I felt very much grieved ; begged him to go down to the churclj." And now, see how this lady encouraged this clergyman : " I said, ' Mr. Moulton will still stand by you; and, no matter what comes to you, I will always be your fiiend ; and I ata convinced that the only way out of this trouble for you is by telling the truth." Well, now, that is rather sensible. If the truth was as It is, and she understood it to be so, you might talk in that way. 1 think there is a little inconsistency in this lady's ideas as she expounds them lierself. Her reason ing is a little bad, and gets mixed before we get through the interview, because here she eays to him : " The church will stand by you, and, if they don't, I will— I approve of you ; you may count on that ; I will stick to you anyhow." [Laughter.] And, then, afterwards, she says : " Well, now, Mr. Beecher, it may be that all the rest of your church will stand by you, as I have said they would, but as for me I cannot. You are like an open grave ito me. I never see you or think of you without hori'ors and terrors and disquietude t)f mind; I cannot come there ; I cannot take the communion ; I have lost my faith in all men, because I have lost it in you." Now, I am afraid that this lady does not accurately remember the course of reasoning that she pursued throu^fh those long hot hours of June, with this gentleman who was on his way to Peekskill. Then, in another form, she says : " Well, Mr. Beechdi-, the only way you can cover this matter, is to go and make con- fession of it." Well, that is rather a mixed expres- sion. The only way you can cover your fault is by going and proclaiming it, and don't commit suicide ; better confess, as if everybody didn't know, at least since Mr. Webster said in the famous White trial : " For guilt there are no alternatives but suicide or con- fession, and suicide is confession." The only way suicide could escape the construction of confession, and of the most enormous guilt, burying Mr. Beecher's family and church and everybody else in terror and confusion would have been by a resort to this subtile poison which, if unmolested by the children, would be always accessible to him, that he might seem to have died a natural death ; but to guard against that saving of his reputation, and the feelings of his family, he went around to tell Mrs. Moulton that he was going to take the powder and kill himself from his grief at his sins. Well, a. nice witness Mrs. Moulton would have made at the Coroner's inquest. [Laughter.] Gentlemen, there is but one inscription suitable to the portals of this evidence, as you are asked to believe it, pot only from this witness, but from Mr. Tilton and other witnesses of the plaintiff, except this : " All ye who enter here leave common sense behind," and, if you will only do that, then you wUl get through any amount of oral statements of long-past interviews now brought out in this confused manner. Well, I won't say any more about this interview. MRS. MOTJLTON'S CONVERSATIONS HELD UNDER A MISAPPREHENSION. Now, there is one very curious thing about this. " Now, if you have only a mind to take this case into your own hand you can settle it by confession. Your people will stand by you. Tliey believe in yon. TLey will forgive this one crime that you say you have committed "—she didn't feel entirely sure, you know, that he had—" which you say you have sincerely re- pented for, and you believe you have been forgiven, and you feel that you are better able now than ever before to 803 TEE TlLrON'B do great good in tMa world if you can only be allowed to go down to the end of your life without all the particulars of this case being made known." Then he was to go down and confess without stating the facts. Well, gentleman, I don't know that I can insist upon asking your atten- tion, in the brief period in which I can be allowed or tol- erated in trespassing upon your patience beyond the hour, but you will find that in all these random conversa- tiona this lady tells you that Mr. Beecher never told her the facts of the case. She was talking about some facts in her mind, and Mr. Beecher naturally supposed they were the same facts that were in his mind, and it is odd enough. Now, in all these con- versations there is no word that professes to be a state- ment of any particular form or degree of crime except one, and that don't come out of Mr. Beecher's mouth, but out of this lady's, and I ask your attention particularly to that. "I don't see," she said to Mr. Beecher, " how you can stand la your pulpit and preach to the young men against the sin of adultery when you are implicated in it so deeply yourself." Woll, now, gentlemen, you see she don't say to him, " You have been guilty of adultery with Mrs. TUton." She says: ^' How can you preach to these yoimg men against these external sins, when, according to your own showing, you have been interfering with the affections of wife and husband, and have produced this misery ?" or, tf she accepted what she no doubt had heard of, the wife's accusation of Mr, Beecher— if she had accepted that as being a truthful charge, to -wit, that Mr. Beecher had invited a wife to commit adultery with him, that would sustain every word of what Mrs. Moulton puts into her own mouth on the subject of adultery : " I don't see how you can stand in your pulpit and preach to young men against the sin of adultery when you are implicated In it yourself, to the extent of having tried to get a woman to commit adultery with you and not succeeded." So, here, as everywhere else, when you undertake to give definite form and pressure to these couversations, from whatever mouth they are rehearsed here, you see a fault and defect which belongs to anything like precision and definiteness and weight and force. MRS. TiLTON ADVISED BY MKS. MOULTON. Now, there are in regard to tliis lady's testi- mony but two other matters to which I wish to direct your attention, though a fuller exposition would more fuUy satisfy my purpose. One is a very peculiar inter- view that she says she had with Mrs. TiLton, In which, as you remember, at a period in 1873, 1 think it is; — Mr. Abbott— In the Fall of 1873. Mr. Evarts— In the Fall of 1873, when there were in- quiries about an investigation into Mr. Tilton by the Ohurch that would bring up this matter, and Mrs. Moul- ton had an idea that her husband and Mr. TUton Th^fJUEE TRIAL, were going to betray Mr. Beecher, or, as she does not ad- mit that very word, they were going to make public cer- tain charges against him, and she felt a solicitude to know what must always be a subject of anxious incLUiry as to the purposed conduct of a wife— she wanted to know whether, when the stress came of public investiga- tion, this woman who had accused Mr. Beecher of im- proper proposals, and had retracted that accusation, and had explained her retraction, and had undoubtedly placed herself in this position, she wanted to know when the stress comes of adhering to the truth, " Are you going to stand by Mr. Beecher and tell the truth, or are these men, Mr. Moulton and Mr. Tilton, going to make you take the position that you have once taken of being clay in the hands of the potter and supporting your hus- band ;" and she felt deeply, and she was moved to tears, and she went to bed and to pray, and to urge Mrs. Tilton to stand by Mr. Beecher with the truth, and not to yield to the position of a wife of supporting her husband, and now, that being the motive, that being the occasion, and that being the confession, that that was her purpose, her zeal, her interest, her desire, that Mrs. Tilton in any threatened investigation by the church should stand by Mr. Beecher in the truth, and not be swerved by a wife's presumptive fealty and submission to the interests and will of her husband, she goes down there and she tells you the story, true enough, intelligible enough, honest enough, honor- able enough, if you wiU treat it in that sense, and then 'makes her errand useless by what she would have you think was the result of it, by what was equally useless in its purpose if the truth would not sustain Mr. Beecher. What did she go down to Mrs. Tilton's for in that stress between a wife's duty to her husband and a woman's duty to truth, if she did n't know that standing to the truth on Mrs. Tilton's part would uphold Mr. Beecher ? and when she goes down there she gives you all the color and all the surroimdings of this situation, admits her zeal, admits her purpose, admits her tears, and admits her entreaties, and then she superadds to Mrs. Tilton's statement that she should tell the whole truth, " deny these base charges against Mr. Beecher," and that though it brought her in direct hostility to her husband, which, in a woman's natural reasoning, -vfas a great distrust as well as possibly a lack of fidelity to her husband, yet when the question came between fidelity to a husband's wishes or fidelity to truth, to Mr. Beecher, to the Church, to the interests of religion, she, a wife, might well be excused for opposing her Jiusband and maintaining the proof, and when that manifestly was the whole object, and zeal, and rational explana- tion of Mrs. Moulton's process, she then tells you this impossible story that Mrs. Tilton said to her that she should deny these charges, and her duty to God, to the Church, to the truth would require it, and she would tell a Ue. WeU, now, gemtlemeA, you must not SUMMISG VP BY MR. EVART^. 803 lay aside your conimon sense ; you must not allow tliis ! ■womaai, Mrs. Moulton, under any strange halluciua- tions so to transform and stultify tliat intervlevr as to mate her presence there, her entreaty there, her desire to protect 3Ir. Beecher ai)solutely foolish, and to make Mi-s. Tilton, this excellent, pious -woman, in the stress of her Inquiry as to whether her duty to her hushand should override her duty to truth, to tell Mrs. Moulton she was going to adhere to 3Ir. Beeoher. and not ohey the com- mands of her hushand, and then add, " And it will he all a lie." Well, now, when I read you the passage you will see the opportunity for escape and the opportu- nity for the suhstitution of words. But take it in the sense that the woman tells it, it is utterly absurd, what meant to save Mr. Beecher and meant to tell this Tvoman from the Moulton house, that it would he a lie, that would help Mr. Beeoher with a rengeance. G-oing to brave a husband by tellin.ir the truth against his importunities and his interest and furnish him, in ad- vance, evidence that it was aU a lie. Xow, I don*t pro- fess to fcaow much about the recesses of the female heart — [A juror here suggested to Mr. Evarts that it was after 4 o'clock. Mr. Evarts replied that he knew it was, but he "was compelled to finish Ms argument to-ulght.] Mr. Evarts — I don't profess to know much about the recesses of a woman's heart, but I cannot understand that interview between Mrs. Moulton on Mrs. Tiltcn's version of it, and I i^an understand it if you leave out one interpolation that the woman makes to take off the terrible force against her husband of her visit and this result, if the truth is reported. >row, let me read you. 27ow, all this came out on the cross-examination of Mrs. Moulton by me. Q. Do you remember that interview ? She did. She told it. Q. Do you remember asking her whether she would support her husband in a charge against Mr. Beecher, or whether she would not, and her answer being made to you, that if there ever came a conttoversy she should speak the truth ? A. 2>ro, Sir ; I never remember that. Q. [N'ow, did you ursre her at that interview as to what she should do ? A. I cannot remember that I urged her. I can tell what I said to her. Q. Did you speak to her on the question of which side she should take I A. Yes, Sir. Q. And did you express an opinion as to which side she ought to take ? A. I don't remember that I did. Q. Were you at that interview very much excited and di-tressedl A. I think I was ; yes. Sir. Q. Did you show in your manner great distress 1 A. Yes, Sir. I think I did. Q. And weep ? A. Very likely. Sir. Q. 2sow, did you in that interview express to "her great distress lest Mr. Beecher should be betrayed by Mr. TEton and your husband ? A. Not that he would be be- trayed by them, but that the truth would be known- made public. Q. And by them \ A. Oh 1 yes, by them. So that is a verbal criticism on betray." Now, did you i'a thac int*^r\*iew, expressing that | ! opinion of what Mr. Moulton and Mr. Tilton would do. beg her to stand by Mr. Beecher ] A. So long as she could without sacrificing herselc and the truth, Q. Did you beg her to stand by :Mr. Beecher t A, So long as she could without sacrificing the truth. She did then beg her, and that was the object, to stand by Mr. Beecher and tell the truth. Q. And did she not then tell you that whenever the inquiry came she would tell the truth ? A. Xo, Sir. Q. Did she tell you that she should not tell the truth 1 A. She told me distinctly that she should sacrifice her husband— deny everything for Mr. Beecher. WeU, now, that is all right. That is exactly what Mrs. Moulton, in her knowledge of the truth, wanted to be sure that she was going to deny everything, which would be standing by 31r. Beecher, and not submit to the con- trol of her husband, and then she says this lady told her, in order to rob what she said of any importance, that, under the circumstances, she would be justified in telling a Lie. Q. "2^ow, madam, are you quite sure, in addition to say- ing she would sacrifice her husband and defend Mr, Beecher, that she added she would tell a lie ? A. Yes, Sir; lam. I cannot say as to the words— that she used the word "lie," but she said she would deny everything. And that is exactly what was the truth, and there was the very point, whether she was going to deny or whether she was going to support the charges of the hus- band, ^s'ow, having got that, then I wanted to find out further. Q. But did shf add that she should lie about it ? A. II she didn't use the word lie, she said " falsehood," Q. Did she say that she would tell a falsehood ? A- Yes, Sii- ; one or the other. Q. Did she flatly tell you that she would tell a lie, or a falsehood? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Did you go to your house satisfied that your errand had succeeded? A. I have never felt that any eftbrt of mine has ever been successful. How many sorrows in her memory about this business does that expression cover ? Q. In this business ? A. :yo, Sir ; never any en-and suo- ce>sful in this business. MES. MOULTON CALLS OX MES. WOODHIXL. Xow, gerLtlemen, tkLs lady, Tvhose testimony of the character that I have given to you is, I think, to every candid mind and every intelligent mind, robbed of all value, is placed in this somewhat singular attitude he- fore you. She says to you that this lady, 3Irs. WoodhuU. was a frequent visitor at her house, having been there at leas* a dozen times during the period of these associations. She says— and she volunteered it ; that is, her own counsel brought it out— that she had been as many as three or four times to Mrs. Woodhull's house, and brought her to hers. She then tells you the particulars of three of those visits, and presents thia most exTaordinary s*^atement of the condition of thing?. 1 She says : 804 THE TlLrON'BEECHER TBlAh, I went to that house three times and brought Mrs. Woodhull to mine ! Do you remember of any of them being in the day- time ? No. All may have been in the night ? Yes. What time did you go— what hour did you return % I cannot remember." In each instance she suppresses and puts the best face on what in any disclosure she would have •felt to be uncomfortable In the fact, but it stands thus definitely fixed before you, that three times she went to Mrs. WoodhuU's house and brought that woman in the night time for conference with Mr. Tilton and her husband, lasting, as she says, two or three hours, and whether she (Mrs. Moulton) took Mrs. Woodhull back or not, to her own house, she does not remember. That one of those visits was made with her and Mr. Tilton. in the night season in a close hired car- riage, running from Brooklyn Hights to Thirty-fifth- et., and making a visit in that salon, and a return to- gether in the later hours in the same close carriage. That at another time Mr. Tilton and Mr. Moulton, both being at Mr. Moulton's house, and both in health and strength, sent that woman on the errand away up to Thirty-fiith- st. in a hired carriage to bring Mrs. Woodhull there, and she went and did it, taking a little boy of nine years old for an escort, and on another occasion, under the same behest of these two full-grown men staying at home in Mr. Moulton's house, she went again in the night time to fetch this lady in the night time for another three hours' conference with Mr. TUton and Mr. Moulton, and that she took Mr. Moulton's mothtr as her escort then. Well, now, gentlemen, I don't know what domestic life in this city is in reputable circles, but I can see in that narrative the most abject Bublugation of a wife to a husband, and a most defiant tyranny of a husband over a wife. I need no other evi- dence than that to understand that the relation of a husband and wife In that couple had as- sumed the force and character of master and elave. Figure to yourself, figure to yourself, or yourself, or yourself, a dismissal in the night time in a close carriage of your wife to Mrs. WoodhuU's house to bring her to see you— you in health and strength. I don't know much about the notions on Brooklyn Hights of starting in hired close carriages a married lady In th« company of Mr. Tilton for an errand of that kind at the behest of a hus- band. I know that this plaintiff and his lawyers would give a e:ood deal for a drive in a close carriage in the night time between Mr. Beocher and Mrs. Tilton, up to Mrs. WoodhuU's and back, I was aghast at this exposure, and I placed no misconstruction —I put it entirely upon the coarse and brutal selfish- ness of this man that treated an honest wile In that manner. Then, when I have proved these intimate facts in the family out of the mouth of the -wife, and when T have proved out of the mouth of Mr. Moulton, the husbancli, in the testimony of Mr. Armor, that he would make it hotter than hell for anybody that testified against him, I don't need any further specific facts to lead you to think that the story of Ananias and Sapphira is likely to show itself whenever there comes to be that at- titude that the wife must swear for the husband or swear against him to his ruin, and live with him afterward. I might be satisfied with the generalizations by which our law has covered, as I read to you, this relation of hus- band and wife with the common sense intelligence that the law and the administration of justice never should bi*ing husband and wife into that terrible dilemma of being against husband or against the truth, and when I have shown you, in this particular marriage, the subju- gation of the wife to be an errand-girl in the night time up to Thirty-flfth-st. to bring Mrs. Woodhull for a three hours' conference with these grown men, Mr. Tilton and Mr. Moulton, at her house— a private conference from which she, the wife, was excluded— and when I have shown you the particular disposition of this partic- ular husband to make it hotter than heU for anybody that testifleG against him, I have at once evidenced the wisdom of the law in its generalization, and I have given you the strongest possible instance in the experience of ife for its being the rule, if it never had been before. Now, gentlemen, at the eod 1872 there comes to be, in the most solemn form, a final suppres- sion of any possible imputation that a charge againat Mrs. Tilton's chastity THE LONG-SUFFERING JIJKY INDIGNANT. Mr. Carpenter (foreman of the jury)— Can you give us this in the morning % One of the jurors feeU unable to continue any longer. Mr. Evarts— Of course I would prefer to take half an hour or an hour to it in the morning myself. Judge Neilson [to the jury)— I think you ought to sit until it closes. Mr. Carpenter— Some of the jurors don't feel well enough to sit any longer. Mr. Morris— Mr. Beach has left with the imderstandtng that Mr. Evarts would close this evening, and he will be disappointed in the momtng if he finds Mr. Evarts ha« not concluded. T think it would be putting him at a great disadvantage. Judge Neilson [to the jurorsj- You can take an Inteiv mission, and Mr. Evarts wUl finish perhaps in a short time. If you prefer to take some exercise In the air you can do so. Mr. Evarts— I am submissive to your Honor and the •jury. The jury seem to indicate a strong preference to adjourn. Mr. Carpenter— I should prefer myself to wait until 6 o'clock, if necessary, but some of the Jury wish to retire for a few minutes. SUMMIJSfG UF BY ME. EYARTS. 805 Mr. Thayer (a jurors to the foreman— If you prefer to sit until 6 o'clock, why did n't you go on on Saturday ? We adjourned on Saturday to accommodate you. I am willing to go on. [To Mr. Evarts.l Go on, if it takes all night. Go on as long as it lasts. [To the foreman.] I think I have got you there tight enough. Judge Neilson— It may not be necessary to take a recess. Mr. Evarts— I can limit myself quite strictly to-morrow, and confine myself to less than an hour. I say this only in reference to the jury's wish. Mr. Morris— That will place Mr. Beach at a very great disadvantage. Mr. Evarts— Settle it with the jury. I am not asking any favor to myself, hut I only said if I went over to to- morrow I would take less than an hour. ]\Ir. Morris— The jury indicate that they would like to step out for a few moments. Mr. McMurn (a juror) — Go on, if you have to go on all night to finish it. Judge Neilson— Suppose you take a recess for 15 minutes. Mr. Evarts— It is for these gentlemen to determine, suhject to your Honor's direction. I am not a party to the inquiry at all. Mr. McMurn— Let him (Mr. Evarts) go on until 12 o'clock. Judge Neilson— I think the jury can very patiently hear you out. Mr. Taylor (a juror)— I could not hear you to any ad- vantage to-night. Mr. Evarts— A juryiuan puts it on the ground that his attention cannot he commanded any further. His name is Mr. Taylor ; he has just said so to me. Mr. Morris— Your Honor can see that if Mr. Beach com- mences to-morrow, after a short speech by Mr. Evarts, it will he placing him at a great disadvantage. He left with the distinct imderstanding that the case was to be closed to-night before he left, and I submit it would be unfair. Mr. Beach and we have been here thirteen days now, listening to the other side, and he has gone away with the distinct imderstanding and a pledge that he should commence to have the ear of the Court and the jury in the morning, and I submit that it would be unfair not to close to-night. Judge Neilson (to the iury)— You see how that is. If you want an intermission of 15 minutes I will give it to you cheerfully. Mr. Evarts— That would be so much time lost. Judge Neilson (to the jury)— You ought to hear him (Mr. Evarts) without any constraint or pressure what- ever. Mr. Evarts— I don't want to have anything to say in this; fifteen minutes would be so much time lost. Ml. Fitter la iuror)— If we had an intermission of 15 minutes I thiitlr we oould sit an hour. Mr. Evarts— I am not a party to this. I am trespassing on your patience and your indulgence, and it is only a question for you to determine, to which I, with great repect, shall submit. I shall submit with entire personal comfort to any disposition you make. Mr. Morris— We have, I submit to the Court, something to say in this matter. Judge Neilson (to the jury)— Gentlemen, retire with an oflacer for 15 minutes and take the air, and you will find yourselves comfortable when you come back. Take a walk arouud the block. Mr. Evarts— What do you want that 15 minutes fori Judge Neilson— Those that wish to walkout for 15 minutes will walk out, and those that don't will remain. Mr. Evarts— Perhaps the jury would find it convenient to begin at half -past 10 in the morning. Judge Neilson— Then we will let it go until then. Mr. Morris— You can see the disadvantage of that. Judge Neilson— iTes. If the jury wish a recess we will take it ; if they do not we won't. If they wish to walk out they can. Mr. Taylor (a juror)— I will walk out and be back in two minutes. Judge Neilson— I wish the audience to keep still. Gen- tlemen keep their seats. [To the jury | : I have very often worked all day with a jury an- ing within the truth and preventing being forced into the false accusation that has now finally triumphed, in their purposes, and been made the subject of this inquiry, in the most solemn form Mr. Tilton makes a narrative which, by a singular perversion, from his intent in its preservation, has been brought to your eyes ; T mean what is called the ** True Story." And I say to yon, gentlemen, that on Mr. Tilton's narration as tbere given, and on Mr. Beec^ 806 TR£J nLTON'BEEiJHER TRIAL. ©IT'S letter of the 15tii of July, 1874, as read to Ms Church Committee under the solemnities of his pargation of his conscience, as before God — on those two instruments your verdict could repose with absolute assurance, and no verdict can be given that contradicts those two papers, without assuming an imperfection in those pieces of evidence themselves, that they by themselves are not subject to the charge of. I say this only for argument ; for the flood of testimony, and the absence of any testi- mony that the law regards, or common sense r^ards, as of importance in maintaining this issue for the plaintiff, I do not pass from your minds or from my own ; but I say that on that True Statement, made and read, proposed to Tracy as the whole truth, exhibited by Mr. Tilton as the whole truth, being really more than the truth as against Mr. Beecher, though he gave the re- traction of his wife, to be sure, in it, and left people to judge whether her first charge was with or without foun- dation, on that paper preserved by one of the tricks that Mr. Tilton took to have it published irresponsibly, and so made a means of keeping alive his imputations and assaults upon Mr. Beecher put in Redpath, the reporter's hands — on this truthful statement, and honorable statement of Mr. Til- ton, "Well, I can't give it to you to publish, but you can see where I put it, and you ciiu taks it, and then what you do won't be at my responsibility, and it will be pub- lished, and I shan't be responsible for its publication, and I would like to have it published, but not be responsible for its publication." Kedpatli takes it, and Redpath imdertakes a reproduction of it by the rapid process of shorthand writing, until he gets down a considerable length in it; and then, he being a pretty shrewd, com- mon sense sort of a man, he sees that there is not mucli tn it, that there is not much substance in this business about Mr. Beecher, and he stops, and then Mr. Tilton— Mrs. Tilton, as Mr. Tilton says, I think— tears up the greater part of the paper, because even in this form it was not true ; it contained her false accusation of Mr. Beecher, and a record of it, to wit, of improper proposals, and she destroyed all but some pages which seem to have escaped de- atruetion, and that formed the close of that paper, and are produced here upon our call, and the whole is put in evidence by us, there being a gap in the middle which Is not produced, and no at- tempt has been made to supply it by Mr. Tilton's memory, or from any sources of its reproduction. This story sets forth with a distinctness as if the slip were produced before you tha,t was used that night of the 30th, this statement : In the Summer of 1870, Mrs. Elizabeth R. Tilton, my wife, made to me a communication concerning Mr. Beecher, which to use her own words, lest I should wrong him by u.slng mine, she afterwards noted down in niemo- rantlum, as foUowa : **Sho muilo me a communication in July, which com- munication, made in July, afterward she noted in writing;" not "When she afterward made me a com- munication in writing," but " She made me a communica- tion in July, which afterward she noted down in a, memoraudum," as follows : Mr. H. W. Beecher, my friend and pastor, solicited me to be a wife to him, together with all that this implies. I borrow the above from my wife's handwriting. Now, gentlemen, that la the charge, and the only charge that either in July, if you believe him, or ever, was the extent of this imputation, and the wife withdrew it the next day after she had made the writing, and noted it as what she had said in July; and after going through with the whole and refuting all calumnies against his wife's good name, and his own honor, in the publication of the Woodhulls, Mr. Tilton closes in this way. To complete the chain of documents belonging to this case, T now Insert the two of chief importance, namely, the direct testimony of Mrs. Tilton, and of Mr. Beecher, as to the alleged criminality of their relations. " To close forever this case of scandal against Mr. Beecher and against Mrs. Tilton, having shown you the charge, its retraction, its explanation, and the various course of interviews on the subject, I now close it all by giving you the documents of chief importance, the direct testimony of Mrs. Tilton and of Mr. Beecher as to the alleged criminality of their relations." Mrs. Tilton says to Mr. Moulton : For my husband's sake, and my chUdi-en's, I hereby testify with all my woman's soul, that I am innocent of the crime of impure conduct alleged against me. I have been to my husband a true wife. Tn his love I wish to live and die. My early affection for him stUl burns with its maiden flame, all the more for what he has borne for my sake, both private and public wrongs. His plan to keep back scandal, long ago threatened against me, I never approved, and the result shows it unavailing. She did not approve of this policy of suppression at one hand and constant publication and exaggeration at the other. But few would have risked so much as he has sacrificed for others ever since the conspiracy began against him two years ago. Having had power to strike others he has forborne to do It, and allowed himself to be injured instead. No woimd to me is so great as the impression that he is among my accusers. I bless him every day for his faith in me, which swerves not, and for standing my champion against all adversaries. Elizabeth R. Tilton. And the husband that sets forth that as the important and direct evidence of his wife on the subject of the rela- tions, now seeks at j'our hands a verdict that there is no truth in her statement. And Mr. Beecher's statement he publishes as also with his authority, and his approval, and with his wife's, as the final quietus upon this scan- dal of improper relations. Mr. Beecher says to Mr. Moulton : I promptly comply with your suggestion of giving an explicit denial of the stories which connected my name criiuiniUly with Mrs. Tilton. The very thought of beinjj 8Vmmj:ng vf by mil j^vaets. 807 ofcliffedto say anytMng to clear her fair fame ^hocks me, and I have liitlierto acted under advice in refraining. Very truly, Henry Ward Beecher. Now coma* the denial: Brooklyn, Dec. 29, 1872. I eolemnly deny the scandalous charges made against me and Mrs. Elizabeth R. Tilton. Especially and em- phatically I deny that there has been any criminal inter- course, or any color of a reason for such a charge. My acquaintance with Mrs. Tilton has inspu'ed me with the highest esteem for her modesty, propriety, ^.nd womanly graces. I authorize her, or her husband and childi'esi, to make use of this declaration, and I desire to state, in addition, that Mr. Tilton, during the whole of this shame- ful scandal, has uniformly spoken in the highest terms of his wife, and has shown to me the highest proofs of friendship. Now there is a complete denial, and you will find that there is a somewhat frequent use in the covert imputa- tions of Mr. Tilton, of a phrase not known to the law, and not known to any definite sense of imputation of un- chaste (in the sense of guiltj^) sexual relations ; I mean a phrase, " criminal intimacy." Now, " criminal re- lations," or "criminal conversation," or "crimi- nal connection," or *' sexual connection," we all understand ; but " criminal intimacy " admits of a solution of improprieties of intimacy, unsuitable, but not of the character covered by the other phi-ase. And Chief-Justice Coburn, in the celebrated case of Robinson and Robinson, in the Ist of Bwabey & Tristram, 361-398, draws the distinction: The words "criminal intimacy" are often used to denote a culpable intimacy short of adultery, and in con- tradistinction to it And yet the cunning off this word-fanciei: has under- taken, as in the West charges, in his commimieation of criminalintimacy," to cover himself if he is to be ac- cused of slander, by pointing to Chief -Justice Cockbum, and the settled doctrine of the law, that criminal inti- macy means culpable intimacy, distinguished— not mean- ing adultery, and used in contradistinction to it. THE INTERVIEW GEN. TRACT WAS NOT ALLOWED TO DESCRIBE. Now, gentlemen, there came to be in 1874, the final determination ; after the submission to the in- quiry of the Church Committee had resulted in t3ie unanimous and full vindication of Mr. Beecher, this law- suit was introduced ; but in that accusation before the Church Committee the purpose was formed of enlarging the accusation to adult*^rous intercourse and se- duction ; and the message by Redpath, and the admission by Tilton in not contradicting Mr. Tracy when Tracy told him before the Church Committee, " When you changed your charge I was lib- erated from my promise," indicated to you distinctly the point of time, and the motives under which this final choice or alternative of siTbmitting to infamy of sland(|f- o-as, and calumnious imputations— of being the author of slanderous and caltunnious imputations against an up- right and respected man like Mr. Beecher, or having an attempt, at least, to breast a fall trial, was resorted to. and Mr. Tracy tells you that he had a conversation with Mi's. Moulton— as Mrs. Moulton had said before there was a conversation— and Mr. Tracy said, " 1 am here to give evidence only on matters that have already been introduced. This interview has not been fully intro- duced. T will not speak to it. This lady had a right to suppose that her conversation with him, although no expression of its being con- fidential, was that between a gentleman and a lady ; I will not repeat it." And the counsel for the plaintiff said: " Oh! Mrs. Moulton, we are going to call to that." Mr. Trac3^ says : " Very well, she must open her mouth first about that conversation ; I will not. " And it passed, and the lady was not called to that conversation. She never was brought to the stand on that conversa- tion. My learned friends found that the hasty boast that there was no conversation between Mr. Tracy and Mrs. Moulton that they did not desire exposed, would not bear the sober discretion of an inquiry into it, and that conversation was never brought to your notice again. And yet the lady came back and Ijalked about the interview in respect to the alibi part of it, to help along Mrs. Eddy's testimony, and she was withdrawn then with the statement that she was coming back to speak definitely in important parts of the case, and then she never came back to the stand, and the only thing they asked to put in as if she were present was a denial that she had told Mr. Beecher at the time she kissed him that she believed him to be a good man. She had admitted before that she said she believed there was a good deal of good in him, enough I suppose to justify a kiss, and there did not seem to be very much substance in that denial ; and when Mr. Beecher had given a full narrative, which you remember, of the course of his in- terviews, and his conversation with Mrs. Moulton, Mrs. Moulton does not come back to the stand either to contradict him or to intro- duce that conversation with IVIr. Tracy, which his deUcaoy and sense of what belongs even to implied confi- dence in a conversation between a woman or a man and another person alwaj's cover, unless the absolute inter- ests of justice require the production of it. THE TWO IMPORTANT WITNESSES EX- CLUDED BY THE LAW. Now, gentlemen, there have been two per- sons whom the law exchides as witnesses, and yet who, from their relations to this party plaiatiff as wife, and this party defendant as wife, would, no doubt, in matters of detail, in matters of substance, perhaps, be possessed of knowledge that would disclose truth ; but the law in- exorably has excluded them both, Mr. Beechei must lo.*e aU the confirmation of his wife's intioiat© 808 THE TILTON-BJ and priviite knowIed^Q, as tlie practical and careful preserver of all dates and facts and knowledge, in mem- ory, of all difficulties attendant upon her liusband, to wMoh she could be a witness; and Mrs. Tilton, ectually excluded in the law, is under even a greater disability, if the absolute exclusion had been ov^rx-ridden by statute, as in respect of the husband, it is supposed to hare been done — that is, the exclusion of all matters that passed by confidence between hus- band and wife. And yet my learned friends, entirely aware of both of these rules of law, first the absolute exclusion of the wife, Mrs. Tilton, and second, her exclu- sion from testifying as to what passed privately be- tween herself and her husband in any of the long intercourse of their life, have chosen to put them- selves upon a forensic demonstration, after our case was closed, that if we wished to call Mrs. Tilton to make our case stronger against them, they would not object. Well, gentlemen, we had a very early discxission of this subject before Mr. Tilton was called, and of the absolute exclusion of Mrs. Tilton, and her necessary excMsion ; and my leained friends put themselves upon the laT7, and insisted upon it as being the law, but that it did not follow that Mr. Tilton might not be a witness ; and they carried their point. Now, why did not they then say something, at that stage of the cause, about their willingness that Mrs. Tilton should be a witness ? Why, gentlemen, they did not want Mrs. Tilton to be a witness, but they wanted to say, after our cause was closed, under a rule of law that made it impos- sible for us to produce her— they wanted then to say that they would not interpose an objection. Well, gentlemen, if they thought that Mrs. Tilton's evidence would be agreeable to them, the way for a lawyer to do, an honest, straightforward thing in that behalf was to call her themselves, and put upon us, not an exhibitory responsibility, but an actual re- sponsibility, of saying that we objected ; and she was the piaintiflfs wife, and he knows all about her, and she, if you will believe him, has been the source, and, on the evidence, has frequently been made the means of making, to be sure, not a charge of adultery, but a charge of Improper solicitations; and the great proposition which public policy insists upon, and on which it excludes a witness in that conjugal relation, irrespective of consent of any kind, to wit, that a wife shall not be called against her husband, does not apply when the wife is called for the husband, for then the law looks upon it only as a ground of objection that Interest concurs, and interest is an objection that may be waived without sacrificing the policy of the law. But, gentlemen, I pass that by. You understand what the law is, and you heard the form of the prop- osition. But on our part, why, we have an absolute and repeated exhibition by this plaintiff of this wife's denial of there being any truth in his charge ; evi- '^JKGBER TRIAL. dence binding on him, produced by him, and in the aol- enmest forms, one of which I liave just read to you, given by her, and indorsed by him as true ; and through a mul- titude of forms, first, in the retraction ; second, in the letter to Dr. Storrs ; next in the solemn and truthful declaration that the Woodhull libel was preposterous and a wicked slander; next in the letter of denial, known as the Grifiith Gaimt letter ; and I might bestow a passijig observation on the 4th of July letter, five days afterward, which was really a postscript to the GritRth Gaunt letter, and which contains the phrase, " I hope," referring back to their experience—" T hope you may not be misled by a good woman, as I have been by a good man," having in the Grifiith Gaunt letter five days be- fore shown exactly the extent to which she had been misled, and which was not of impui'ity of person . but of divided unity of affections, as is the plot and the character of the Griffith Gaunt novel. Tilton's testi- mony that she denied having violated her marriage vows; her denial to Bessie Turner, testified to by Bev^t^ie Turner when she said to the horrible accusa^ fcions about Mrs. Tilton's adultery, which in a sort of ' frenzy Mr. Tilton made, accusing her of hav ing, under his own eyes, repeatedly consummated the act, and with three or four, I think, different persons, " How can you tell this girl such base lies?" her solemn denial to Mrs. Ovington as produced in the faithful testi- mony of that lady ; her denial before the Committee : Mrs. Bradshaw's statement in her letter, which they introduced, which says in the end of 1873 Mrs. Tilton never confessed any fault to her ; and, too, Mrs. Davis and Mi"s. H. B. Stanton's denials, published by this plain- tiff and read to you yesterday, in which they had not con- fidences with Mrs. Tilton— all these things, coupled with the fact that the wife's testimony, given on the 6th of July before this Committee, had denied the whole and that the husband received her to his bosom and co- habited with her after that, and she was as happy as a queen Tintil the coarse and violent conduct of Mr. Tilton about her to the Ovingtons at their house made the wife see and feel that there was no trusting this treachery any longer, and that a kiss meant nothing with him when a stab comes to be the suggestion of his chang- ing passions, or the interest of the moment. And then she left, and she stayed away. Now, as you will see, be- yond this there was nothing that the wife's testimony could have disclosed, of any interest to you, or to me, ex- cept in a field of confidences between husband and wife, which the law would have shut out, and which no man respecting the law ever would seek to contravene. So much for that. MR. BEECHEK'S BEARING UNDER FIRE. Now, gentlemen, this survey of the evidence, no do u')t more cursory in some topics than could have been desiied, has yet brought before you, as I trust with entire candor on my part, a very oonsideraljle siirrey of tlie general bulk and forc-e ana true logical effect, as it lias iDeen presented. It is, of course, on tke part of tlie defendant. a defense against charges "^vidcli are to be proved against Wm, and TrLieh stand for naught until they aje proved. And the evidence therefore is mainly in con- travening and confuting false or mistaken evidence against him, or such substantive facts if there is need of explanatinn, alvrays adding the great purgation of the defendant by his ovm month, submitting himself to vour observation, your criticism, your judg- ment, and to the cross-examination of your learned opponents under all the suggestions which :5Ir. Tilt on and Mr. Moult on can furnish from the long association and observation, neither honest nor good-natured, to vrhich they have subjected him for these several years. I do not hesitate to say that -^bat- ever criticisms may be made against incompleteness of memory or misconception of isolated and inci- dental facts, if any such criticisms can be made, that the cross-examination does not reduce the direct examination, and that the direct ex- amination is a< ample, as clear, as definite, a denial of every form and degree of impure conduct vrith this ladr as it is possible for language to furnish. And you ino"vr that this witness, of all others, knovrs what the truth is, and he knows that bis st try is not un- challenired, that it is not secret against the misconstruc- tions of men's minds, and of men's tongues, for it is in the face not of vriinesses who know the facts, but in the face of witnesses who have not hesitated to present to you out of 3Ir. Beeeher's mouth what they call contrary statements and confessions. And therefore IJiave presented to you this man of great intelligence, of an absolute integrity— save 30 far as this very matter is tnciuired nobody questions it, and I have seen no evidence of double dealing or of pre- varication or of falsehood in any of the acts or accLuies- cetoces of Mr. Beecher that are brought in evidence against him. And here he stands with The absolute righT to your credit, and with no escape from that credit ex- cept your absolute conviction of him as a perjurer expos- ing himself to the punishment of men. Xow, many a man has been frightened from the truth by fearing the falsehoods of people against him. But ^Mr. Beecher has stood throughout this matter, confident in his con- science and its approval, confident in his faith in God, confident in truth, and ready to take at the •hands of false witnesses, if need be, punishment of men, but not willing to tell a lie to his own conscience, or to God, or to refrain from the truth in any respect. And when a man thus presents himself as the sole witness knowing or the fticts and as a man witli imcLuestioned character for truth and duty In every department of life and Through the long series of years that he has lived in the notice and ?r MB, £ TAB IS. 809 I under The burning cririeism ox men, there is noThlng in I our trust of justice if that does not end as maner of evi- j dence, this case. But, when we find against him, only, j as I have said to you, evidence not of a physical and I direct observation of The senses, bur remote moral reason- higs from the strength of the phrases in his letters, that degrees of disquietude. of compunction, of sell-seproach, of commiseration of distress, are t-o be turned into evidences of definite and heinous guilt, when we find that that is the only resource and only pre- tense, why, we at once see that all the prolixity, and all the ingenuity of argument that has been resorted to on our part, really we should have been saved ii'om, when- ever it came to be admitted that there was no evidence of impropriety of conduct between these people, and that there was nothing in the direct form of admission of the guilt or form of the crime charged.. It is iheir flight from the common level of common sense and actual evidence into this re- mijTe region of argument of a moral naTiire which The law rejects, That has led us in this long I'lja-e of exposure which has satisried your m:n 'ind the m!nd- wi all those who iuTelligeiiTly l.ave vvat'jh-d th :• coiu'se of this trial, thar The Ti.ie force o: mural .:-v:rhmce is an alisolure ex- clusion of The P':'S-ibiliTy of gu'lT, find an absolute and definite exalraTiou of the character of Mr. Beecher, as a man of these senrimenrs of honor and of duty that have filled him with anguish, that has embittered life, that he should have been led into an exposure and an injury of the happinc-ss of a family by his heedlessness and inatTenrion. THE LAST PLEA PGR ME. BEECHER. Xo^v, gentlemen, a jiiir brougliT in any doulitfiil issue, even, or balance of Te-Timony. to a deter- 1 mination which carries a verdict for one side or the other, and If it be a verdict that earries to the defeated party an injury or a loss, so that the measure of benefit to one is distinctly measured also by injury or loss, or deprivation to the other, finds itself imder some stress. But here you have observed, from the outset, that the ordinary distraction which might divide the sentiments and feelings of a jnry, so far as sentiments and feelings might be indulged by honest men in regard to a decision of the truth, are here wholly absent ; for in giving your verdict for the defendant, jLc. Beecher, you gi^ e a verdict of safety and of honor to the two families of Mr. Beecher and of 3Ir. Tilton. You uphold the wife, you save the family of Mr. Tilt-on, and yon save him in Ms permanent i and definite honor. Alas! you cannot save htm inhia I truthfulness, for he has told opposing stories on every definite and important fact in this cause. Your ver- I diet, then, for the defendant, is a verdict of safety and j honor to everybody whose safety and honor Lave b<>ea ! involved in this long examination Your ve diet for this 1 plaintiff strikes into the heart o- his wife, and to ihn 810 THM TILION-JB destruction of Ms cliildren; breaks the heart of tliis noble wife, of Mr. Beecher, and destroys tbe happiness and honor of that family ; strikes a blow at the credit of our communities; brings dishonor upon the name of our common Christian religion, however we may be divided in sects, or sentiments, or creeds ; and, in fact, is a blow at the dignity and credit of human nature and the civilization and purity .of American life. And you are asked to do that in the absence of a single item of proof of crime committed, upon the abso- lute and direct exhaustion of the possibility of his guilt by the only person who knows all about it that the law permits to testify, and upon affirmative evidence shaken and reduced both in the credit of the witnesses, Mr. Moulton, Mr. Tilton, and the feeble supporting evidence of Mrs. Moulton, and met on great facts, not only by the discredit of the speakers, on their side of the testimony, but the direct refutation of the facts themselves, by witnesses who are obliged, on deir own statement of the matter, to confess a line of statement under the most responsible obligations to speak the truth, and under the most direct forms of asseveration through a series of years, that there is not a word of truth in the present charge, and of course whatever of loose and vague perplexity or obscurity might be left in the mind of afiy man in this jury or out of this jury, there is not any doubt of what the duty is under the rules of law that require you in finding an affirmative verdict for this plaintiff, a verdict against this defendant, to put it upon affirmative proof that excludes from yom- mind a reasonable doubt of the innocence of this defendant.. And in that etate of duty and of law, and on this state of evidence which I apprehend must necessarily command from you, each one of you, an absolute conviction of the actual and complete innocence of Mr. Beecher, and an actual conviction (with whatever charity you may choose to cover the faults of the accu- sers or their supporting witnesses) that this accusation and this support of it in your case is in the nature of a conspiracy growing, and growing, and growing, having no desperate purposes at the first but in a continual dis- appointment of the objects that they expected to accomplish by their frustration, by the perversity and lolly of Mr. Tilton has finally come to an accusation against the honor and the moral life of this great man. You cannot doubt, you do not doubt, but if any one of Tou does doubt, that doubt itself must give the verdict for Mr. Beecher. And, now, gentlemen, character is always felt to be, in difficult and uncertain inquiries, an object of most solic- itous interest on the part of every ju.dge, and every trib- unal, and every juryman that has to pass upon it. Ah 1 How sad is the condition of a stronger and a fcreigner who comes to be brought into question and put on trial hi . i i - 1^ ^v'lK'rr' he is found alone, with no knowledge of ^JECEEE TRIAL, his past character, no friend to judge him as belongs to his people, and their customs, and their nature! And how benevolently the English law provided for this sad condition of the stranger that was put on trial, by giving him the best support possible, in filling the jury one-half with men of Ms own country, that, at least, he might not be judged by men all foreign- ers to him, and he might have in the knowledge of one- half of the jury some means of restoring what he missed by being put on trial in a strange land wliere nobody knew him, or Ms surroundings, or his character. Now, sometimes character is spoken of as a mat- ter that is to be thrown m as a weight in doubtful situations. I prefer to find in character that direct means of "refuting false evidence upon the external principles of truth that every fact matches every other fact ; and when a particular course of conduct and of crime is imputed against a sti'anger and you know nothing of his past life— or an obscure per- son — and nothing can be learned, how solicit- ous a jury are to see if they can eke out of the evidence sometMng that will stand instead of this knowledge that they miss, so that they can have the support of feeling that the conviction that they feel bound to give is not at variance and not at violence with his character. It is on that principle that character, when known and understood, and not open to mistake, when the vice and fault is of the heart and nature, when it goes through years of corruption and depravity,, as tMs charge (if there be any truth in it) does go for Mr. Beecher, that you want to know wJiethei it matches Ms character. If it matches, it will fit somewhere. If it don't . fit anj where, it does not match. And when the whole case against a man is not of witnesses who have seen a murder, or seen the approaches of adulterous lewdness, or seen the opportunities and seen the deviation from proprieties and secrecy, tben it is all moral evidence that he said so, or that it is to*be drawn from Ms letters— the question is, Does it match ? "VMiy, the housewife, when she wishes to match a gar- ment, either in color or in texture, has no difficulty in determining that crimson and scarlet do not match with purple or with white, or that woolen fiber does not show itself to have come off of the same piece with the linen textm-e. And when you have this character woven in lineaments that no man doubts of, and this life in its whole p*iod from boyhood to the present day, open and public and generous and kind, elevated, noble, and true, you do not need to spend much time in finding out that the scarlet gmlt of adultery, and the coarse, selfish pur- suits of seduction do not match with the generous heart, the loving kindness, and the nobility of Hemy Ward Beecher. [Applause.J But then they say, too, "Ah I but all this long association, and all tMs simplicity of SUMMING UF 1 impositioB, and all this difficulty of extrication, and all tM8 entanglement of tlie sequences— tliat does not match ■with Mr. Beecher's intelligence." Well, gentlemen, it matches with all the knowledge that you have of him in regard to his worldly wisdom, or his suspicion of others, or his harhoring evil constructions of any man. Up to the very end of his testimony he overflows with Mad- ness toward all his accusers, and with charity for every evil falsehood they have spoken about him. Ah ! gentlemen, it does match with Mr. Beecher, as it is apt to match, I am sorry to say, with so many good men when they come into the toils of ill-disposed, contriving, managing, plotting enemies. Why, if your Honor please, it long ago was but the expression in an epigram of this recognized principle of human nature : Tarn scepe nostrum decipi Fdbullum quid miraris, Olle ? Bonus Twmo semper est tyro. Why do you wonder, OUus, that the excellent Fabullus is so often deceived by fraudulent impositions upon him ? The good man is always a schoolboy to the arts of fraud. And such is the expesience of human nature. And who would wish to lose innocence by becoming thus the victim of impositions till he had lost faith in human nature ? No, Mr. Beecher will be a school-boy to the arts of fraad, hereafter as heretofore. It does match with his nature, which all men know, and which has been de- scribed in a single word by witnesses here, ** that he is a great boy." Now, Mr. Tilton, gentlemen, presents to you an extraordinary character in the common sphere of the everyday life to which we are accustomed. And yet nothing can be clearer than that all the imputa- tions we are forced to make against him, his mo- tives, his evidence, are quite in consonance with his character. T\Tiile Mr. Beecher has gone on from his early marriage and his early labors in the life of a man who has oonstautly worked, and worked for the good of oth- ers, and has taken, without arrogance and without pride, such meed of popular approval or the enthusiasm of his friends as followed from his conduct, you find that Mr. Tilton, beginning in the same faith, with the same piety, started upon the same career with the support of that most usefnl aid, a -wife of equal or greater piety, wrapt up in Christian faith and Chris- tian duty as the end and object of life, while he pursued that path and was favored by the friendship, by the earnest and enthusiastic sup- port in his rising career, of Mr. Beecher, that, flu ally, he comes, in the arrogance of his nature, and extra vaganee of his selfishness and egotism, to discard all these princi- pal and supporting elements of useful life, to reject Moses and the prophets, to trample upon Christ and the apostles, to treat with equal scorn and contumely the thunders of Sinai in the commandments and the compassions of Calvary as the dependence for human Jhope. and on and on in what is regarded by feeble intellects as an exalta- tion of indei'endc-nce and of manhood, and it ends m Y ME. EYAET8, 811 this proud career which reiects priestcraft and religion and the bonds of society and the duties of life, la taking out his tablets in the salon of Mrs. Wood- hull to record the revelations made in a mediumistic fit I Such, gentlemen, is that career. And whenever the egoism which is the preference of one's self before every- thing else, which is defined to be "a passionate love of self, leading a man to consider everything as connected with his own person, and to prefer himself to everything in the world," when a man becomes thus a worshiper of him- self, when he has rejected faith and worship of a Divrae Being, when he degrades himself in his relations to so- ciety, he puts himself almost in the condition of one morally insane, and he never is, by the immutable laws of our being, left to stand still on that plane of self-worship. If he does not hold on to the exaltations of the spirit he drops lower and lower in the degradations of the body. The moral gov- ernment of this wnrl'i is not permitted to stand upon a defiance of the sanctions by which virtue and faith and piety have their place in that moral government, and as- sume and preserve for every coimter-piissiou of selfishness and degi-adation the same position in the moral world that is taken for the good and the faithful and the true. And thus it has long ago been noticed by those who study" the exhibitions of human nature in its morbid forms that " Egotism, adopted as the rule and the guide, depraves and destroys the moral nature." " Notwithstanding prejudices to the contrary," says a great writer on this moral deformity, " there is a disorder pf mind in which, without illusion, delusion, or hallucina- tion, the symptoms are mainly exhibited in a perversion of those mental faculties which are usually called the active and moral powers, the feelings, affec- tions, propensities, temper, habits, and conduct. The affective life of the individual is profoundly deranged, and this derangement shows itself in what he feels, desires, and does. He has no capacity of true moral feeling. All his impulses and desires, to which he yields without check, are egoistic. His conduct appears to be governed by immoral motives, which axe cherished and obeyed without any evident desire to resist them. There is an amazing moral insensibility. The intelligence is often acute enough, being not affected otherwise than in being tainted by the morbid feelings, under the influence of which the persons think and act. Indeed, they often display an extraordi- nary ingenuity in explaining, excusing, or iustifying their behavior, exaggerating this, ignoring that, and so color- ing the whole as to make themselves appear the victims of misrepresentation and persecution. Theii- mental re- sources seem to be greater sometimes than when they were well, and they reason most acutely, apparently, because all their intellectual faculties are applied to the justifica- tion and gratiflcation of their selfish desires. Moreover, 812 TEE TILTON-BEEOHEB TRIAL. tlie reason has lost control over tlie passions and actions, so that the person can neither suMue the former nor abstain from the latter, however in- consistent they may be with the duties and obligations of his relations in life, however disastrous to himself and however much wrong they may inflict upon those who are are the nearest and should be the dearest to him. He is Incapable of following a regular pursuit in life, of recognizing the ordinary rules of pru- dence and self-interest, of appreciating the injury to him- self which his conduct is. He is as distrustful of others as he is untrustworthy himself. He cannot be brought to see the culpability of his conduct, which he persist- ently denies, excuses, or justifies ; has no sincere wish to do better. His affective nature is profoundly deranged, and its aflBnities are for such evil gratifications as must lead to further degeneration and finally render him a dis- eased element which must either be got rid of out of the social organization or be sectuestrated and made harmless in it. His alienated desires betoken a real alienation of nature." ME. EVARTS'S PEROEATION. Now, this morbid self -worship with which Mr. Tilton has elevated himself above the restraints of religion, of morality, of duty to wife and children, and to society, wherever there was put in competition even the infliction of a pang to his self-applause, is the final and conclusive explication of how what seems so strange in his career finds in it the natural development of moral alienation from faith and duty, which finally brings con- fusion of' ideas as to what duty and morality are, and ends in the evil gratification of the selfish appetites, re- gardless of any disaster to those who are nearest, and, in the language of this writer, should be the dearest to him. And now, gentlemen, there is noth- ing new in this, if we will only admit the solemnity, the sincerity, the Divine authority, of the great oracles of our religion. Mr. Tilton gratified himself by sonorous verses that described his downfall, but there is, on higher authority, and in much simpler phrase, a beautiful de- scription of the downfall, accompanied with the moral reason why it exists : " Now, he who heareth these say- ings of mine and doeth them, I will liken to the wise man that built his house uj*)n a rock, and the rain descended and the floods came and the winds blew and beat upon that house, and It fell not, for it was founded upon a rock." Did ever the rains descend, and the floods come, and the winds blow about the fabric of a man's character and life as now for these four years upon the character and life of Henry Ward Beecher? And does not every one know that the reason the structure did not fall was that it was built upon a rock of faithful belief in the sayings of the Founder of our religion and of faithful adhesion in the work of his life, to those sayings ? " And he that heareth these sajangs of mine and doeth them not, I wlU liken him to the foolish man who built his house upon the sand, and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat upon that house, and it fell, and great was the fall thereof." Your verdict, as all things true must match, will match that decision, made for all such men for all time and under all circumstances. Indeed, a more apt, a more im- pressive instance in the experience of human life, that He who said these words needed not that man should testify of man, for He knew what was in man, was never furnished in this world than in this comparison between this defendant, whose life and character were buUt upon a rock by hearing and doing the sayings of Christ, and this life and character [turning to Mr. TiltonJ that dared to try the experiment of hearing the sayings and doing them not. And now, if your Honor please, we must acknowledge with respectful deference the disposition and the ordex* of this solemn trial, so interesting to these parties, to this community, to aU the present life in Christendom, to all the future of history, and to acknowledge that if there be any miscarriage of justice, your skirts wUl be clear of it; and also to admit that i'n tfte actual experiences of the course of things in the trial, the anxieties and solicitudes that made us so urgent to have the limits secured by definite orders of the Court, under the assignment of particulars of the charge, have proved to be unnecessary, for we have not had any evi- dence at all of any time or place, by any witnesses going outside of the charge, and none, as I think, within it. And you, gentlemen, have done your duty as faithfully as citizens ever do it. You have been taken from your employments, your profits, and in some instances, per- haps, in some degree from j^our livelihoods, and every day and every hour, from the beginning to the end, you have given to the witnesses and to the counsel the honor of your patient, interested, indulgenfc attention ; and in your verdict you will find, and we shall find with joy, that touch matches all 'round, and your verdict will be no exception. [Loud applause.] The Court then adjourned until Wednesday at 11 a. m. SUMMING UP . Om flUI^DREDTH DAY'S PROCEEDmGS, SUMMING UP FOR THE PLAINTIFF BEGUN. MR. BEACH ENTERS UPON THE CLOSING ARGUMENT FOR MR. TILTON— INTEREST AND APPLaUSE AT- TENDING THE ORATOR'S EFFORTS — MR. BEACH'S ORATORY— INFLUENCE IN BEHALF OF THE DE- FENDANT DENOUNCED— POINTS IN JUDGE POR- TER'S ARGUMENT ANSWERED— ALLEGED MISREP- RESENTATIONS IN BEHALF OP THE PLAINTIFF TAKEN UP. Wednesday, June 9, 1875., The beginning of the summing up for Mr. Tilton by Ms senior counsel, Mr. Beach, drew together to-day in the court-room one of the largest audi- ences that has been seen since the t»al began. Every part of the room was filled long before 11 o'clock, and hundreds could not obtain admission. Some of the spectators seized upon the seats reserved for reporters and declined to give them up, until obliged by the court officers to do so. A remarltable feature of the audience was the great number of strange faces in it. The plaintiff, or at least his counsel, apparently did not lack friends in the court-room, and Mr. Beach and Mr. FuUerton were loudly applauded when they entered. Mr. Ful- lerton has not been present before since the sum- ming up began. He sat facing Mr. Beach, and hardly allowed his attention to the orator's words to flag for a moment during the day. Several times he handed Mr. Beach marked passages of the evidence. The Plymouth party did not appear to be as large as usual. Mr. and Mrs. Beecher came in a few min- utes after the orator began speaking, pushing their way through the crowded aisles with some difficulty. Mr. Beecher appeared thoughtful as he listened to the argument, seldom smiling or whispering to those around him, as it is his frequent custom to do. Mrs. Beecher watched the orator very intently, some- times smiling derisively, when he spoke with more than ordinary emphasis of manner and statement ; and Mrs. Stowe, who seemed to be amused as well as interested, whispered to Mrs. Beecher and others of the Plymouth party. The address of Mr. Beach was eagerly listened to, and several times he was applauded, but these out- breaks of feeling were promptly suppressed. Twice duiing the day Judge Neilson found occasion to re- buke the audience for this kind of disorder, Mr. Beach felt somewhat unwell all day, and he was un- able to bear the least draught of air upon the back of his head, so that the windows behind him had to r BE AGE. 813 be closed. Ete was suffering from neuralgia, and he sometimes stopped at the end of a sentence, aa if to conquer pain. He was also slightly hoarse, but most of the time his utterance was distinct, Mr. Beach's maimer is very vigorous. He speaks loudly, and in a rotund and sonorous voice, which fills the room. His words are uttered more rapidly than those of either Mr. Evarts or Judge Porter, and his gestures are very powerful and expressive. His features and manner are stem, while his piercing gray eyes give great severity to his look, when speak- ing very earnestly. During the morning session, when the air was close and warm in the court-room, the orator's exertions threw him into a profa.se perspiration, and his eyelids looked red and swollen. The oratory of Mr. Triton's senior counsel is full of stirring passages, which are delivered in a manner that seldom fails to stir enthusiastic interest among his hearers. His notes appear to be very brief, al- though numerous, and his address is evidently largely extemporaneous. He often throws down his notes, and seems to speak on the ii»piratiou of the moment. One of the most interesting portions of the ad- dress was an eloquent description of the feelings of a husband whose wife's honor has been stolen away. This was of course applied to Mr. Tilton. The manner of the orator, who seemed to doncen- trate all his powers in this effort, was so effective that the audience clapped their hands loudly, and the bewildered court officers had difficulty in re- storing order. There was also a stir among the spectators when, in describing the support which Mr. Beecher has re- ceived from his friends during the trial, the orator cried out in an earnest manner, " I have seen the zealots and the parasites gathering around Henry Ward Beecher in this trial, and shedding their influ- ence both in and out of this Court in his favor," The opening words of the argument were remark- able. Addressing the foreman of the jury, Mr. Carpenter, Mr, Beach referred to personal appeals which he said had been made to him (the foreman) by the counsel for the defendant. He then spoke of Mr, Carpenter's having stated that he entertained opinions favorable to the defendant at the time when he was examined for a place on the jury. An appeal to the jury to decide this case according to their oaths followed. The argument proper was mostly confined to an- swering Judge Porter's summing up for Mr. Beecher. Mr. Tilton was praised, but the orator said he should 814 IBM TILTON-Bl not indulge in denunciation of Mr. Beecher. The publication of Mrs. Tilton's letters was explained in a way favorable to the plaintiff, and various points touched upon by Judge Porter were gone over in de tail. Mr. Beecher was asserted to have been a party to the " policy of silence." The anticipations of triumph which were indulged by the defendant's counsel, called out sevQre denunciation from Mr. Beach. He asserted that he knew what means they had of forecasting a verdict, and what power the party of the defendant possessed. Mr. Evarts, he Baid, had more than the hundred eyes of Argus, which he had wished for, more than the hundred arms of Briareu??, and also the gold of Midas, which had been placed where it would have the best effect. Mr. Evarts seemed to be much amused at these assertions, and whispered laughingly to his fellow- counsel. THE PROCEEDINGS-VERBATIM. MR. BEACH'S ARGUMENT FOR THE PLAIN- TIFF. The Court met at 11 a. m. pursuant to ad- journment. Judge Neilson— Gentlemen will perceive that we must have perfect quiet, and I have no doubt we shall he obliged to-morrow morning to lessen tlie number of per- sons in attendance. And gentlemen in the gallery will find it quite necessary to be quiet, otherwise the gallery will be closed to-morrow morning. It is very desirable that citizens should hear the discussion in this case. THE VERDICT OF THE CHURCH COMMITTEE. Mr. Beach then began his argument for Mr. Tilton as follows : Mat it Please Your Honor: At last, gentlemen, Theodore Tilton has tbe opportunity of a vindication in a court of law. It is the first opportunity. Environed with difficulties, and beaten upon by a tempest of calumny and reproach uni)arallele(l in severity and in efiect, piir- eued by the power of a man whom the genius of Samuel "Wilkeson has discoverert to be the greatest man on all the earth, aidea by the organized persecution of a great chm^ch, Theodore Tilton was hoimded to his ruin. The only judgment ever passed upon his case, the only hear- ing ever given to it, was before a tribunal selected from Plymouth Chiu-oh by this defendant, with great care, with great perception, with great regard to the quaUties and the relations of those judges; and before them the cause of Theodore Tilton was tried, and he was condemned. And it was imagined that that condemnation would be the permanent ac- quittal of Henry Ward Beecher. It was supposed that 'JECMEE mi A h, a private tribunal thus constituted of the fiieads of the accused, instr ucted and guided throughout all its deUb- erations by the counsel of the accused— it was supposed that that judgment would be decisive and permanent. But every one saw that Theodore Tilton was deprived ol a hearmg before that Investigating Committee, his evi- dence shvit out, the testimony of important witnesses evaded, those known to have the most material and in- timate acquaintance with the merits of that controversy unsummoned, a hasty and a snap judgment pronounced in a case of this character, and becween men Uke Hem'y Ward Beecher and Theodore Tilton. It is not wonderful that public judgment was unsatis- fied ; it was not surprising that the public clamor de- manded a more thorough and complete investigation of this most unfortunate transaction; and the result has been, gentlemen, this trial; and in my judgment the great and important question upon this trial is, whether the system of influence and denimciation and clamor which for a year has invested this case, is to In- trude itself with success upon the dehberations of a com-t and a jury. The question is whether here, in this, what is called the temple of justice, in the presence of that pm-e spirit of right and equity which is supposed to prevail in this presence— the ques- tion is whether here the organized power of Plymouth Church, aided by the ingenuity and the eloquence of counsel, is to overcome that sense of fah play and equity which is the spirit of our administration of the law. If this cause is to be won, gentlemen, by bold assertion and clamorous appeal, and by confident and insulting predictions, I yield the pahn to my learned adver- saries. If the judgments of this jury are to be controlled by a stream of Invective and vituperation, by a repetition of scandalous and dishonor- ing epithets, repeated until they have pained the ear and surfeited the taste, I have neither hope nor care to influ- ence your dehberations. I suppose that I speak to men properly estimating the prerogatives and responsibilities of theh position. Believe me, gentlemen, this power of judgment is a great and responsible power. To-day you hold in your control, as my friends upon the other side say, the destinies of the greatest preacher in all the world. To-day you hold In your hands the destiny and the reputation of this plaintilBT; and more than that, you hold in yom- hands the power of vindicating the witnesses produced upon this witness stand, or consigning them to imperishable dishonor and infamy. It is a great power; and whence do you derive it ? Not by any natural right of judgment. What enables you to say to Theodore Til- ton, to Francis Moulton, to Mrs. Moidton, " You are per- jurers ; " to the two first, " You are adulterers and in- famous. You have no place in a court of justice. Al- though no man in this broad community has impeached your character for integrity and veracity; although you stand among the most reputable and honored of this SUMMING UF BY MR. BEAOH. 815 comTnttnlty, yet by our verdict you shall be scouted from tliis courb-room, branded with our judgment of infamy ? " A fearful responsibility to such a power. A PEESONAIi APPEAL TO FOREMAN CAR- PENTER. The law has selected you as twelve intelli- gent, honest and lawful men, to decide the great gues- tions involved m this controversy, and to you has com- mitted this caiise, freighted with these immense and per- manent interests. You have been appealed to, Mr. Fore- man, personally by my friend Mr. Porter. He has assumed to know the sentiments of this juiy-box. He lias assumed to say that he knows what the verdict of this jury will be. I know he has large facilities for ob- taining that information, facilities which are denied to this plaintiff ; and I know the influences which have sur- rounded this trial. I have seen these ominous and noisome sllipes hovering about the outskirts of this investigation. I know the power and the influence of the organization which has surrounded this defendant during this trial. :My friend :\Ir. Evarts wished for the hundred eyes of Argus; he has them, and more, too. And the hun- dred arms of Briareus; he has them, and has had them, and more, too. And there was no need of his wishing for the gold of Midas ; he has had that too, dis- pensed with great liberaUty, with unbounded generositj-, and always placed where it will have the best effect. But it seems to me a most astonishing assumption of prophet- ic power upon the part of my learned friend that in a court of justice, before gentlemen sworn to be impartial and true, an honored and distinguished counselor, before the plaintiff is heard, should assume to say, " Gentlemen, I know what your verdict will be." [To j^Ir. Carpenter.] Sir, you occupied that stand. You avowed that you had formed opinions favorable to the defendant in this case, but you said, in the presence of that God whom you wor- ship and revere, that you could nevertheless decide this case impartially upon the evidence. Are you to prejudge it? Is there any counsel in this case who can appeal to you personally, and say he knows what the verdict of this jury will be 1 Aye, that it will be accLuittal of Mr. Beech- er, without leaving your seats 1 By what authority does the gentleman speak? If I am addressing gentle- men of that character, gentlemen whose judg- ments will be carried by epithet and ealiuu- ny and abuse, unsupported by evidence ; if the eloquence and the oratory of counsel can move the conclusions of this jury, I have no hope of success be- fore you, gentlemen. I am not an orator as Brutus is. I have no calumnlc;» to utter ; I have no epithets to apply. I have a plain, simple, logical argument to pre- sent to you upon the proof in this case. If there be not evidence enough, if there be not proven facts enough under the ordinary administration of the rules of evi- dence, abiding by those lessons of wisdom and of truth come to us from the past— if there be not enough to sat- isfy the minds and the consciences of twelve impartial and unprejudiced men, I want no verdict in this case. I want no untruthful judgment against Henry Ward Beecher. I ask for no perversion of the law. I ask for no surrender of the consciences and the pure and intelli- gent judgment of this jury. But if I bring to them those proofs approved by the law, justified by the his- tory of the law, those evidences which the law pronounces as su£Qcient to convict even of guilt in the presence of all the charitable presumptions of the law, then in the name of that la w, and its justice, I demand a verdict. And, gentlemen, I have a right to demand it. I have a right to ask you, before Tilton shall be disbelieved, before Moulton shall he discredited, before Mrs. Moulton shall be defamed by your verdict, before the letters of Henry Ward Beecher shall be misconstrued, before the confes- sion of Mrs. Tilton shall be disregarded, accepted and ap- proved as it was by the defendant in this case— before all the prominent and convincing elements of this proof shall be disregarded — I have a right to ask from you a consideration far more elevated and truthful than has yet been given to these evidences. I know the wonderful power of my learned friends upon the other side. I have felt its influence. T cannot say that I am even yet re- lieved, with all the firm convictions impressed upon my mind in regard to this case— that I am yet relieved from the power of their ingenuity and oratory. THE CLOSING AROmiENTS FOR IMR, BEECHER CRITICISED. Why, gentlemen, in the history of the jus- tice of this coimtry has there ever been such an exhibi- tion as has been presented in this court-room within the last 13 days ? Have you ever heard such a storm of in- vective and abuse ? Have you ever heard a loftier exhi- bition of the power of oratory than has been given by hoth my learned friends ? Have there ever heen in any cause efforts so extended and so marvelous 1 And yet my learned friends say to you, " The plaintiff never had any case." Why, my friend Mr. Evarts says to you there is not the slightest evidence* in this cause of the guilt of Mr. Beecher. Why, when the plaintiff rested he ought to have been turned out of court ; he had no cause ; there was no proof ; and my learned friends with all the aita and the powers of oratory have spent 13 days to con- vince you of that, gentlemen. They have given very strong proof of their sincerity ; they have given to you very strong evidence of their conception of this case. With a skill and adroitness unexampled in our courts, they have endeavored to escape the consequences of that evidence. They have resisted it by but one witness, and that is Henry Ward Beecher. The amazing declaration was made by my learned triend. Mr. Porter, that Tilton and Moulton were contradicted by 34 witnesses. Why, gentlemen, it is the most astonishing declaration which 816 IHE ■ TILIOIS^-BEEOEEB TRIAL, could have been made in tMg case. And it can be met only "by a clear and explicit denial. On tlie eontrary, I hope to demonstrate to you tliat Tilton and Monlton, upon any of the material facts in this case, have been contra- dieted by no single ^vitness except Henry Ward Beecher. Most of the time has been occupied in this case by the examination of immaterial and unimportant collateral questions. It is said that we have occupied your time, when you must recollect that all this long investigation, a hundred of days, has been directed, not to the question of the guilt or the innocence of Mr. Beecher, but to an un- sustained and abusive attack upon the character of Tilton and Moulton and the other witnesses upon the part of the plaintiff. Gentlemen, I cannot pass to the consideration of this case without a single further remark upon the address of my friend Mr. Porter. It was a most remarkable effort. For thirty years that gentleman and myself have prac- ticed together in the courts. There is no gentleman, in or out of the profession, for whom I feel a more unfeigned esteem and respect; none in the pro- fession whose qualities as a lawyer I more admire and respect I have been accustomed to see him in the fore rank of professional controversy, claiming and maintaining the loftiest honors of our profes- sion. And I am pained and grieved that upon this occa- sion he lias lost that position, and appears here as a subordinate and secondary adversary. In that there is no humiliation, gentlemen. No lawyer of our profession, eminent even as Mr. Porter is, would be disgraced by following the leadership of a gentleman as eminent as Mr. Evarts. It is not that. But the humiliation consists in the ignoble and unworthy service he has undertaken, to abuse and denounce and calumniate, and, by fierce and furious epithets, to drive this plaintiff from the respect of this jury, and from the consideration of this Court. Mr. Tilton is said to be theatric—" hoUow and theatric," I think, was the term ; and singularly enough that accusation comes from my friend Mr. Porter, who has given the most distin- ^Tuished evidences of the possession of the highest his- trionic abUity. Why, you remember, gentlemen, with what display of theatrical power, with what violence of gesture, with what intemperance of speech Mr. Tilton was assailed. It began to be somewhat alarming; for, when my learned friend Mr. Porter was flourishing his fist so furiously in the face of Mr. Tilton, and in his sonorous and impressive tones crying out, " Down, down, down to hell, and say I sent thee there," I felt some anxiety for the safety of my client [laughter], and I looked around with some amazement to see what had become of him. [Laughter.] It was very gratifying to me to find him there sitting composed and unalarmed, rather amused at the grotesqueness of the per- forxaance, and wondering really what my friend Porter thought of himself. Well, Sir, are you to determine this case upon such arguments! Is a party in a court of justice appealing to the Im- partiality and equity of the law, asking from his fellow men a legal consideration of his claims and his rights, to be hunted from court ?— and by epithets and denuncia- tion! What sort of a cause is it which demands this advocacy? And how happens it that a geutleinan capa- ble of the loftiest legal efforts, a gentleman claiming more than a due %hare (and deservedly too) of pro- fessional renown, instead of a temperate, logical argu- ment uj,>on the evidence, spends five days in a violent assault upon the opposite party and his witnesses? If Hemy Ward Beecher is innocent he needs no such clamorous and foul defense. If Theodore Tilton is a perjurer and an adulterer, a cold and shameless de- bauchee, it can be proven from the evidence ; and where is it, gentlemen ? I shall have occasion to ask you more particularly that question. But let your recollec- tion run over this proof , find if you can the evidence which thus impeaches the moral character of Mr. Tilton, which, in the presence of his demonstration upon the stand in court, can stand an in- stant against the open honor and honesty of his charac- ter. But it is the necessity of this defense. Tilton must be destroyed, Moulton must be discredited, Mrs. Moulton must be struck from the ranks of honorable womanhood, Mrs. Bradshaw must be disbelieved, Richards must be ca- lumniated, and all the others who have uttered a syllable of reproach or of fact against the character or standing of Henry Ward Beecher, must be destroyed; and If this ia not accomplished, this defense falls, and my friends know it. And the effort of both of them— with persistent elo- quence, with an ingenuity almost devilish in its concep- tions, both of them have striven for 13 days not to dem- onstrate the innocence of Mr. Beecher, but to destroy his accusers, and from that demand a verdict from the hands of this jury. Well, there is a singular inconsistency in the modes of argument and in the conceptions which my learned friends indulge in regard to this case. Tilton is not only a perjurer and an adulterer, a man of most base and in- famous character, the seducer of a young girl intrusted to his honor and care by his wife, but according to Mr, Porter, he is the cunning, adroit, subtle conspirator wht» has organized this deep-laid and long-prosecuted con- spiracy against the pocket and the character of Henry Ward Beecher. And my friend Mr. Tracy, on the con- tr.iry, has a very low opinion of his skill and sagacity and forecast. He denounces him as having a genius for blun- dering. All admit that he is a man ef intellect. My learned friends agree t^at he is a rhetorician and elocu- tionist. Henry Ward Beecher praises him for his intel- lectual powers, rather commends that genius which, early in life, lifted him to " the loftiest editorial chair in America," as Mr. Beech, asi.aredly that was an effort for silence and for concealment. When, in that letter which he wrote to Mrs. Tilton which he sent by the hands of Mr. Tilton, and which he requested to have returned by the hands of Mr. Tilton because there were subjects spoken of in it and facts revealed which should not run any risk of disclosure by miscarriage, he evidently looked to silence and concealment. And I sup- pose the execution of that " Tripartite Covenant" was a device for concealment, for the suppression of this scan- dal, for its limitation within the immediate circle to which it had already been communicated. And you will remember that in one of his letters Mr. Beecher uses the e35)ression, "If the papers wlU hold oflf for a month we will outride the gale," and I suppose, gentlemen, that when he wrote that, and when he wrote to Theodore Til- ton advising him to resign from Plymouth Church for the purpose of suppressing the pressure of the West charges and avoiding investigation, Mr. Beecher was striving for concealment. Well, there are expressions in the " ragged edge " letter, as it is called, when he aUudes to the efforts he makes and has made for the purpose of preventing: any questioning on the subject, and how he should stop a ruinous defense of himself— it reads how to stop " a ruin- ous defense o/ me," and I noticed that yesterday or the day before, in reading it, my friend Evarts omitted the words " of me "—I suppose that in iihat letter Mr. Beecher was contemplating concealment. There is a very remarkable letter, too, in which he speaks of "stultifying all the devices by which we have saved ourselves." What were those devices f What was their object, f not concealment, secrecy, suppression ? But the most notable instance to my mind whereby he evinces his desire to conceal and to suppress investigation is when that lady, Mrs. Bradshaw, imder the pressure of a necessity to appear as a witness before a Church Committee, writes him, and his answer begs concealment, advises the policy of silence, and refuses to communicate any information to her, upon the ground that it is a subject that should not be disturbed. And when, gentlemen, finally, in his statement before the Committee, he declared that " the policy of sUence ought to have succeeded," I think he not only rendered pretty emphatic adherence to that idea of silence and to the propriety of that policy, but made a confession that he was a party to that scheme. ME. BEECHER NOT ENTITLED TO THE PRE- SUMPTION OF INNOCENCE. Now, gentlemen, before I pursue the argu- ment which I design to submit to you, and which I supposed could have been concluded at the most in a couple of days, it becomes necessary for me to consider some of the assertions and some of the propositions which have been presented in their very able arguments by my learned friends. If your Honor please, my friend Mr. Porter has advanced the proposition that the jury in charge of this case are to assume, for the protection of the defendant, the presumption of innocence, and that they are to extend to him the benefit of all doubts which may arise upon the proof. I think. Sir. my learned friend misapplies a doctrine of evidence more appropriate to investigations under the criminal law than to a civil action at law for the recovery of damages. I know there are oases, such as Craud, SCMMjyG UF BY MB. BEACR. 819 *nd ■^iiere,p€rliap3, a s an incidenr in title c-ase, great "wrong | or cnmiaaliTy is inipared to a party— I know that in ex- j ceprional avil casea of that cnaracter tlie presumption is ■ al30 kidnlged ; bur in this, ease I respectfullj- sutomit to \ joxLT Honor the doctrine lias no applicatioc Mr. Beeclier j is entitled to no presnmption of innocenee no more than. [ if tin? was an a itlc-n upon a contract or upon a promis- I gory note. He is sued for seduction in an action for I criminal conversation. To "be snre, tlie action in itself Imputes personal improprietj-, moral wrong, yet, I sub- mit, not of that character, nor of that degree either, Sir, ■whlcli jtLstifle« the application of tliis presumption. But If it were so, what is tiie reeolt wlien evidence — satisfac- tory evidence — is given upon the part of the plaintiff of the claim which he presents I When evidence is pre- •ented to your Honor which you pass to the jury as prima acie proof of the oiicnse charged against 'blx. Beecher, what becomes of the presumption ? It is overcome ; it is destroyed- More than that, your Honor, the presumption then changes. Concede that in the commencement of this in- vestigation we start with the presumption of innocence and the beneSt of doubt shielding and encompassing this defendant ; when that shield Is broken down and that defense is trampled down by overpowering evidence of the truth of the eliarge and the claim, th.en he stands unon his defense, and h.e lias to prove by satisfactory evidence that tie claim is unfounded, that he is innocent of tae aocusation, and he assumes all the burden of the is su e . 0 w, T refer your Honor, in support of these prop- ositlons, to " 1 Greenleaf on Evidence," wio is pro- nounc-ed by my learned friends the ablest American com- mentator upon the general law of evidence : In civil cases where the miscMef of an erroneous con- clusion is not deemed remediless, it is not necessary that the minds of the jurors be free fr«5m all doubt: it is their duty to decide in favor of the party on whose side the weight of evidence preponderates, and accor<3ing to the reasonable probability of trutlL But in criminal cases, because of the more serious and irreparable nature of the consequences of a wrong decision, the jurors are required to be satisfled beyond any reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused, or it is their duty to acquit him. the charge not being proved by that higher degree of evi- dence which the law demands. In civil cases it is suffi- cient if the evidence, on the whole, agrees with and. sup- ports the hypotliesis which it is adduced to pr-Dve ; butin criminal cases it must exclude every other hypothesis but that of th e guilt of the party. In botli cases a verdict may well be founded on circunistances alone, and these ; often lead to a conclusion far more satisfactory than di- '• rect evidence can produce. In the case of The People agt, Schriver in i2 iS'. Y.. ; which was an innder- ance of evidence ; h.e must produce the same deg:^ee of proof that would be required ir the blow inflicted ha^i not produced death, and he had been sued for assault and 0 artery, and liad set up a justification," &c. 2s ow, Sir, apply that rule of the criminal law to t his ease. When in a criminal case the corpus delicti is proven, and a jasttncation is set up, the burden of proof changes ; and so, in a crvD. action wlien a plaintiff pro- duces evidence to maintain the Issue on Ms part, suiS- cient to carry that question to the jury, the burden of proof changes, every presumption changes, aad the ques - tion then becomes a general one upon all the proof. The iurors must exercise their reasonable judgment up'G or the tvite's lettees, A very severe philippic was uttered by ^li. Porter and in substance repeated, but not with the same violence of language, by Mr. ETarts, against Mr. TUton for the pubUcanon of his wife's letters. WeU, I don't know, gentlemen, that you or I would be willing to apply such severe terms of reprehension to a husband who found occasion to publish his own and his wire's letters under any possible circumstances. I am quite wining to concede that without a real, meritorious cause an act of that character would be indelicate. It would be reptil- sire to the feeling of a husband, and to the sense of every man of honor, to publish a letter written to bi-m either in the confidence of marital intercourse, or even in that onndence which sometimes attaches to a commtmic^- 820 THE TILIOI^-BEECHER TRIAL. tion as between business gentlemen. But I think we can conceive of emergencies which would make the propriety of the publication very obvious ; circumstances under "vstfiich neither of the parties to the correspondence would feel any repugnance, but, yielding to the necessities of the case, each would approve the act. What were the circumstances under which this publication was made, and the inducements which led to it? Upon the cross- examination of Mr. Tilton he was led to speak of the cir- cimistances which led to the publication ajid of the man- ner of it, and he says : During the early consultations T had with my friend. Judge Morris, I put into his hands the papers. He read them and said, " These letters ought to be published, or at least liberal and copious extracts from them." I said, " No, they are private letters, and I think there is an im- propriety in publishing them." He said, on the contrary, the case was of such seriousness and gravity, and had been so greatly misrepresented that he thought justice required that they should be published. He then sug- gested that good taste, perhaps, would lead to their pub- lication, not here in Brooklyn in either of the local pa- pers, but at some distant point ; and at that time a visit was made to my house by an agent of TTie Chicago Trib- une; Judge Morris made his acquaintance, and commu- nicated to this agent written extracts from those letters ; and in that way they were published. Now, they were published at a time when Mr Tilton was pursued by misrepresentation and false public accu- sation. He was represented as a brute in his domestic relations; he was charged with the grossest outrages upon his wife and family ; the most flagrant and debas- mg crimes were imputed to him, and the charges were circulated in all the papers of the land. The only weapon of defense he had was the testimony of his wife, in her letters, written under circumstances which gave to their contents entire veracity and verity. His lawyer advised him that under these circumstances it was justifiable to use and publish the letters, and he did so ; and he is called a dastard, and a villain, outraging the confidence and the honorable obligations of married life and of so- ciety. Well, I dissent from that conclusion, gentlemen. Under those circumstances and in the position in which this man and wdfe then stood, that act upon the part of Theodore Tilton, if she was true to him as she then pro- fessed, would be approved by her. It was a publication made in their common interest; it was a publication made under circumstances by no means dishonorable to her, and communicating to the public a correspondence which in none of its character- istics reflected upon her propriety or virtue ; and when this man was thus overpowered by adverse in- fluences, when he was helpless and hopeless under the circumstances, was there any impropriety in it, and will any lady or gentleman, under such circumstances, con- demn him as an indecorous and indelicate violator of do- mestic secrets 1 But, gentlemen, the astonishing state- ment is made by my learned friend, Mr. Porter, accom- panied with the most severe denunciation against Mr. Til- ton, for publishing the letter of J an. 9, 1867. You will re- member, gentlemen, that it is the letter which spoke of some infirmities and sufferings of Mrs. Tilton. Mr. Porter says of it : Why was that published ? Can you imagine anything more indecent, more mean, more contemptible than to publish in the newspapers of all this land a wife's letters in which she complains of her felons, her eruptions, her inflamed eyes, and her looseness of the bowels. This man's greed for admiration, his unbounded and stilted egotism, is such that to get a compliment he would pub- lish anything. Well, gentlemen, it turns out that this was all that was published of that letter. The Ship's Cabin, My Desk, Jan. 9, 1867. My Beloveb : It it quite time that you should have a little insight into the manner in which I am using your hard-wrought earnings. And then there are points indicating an omission. My heart is sick at the figures, while I make confession with shame and sorrow that I can do no better in my situation. He was charged witli parsimony, with not providing for his household. Once more I would bless you for your delicious letters. They will be a legacy to my children when I no longer live to preserve them. I wUl try to take care better of my wretched self, because the best man In all the woi'ld loves me. That was the only way in which that letter was pub- lished, and my friend Mr. Porter must have known it. No allusion to any personal inconveniences to Mrs. Tilton; nothing disrespectful to her, and yet taking that letter and asserting its publication by Mr. Tilton, this violent assault is made upon him. Well, the letter of January 28 of that same year is spoken of by Mr. Porter in like terms, and the letter of March 8, 1868, both of them introduced by Mr. Shearman on this trial and read by him. Now,it»is a little remarka- ble that the plan of assault, the system of attack, the policy of vituperation adopted by my learned friend, should have led him into such extravagance. He says that the egotism of Mr. Tilton is so enormous that he hesitates at nothing to gratify his vanity. I think I may say that the vindictiveness of my learned friend is so enormous that he hesitates at nothing to defame his ad- versary. Charges of this character, founded upon mis- statement, against a man who claims the ordinary pro- tection of a party in a coui-t of iustice, shielded by the impartiality of the law, cannot be recklessly indulged by counsel. Misrepresentations of this character, used as the foundation of calumnious vituperation, do not be- come the eminent gentlemen who represent this defense, and I will show you instance after instance in the course of the past 13 days where facts have been as clearly dis- regarded for the purpose of opening a justification for the vileness of the assault made upon the case of the I)laintift. SDMMII^G UF BY ME, BEAOU, 821 THE ALLEGED SHREWDNESS IN SELECT- ING DATES. Mr. Porter alluded to tlie complaint in this case, and to the fact tliat the place or places of this adiQtery ■were very artfully and carefully selected. Well, of course, gentlemen, the plaintiff in this case knew nothing of it. We had no evidence of actual observation of the offense, and a pleader drawing a complaint in an * ac- tion of this kind could not have verified the places where he might suppose it probable, iinder the evidence, that the offense could have been committed. Mr. Morris, in drawing this complaint, says : The plaintiff, complaining of the defendant, alleges that on the 2d day of October, 1855, in the City of Brooklyn, the plaintiff intermarried, &c.; that the de- fendant contriving and willfully intending, &c., hereto- fore on or about the 10th day of October. 1868, and on divers other days and times after that day, and before the commencement of this action, at the house of the de- fendant, 124 Columbia-st., Cit^- of Brooklyn, and at the house of the pl^iintiff, 174 Livingston-st., City of Brook- lyn, wrongfully and wickedly, «fec., carnally knew, &c. It is drawn in the ordinary form. Well, it is thought by Mr. Porter exceedinglj' surprising that we should charge in this complaint seduction and adiiltery at the house of Henry Ward Beecher, and thinks too that it was very adroit to have laid the venue upon the 10th and upon the 17th of October, because no aUbi could be proved ; and Mr. Porter, with a felicity and skill pe- ciiliary his own, has taken the occasion to draw an attractive picture of- Jlr. Hem*y Ward Beecher at his house surrounded by his wife and his children and his grandchildi-en. The description of the felicities and the sanctities of home life which at once touch the commonest nature and has appealed to you and to your natural emotions, to dis- credit the idea that Henry Ward Beecher, suvroimded by these affectionate and holy influences could have been guilt J' in his own house, to his heart in the holy of holies, of such an offense. Why, gentlemen, we didn't charge it in the ordinary form of pleading, ignorant of the places where the alleged seduction was obtained ; we give, in the general language of ordmary pleading, a de- scription of place and circumstances, making it as definite as we can, but, nevertheless, making it as comprehensive as possible, so that there should be no destructive variance as between the alle- gation and the proof. I do not know, gentlemen, whether in the house of Mr. Beecher, or in the house of Mr. Tilton, or where this seduction, if there be a seduction, was ac- iBomplished. There is no right or contrivance upon the part of the plaintiff in these pleadings, or in this e vi- dence,with a view to a location of the offense, that would be probable as to place or as to time of a character which would interfere with exculpatory proof ou the part of Ike defendant. These places are alleged from an alleged sommvtnication from Mr. Beecher and Mrs. Tilton to Mr. Tilton when he was led to make inquiries in regard to the time and place of the occurrence, and upon that the simple claim is whether Mr. Tilton or Mr. Beecher, strengthened as either may be by the other evidence and the circumstances of this case , is to be credited. ALLEGED MISINTERPRETATIONS OF TESTI- MONY IN THE ARGUMENTS. Mr. Porter has fallen into another mistake. He states that Mr. TUton did not deny the fii'st interview, the first visit to the room of Bessie Turner, as stated in her evidence. Generally, in regard to the allegations of my learned friend, that when Mr. Tilton and Mr. Moulton and Mrs. Moulton were recalled that they did not deny the statements which were made upon the part of wit- nesses for the defense, I may make the remark, if' it please your Honor, that the question was presented, when our witnesees were recalled to the stand, to your Honor's discretion, whether it was proper for us, where the direct evidence, the former evidence given by our witnesses, was in conflict with the allegations made by witnesses subsequently produced upon the part of the de- fense,— whether it was necessary for us to reassert and contradict when our witnesses were recalled, I under- stood your Honor to say to me that it was not necessary or proper, and that Mr. Evarts had very promptly concurred in that conclusion. Now, there la not an instance in this case, gentlemen, where any adverse testimony with reference to a single witness, or either as to declaration or any- thing else, or facts— not a single instance where there is a want of contradiction (and I make the declaration after a tolerably careful examination of the proofs in this case), and relying upon the instructions which were given to us by the Judge, we did not pass through with all the evidence of Henry Ward Beecher, for instance, or of Bessie Turner, or of Mrs. Ovington, or any one else, where, upon direct examina- tion of our witnesses, they had sworn to facts, to declarations and circumstances which stood in direct antagonism to the assertions of the witness upon the part of the defense ; it was unnecessary. Bat in regard to this, and perhaps one or two other matters, I ma^- oc- cupy your attention. [Mr. Beach failed to find a page he was looking for, and continued as follows :J I musft pass it, gentlemen. I will refer to the page upon another point. Mr. Porter stated that Mr. Richards, when called to contradict Bessie Turner in regard to the allegation that she communicated to Mr. Richards at his office at The Evening Post, stated that Mr. Richards only denied the communication asserted to have been made by Bessie Turner to him at that place, and did not deny that he received a communication from her at other places or at another place. By referring to ptige 80, which I have marked, and wbicli I am certain cai.:i;)tl>e a mistake, it win be found iluit ,TEE TlLTO:S-BEECHER TEIAL, Mr. Richards, on tlie contrary, denies that the subject of the conversations was at any time communicated to him there, or at any place, hy Miss Bessie Turner. Great oomplaint is made, gentlemen, that on the return of Mrs. Tiltonfrom Marietta, Ohio, under circumstances and witlf a reception which certainly indicated no want of atten- tion and no rudeness on the part of her hushand, for he met her, with proper attention and proper affection, with a carriage at the depot, and conducted her to his house. But it is said that Miss Ellen Dennis usurped the wife's place at the tahle, and In the circumstances which sur- roundod that incident there was great cruelty and un- Mndness on the part of Mr. Tilton. Then, gentlemen. Miss Ellen Dennis was a cousin of Mrs. Tilton, a some- what aged maiden lady, who had been the friend and attendant of Mrs. Tilton from her youth up, who, Ui the absence of Mrs. TUton from her home, was the house- keeper, Mxe active and convenient manager of the domes- tic ooncei-ns of the household, and while Mrs. Tilton was away, Mr. Tilton receiving his guests with that courtesy and hospitality which at one time distinguished his house. Miss Dennis superintended his domestic affairs and pre- sided at his table, performing the offices of his wife during her absence, and on the morning when thej^ returned, and at dinner that day, she occupied the same position, discharging the same duties. Was there anything indelicate or offensive in itf Was there anylihlng which should have offended the wifely feelings of Mrs. Tilton, if they were offended, and was it a matter over which Mr. Tilton exercised any control ? Why, you remember how scornfully and almost rudely he repulsed his wife at another time— related by Bessie Turner— when she made Inquiries of him, or asked advice about the servants and the management of the interior concerns of their home. Well, it may not have been gra- cious, in your idea of the character and treatment of a husband ; it may be that there are mental ctuallties about Theodore Tilton, that there is a devotion and a spirit to higher mental considerations and occupations which un- fit him for those kindly and trivial and tender offices of domestic life. It is no reproach t© him. The noblest moralists, the purest Christians, men of the highest intellectual attainments, have manifested a severer rudeness, I had almost said a bearishness, in re- gard to trivial matters of this character. What were the particular circumstances which produced a mamfesta- tion of feeling on the part of Mrs. Tilton at that time we cannot see from the evidence. Certainly there was no offense offered to her, no rudeness addressed to her, no circumstances which should have offended her wifely dignity, or excited the jealousy of a matron in the con- trol of her own household. The account of this transac- tion by Bessie Turner is altogether too imperfect to ena- ble us to judge correctly of that transaction, and Miss . Dennis is in her grave, and Miss Bessie Turner speaks with great safety, because she can be contradicted by no onehmtby Mrs. Tilton. Now, it is not very importanic, gentlemen, in regard to all these questions of kindred character— the rudeness, the coldness, the solkiness, the moodiness, the conduct of Theodore Tilton in his house- hold is not a matter of imperative concern before this jury. He may have been all that Bessie Tiu'ner represents him to be. In the restlessness of his nature, he may have wandered, as she ridiculously says, from bed to bed to find a soft place on which to rest. He may be ludicrous in his habits, but, nevertheless, gentlemen, before a court and jury he may assert the sanctity of that home thus disturbed by his foibles, if it be so. He may have been harsh and cold at times in the domestic circle. He may have been stern and moody toward that delicate and sickly wife, if Bessie Turner is to be believed, but it gave to Henry Ward Beecher no license to trespass upon that household. It may have alienated the affections of the wife ; it may have cooled the fervor of her affection; it may have shaken her reverence for her home and her marriage tie, but it gave to Henry Ward Beecher no warrant to take advantage of those circumstances. It Is no excuse for Henry Ward Beecher that Theodore Tilton was a harsh and unloving husband, if it be true. It does not deny the truth of this accusation that that was a disturbed and discordant household ; it may be true ; that we will see about. It may have been an encouragement to Henry Ward Beecher to venture upon an assault upon its sacred purity, but it is no justification for the act. And so through all these irrelevant and collateral issues which have been forced upon this jury. Grant them all ; grant that Theodore TEton was the adorer of Victoria Wood- hull, as he was her eulogist in her biography ; grant that he was odious and debased in his habits ; grant that he trespassed upon the proprieties of life ; grant that lie was less than a man and \iler than a brute, when at Winsted, as they say, he seduced the girl intrusted to Ms care— grant all this, is it an answer to the proof in this case 1 Does it overturn the condition of this defendant ? Does it wipe out those stormy and emphatic letters over which my learned friend passes delicately and lightly? Does it destroy the character and the credibility of the witnesses who reveal to you, the history of his three years of penitence and re- morse ; and are we to be told, when evidence of this character is presented in a com-t of law, that the plaintiff is an immoral and degraded libei'tine, and that therefore the sin of the defendant should go unpunished, and the vice of his immorality unrebuked by the judgment of the law and the jury. The Court here took a recess until 2:05 p. m. THE CHARGE OF GARBLING THE LETTERS. The Court met at 2:05 p. m., pursuant to ad- journmeiil, Mr. Beach— In respect to va^'ious letters and doouments which Mr. Tilton, in the couise of this long and vexed 9 SUM MIX a UF ContTOTersy. heretofore lia« been compelled to use, lie has been charged with garbling. In respect to the letter of February, 1868, which :Mr. Tilton had occasion to use in his sworn statement, submitted to the Committee of Investigation, and from which he c[uoted, Mr. Porter, re- ferring to the quotation and to the use made of it by ivlr. Tilton. says : And yet the dastard to whom th.at letter is addressed published it in a form which was garbled, false, and forged; in a form in which she is represented as con- fessing the infamy which he now charges, and he says, by way of apology for it, " Well, but since I commenced this suit I have furnished a true copy." The form in which the quotation from the letter of Mr. Tilton was reproduced by Tilton is this : That previous to the aforesaid criminal intimacy one of the reasons which Mrs. Tilton alleged for her encourage- ment of such exceptional attentions from the Rev. Henry Ward Beecher was the fact that she had been much distressed with rumors against his moral purity, and wished to convince him that she could receive his kindness and yet resist his solicitations, and that she could inspii-e in hiia, by her purity and fidelity, an in- creased respect for the dignity of womanhood. Pre- vious to the Autumn of 1868 she maintained ^^-ith Chris- tian firmness toward her pastor this position of resist- ance, always refusing his amorous pleas, which were strung and oft-repeated ; and in. a letter to her husband, dated Feb. 3, 1868, she wrote as follows : " To love is T.iTdse worthy, but to abuse the gift is sin. Here I am strong. No demonstrations or fascinations could cause me to yield my womanhood," And :Mr. Porter alleges that tliat is garbled and forged and false m its sentiment, intent, and effect. Here I am strong. No demonstrations or fascinations could cause me to jaeld my womanhood. And Mr. TUton, inquired of in relation to the motive which induced him to make that quotation and publica- tion, and to the supposed effect of it, says : I quoted it as a beautiful illustration of her own sense of the dignity of her sex, and of herself as respecting It. That was the use which I made of that extract in my sworn statement to certify to her strength of character at that time. C''nnment caimot add, gentlemen, I must be permitted to say — with what my friend Imows is the kindliest feel- ing toward him— nothing can be added by way of com- ment to the unworthiness of such an attack. In that eta-tement Mr. Tilton, in pursuance of the policy which hsbd governed him from the commencement of his dis- covery of his wdfe'3 turpitude, was mod.ifying the offense, was maintaining her integrity of character, was professing at least, and believing, as I think, in the purity of her nature, and in the spotlessness of her sin, under the circumstances under which it was committed, and to which I shall advert hereafter, and in this state- ment before th"^ Committee was representing with what fidelity to her womanhood and to her marriage vow, with what adherence to the policy with which she ac^^epted the intimacy of Mr. Beecher, believing in his previous moral transgression, as I will show you by and BY MB. BEACH. 823 by. and yet by faith In her own womanhood, and by i>e- lief in her own firm integrity, and by the nature of the influence which she knew she exerted over Mr. Beecher, as I will also show you. Mr. Tilton was expressing the confident belief, and quoted this letter in support of this belioif, that this woman, at the time to which reference was made, wa^ maintaining all these characteristics and this policy of action. He deserves no reproach, gentle- men. There is no misconception or misrepresentation of the letter of Mrs. Tilton in this quotation. It was un- generous on the part of my learned friend. Nay it was clearly unjust toward his adversary, without presenting to you the character of the quotation, to assume that it was garbled and forged and misrepresented, for the mere purpose of indulging in a violent expletive against Mr. Tilton. iME. TILTON'S PUBLIC DEFE^TDEES. But tlie most astonishing tMng to mv mind, the most remarkable position that Mr. Porirer in his argu- ment assumed, is in that florid display of the friends and the influences which have gathered about Mr. Beecher in the cop.rse of this trial, and the absence of all encoiu-age- ment and support m aid of Mr. Tilton. Well, gentlemen, what my friend said so eloquently, with immense descrip- tive power, upon that subject, was uttered for something. It was very weU to describe Mr. Beecher as the possessor of all the manly and Christian virtues which hare been attaehed to h.is character. It was a matter of policy to boast that those assumed qualities had collected about hiTn all the piety and intelligence and resx>ectabiUty of the community ; and it was weU hoped that an assumi>- tionof that character might influence the conception which this jury might form in regard to Mr. Beechev and the respective merits of this litigation. I amnot espec^>Jly favorable to that mode of argument. Considerations of that character, in my judgment, are not legitimately or pro- fessionally addressed to the intelligence of a jury : bf t when they are resorted to it is well enough to learn whether they are well founded. And in the outset my learned friend fi:ads a little difficulty upon this subject, because the leading papers that were daily presented to his observation at once satisfied him that in this outei intelligence, among this larger jury to which my friend Porter appealed, there were some who were bold, and my friend thinks unprincipled enough, to advocate the claim of Mr. Tilton, and to question the spotless, pure integrity of Mr. Beecher. Well, those he calls the effusions of Til- tonianism. The Sun, Springfield Jtepnhlican, f'}iirar]o Tribune, St Louis Democrat, and all the host of the lead- ing newspapers in every section of the country, who are, with a keen and acute intelligence and logic examining this case, and this evidence, as it has been presented to this jury, and expressing conclusions which did not meet the approba tion of my learned friend— why. they are Tiltonianisms 824 THE TILTON-BEhJOHJEE TEIAL. intimating tliat they are written by Mr. Tilton, tliat Mr. Tilton coutrolo the presa of this country, and that the al- most uniform and uniyersal judgment of that press is a iudgment formed hy Mr. Tilton for effect upon tills jury. Well, it is an astonishing proposition, gentlemen. But doos my fi-ieud consider the moral of this statement % Does my friend conijid«:' that the highest intellect of the country, the most fearlessness of investigation, is col- lected upon the leading daily press of this land, that in no depaitment of science, of art, of learning, of business, is there such an association of cultivated and practical intellect connected with the most astonishing, marvelous- enterprise as ai-e associated in the conduct of the daily press of this land ? Is he ignorant of the fact that the press is at once the educator and the representative of public sentiment, and when he talks about these Tiltouianisms in the leading newspapers of this country he is uttering the public condemnation upon the cause of his client ? It is not an argument to control the int^ligenoe and the conscience of this jury. I would have been ashamed to have alluded to it, but for the incorrect example of my learned friend. MR. BEECHEE'S BROTHEE CLERGYMEN AGAINST HIM. But tlien all society gathers about Mr. Beecher. The revered and the learned of every denomination, the Christian of every sect, according to my friend Porter, are gathered in one uniform and zealous defense of Henry Ward Beecher. Is this true? Where are theyl Where is Dr. Storrs, one of the jury of the vicinage ? Where is Dr. Cuyler? Where is Dr. Budington? Where is Dr. Talmagel Where is Dr. Daryea? Where is Dr. Van Dyke, and all the other list of eminent Christian pastors? I have not seen them with ready and brotherly hands supporting Henry Ward Beecher. I have seen Plymouth Church in all its glory. [Laug-hter.] I have seen the' zealots and the parasites of Henry Ward Beecher gather- ing about him upon this trial, and shedding all their in- fluence, in and out of coiu-t, in his favor. But where ai-e, beyond the walls of Plymouth Church— where are these good and great men who testify their belief in the integrity of Henry Ward Beecher, and their devotion to Ids defense ? They are not here. And their absencels no evidence of guilt ; but when my friend undertakes to boast of the prominence of his cli- ent, of the respect maintained by the community for his character, and to exalt himself upon the idea that there is a devoted and a unanimous rally of Christian senti- ment about this fallen preacher, I am disposed to dispute the position. Quite willing would I be to submit this cause to ffiie judgment, either of the public press, the public opinion, or the Christian sentiment of this nation. But, gentlemen, these are foreign and improper topics for discussion in this court-room. We stand in a pres- nce, ippealing to a spirit which rejects all these noxious and improper influences. Each of you may well say, ia the language, but not in the spirit, of the Jew, " An oath, an oath, I have an oath in heaven. Shall I lay perjury on my soul?" And the moment the iudgment of this jury departs from the evidence and the law, the moment it listens to these seductions and temptations of sophis- try and oratory, the moment it is influenced by these im- pure approaches, of whatever kind or character they may be, they are treachertms to duty and false to their oath. I ask no influence of this character. I do not ask this jury, intelligent and responsible men, performing the most solemn and serious duty of their Lives— I do not ask them to surrender their judgment to the bidtling of any man, or of any class, whether they be secular or Christian, whether they be newspapers or pulpit orators. And, gentlemen, when I am led to the discussion of these foreign topics, it is not with any view or purpose of ap- proaching your convictions by any such appeal, but to repress what I think the dangerous appeals made on the part of my learned friend. Well, gentlemen, I have the means, if I thought it either necessary or entirely appropriate, to satisfy my learned fiiend, Mr. Porter, that he greatly errs in the pro- fessional judgment founded upon this case. And what has the opinion of lawyers to do with this case, or with this jury, except the opinion which proceeds from this bar, and so far as it is entitled to the approbation of this jury? I think I could satisfy my learned friend very readily that his conception as to the judgment of reflect- ing and prominent lawyers upon this case is quite different from his representation. It may be, perhaps, a significant fact, but I do not choose to use it in that char- acter, that the two leading papers of the old home of Mr. Beecher, Indianapolis, will furnish some very instructive, if not entertaining reading to my learned friend, Mr. Porter, upon this subject. A new announcement of emotion, a new revelation of our emotional nature, is made in the speech of Mr. Porter. MRS. TILTON'S RECENT ATTITUDE TOWARD HER HUSBAND. I had occasion to say, gentlemen, in the commencement of this litigation, that it would be the happiest event that could occur in the history of this mournful drama if Theodore Tilton and his advisers could be satisfied, by that kind of proof which should satisfy the judgment of intelligent men, that his wife loved him with her early devotion and with her early puiity. No consummation of this case could be more grateful to my client, and to those who aid him in the assertion of his rights upon this trial. But Mr. Porter gives us the assurance that she does love him, and produces the singular antithesis expressed in this language: "It is one of the tuiuga which seems to me marvelous in the sight of man, and only explainable when we shall be able to look at it with the light that comes from Omniscience, that woman" [referring to Mrs. Tilton], " loathing this man as she does" [referring to Mr. Tilton] , " to this hour loves Mm as I have never seen a woman love a man yet. It is the strangest anomaly that I have ever witnessed in the whole course of my life— the most idolatrous" fl sup- pose he means the love]—" the most idolati'ous love and most ahjeet." Well, that is seemingly an irreconcilable inconsistency, that Mrs. Tilton should at once love and loath her husband. That that love and loathing should be expressed by the conduct which she has pursued and by the position which she has assumed in this controversy, and that any human being should assert to intelligent and feeling men that that woman still loves the husband of her earfy yourh and the father of her children, at the same time confessing that she loaths him with a bitter and utter loathing, is one of the most remarkable exhi- bitions I have ever witnessed. It seems to me if this lady had been left to the impulses and instincts of her better nature, the forgiveness which covered her sin in 1870, and the love and chastity which took her again to the bosom of her husband, if the policv of protection of the wife had produced its just and legitimate and affection- ate influence upon her nature, if she had been true to the policy of forgiveness and silence which her hus- band followed, none of these sad consequence.s would have been exhibited to this jury to-day. It was only when, misled and deceived, after all this life of charity and love toward this woman upon the part of Theodore Tilton — it was only when she was seduced from the home which she had dishonored but which her husband had re- built, it was only when she was led from the sanctity and protection of a husband's love and a husband's home, to appear as an open accuser of that husband, and as the defender and vindicator of her seducer — it was only then that all hope of concealment, all effort at silence, all de- sire to keep the scandalous mass of wrong and gnilt and sin and lying from the community was given up. The instant Elizabeth Tilton passed over the threshold of her house, fugitive from it, and allied her- self to the fortunes of Henry "Ward Beecher, it was only then that the policy of silence, which :Mr. Beecher says should have siioceeded, failed. Every eye saw, every tongue in this jury of the vicinage, confessed that there must necessarily be an iuvestigation — an impartial, searching, judicious investigation. The moment :Mrs. Tilton forever left her husband, and assumed an attitude of antagonism toward him, that moment conflict, con- test, disclosure, were inevitable, and they followed. And who is responsible for it ? That question I will endeavor to answer hereafter. But whoever is responsible has a mighty weight of responsibility to carry. It is not the loss of time, though that may be serious enough. It is not the interruption to your ordinary avocations, or to the common pursuits of this court of justice. It isnot that 7 MB. BE ACE. 825 that accumulates the amount of sacrifice ca-nsed by thi8 trial. It is the demoralization of the public sense ; it is tho extended and profound interest which is felt in this case and in all its unpromising and unattractive features. It is that the Christian ministry is defiled. It is that the wicked scoff at Christianity and at the pulpit. It is that, however you may determine this case, as Mr. Porter says, there is a jury of intelligence equal to yours, and of a power beyond yours, sitting on this case, trying you and trying this court. There is no end to this unfortunate trial. There is no end to or any modi flcation of its con- sequences. Even if Mr. Beecher be innocent, if he should be declared innocent, he never can take his stand in the pulpit the same grand, heroic character as of old. He is shorn of his power for good to a very great extent. He is sullied and damaired. Thougli you pronounce Mm giiilty, though you viudieate Mr. Tilton. it does not repair the injury he has suffered. That broken home cannot be reconstructed and re- united. The stain and shame which have settled upon that household can never be lifted. Those children, pure and innocent and attractive, must suffer still. And I re- peat, the man, who in his folly, or in his recklessness, has forced this issue and these consequences, to the com- munity and to the individual, has assumed a mighty re- sponsibility. And you, with an equal responsibility forced upon you, you stand in an attitude of equal prominence and of equal power and responsibility. And you cannot, gentle- men— whatever my friend Porter may say on that sub- ject, or anybody else— you cannot shift that responsibil- ity. Nor, is it in your power, however faithful to the law and to your consciences, and to the intelligence of this case, you may be, you never can interrupt the light which the evidence in this case has thrown upon the public mind ; nor can you ever stay the judgment to which that light will lead. You may lead men to criticise your motives and the re- sults of your deliberations. You may gather arouu'l the admimstration of justice doubts and aspersions of its uprightness and integrity ; you may attract the criticism of the press and public opinion ; but you cannot change it. And the recousre for us, engaged in a manly and an intelligent examination of this case, is to do our respect- ive duties fairly and intelligently and honSstly, and leave consequences to themselves. The man who does Ms duty is above consequences. Resting upon its conscientious discharge, he is fearless in the light of all criticism or ac- cusation. Well, I regret that my learned friend had not given us some better evidence of the love of Mi's. lllton. I am sorry that we cannot discern, through her as-sociations with this case on its trial— that we cannot see from the attitude which she assumes in regard to it, the tendency of her affections ; that we cannof perceive in anything which she does, in an\ thing which sh^ suys, in any re^ 826 THE TILTON-BEECHEB TRIAL, lation \yliicli slie assumes to this case, tliat there is any- tliing else but the most idolatrous devotion to Heury Ward Beecher and his cause. Ah ! gentlemen, it throws light : it throws light upon the main issues you are to de- cide. If there was something else and somebody else beside Bessie Turner to contradict all the evideuces and testiiuonials of uprightness and honesty and self-sacrifice which Henry Ward Beecher gives to Tilton and to Moulton, if, upon this evidence, there was presented any adequate cause proceeding from Theodore Tilton, in cruelty, in outrage, in wrong upon that wife, we might feel an inclination to forgive the po- sition she now takes. But where, in all the developments of this trial; when, through the series of years through which these actors have been pursuing their lines of policy before the community, when and where has Theodore Tilton ever faltered in his fidelity to his wife and his family, in his determined devotion, at whatever sacrifice, to save that wife and family from the taint of this accusation? There is no evidence in this case of an act upon the part of Mr. Tilton justifying the flight of his wife from the home of her husband. MR. TILTON'S GRAY HAIRS. Well, gentlemen, both my learned friends, with a sort of exultation that they have discovered some- thing of contradiction between somebody and Theodore Tilton, some contradiction which would rest upon better and more satisfactory authority tlaan Bessie Turner, both of our learned friends have expatiated largely upon the incident of the gray hairs, Mr, Tilton when he was recalled as to the conversations had with Bessie Turner, made the incidental remark (it was not called for by any questjon)— but made a remark, at any rate, testified to the fact that at the time when Miss Turner spoke of these conversations wherein she represented him to say, " Oh ! Bessie, my gray hairs are coming with sorrow to the grave "—a most ridiculous and absurd imputation of remark— Mr. Tilton said: "Why, I had no gray hairs at that time ! " Mr. Fullerton— He denied saying so at first and then added that. Mr. Beach— He denied saying so, of course, first, and then added the remark that he had no gray hairs. And Mr. Porter comtnents upon it as a most striking evidence of depravity. Well, suppose Mr. Tilton made a mistake about that. He was referring to past times in writing to his wife. Suppose he had said, "Old age has crept upon us since then;" suppose he had said, " The infirmi- ties of years, darling, have overtaken us ;" and yet he is here, stalwart and strong, and our friends would have said it was a clear Instance of deliberate peijury. [Laughter.] Why, Mr. Tilton was speaking, as we some- times say, I believe justifiably, in a somewhat poetical Bense. You see, aecordin^g to our learned friends, he is an jrropressjble rhetorician. When he gets talking or writ- ing, why, there is no end to it— [turning tx) Mr. Evarts]— like some other people that I know of. fLaughter.] If Mr. Tilton had happened— these gray hairs being few, confessedly— they are not very numerous, now— if he had happened to mistake the time when they appeared it would not have been any very severe condemnation of his integrity that he had made a mistake on that subject. And it is a little re- markable that two such eminent gentlemen as Mr. Por- ter and Mr. Evarts should make so much of a circum- stance of that kind, and arraign a man upon a subject of that character as, " With his hand upon the Bible, in the presence of Almighty God, testifying to such a godless lie as that." [Laughter.] They must be in great extrem- ity for material. Now, the truth is, Mr. Tilton really had no gray hairs at that time. And suppose you imagine for one moment that his wfe being— [turning to Mr. Til- ton], isn't she older than you?— his wife being two years older than he, that gray hairs had overtaken her a little the soonest, and that this delicate and sickly woman should have fo\md gray hairs creeping upon her head a little earlier than Mr. Tilton, and that in this let- ter-writing to his wife, referring to old times and events, and to the passage of the years filled with their incidents of love and aff'ection, with children gathering about them, suppose that Mr. Tilton had said, referring to his wife's gray hairs, " Why, gray hairs have come upon us since then," would it be any very great offense either to truth or propriety ? And that is just the fact. This letter by no means asserts that Mr. Tilton was gray then. What- ever events came over that household, whatever change in condition or circumstance affected that wife or that husband, when they were conferring in the intimacy of their relations, they might well speak of any change or circumstance in the one as belonging to the two, and of that circumstance or change as overtaking them, or " us." WHERE THE EXPRESSION "TRUE INWARD- NESS" ORIGINATED. Well, my friend, Mr. Porter, has a terrible dislike for the term "true inwardness," and he rejects the idea that Henry Ward Beecher could possibly have been the author of any such phrase, -and assumes that it was taught to whoever used it by Mr. Tilton. " True inwardness ! " he exclaims. " Where did she learn this phrase 1 My friend. Judge Fullerton, has brought in 'Norwood,' and Hannah AJore, and T know not what besides, in order to teach you what that woman had in view when she talked of ' true inwardness.' Why, she had been under the teaching of a nian who left upon her all such expressions rooted so that they could not but spring up and bear fruit. And when he used it in a high and noble and generous sense, he yet imputes her adoption of the phrase to the vile purposes of her inward adultery." Well now, it is a little remarkable, gentlemen, with such a malediction upon that term " true inwardness," that Mrs. Tilton did not use it, and that Mr. Beecher him- SUM31ING VP BY ME. BEACH. 827 lelf used it. "The blessing of God rest on you, etc. If it would be of comfort to you," says Henry Ward Beecher, writing to Mrs. Tilton— " if it would be of com- fort to you now and then to send me a letter of true inwardness (italicized), the outcome of your inner life, It would be safe, for I am now at home here with my sister, and . it is permitted to you (italicised), and will be an exceeding refreshment to mo." Well, Sir, what becomes of all your severity toward Mr. Tilton as the author of this phrase, when it turns out that it was the skillful linguist, the unecjualed elo- cutionist, the master of the English language, Henry Ward Beecher, who used it ? I transfer all those stric- tures to Mr. Beecher. fLaughter.] You must pardon me, gentlemen. It is no very agreeable, nor is it a very intellectual, labor to expose these errors, but there is such a mass— I speak it not offensively— of misrepresen- tation and misstatement, I do not say coined, but used, for purposes of bitter malediction upon Mr. Tilton and others, that I cannot permit the imputations to go unre- biilied. MR. TILTON ACTUATED BY EEYENGE. Now, Mr. Beecher was represented by Mr. Tilton, when he was asked as to his conception of his character, as " big boy," and Mr. Porter says that in that connection Mr. Tilton imputed to him craft and want of ingenuousness. Let us see. Mr. Evarts was examining: Q. Was he fMr. Beecher] a man of mature years and settled position in his profession and before the public ? A. Well, Sir, when I knew him I always regarded him as a big boy rather than a man at all. He was a man of large fame, and had a great church, and was in the exer- cise of very manly and illustrious powers. Well, does my friend desire a better tribute to Henry Ward Beecher than is paid by Mr. Tilton ? Q. Well, in what sense do you wish to be understood that he seemed to you like a big boy % A. Because his manner was large, and hearty, and gay, and companion- able, and winning. Q. GuUeless ? A. No, Sir. Q. How? A. No, Sir. Q. Don't that come within the description of "like a boy?" A. Well, Sir, the craftiest people I know of are boys ; newsboys, for instance. Q. WeU, do you not use this phrase "like a boy" in the sense of frankness and generosity of character and de- meanor? You have used the phrase; now I suppose that that is the reasonable sense of it? A. When I say that Mr. Beecher in his earlier years was like a l>ig bOy, I mean to say that there was a certain bouncing character to his life and manner. He was very companionable, bale-fellow-well-met, fond of a joke and a frolic, fond of the things which boys liked. That made him very com- panionable to us, for I was very little more than a boy myself. Q. And all the other young people ? A. Yes, Sir ; I thought he was the most charming man I ever saw. Q. You thought so, then % A. Yes, Sir. Q. And in looking back you think so of that period? A. Do I think now that that was my thought at that time ? Q. Yes, Sir ; iu looking back upon hiui as you reiiu-mber him, you think of him at that period as the most charm- ing man you ever knew 1 A. Yes, Sir; I have since met men who in all those qualities I think excel him very greatly, but at that time, ia those early years, Mr. Beecher was my man of all men. I had not seen the world so extensively, and had not measured him with other men. Now, in this particular instance wherein Mr, Porter falls into so grievous an error, and in various others, the attempt has been made, upon the part of both of my learned friends, to represent Mr. Tilton as entertaining the most bitter and malignant feelings toward Mr. Beecher ; and yet whenever he is found speaking of him in the revelations of this evidence he has given him, justly, a high and distinguished character. I do not mean to say, gentlemen of the jury, that Theodore Tilton loves Henry Ward Beecher, or that he did love him an instant after that .Tuly in 1870, when his wife made to him ber confession. I think it supernatural tha* a human being can be conscious of the fact that another man has seduced the body of his wife or of his child and feel no emotions of anger and no longing thirst for revenge. You Christians may condemn it, if you please; the lesfeous of the Scripture and the example of the Master may teach us better ; but unless it be in the depravity and demoralization of the lowest sinks of vice and life, the heart beats not that can receive this blow without bounding with angry impetuosity. I know Theodore Tilton harbored these feelings, and I grant you that at times when he saw, or thought he saw, that they could be gratified without injury to his wife and his home, they broke out with resistless violence. If they had not, I would be ashamed to stand here as liis representative and advocate, and that, to me, makes his example of self-denial, his earnest and faithful forgive- ness of his wife, his Christian and manly charity toward Mr, Beecher— to me this consideration makes this ex hibition of his character most noble and exalted. The man who has the power of overcoming passions like these and resentment like this, must have some principle of righteousness and justice within him to strengthen his will and subdue his passions. Talk about the unfriendliness and the hate of Theodore Tilton toward Henry Ward Beecher I V»aiy, if it be true that Mr. Beecher, the chosen and the invited guest of his friend's house, who was duected tJaere by the husband in times of his absence, the glory of his presence being the light of that household— if it be true that Henrj'^ Ward Beecher debauched.its mistress and stained its hearth- stone with the violence of his lust, why, is there a hus- band or a father on earth who will wonder t^^a^ Ti^oodorA Tilton should feel indignation ? " Oh ! " says my mend, "this suit is for revenge." No! Not all that you can do ; not all that the broad jm-isdiction of this cornet can do, will satisfy the longings of that revenge. It is an imperishable feeling, and will be an unsatisfied 828 lEE TILJON-BEECHUB TEIAL. feeling so long as the tempter and the seducer of the wife breathes the same air with the living hus- band. I do not seek to convince you, gentlemen, that Theodore Tiliton has not the feelings of a man, and the resentment and the passion of a man ; but I think I will show you that with r.U this infirmity, this resistless temptation, he yet, strengthened by his love for his wife and his children, and upheld by the grace of his God and the belief in his name, has withheld and stayed his hand so long as mortal heart could bear and hold back the arm destined to work out justice and truth. [Ap- plause. I Judge Neilson [To the audience.]— Gentlemen, this won't do. The way to show your respect for the speaker is to be silent ; then you don't interrupt him. THE EARLY STRUGGLE IN PLYMOUTH CHURCH. Mr. Beach— My friend, Mr. Porter, then re- lerred to Mr. Tilton as assuming great glorification to himself from having overmatched Mr. Beecher in the church controversy as to the disposition to be made of the missioaary funds of the church. Well, gentlemen, I want to show you how Mr. Tifton was driven by the course of examination— inveterate on the part of Mr. Evarts— to make any comparison at all as between him- self and Mr. Beecher upon that oc«3asion. Why, the purpose of all this argument, and of this reference to all these minute circumstances, was to convince you that Mr. Tilton was a man of intense and remorseless egotism and vanity, selfish in all his nature, puffed up, vain, full of wretched conceit ; that there was no honesty, no sincerity, no manliness in his make-up ; that he was all mean and detestable from head to foot — that is the character striven to be given to M* Tilton ; but it shall not be, upon the strength of false facts— I will not say of false logic. On his examination by Mr. Evarts, he was asked : Q. Do you remember comparing yourself with him [Mr. Beecher] upon the OQ^casion of your discussions about the chiu'ch missionary appropriation, if that describes the occasion, and that you had overmatched him in that controversy 1 A. That speech is in a pamphlet, Sir ; it will speak for itself ; I know he was wrong ; it is very easy to beat a man who is in the wrong. Q. Well, now, rather it is your conclusions and con- sciousness about It, than the fact, that I am asking— whether you then came to the conclusion that you had quite overmatched him in that fight ? A. Well, Sir, if I had come to that conclusion, I should not have any righi to state it here. Q. You are excused from any immodesty in the state- ment, for it IS required from you as a part of yoxa testi- mony. A. If I should say that I had overmatched him in that struggle, it would be immodest ; if I should say that I had not, I should lie. Well, that is the way Mr. Tilton was forced into ex- pressing an opinion as to the right or wrong of the posi- tion he occupied upon that question as against Mr. Beecher. *' I overmatched him." said Mr. Tilton, " be- cause he was wrong, and truth always prevails." There was no sel^gloriflcatio"! ; there was no comparison of the respective efforts made by these two men upon that occasion ; but when forced to say whether he was in the right upon that question and whether he succeeded, in his own judgment, in demonstrating the right, why of course he avows his conviction of the truthfulness and soundness of his own position. THE TRUE STORY. Very much has been said in this case, gen- tlemen, about this " True Story." Its essential charac- teristics, and the use made of it upon this trial and be- fore, will be a topic for consideration hereafter ; but my friend, Mr. Porter, asserts that when Mr. TUton was first examined in resrard to that " True Story " he pronounced it true, and that when, to use his language, it was resur- rected through Redpath, then Mr. Tilton pronounced it untrue. Well, I cannot, gentlemen, account for state- ments of such a character from counsel so abJe, and usually so accurate, as my learned friend. Such a state- ment cannot be permitted to go uncontradicted if it is erroneous. If that were true, that when that " True Story " was first spoken of in his evidence by Theodore TUtoSb he pronounced it to be true, and then when it was produced, representing the offense upon the part of his wife to have been simply the reception of improper proposals, he pronounced it untrue, I coidd not argue against such a demonstration of his want of memory or want of honesty. We must see whether that imputation is true or not. [Mr. Beach not finding readiiy the part of the testimony he wanted, pro- ceeded] : Well, gentlemen, I have fallen upon the testi- mony of Mr. Tilton where he speaks of the submission of the " True Story" to Dr. Storrs, and that is on his first ex- amination before Mr. Redpath was sworn, and before the "True Story" was introduced. On page 636 Mr. Tilton speaks of the submission of what is called the " True Story" to Dr. Storrs. He says : I read the paper, and Dr. Storrs turned to me and said : " Mr. Tilton, before I can consult with you on this sub- ject or give you any adviee worth having, you must an- swer me one question." I said: "What is it?" He then said : " I want you to tell me whether this narrative which you have read is the plain and honest trutli, what is called in a court the whole truth and iiotftiiig but the truth." I said : " I will answer that question if yon will promise not to ask me any further questions on th« sub- ject." " Well," said he, " I will not catechize you against your will or wish." I then said: "Itiswo^the whole truth; it is only a part of the truth ; it is an under state,- ment, but it is all I am wUliug to give to the public." " Then," he said, "I advise you not to publish it." Well, it is in the face of that evidence, and of still stronger evidence if I could find it at this moment, where Mr. Tilton explains the eirciunstanc^s and the necessity out of which this statement arose, and which led to it* SUMMING UF BY ME. BEACH. 839 being written, that my friend makes tMs statement. On page 429 Mr. Tilton ia asked wiiat was the occaiion or the difficulty at that time which called forth the letter to " A Complaining Friend," and he explains that, and speake of the '* Tripartite Covenant," and then the ques- tion is : And arose out of the same emergency ? A. Yes, Sir. I will also say that during that month of December I pre- pared another statement, the long document, which has become technieally styled, I don't know why, the " True Story," for it was not a true story, it was a false one, as Mr. Beecher said he could not bear the publication of that, that it would kill him, and as the card to " The Com- plaiiiing Friend," as he expres:sed it, only caused the very comment wliich I sought to quell, I prepared another statement, a bi'ief letter to a friend out West, I think — yes, Sir ; it has been read in evidence. It bore date, I believe, on the very next day, perhaps the very last day of the year, or at all events it was written with a view to herald in the New- Year season. There were a dozen different devices— some by Mr. Moulton, some by Mr. Beecher, and some by me — in that month. Now, how does my filend venture to say, in the face of that direct proof upon the record, for the purpose of Impeaching Mr. Tilton and imputing false evidence upon the stand to him, that wLen that " True Story " was first referred to in the evidence of jNIr. Tilton he pronounced it true, but when it was unearthed and revealed by Red- path he swore to its being a lie ? Why, I thought John Milton and John K. Porter said that Truth needs no policies or stratagems." [Laughter.] WTiat is the need of this misrepresentation 1 and what Is The policy of an argiunent founded in falsehood, to support a theory which they caU the truth? Another instance : Mr. Porter says, in relation to the letter to the friend at the West, that it was not intended for the public, but that it was prepared and laid away for use. He charges that Mr. Tilton, with the subtle fore- cast which is attribtited to him, prepared this letter to the friend at the W^est and laid it away for futtu'e use in the line of his conspii-acy against the integrity and the pocket of Henry Ward Beecher. Well, let us see about that. I have already read you sufficient upon that sub- ject. I don't know but I ought to read that letter. It strikes me as a very ingenious a^id happy and well- directed device in pursuit of the line of policy which was adopted by all the parties Interested in this matter. But yoti remember it, perhaps. On page 429 the question is put to Mr. Tilton : Q. WTiat was the occasion for the difficulty at that time which called forth the letter to " A Complaining Friend!" A. Why, Sir, during that month of December, 1872, the public pressure put upon me to do something in regard to Mrs. Woodhull's story was utterly beyond the power of any language to describe. Every newspaper through- out the land was demanding that some explanation should be made — demanding that Mr. Beecher should make it, demanding that Mr. Bowen should make it, de- manding that we all should make it, and there was a pressure in the City of Brooklj-n, and there was a pressure in the Church and everywhere — the very air seemed to rest upon us. Q. Wh'4X did Mr. Beecher say in regard to that state of things, as to the necessity of doing something 1 A. I have already ment.oned that, about a fortnight before the in- t-erview I have just given, Mr. Beecher had devised, as a plan of meeting it, that we should out the tripartite cov- enant in two and take out Mr. Bowen's part, and charge him with all the slander, and make him bear the burden of retracting it. Q. And this letter to "A Complaining Friend" suc- ceeded That ] A, Yes, Sir ; about ten or 15 days. Well, it would seem to be a satisfactory answer to aU. that is said by Mr. Porter upon that subject, as to its being laid away for use, that it was published, and so it was intended, I supposed, for publication. ALLEGED GAEBLING OF THE LETTER OP CONTRITION. The next accusation aj^ainst Mr. Tilton is that he quotes in the Bacon letter, and garbles what la called the " Letter of Contrition," or *' Letter of Apol- ogy," and fails to give that part of it which is most favor- able to Mr. Beecher. Now, this is a serious accusation, gentlemen. Unless the gentlemen on the other side deem these accusations as of importance, as bearing upon the question of credibility in this case, why they would not have been presented at stich length and with so much earnestness and zeal by my learned friends, and I cannot permit them to stand without seeing how far they are justified, and whether they really assail the essential Integrity and truth of Mr. Tiltcn, or of any person pro- duced as a witness on his behalf. Now, in this Bacon let- ter, so much of the " Letter of Apology " is published as I read : I ask, thi'ough you, Theodore Til ton's forgiveness, and I humble myself before him as I do before my God. He would have been a better man in my circtimstances than I have been. I can ask nothing except that he will re- member aU the other hearts that would ache. I wiU not plead for myself. I even wish that I were dead. He>^ey Waed Beechee. Now^, please remember the situation, gentlemen. Dr. Bacon, in a letter of great severity, had impugned the manliness and the honor of Mr. TUton ; had represented him as an offender against Mr. Beecher, as a knave and a dog who was subsisting upon the magnanimity of Henry Ward Beecher, and the object of this letter to Dr. Bacon (I am sure you cannot have forgotten It, gentlemen, and I wish it were not too much of an infliction upon your time and strength to read it) ; but it was intended as an answer to that imputation, and nothing more. No charge is made against Mr. Beeeher in that letter. Not the slightest im- putation byword or suggestion in that letter of any impu- tation against Mr. Beecher, and I beg you to remember it, gentlemen, and if there be any hesitation on your part in receiving that assertion aa true the letter shall be read. I assert again, there ia not 830 IBM a word, there is not a suggestion from the beginning to tlie end of tliat niost admirable and self-poised document imputing tlie sligiitest offense to Henry Ward Beecber, or to J^lizabetb K. Til ton. On tlie contrary, it sbields both, it defends botb ; but wlien this man was cliaracter- ized by a lending iii\ine and Christian of this country as a knave and a dog, the dei>endent of Henry Ward }>echfr's sufferance, and living only by the tolerance of Henry Ward Beecher, was Theodore Tilton to be still ? Was he to submit to this imputation ?— an imputation be- hind widcli he could not live in silence ; and with all his grand iiitellectual power, with all the strength of that genius which had once carried him to the pinnacle of renown, he could not have held bis head in this community above the pa vement, resting under that Imputation. And wb at did he do ? Why, by a simple, manly, temperate recital of facts, without pas- sion, without accusation, without epithet, he told the simple relation of admitted and known facts in regard to his dealings with the church and the West charges, cany- ing no imputation against anybody, but relieving him from all imputation, and inserts this quotation from Hf'nr\' Ward Beecher's letter, showing that Mr. Tilton was not quite so base and hopeless a dependent upon Henry Ward Beecher as Mr. Bacon chose to suppose and to charge. And what part of it did he omit ? Mr. Portej' said he omitted that part which would bear most in favor of Mr. Beecher. The remaining part of it is : But others must live and suffer. I will die before any- body but myself shall be inculpated. All my thoughts are running toward my friends, toward the poor child lying there, praying, with her folded hands. She is guilt- less, sinned against, bearing the transgressions of an- other. And did my friend want Mr. Tilton to publish that t Her forgiveness I have. I humbly pray to God that He will put it into the heart of her hdsband to forgive me. I have trusted this to Moulton in confidence. Now, as fair men, as honorable gentlemen, I appeal to you whether there was an 3' disingenuousness, anyunfair- ness.in the quotation from that letter by Mr. Tilton, whether the quotation was not conceived in the most generous spii'it toward Mr. Beecher, and in the pursuit with reference to his wife and family, and that policy npon which he had ever acted to suppress their publica- tion, and every suggestion of impropriety or wrong upon her part. Why, what would have been the effect of iti If Mr. Tilton had added what my friend says he was base for omitting, that the offense for which Mr. Beecher apologized to him, that the quotation showing that Mr. Beecher was the wrong-doer and not Mr. Tilton the kiiav^e and the dog, if , in addition to that, he had pointed that portion of this letter to a direct connection with Mrs. Tilton, showing that the offense which he admitted was an offense against her purity and honor, why, what would my learned friends have said of the delicacj' and manliness and affection of this husband toward his wife ? TRIAL. THE ANNOUNCEMENT THAT THE CHARG WAS ADULTERY. Both these learned counsel have quite inno cently misrepresented another important fact. Bot have said that Mr. Tilton, by Mr. Kedpath, in the Sn- mer of 1874, sent word to Mr. Beecher that he was goin to change his accusation— an utter mistake. Hereafter shall ask your attention to the narrative of Mr. Redpat' but here I say that there is not in that narrative a sing' word justifying the use of that phrase by these two di tinguished counsel. Mr. Tilton did send word to Mr. Beecher by Mr. Redpath that he was going to charge adultery. And, why did he do it ? Why, up to that hoar these men had been working with a common interest, and with a unity of effort to shield Mrs. Tilton. It was not only the policy of silence, but it was the i»olicy of misrepresentation. It was the policy of de- vices, it was the policy of concealment to which Mr. Beecher was committed, which he favored and aided and in the pm^suit of that policy Mr. Tilton had invariably represented the offense of Mr. Beecher toward his wire to be that of improper solicitation, and it is remarkable, gentlemen — look ttirough the evidence and you will not find that he has uttered a lie upon that subject. He has said his wife was as pure as an angel, as white as snow ; but upon this record you will not find a single instance where Theodore Tilton has said distinctly and definitely of his wife's offense and of Mr. Beeoher's crime that it was not adultery. That is unimportant. It is true that, thi-oughout the whole of these efforts at suppression, Mr. Tilton has persistently do* Glared that his wife was pure, and that Mr. Beecher's offense was improper approaches. Nothing more. That was the statement in all these docu- ments. What was there in the Bacon letter to excite the ire of Henry Ward Beecher 1 It is said that it was a hostile attack. Where is the evidence of the hostility 1 Why, Mr. Beecher, in his statement before the Committee, eulogized as such a wonderful and magnanimous protection on the part of my learned friend— Mr. Beecher, in that statement, ad- mits an offense and wrong. Why, the Bacon letter charges nothing more, imputes nothing more, insinuates nothing more. What is there, then, in that to justify the ire of Mr. Beecher % There is not a word referring to him except the simple production of that quotation from his own letter of contrition, and that part of it which upon this trial he admits to be genuine. Well, I shall ask you to consider, by and by, what justification this fiu-nished to Mr. Beecher to precipitate this controversy upon the public, and to invite and press an examination whicli must necessarily result in a full disclosure and examin- ation of all these jtainful circumstances. TIL TON-B EECHEB suMMiya rp by mr. beach. 831 MRS. MOULTON'S OPTNIOX OF ME. TILTON. Well, my learned friend next says, why, Mrs. Moulton pronounced Mr. Tilton a traitor and a villain, and that is presented \>j counsel as tlie judsTment of one of our witnesses upon the party who produced her. Well, did it strike my friends as a little singular when they were exposing what I may (adopting the language of my friend) say was the loathing of Mrs. Moulton towards Mr. Tilton, that they are at the same time charging her with becoming a conspiratress and a perjuress to sup- port the interests of Mr. Tilton? That this lady, too, as my friend says, although she pronounced Mr. Tilton a traitor and a villain, yet, says my friend, she ar- ranged that she should be a witness In an action of ciH,m. eon., and pledged herself to he a witness. WeU, there is a strange incongruity in those representations of the counsel. It is utterly impossible that Mrs. Moulton could have maintained these conflicting and irreconcilable at- titudes, positions, and purposes with regard to Mr. Tilton and his crime. But, what were the circumstances imder which Mrs. Moulton made use of these harsh aecpressions 1 I would like, IE I can, to relieve my client from that un- favorable and unpleasant attitude ; at least to modify somewhat the severity of the judgment which my learned friend infers from these expressions. Q. Do you remember an interview that you had with Mr. Tilton at your house during some of these years ; in Jauuarj-, 1873, do you remember having an interview with Mr. Tilton at your house, in which you told him that he was a villain, and would betray your husband as he had Mr. Beecher 1 A. I think I remember an inter- view with Mr. Tilton something like that. Q. Do you remember when that was 1 A. Yes, Sir ; it was last July. Q. Last July ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Do you remember, on his making some remark in answer to this statement of yours, that you threatened to send for a policeman and have him put out of the house? A. No, Sir; I never remember the policeman, nor any reference to any policeman. Q. What did you further teU him? A. I said if he was unkind to Frank, my husband — if he turned on him in any way, insomuch as by a look, that he must never come into our house again. Q. Did you, on the occasion of any interview that you had with Mr. Beecher, say to him this, or words equiva- lent to it, that " at heart Theodore Tilton is treacherous, and hates you?" A. I think I might have said to Mr. Beecher that Mr. Tilton hated him ; I think he had good reason to. Mr. Evarts— Read a little further. Mr. Beach— [Reading] : Q. Do you think that you did say to Mr, Beecher, **At heart Theodore Tilton is treacherous and hates you?" A. I remember repeatedly saying to M^ Beecher that I thought it was impossible for Mr. Tilton to keep this quiet. I might, in that way, have said that I thought he was treacherous. It was impossible to keep him quiet. Mr. Evarts— It goes on a little more explicit. However, I don't care. Mr. Beach— [Reading.] Q. Treacherous in regard to keeping auiet ? A. Yea, Sir. Mr. Shearman— She says she don't recollect the exact words. Mr. Beach— Where is that ? Mr. Shearman— A little further below. Mr. Beach -How does the sentence commence f Mr. Shearman— [Reading] : Q. Well, now. Madam, wiU you tell me whether you ever told Mr. Beecher, in terms, that Theodore Tilton at least was treacherous and hated him ? A. I don't recol- lect those exact words, yet I think I might have said so. ****** ^ number of times 1 A. Yes, Sir, I think so. Mr. Beach— And the way she said it was, she told Mr Beecher she thought it was impossible for Mr. Tilton to keep this quiet. Further on, on page 748, Mr. Evarts not being entirely satisfied with the pursuit of that ques- tion, again introduced it, I think : Mr. Evarts— You had a conversation with him, a part of which was that if he turned upon your husband even by a look— what led you to think of his tui-ning upon your husband ? A. I remember, it was in August this conver- sation took place ; it was with reference to Mr. Moulton having failed to make his statement before the Commit- tee as he had promised. At my earnest solicitation a short statement was prepared for Mr. Moulton and given to the Committee m place of the long statement, as I said, to give Mr. Beecher another chance to state his case fairly. Mr. Tilton did not know of that ; he had been out of town. 'When he came home in the evening he came into our house with Judge Morris and said : " Frank, you have broken your faith with the public ; your reputation will suffer ; you have promised faithfully to give to-day to the Committee your statement ; you have failed to do it." I listened to him for some time ; I was sitting in the back room, and I did not like the manner or the way in which he reproved Frank for having failed to make his state- ment, and I went in and spoke to him. My exact lan- guage I do not remember ; I know that I was very angry, and reproved him very severely for speaking to Mr. Moultoi. in the way in which he did. Well, that is the whole history of that transaction. II there is anj-fhing of solace or comfort to my learned friends or to Mr. Beecher out of that, and if they can draw any inference from that that Mrs. Moulton con- siders Mr. Tilton either treacherous or dishonorable, why, I don't begrudge them the crumb. This lady speaks of a suit having been spoken of. She says, in answer to this question : Q. How, then, had you learned all the things that you told Mr. Beecher then ? A. Because I had heard Mr. Tilton say that he would take his case into the courts of justice, where he would be fairly dealt with. There is nothing in the testimony of this lady which justifies the imputation of Mr. Porter that she arranged to be a witness upon the trial of a case of crim. con. to be brour-ht by Mr. Tilton, or pledged herself to be a witness. When asked when first the idea of her being a witness in this or any other case was presented to her mind. s]i« 832 THE TlLrON-BhJKORER TBJAL. mentioned that was in July of 1874, wlien Mr. Tilton, disbacifsfied witti tlie couivse ot proceeding before the Ex- aminiu^ Cooiuiittee, threatened to bring an action ; and the remark was then made that in case that event fol- lowed she would necessarily be a witness in the case. The Court here a<^ourned to 11 o'clocS: Thursday morn- ing. _ lOlST DAY'S PROCEEDINGS. SECOND DAY'S ARGUMENT BY MR. BEACH. JUDGE PORTER ADDRESSES THE COURT CONCERNING IMPUTATIONS MADE BY MR. BEACH— MR. TILTON'S COUNSEL EXPLAINS THAT HE DID NOT CHARGE CORRUPTION — ALLEGED EFFORTS OF THE DEFEND- ANT'S SUPPORTERS TO HIDE WITNESSES— OPENING STATOMENTS OF JUDGE PORTER AND MR. EVARTS REPLIED TO— MR. BEECHER's CHARACTER AS VIEWED BY THE PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL DE- SCRIBED — AUTHORSHIP OF FAMOUS SCANDAL PHRASES. Thursday, June 10, 1875. The crowding, pushing, and scrambling to get into the court-room to-day were even greater than on the day before, but the audience was no larger, simplj^ because not another person could find sittiug or standing room inside. It was with great difficulty that the aisles could be kept sufficiently open to allow the counsel and reporters to pass. There was the same enthusiastic element in the audience that had manifested its presence on the previous day, and Mr. Beach was applauded, not only upon his entrance into the court-room, but several times while he was speaking. Mr. Beach ap- peared to be stronger than on the first day of his ar- gument. His voice was unbroken, and his manner easier. At the opening of the morning session Judge Porter addressed, the court in reference to the alleged imputation of Mr. Beach, in his opening speech, upon the jury and the counsel for the defend- ant. Mr. Beach replied disclaiming any intention of imputing corruption to the jury or any member of it. Later in the day the orator asserted that it was in reference to procuring of witnesses and the other machinery of the trial that his remarks about the eyes and arms and gold possessed by the defend- ant's counsel were applied. At this point occurred one of the most stirring pas- sages in the day's address. Referring to the asser- tion that the plaintiff had not brought the servants m Mr. Tilton's family as witnesses, the orator ex- claimed: " Servants I We go to New- Jersey, but we find Mrs. Tilton ahead of us ! We go to the various places where the servants scattered from this house can |)e found, and welludtlie lady zealots of Plymouth Church ahead of us! When the gentlemen tell us that we do not produce them, I tell them that they have hid them!" These assertions, delivered with all the power of elocution and earnest force of man- ner which Mr. Beach possessed, were received with a slight outbreak of applause. There was another stir among the auditors when the orator announced that he did not believe that Mr Beecher had given his narrative under the solem- nity of that obligation which the jury might have supposed that he invoked, and that he meant here- after to maintain this proposition. The course of the summing up followed the same line of argument with which the orator opened on the first day. Statements and arguments of Judge Porter were examined, and opposed by coun- ter statements and arguments. The phrases " par- oxysmal kiss," " the brink of a moral Niagara," &c.,. which Judge Porter said were unlike Mr. Beecher's mode of expression, were reviewed, and the orator read numerous extracts fi'om the defendant's sermons and writings containing phrases which he considered to be similar, and from which he argued that Mr. Beecher might also have been the author of those in question. The reading of these extracts, and the orator's remarks upon them, were highly enjoyed by the audience, and Mr» Beecher appeared to be as much amused as any one» The opening arguments of Mr. Evarts were re- plied to also. Mr. Beach gave instances of many cases of ministers, and other men of supposed high character, who had been guilty of debauchery and crime. From expressions used in the defendant's works, the true nature and disposition of Mr. Beecher were attempted to be shown in the light in which the orator regarded him, THE PROCEEDINGS— VERBATIM. MR. PORTER DE^IES WORDS ATTRIBUTED TO HIM. The Court met at 11 a. m., piusuant to ad- joummenJ:. Mr. Porter— Before proceedmg, your Honor, I desire to say in behalf of my associate, Mr. Evarts, that he is un- avoidably deprived of the pleasure of hearing the argu- ment of Mr. Beach to-day by a necessary engagement at Washington, and that he expects to be here to-morrow. One of my associates has suggested, and I recognize the propriety of the suggestion, that, in view of a remark SUMMiya CF BY ME. BEACH. 83B made br my leanic-d friend yesterday in respect to tlie jury. I sliouid say tliat we can appeal to every member of tbis panel in regard to tbe imputation made upon tbem and UTion us. It was undoubtedly made by my friend in good faith, but I fear it was made upon tbe same au- tbority wita tbe charge of adultery against Henry Ward Beecher and Eiizabeth R. Tilton. i appreciate fully, your Honor, the propriety of counsel representing clients, presenting tbeir own views, as well of tbe evideuce as of the arguments. It is not to be supposed that in a triul of this duration any hum:.n memory could carry or any report accurately represent all that tran.-rpii'es. I .give credit to my friend upon tbe otber'side for entire good faith iu representations of lan- guage used by Mr. Evarts and myself, which we both dis- claim ; but it would be rude, and not tending to the order of public discussion, if we were to interrupt the argu- ment as it proceeds. There is a single point upon which my friend— I say my friend, for the cords that have been woven by thirty years of attachment are not easily brolien— my friend has, in the com-se of his argument of ytr>terd TV. imputed to me a specific phrase which I per- fectly understood, but which is misunderstood by others. As a matter of rhetorical hyperbole, and intending to characterize what I did say by something which I did not say, my learned friend said yesterday that I addressed to Mr. Tilton language like this : " Down, down to hell, and say I sent thee there." Judge Xeilson— That is a quotation from an old author. Mr. Porter— It was a quotation, of course, vised by my friend, but whicli as published would appear, contrary I know to his own intent, to have been the language which I literally used to ^Ir. Tilton. I certainly should not, if I were to make a quotation from Shakespeare at all, either assume myself the language of the murderer Gloster be- tween the two stabs he inflicted upon a fallen king, nor should I think of clothing Mr. Tilton with the honors of royalty by addressing to him language which was ad- dressed to one of the earlier kings of England. [Sensa- tion], ilE. BEACH RESUMES HIS ARGUMEXT. Mr. Beacli — Your Honor, I am sure, did not understand me, in any remarks which I submitted yester- day, to impute any impropriety, much less any corrup- tion, to this jury, or to any member of it. I certainly dis- claim any such intention, and I am quite sure my language bears no such interpretation. I did choose to comment. Sir, upon the confidence and boldness with which my learned friend assmned to know the sentiments of this jury, and assumed to predict what their verdict would be ; and I think the recollections of the Court and the jury will sustain me in the imputation of language con- veying that import and meaning, expressing it in most distinct and unequivocal terms, which I imputed to my learned friend* Well, Sir, in imputing to the severe, violent, and furious language which was addressed by my learned friend to Mr. Tilton, I did. Sir, indulge in an addition which I sup- posed expressed the intent and the purpose of what my learned friend really did say. The scene will not be readily foraotten. Sir. Its impression and effect upon us will not be readily forgotten. In close proximity to my client, and with a gesture which tmder other circum- stances would indicate the intensest hostility, and a most furious purpose of assault, my friend did cry to him, " Down, down, down," and I supposed. Sir, that he meant to consign him to hell, and I think co still. [Laugh- ter and applause, j Mr. Porter— It i£ a commentary of the client and the counsel upon what they thought. Judge ^'eilson— It is to be hoped that gentlemen will show their respect to the speaker by keeping perfectly quiet. Every demonsuation interrupts him, as well as distui'bs the Court. THE POTEXCY OF ^OEDS. Mr. Beach— Some high authority has sctid that words are things ; and undoubtedly they exercise a great and most important influence upon the world. They stir the passions which upheave the elements of society ; they suggest ideas which revolutionize the world ; they are potent and powerful instruments in affectinff the mind, controlling the judgn;ent, governing the actions of the race. But words are also indicative of individuals. Particular phrases, forms of rhetoric, of expression, are, almost as clearly as handwriting, indica- tive of the person who uses them. If you should see a speech of my friend :Mr. Evarts. without any title page,, with his singular and unequaled command of language, and the peculiarities of its use, you would know at once that that was a speech of Mr. Evarts. EXPRESSTOXS DIPFTED TO MR. BEECHER AXD DENIED. Relying upon that piinciple, we hare allud- ed in evidence, and in discussion, to certain phrases, words, appearing in writing and verbal exi^ressions, given in evidence by various witnesses, as evidence of their au- thorship, and imputed through these expressions to Mr. Beecher, the production of the various scenes and con- versations and writings in which they occur. With the sagacity which distinguishes my learned friend Mr. Por- ter, he has endeavored to disembarrass ZVIr. Beecher from counection with these particular words and phrase* He disclaims them. Elevating him as a pure and un defiled master of the English language, as the clear, precise, and simple rhetorician, speaking from the burning Impulses of his own heart and mind, in expressive and simple lan- guage, he has advanced the idea that it is perfectly im- possible that such a man, witi such refinement and cul- 834 IHE TILION-BEECEEB TRIAL, tui-e, and such a natuie, could by possibility employ tlie exceptional and singular words whicli are imputed to Mm in the course of the plaintiflf s evidence. And there- fore Mr. Porter says : You remember that single word " paroxysmal" wMoh to this day furnishes occasion for those who are unfavor- ably disposed to Mr. Beecher to impute to him a base and an Infamous crime, and yet it is a part of our public history that that " paroxysmal Msa" was never heard of from the lips of Mr. Beecher save by two men, Theo- dore Tilton and Francis D. Moulton. In the first place, the expression itself is absolute nonsense, and one of which Mr. Beecher is utterly incapable. MR. BEECHERS USE OF THE WORD " PAROXYSMAL." I do not agree with my learned friend in Ms estimate of the force and expressiveness of that word. Indeed, it has been adopted into legal phrase- ology, and has thus been adopted at the suggestion of one of the most learned of our professions. We have the term in our law books, our elementary works, and our works on judicature—" paroxysmal Insanity," indicating that high and elevated state of feeling, that sudden, impul- sive, and uncontrollable action wMch springs from those «xoited impulses ; and in that sense the term " paroxysmal Mss " was used, expressive in its character, perfectly consonant with the state of feeling, the impulses which at the moment existed. And I have been curious to examine the works of Mi\ Beecher to see whether or not he indulges in phrases of that character ; because, gen- tlemen, in all the departments of tMs case, In regard to all the issues, whether of fact or of credibility, which are made in this case, it is necessary for us to understand the particular characteristics, the idiosyncrasies of the person whose conduct and motives we are examining, and I find in the sermons of Mr. Beecher, in the first series, in a commentary wMch he was making upon some excitement in regard to the Water-st. movement in the City of New-York, this expression : The Water-st. movement in New- York to-day is another such movement, a kind of paroxysmal, fanatical, some call it, social, impulsive repentance. Well, the precise word is used, and it is used with ad- ditional phrases that indicate its meaning, and the in- tensity of its signification. That impulsive, ardent, irrepressible movement wMch springs from some overwrought feeling or sentiment, either of love or of indignation, or of any other of the passions wMch stir the human heart. And in the same sermon he says : Communities are sometimes possessed for short periods with a paroxysm of contrition. And again: The paroxysms of cruelty from men that wreak their vengeance without discrimination, the world is not un- acquainted with. One of these paroxysms, one of those revivals of per- sonal feeling and of virtue. I do not ask you to wake up to the paroxysm of zeaL Mychildr(-n were dear to me as myself, and were a part of mj self, and mto what pai-oxysms of indignation would I have been thrown if any man had played experi- ments on those babes. I tell you a mother in the paroxysm of love looks splendidly. And if a husband and father was looking upon a mother in such a splendid paroxysm of love, very likely, I think, he woiQd dispose upon her a paroxysmal kiss. [Laughter. 1 I think that a man struggling against Christianity when under conviction, is like a fractious child struggling against a dear mother when she reproves and punishes it, untU it rushes into her arms and kisses her with a par- oxysm. That Is very much like a paroxysmal kiss. It is not very foreign to the usual expressions and the habit of rhetoric which belong to Mr. Beecher. And, therefore, we have in these few examples drawn promiscuously from a simple observation of Ms writings— we have Mr. Beecher full of paroxysms, paroxysms of repentance, paroxysms of contrition, paroxysms of personal feeling, paroxysms of virtue, paroxysms of zeal, paroxysms of indignation, paroxysms of cruelty, paroxysms of love, paroxysms of Msses, paroxysms of tears. Now, this ex- Mbition of the rhetoric of Mr. Beecher, it seems to me, hardly justifies my learned friend, either in pronouncing the use of the term " paroxysmal kiss " as foolishness and absurd ; certainly does not justify him in the exon- eration of Mr. Beecher from the use of it. "THE BRINK OF A MORAL NIAGARA." But there is another phrase which excites deeper indignation upon the part of my learned friend. Mr. M oTilton in his testimony, from the nervous force of the expression and as descriptive of the sense of utter misery and desolation expressed by Mr. Beecher, and felt by him, at the time of the interview in wMch the ex- pression was used, says that he distinctly remembers Mr. Beecher exclaiming, in substance, "I stand upon the brink of a moral Niagara," and to discredit Mr. Moulton, to convince tMs jviry and the public that Ms history of that interview was a simple and bald invention, my friend, upon the part of Mr. Beecher, disclaims the possi- ble use of an expression of that character. He says, quoting the phrase : " I stand on the brink of a moral Niagara." Now, that Is Theodore Tilton ; it is not Mr. Beecher. [Turning to Mr. Morris.] Was it not Moulton who used that? Mr. Morris— Yes. Mr. Beach— He attributes it to Mr. Tilton. Well, it was a phrase testified to by Mr. Moulton, and not by Mr. Til- ton. Now, that is Theodore Tilton ; it is not Henry Ward Beecher. Do you think Heni-y Ward Beecher would talk About a moral Niagara any more than he would about a SUMMING UP BY MR. BE A OH. -moral haystack or a moral swamp 1 It is not the man. With him words have meaning ; they are alive ; there is thought in them ; there is significance in them ; there is coherence in them ; but with Mr. Tilton the brink of a moral Niagara brings him incongruous ideas, which to him have a rhetorical charm, and they are put into the lips of Henry Ward Beecher as his language, instead of the language of Theodore Tilton. Well, Mr. Tilton never used the language in the fiist place, and my friend fell into that error in his zeal to Impute it to Mr. Tilton. I have not the same idea of that expression as is entertained by my friend. A great preacher, a man distinguished for his learning, and folding, as they claim, the highest position among the pietists and the elocutionists of the age, is detected in the commission of an infamous moral olfense. The victim of Ma impiety and sin is said to have charged him with it. He is brought face to face with the accusation, and he sees aU the consequences to himself, to society, to religion. He is overcome with anguish and remorse; and with a flow of passionate language, which stirs the heart of every reader and listener, he utters his repentance and grief, and in connection with that utterance, to the ready and sympathetic friend who has stepped forward to aid him in his peril and exigency, he exclaimed, " I stand on the brink of a moral Niagara." And what expression in the English language, what comparison or similitude could more forcibly represent the position, assuming the accusation to be ti-ue, in which Henry Ward Beecher stood a# that moment, and the clearness and the jvistness ?>i the perception which he entertained of that position. It conveys to your mind, it bears to my mind, a most intense descriptive force, and it presents the real and the actual attitude in which the author of it stood then, and in which he stands to-day, before the judgment seat of this jury and the world. He does stand upon the brink of a moral Niagara. It is possible that your hands may rescue him; but assuming the truth which he then attached, and which we attach, to his position; assuming the guiltiness of Henry Ward Beecher, In the English language there is no more expressive de- scription than that. Now, it is important for us, in deter- mining whether there is that incongruity between the usual language and common rhetoric of Mr. Henry Ward Beecher, and this phrase — ^it is important ior ns to know how this gentleman ordinarily uses and applies language, expressly with reference to moral conditions and moral expressions, tf Mr. Beecher had said, *' I stand on the brink of a moral precipice ;" if he had said, " I stand and am hover- ing over the brink of a moral abyss, into which to fall is degradation and infamy and destruction forever," would Tou have thought it inappropriate to his imputed condi- tion? My friends upon the other side have referred to the sacred poots, and you remember Mr. Watts in one of bis most expressive and touching hymns uses the phrase, '"Plunged in a gulf of dark despaii- ;" and no one has ever yet imputed to that phrase any want of proper rhetoric or of expressive force. Well, in looking at the " Life Thoughts" of Mr Beecher, I find that he uses the term "philosophic anguish," and he speaks of a man to whom ** pumpkins were apotheosized !" Well, a pretty extravar gant phrase. The man who will use that phrase as ap- plicable to pumpkins — " apotheosized" — ought not to be condemned for using the term "moral Niagara." "A moral eye-sight," moral astronomy," "moral anato- mist," and even "moral cripples"— all found in the works of Mr. Henry Ward Beecher. But in his "Life Thoughts" he uses this expression : No doctrine is good enough for anything that does not leave behind it an ethical furrow for the planting of seeds which shall spring up and bear abtmdant harvests. Now, we all understand what an " ethical furrow " is ; and the seizure of that illustration by Mr. Beecher does not seem to me either unapproved or unrhetorical. It is expressive— an " ethical furrow " in which the seeds of truth and of piety are to be planted. And an " ethical fur- row," it seems to me,would justify even the use of the term of my learned friend, a " moral haystack." [Laughter.] Well, with that humor which is a distinguishing and a happy faculty of Mr. Henry Ward Beecher, and which is one of his chief attractions among his other great recom- mendations, he uses, in his work entitled, " Eyes and Ears," this phrase : " The ghastly corpse of an appl&- pie." And yet my friend thinks a gentleman who can use this illustrative language, an extravagant phrase of this character, never could liave been guilty of using the words, " I stand on the brink of a moral Niagara ! " Well, it happened, unfortunately to Mr. Beecher, upon one occasion, that the plumbing arrangements of his house were ou,t of order, and one of his chambers became a little diluted. In describing it, he says : One of the pipes was stopped up, and the chamber, &c., overflowed. The plumber was sent for. We had a pocket ocean up-stairs. Well, now, that is not to be discredited, nor is it to be condemned. This is the style of Henry Ward Beecher. Read his sermons and works where you may you will find these original, these coined, these expressive phrases standing out all over through Ms works. I have many more quotations ; I will not trouble you with them. But I have deemed this question of suflacient importance, be- cause although it may not seem so to you, yet it has been used by my learned friends constantly tMoughout their address to this jury and the public, to impress upon all minds the idea that In the relation, by Mr. Tilton and Mr. Moulton, of interviews with Mr. Beecher, and in the documents and rostruments wMoh were imputed to him, there was an extravagance and impropriety of expression as compared with the cultivation and the ordinary habits of expression of Mr. Beecher, to produce the conviction that Mr. B(?echer was misrepresented by tMs evidence^ In the " Royal Truths," a work published by Mr. Beecher, I find this expression ; 836 TUB TILTOJS-BMBCHER TElAJb, I may be broken up, disintegrated, comminuted, ren- dered pulverulent, and thus be in a state to promote bet- ter growth. Well, when my friends impute to Mr. Theodore Tilton a straining after rhetorical effect, the coining of vain and superficial phrases, I commend them to the study of the works of their client. Without imputing to Mr. Beecher any impropriety, any awkwardness, any rudeness of ex- pression, yet, there is not an author in this land who as- sumes more liberties with the English language, and coins more extravagant and, (notwithstanding the illus- tration of Mr. Evarts), I may say, transcendental ex- pressions, than Mr. Henry Ward Beecher. In my own experience of cases that I have most despaired of among those who come to me for spiritual help, have been persons who were nervinely sick. They must come to him under the cover of some apology or beneath some umbrellaed excuse lest the clouds should break, &e. Well, the idea of an excuse being protected by an um- brella— an " timbrellaed excuse !" Well, this awkward phrase, " a wrinkled foreheaded man," " business vaticinations," "realizing centers," and " what is the average impression of the community in regard to re- ligion— that it is beautiful or that it is gawky ?" I don't exactly understand this term, " fictile skill," " typhoid conscience," " fluxing industries," and " a hailstone teaching," and, not quite as simple as " moral Niagara," " you might as well attempt to cure volcanoes with pills." - And then, in his work entitled " Eyes and Ears," he speaks of " a horse rapture." Well, that is a kind of a rapture he may have felt ; I never have understood. [Laughter and applause.] " Well, for her friends she is a contfnuous garden, for her not friends a precipice." *• ni-smelling flowers of hati'ed," " the hilltop of cheer- fulness"— well, I think a beautiful expression and de- scriptive of that frame of mind which Mr. Beecher usually possesses and indulges. " The roots and branches and leaves of morality "—another beautiful idea and illustra- tion. " A bird loves a kind of shy familiarity— nesting in the dry hay"—" amorous locusts." Speaking of an apple tree, he says, " In the month of May, apple trees go courting. It is a homely, sober, matter of fact tree. May seems to stir up a love-heat in its veins. You must not con- demn a " moral Niagara," I submit, gentlemen, after ex- pressions of that character. Now, these express not only the habit of thougjit, but the modes of expression of that gentleman, and I do not put them or use them for the inirpose of imputing any rhetorical impropriety or any impurity of thought to jVIt. Beecher. He uses figurative language, and eacpresses and Illustrates with great beauty and force ideas and sentiments ; and it is the jiTcat attraction of iiis i)i'caching. It is that which, every day of the week, stirs the hearts and emotions of his audiences, and in the holy temikle of God leads them t^; lireak out in rapturous and noisy applause, and he •'iannot disclaim them. They are indicative of the indi- "^iduality of the man. And when you fmu in tha records of his conversations and declarations, as given by wit- nesses and in the documents presented in this case, these unusual and extravagant expressions, they lead to the identity of the author. "A SECTION OF THE DAY OF JUDGMENT." Now, take the phrase, "section of the Day of Judgment," in the conversation had with Mrs. Moul- ton. Why, my fri:'ud Mr. Porter says, " Mr, Beecher could not have used that expression. He does not divide the Day of Judgment into sections." Well, he and I will find, I am afraid, when we come to that time that there are, at least two sections to that Day of Judgment. iLaughter.l This lady, Mrs. Moulton, was continually impressing upon, him the idea of confession. " Submit to the discipline of the Scripture ; confess your sin ; stand no more in this attitude of concealment and secrecy and duplicity. Be the man you profess to be— the exalted teacher of moral- ity, the embassador of Christ. Live up to your weekly teaching in the pulpit. Let there be no more of this de- praved inconsistency between your conduct and your teachings." And is it surprising, with his ardent temperameni", with his impulsive expression, with his habit of rhetoric —would it have been surprising under these circumstances that Mr. Beecher should say to Mrs. Moulton, " Why, I come to you for encouragement and for rest, for cheer in my sorrows, fo? that solace which can only come from a woman's sympathy and a woman's hand, and yon are forever holding up to me the terrors of this offense and impressing upon me the duty of confession and exposure. Why, you seem to me like a section of the Day of Judg- ment." Henry Ward Beecher throughout ! And I adopt, gentlemen, a little commentary I found in one of the prominent papers of the neighboring city. Speaking of Mr. Beecher and Mr. Moulton, this paragraph says : He comes to her for oomfoi't and consolation as man goes to woman in his trouble. She is, under the unhappy ciromnstances of his case— unhappy whatever they really have been— the only woman to whom he can go to be soothed and cheered. And what, according to her account, does she do 1 Day after day she says to him, " Confess; make clean your breast of all this, and be for- given." But, as she says, rather than do this he told ber he would die. And yet she continued to lU'ge upon hiiu that which she says he declared was worse to him than death. AVhat wonder, then, that he should break oat upon this perverse female Baalam, who would not snv what she was expected to say, and who held up ever ht- fore him the vision of a great accounting to come, and told her that she was like a slice of the Day of Judgmeutf How graphic! How humorous! How perfectly Beecher- like ! How it tells of the disappointed longing of a soul' that sought consolation and found threatening; that thirsted for the sweet and tasted the bitter 1 What a warning to women that they should not put off the whitO' robes of mercy and don the ermine of justice ! And what a light it throws upon the scene as the witnesses describP it! That worn and harassed 7nan. lying upon the sofa, looking tor the soft ministrations from woman, which,, whether they touch the root of the heart's disease or not^ SUMMJSG UF 1 ire balm to man's -^ounaed spirit, and lieaniig only tliat e^imsiant Tvammg coim?«el, Confess" — longing tor a glimpse of hope, and seeing only a slice of tlie Day of Judgment. Now, it seems to me that commentary expressed pre- cisely the situation, the position, the state of mind, the character of thought, feelinii and expression belonging to the two parties of that intt- rview. MR. TILTON'S SPECULATIOXS OX THE LIl^E OF CHEIST. You Trill remember that Mr. Tilton wrote to his wife a letter, in -which he speculated upon certain oiicumstanees and possihle eondiaons in the life of Christ. My friend, -with sevtsie denunciation, pronoimced it to he a gross and repulsive sacrilege. Mr. Tilton indulged a vein of thought and speeulatiim upon the quesTion. -what -would have been the eSect upon the estimation of the -world, upon the reception of the char- acter and teachings and influence of Christ, if he had been married, if he had loved -with a -^-orldly nftection and been the husband of an idolized -wife and the parent of a happy household. And this is pronounced as blas- phemous. It is presented to you as a revelation of the indurated and unreligious sentiment of Mr. Tilton. Xo character on earth, no historic personage has ever drawn from the lips of the learned and the pious more specula- tion and more commentary than that of Christ. The revelations of his customary and ordinary life are not very full or complete. There is room enottgh for speculative thought. There is room enough for philo- sophical conjecture. There is room enough for the indul- gence of commentary, and for the derivation of various and conflicting opinions in regard to his character and his relation to the Trinity. And it never has been thought irreligious or sacrilegious to indulge in those reflections. It indicates not a spirit of scoffing and unbelief when respectfully indulged, -when suggesting a possible condition to the life of Cbrist, which might have had an intimate and controlling effect upon onr concep- tions of his character, and our receptions of his iuterme- diary agency between the Father and ourselves. I have gathered a f e-w teachings of Mr. Beecher upon this subject, as approving this sort of speculative philosophy. Mr. Beecher regards Christ as a historical character — of course he could not do otherwise— as a character of history, independent of his close and religious relations to every human heart, -which deserves to be studied and commented upon. It is a character in its relations. In its revelations, -which affords the -vridest scope for the exercise of the profoundest learning and the highest genius, and the deepest emotion, and Mr. Beecher so re- gards it. He says : 'Phere is no other historic name that has shown, and is pho-wine. suchapo-wer. Christ's name is. at one and the eame time, not only the name of a historic; personage who had his wonderful-peculiarities, but a name, etc. 3Y mi. BEACR. 837 1 In his s^:-rm.ou un " Soul Building " he speaks of " ChriaC as he has been historically developed and philosophically conceived." He says of Him, " He represented historic Judaism." " You may deal," he says, " with Christ flrst, as if you were mcieiy a historic critic. You may sit in judgment upon Him, upon His life, His disposition, His deeds, His faith, &.c. You are nbt forbidden to go into historic investigations ol' it." And -vs hac more does this letter of TiifcoJoio T' ■ : "You may deal wiih Christ,'' says Mr. B.l-::li_i, ■ historical critic. Yua may sit in judguient upon Him, upon His life, His dispo- sition, His deeds. His faith. You are not forbidden tc g'> into historic investigations of it.'" Well, an ordli!.-.: / mind— I don't think either of you gentlemen— I am cer- tain as to myself— an ordinary mind -would not have entered into that Une of comment, iuvestigatioi}, thought. Immersed in the cares of the -^'orld, in business, and in professional life, you -would not think to philosophize upon the possible condition of Christ's having been a married man and a man of family. We accept Him as He is revealed in the Scriptures. "We are content with our kno-wledge of Him as derived from the Scriptures. You, -who have accepted Him as your faith and yoiu* salvation, enter into no doubts or speculations in regard to His re- lation to the Godhead or to man. You build ' upon Him, lean uiion Him, trust in Him, hold ; to Him as the revealed Savior, as the Son of the Almighty Father, as the sufferer upon Calvary, and as yo-ar Redeemer. But we have men of philosopieal minds, of speculative learning, men who investigate these subjects— not alone Theodore Tilton, but Henry Ward Beecher and all the great luminaries not only of the pulpit but of science. And what harm is there in it \ If we may be governed by the teachings and the author- ity of Henry Ward Beecher it is commendable. It Indi- cates a depth of interest and a rauge of thought which does not belong to the eommoii and ordinary imderstaud» ing. And that letter of 3Ir. Tilton, exi»ressehrase, with no reflection upon the holiness, the sanetit\- of the character of Christ. "Well, how does Mr. Beecher deal with Christ 1 You and I, gentlemen, were taught early to lisp at our mother's knee the Lord's Prayer, which, then and now, appears to us as the most solemn, comprehensive, and expressive in- vocation ever invented, to our God. Christ taught it; Christ gave it to the world as the form of prayer belong- ing to fallen souls to be addressed to their Maker, their Protector, and their Judge, and it has been reverenced and uttered by sincere and pious lips and by devoted ! hearts fi'om the time it was thus dedicated to the use i man to this hour. And no man evr? 838 TRE TlLTON-BEEiJHER TBIAL. lence of his cliamber without feeliBg a fresli and a stern impression of the majesty of God and of our relationa to his law and Ms government. What does Mr. Beecher say about if? Speaking of this Lord's Prayer, he says : It is no reproach, and it takes nothing from the value of the Lord's Prayer, nor from this whole discourse (the Bermon on the Mount) to say that they were not original ■with Christ, that they were not then first invented, when He gave them to His disciples. We know it was so in respect to the discourse at large. Well, Mr. Beecher ti-eats Christ as a plagiarist — Christ whom he teaches us is divine, Christ whom he teaches us is the Lord, co-equal wi^h the Father, one of that re- splendent and mysterious Trinity presented to us hy the revelation of the Lord, possessing the omnipotence, gifted with the omniscience of the Godhead— and yet he tells us that that divine personage, ruling all things, knowing all things, was not capable of delivering a ser- mon or dictating a prayer to fallen man 1 Well, that is dealing freely and liberally with the character and the attributes of Christ, and the counsel of a man who does this is in a very poor condition to reproach a speculative, philosophic thinker who ventures to suggest what would have been the conditions and the relations of Christ toward fallen humanity if it had happened that he had hTbeu the subject of worldly love, the husband of a wife and the parent of children. " Well," he says, " 1¥ you measure Christ, Christ's influ- ence upon the mass of his countrymen, it was null and void." Indeed ! " Neither did he found a family." Why, Mr. Beecher thinks of that ! He can Indulge thoughts of that kind ! Men are born to love and marriage, dec, but Christ was not born to any .such destiny. Upon no one did He ever bestow His heart's treasured affection ; He never knew the sweet relationships of husband and father in the household. Well, if Mr. Beecher can deal thus with the character and the conditions surrounding the life of the Redeemer, what is there in this letter of Mr. Tilton that should ox- cite such extieme disapprobation from my learned friend 1 Mr. Beecher says further : When it is said that Christ was tempted in all points like as we are, we are not to understand that He stood in every relation in which we stand. He was not a husband or a father; He did not trade or traffic ; so that there are special varieties ot external history which befall men that did not come to Christ. Well, a very proper reflection; but yet a somewhat familiar treatment of the character and the history of the Savior. I believe that a man may cro wrong a great way i n his Intellectual views of the Savior. I believe that he may err much in reasoning upon Christ. The propriety of reasoning upon Christ is admitted, thent I believe that he may fall into innuiherable mistakes In fashioning a system of religious truth, and yet be saved. Sound doctrine all of it, I think you will conclude ; but this speciilation of Theodore Tilton, written, gentlemen, to his wife, not uttered upon housetops, not published aa a theory which might excite ridicule of the Master, nothing which would di-aw out unfavorable or conflicting comment, but written, in the fullness of the confidence of marital correspondence, to his wife— this letter is seized upon by our learned friend as evidence of the religious obliquity, of the scoffing religious indifference, of Mr. Tilton. It deserves no such comment, and Mr. Beecher in his sermon says so. EPITHETS APPLIED BY ME. MOULTON TO ME. BEECHEE. Now I pass from all these subjects, gentle- menu Mr. Porter alluded to an expression used by Mr. Moulton in the course of his testimony, which he thinks of so base and calumnious a character as to be utterly destructive of the credibility of Mr. Moulton. He says : Now, the testimony of Moulton is that Beecher is a liar and a libertine. This is the spirit in which this man comes to this Court to swear away the reputation of a pure woman and a pure man. There is his photograph, made by himself and for you. The man who uses such foul, base language, and yet pretends that all this while he was the friend of the man in fbspeot to whom he used it— can you trust him 1 Now, I have no hesitation, gentlemen, in saying that I disapproved the expression ; but if that is to discredit Mr. Moulton when he appears under the solemnity of an oath as a witness, what are you to think of the impar- tiality and sincerity of my learned friend when he ap- plies not only to Mr. Moulton and Mr. Tilton, but to a woman, the epithets which he has used in this case. Why, by parity of reasoning, if Moulton is to be discred- ited, my friend Porter is not to be believed ; these men are not so bad as he represents them to be ; he is not a veracious witness, and you will not accept the character which he has given them. Bat what were the circu^nstances, gentlemen 1 Not here do I propose to review or comment upon the con- duct of Mr. Moulton m his association with Mr. Beecher ; that is matter for future consideration, " it we can glance at the general aspects of that relation. I think none of you will hesitate to say, from yoirr recollection of the evidence, that up to the time when this subject came within the jurisdiction, the effective jurisdiction, of Plymouth Church, during the Investigating Com- mittee, and, as I shall show you, after that period, there was no service to Mr. Beecher that Mr. Moulton could render, within the limits of his theory and effort, that ho did not perform. He has been called a traitor ; with chosen and deliberate language he has been pictured as an infamous "Judas," but my learned friends hav« failed to show that up to that period he faltered for an SUMMIXG TIP BY BEACH, 830 toetant, under any circumstances, upoc any occasion, in ! Lis devoted fidelity tc Mr. Beeclier, But when was it that these relations were changed, and how came they to be changed ? Not hy the simple appointment of the Investigating Com- mittee (which Mr. Moulton disapproved), for he still labored on, as I will show you, la an effort, in conjunction with and imder the approval of Mr. Beecher and his ad- visers, to suppress this investigation. It was when Henry Ward Beecher, In his statement before the Committee, charged this true and unflinching friend with attempting t^ blackmail him, it was when, from that examination, that statement, the hurricane of denunciation went out through the land against Mr. Moulton, under which his reputation and his prospects, I confess, have suffered— It was then that these relations changed. Now, if it he true that up to that hour Mr. Moulton had been the faith- ful and devoted fi-iend of Mr. Beecher, sacrificing time, and effort, and character, and morality, if you please, to save him from the consequences of His offense; and Mr. Beecher, under the con- ditions and with the fact, as he swears to It upon this stand, made against him the false and calumni- ous charge that he was a blackmailer, some extrava- gance of expression will be pardoned on the part of Mr. Moulton. Mr. Beecher is a great man; he is revered and trusted by many souls ; he has occupied a great position in the eye of the world ; and no young man, like Mr. Moulton— nay, no old gray-headed man— has the right, whatever he may think of hl-^ purity and morality, to say, In his presence and to his face, that he is a licir and a lib- ertine. It is a sacrifice of that respect which belongs to age, culture, dignity, position— aye, it is a disrespect which no feeling and upright man will offer even to fallen greatness. I do not justify it ; I do not approve it ; but this man, Mr. Moulton, is of an ardent and impulsive nature, and he has exhibited it through all this complication of circumstances. He used a rash and in- temiterate expression, I grant ; but does that prove him dishonest or unfaithful ? does that justify my friend in saying that he entertained these sentiments in regard to Mr. Beecher during the period in which friendly relations and the most intimate intercourse existed between them ? By no means— by no means. Mr. Moulton never uttered a disrespectful or irreverent expression about Henry Ward Beecher until after the event to wli- h I have di- rected your attention ; and if he has pii.;ied, he has sinned under great provocation. If he wa.^ a true friend, the in- gratitude of Mr. Beecher is inexpressible. If Mr. Moul- ton was an honest and trusty friend, I must be permitted to say that it was base and horrid for Mr. Beecher to im- pute to him a character and a practice which rendered him, if it was true, infamous in the eyes of the world. But then my friend says : The man who said that [referring to an expression tos- lified to by Mr. Storrs] was the same man who went out on the 1st of January to make two calls, one on a woman and the other on a clergyman, and cai-ried a pistol for his protection— I am wrong as to the date ; it was the day before, Saturday— a man who is such a coward that he needs a pistol in his pocket to walk down to the house of Theodore Tilton in order to get from his wife a lerter that would enable him to call upon Mr. Beecher — such a cow- ard that when he goes to Mr. Beecher he wants to im- press him with a sense of peril by showing him that he has a pistol, although there was no occasion to use it— that is not the kind of man that had better talk much about whom he is going to shoot down. Well, now, gentlemen, in the light of the evidence of Mr. Beecher, was there ever a more sophistical perversion of the condition of things than that statement? You know from the evidence that Mr. Moulton, by reason of the conditions of his business and the necessity of being about your large warehouses and docks, among rude and violent persons, and at aU hours of the day and night, was in the habit of carrying a pistol— a habit that I do not approve, a habit that I think under ordinary circum- stances I never should indulge in, a habit which I think produces a great part of the outrages and crimes which afflict the community. But it was a necessity of liis busi- ness and condition; and you have heard ]yir. Beecher's description of that pistol scene ; and you know from Mr. Beecher's evidence that that pistol was not carried for any such purpose as that imputed by Mr. Porter, and that it was not used for purposes* of intimidation. But the necessities of this case, the determination to taUr and abuse these men out of court, has led my learned friends to indulge (he must pardon me for saying) in this perver- sion of fact, and in this uniust reprehension of Mr. Moulton. WHY ME. CAEPENTER WAS NOT PUT ON THE STAND. Well, then, my friend says : ** Carpenter was not called and he says there was a promise of that in the opeaing of ]Mr. Morris. He says that, ac- cording to that opening, Mr. Carpenter was to be called to prove the confession of Mr. Beecher ; and, with very great emphasis and force, he inquires why that evidence is suppressed ; and, rf it were true, it is an inquiry which under all circimistances can be addressed to a party who fails to produce evidence in his power, and the omission of it is significant of the truth that its production would have operated unfavorably to the party suppressing it. But what is the true indication given by IVIr. Morris upon this subject in his opening 1 On page 45 Mr. Morris used this language : On tl^ evening of Jime 1 Mr. Carpenter, to whom I have alluded, attended Plymouth Chuich. After the service was over Mr. Beecher called Mr. Curucni r aside and said to him, in great anxiety, " Ha-s'e you seeu Theo- dore ?" He replied, " No ;" and then Mr. Beecher said, " He is going to publish my letter." Mr. Carpenter re- plied, " Well, what of it i" The answer came, " It will be my ruiu and his too, because he cannot rise on my ruin." 840 THE TILTON-BEEVHEB TRIAL. That is wliat Mr. Moms represented would be the tes- timony of Mr. Carpenter in relation to Ms interview witli Mr. Beecher. Subsequently he said : But, gentlemen, we don't rest our case upon tlie testi- mony furnished by Mr. Tilton himself alone. We go further than that. We will put upon the stand Mr. Carpenter, whose veracity, I apprehend, will not be questioned in this court, and to him, we mayjaay, Mr. Eeecber made his confession. Well, liow made it ? Why, in the language of the de- tailed interview wMch Mr. Morris had previously given. It was never pretended by Mr. Morris or anybody else that Mr. Beecher had confessed the offense with which he was charged by us to Mr. Carpenter, except in the particular mode of the conversation, the precise details of which were given by Mr. Morris. But when Mr. Beecher comes to the stand upon cross-examination, we find that there is no necessity for the production of that evidence. Mr. Carpenter was withheld for the purpose of rebutting any testimony that Mr. Beecher might give in denial of the alleged interview and for the purpose of answering other expected circumstances of proof upon the part of the defense ; but it never became necessary to introduce him, for the condition of the proof did not require his introduction. A TRIBUTE TO MR. PORTER. Now, tlien, gentlemen, so far as the exam- ination of the particular propositions, and the specific representations, made by my friend Mr. Porter is con- cerned, I am done with it. In nothing that I have said in regard to that gentleman (I am provoked to say by the remarks he mji de to the ."'ourt this morning), will any one, I trust, suppose that my respect and affection for him, which originated long ago, and has grown through thirty years of most intimate and personal relationship and friendship, has at all abated. I do not say it in the vein of compliment, but I have always regarded him as one of the proudest exemplars of our profession, and in all the intercourse between us— what- is somewhat re- markable, I think, for we have been engaged in opposi- tion upon exciting questions which have moved the sternest and most irritable feelings of the commimity— never in the ardor of professional debate and contest has there passed between us a ruffle or a word of unldnduess. I have none for him now, and I must be permitted to say, though I am not in the habit of indulg- ing very much in compliments, that there is no gentleman in professional or in social life to wliom my judgment, my intellect, and my heart tend and bound with a more affectionate respect and love. I have been compelled, in the discharge of my duty in this case, to speak of him in terms of, I trust moderate reprehension. I believe he has made an imworthy assault upon the character of my client and the character of witnesses whom I am bound to maintain and protect. I have done ilt in kindness, but I have done it as I am accustomed to do, in plainness. If my learned friend can recoucile to his own sense of professional duty, to that sense of the decorum which is due to parties, witnesses and adver- saries in a court of justice, the violent assault he has made upon the plaintiff and witnesses here, why, I cer- tainly shall be rejoiced at his self-complacency. I do not imagine— I do not imagine, that he wiU justify to himself the virulence of the epithets he has bestowed upon man and woman in the course of this debate. Epithets do not kill, gentlemen. Denunciation does not destroy. Vilili- eation and vituperation are not argument ; and when I have exposed to you the errors into which my learned friend has fallen, and the rank injustice he ha8 committed, I trust it will lead you and his Honor to re- flect with something of care upon the argument he has submitted. [Applause.] MR. EVARTS'S ARGUMENT CONSIDERED. I, of course, cannot pass the elaborate, learned, moralizing, extended address of my friend Mr. Evarts. In the cast of characters in this social traged> , to him has been assigned what I believe they call the " heavy" part of the performance. [Laughter.] My friend Porter was to do the denunciation ; he was to dispose of the plaintiff and the witnesses on behalf of the plaintiff, by vilification and abuse ; and my friend Evarts, by a system of moral reflection, by the promu.lgatio j. of doc- trines of morality in which I cannot concur, and against which I shall contend, by a long and labored application of that wonderful power of language and rhetoric pos- sessed by that gentleman, has attempted to control the minds and judgments of this jury by leading you fi'om a fair and just consideration of the evidence in this case, of the facts upon which your judgment should be founded. He has endeavored to change the attitude of the parties in this case, to turn Mr. Tilton into a defendant, to change the range of accusation and defense— sometimes a skillful mode of actual as well as argumentative war- fare—to put Mr. Tilton upon his defense, and Mr. Moul- ton and Mrs. Moulton upon their defense, and then he calls upon us to exc.dpate ourselves from the indict- ment which he presents, instead of defending Mr. Beecher from the accusations under which he rests. THE CASE NO ANOMALY. Now, T must answer the best way I can the various propositions of those learned gentlemen. And the first is, if it please your Honor, that this action is an anomaly m the judicature of this State ; that it never had any respectability, and in a court of law one oi" the lead- ing lawyers of our State has the boldness to say to a court and jury that a right of action, given by the law, com- mended by the law, and practiced in the Ijivv, is an anomaly and disreputable. There is no right of action which the wisdom and the justice of the law gives to an injured citizen wlilch is an anomaly in a court of justice SUMMiyG UP . or disreputable to the raau who presents it. It is a re- fiection and a slander upon the wisdom and the policy and the justice of law and societj. No man is to be torned from a court of justice coming in search of justice under the authority of the law, bearing with him its ele- ments of justice and its power of redress. Why, think of it, gentlemen. You are asked to discredit this action; to confound Mr. TUton; to impute to him l^aseness and dishonor because he resorts to the law for the redress of an alleged grievance, and this is presented and urged by those who affect to be the leaders of the profession. What shall one do who is as- sailed in his dearest interests 1 What shall be done to one who has invaded the saoredness of the family rela- tioii, of that relation so highly and beautifully extolled by the learned gentleman who pronounces the plaintiff infamous to produce such a case in a court of justice ? If It be true that, under the exasperating and aggravated circumstances of this case, Mi". Beecher did invade the liome of Theodore Tilton and assail the chastity and virtue of his wife— if all the deplorable consequences which have followed are atti'ibutable to Henry Ward Beecher, in the name of that law and justice which you revere, and which you are bound to admiuister, what shall be done to him 1 Does he deserve no punishment ? Is there no redress for personal dishonor, and for personal and long-lifed sorrow 1 In the scheme of our jimspru- dence Is there no punishment for the seducer ? " None," says the gentleman, " You are disreputable if you eome into a court of justice asserting either yoiir own wrongs and rights, or indulging any vindictive spirit of revenge toward the seducer." Whv, gentlemen, the wisdom of our law-givers, the policy of oui' social relations, gives no criminal punishment for seduction. The libertine may roam through your homes and families. The virrue of a wife and daughter may fall before his arts— specious, plausible, effective. The policy of family and its protection may be subverted. The rest, the peace, the tranquillity, the virtue of family and home may be dissevered and broken up and depraved, and yet our law affords no punishment to the wrong- doer. There is no way of vindication or of punishment. This institution of family and home is upheld by none of the crimmal iustice of the law. What is to be done ? Why, it has followed as a necessary consequence of its omission, as I think, of the law — it has followed as a neces- sary consequence that the common sense of mankind, and the common sense of the jury box, has pro- tected and shielded husband or parent who has taken vengeance in his own hands, and has disregarded that injunction of the great Law-giver: "Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord." When has there been a convlctioa of husband or parent who has taken in his own hand the awful sense and act of judgment and sent the seducer to his last and long account 1 And you Are asked, when a husl)and outraged, wlipn a family y ME. BEACH. 841 broken and dissevered, when children blighted and dis- honored, when the family institution is tainted and de- graded, and the husband, head and representative of all, comes into a court of law, by the only path open by the law, and asks his fellow-men to strengthen hi? morality, his religion, his sense of justice, and to stay his arm from vindictive punishment, you are told he is a degraded seekcL' after pelr, a mercenary and selfish litigant for gold , that he is an anomaly in a court of Iustice ; that he is disreputable before the world, Y'ou may adopc this reasoning; you may approve that seu?e of justice which applauds the man who slays the invader of his hono» and his home. It is not the spirit of the law. In a gov- ernment of laws it is your duty to teach obedience to the law; it is the duty of tins jury, upon this occasion, !o inculcate a sentiment which shall uphold wir system of laws, however defective or faulty it may be. You m.ny, in the impulses of your own nature, in tliose deep and ii-repressible emotions which stir the Imman ti-.^me when its holiest and dearest affections and hopes are assailed— you may say that this Christian forbearance, that this steeling of tlie heart to endurance, that this acceptance of contrition ann remorse in the indulgence of the highest love and the holiest pity, you may say it is contemptible ; and such, in the ways of the world, in the habits of society, where the wayward passions of men play loose and revel in crime and blood, This will be said, and has been said, and my client sits here to-day under popular condemnation be- cause he was bold and bi-ave— aye, and I say Christian enough to forgive. I will try and find by and b\' the motives which lead to that act, I will try and see by and by whether there is anj thing in the character of this offender which justifies this indulgence towards an eiring and faulty wife and a hoary-headed seducer. [Applause,] And I hope to satisfy you from the evidence that Theodore Tilton, instead of being hounded from a court of justice, libeled and calumniated before his fellow-men, is entitled to that approbation which Christianity, religion and mo- rality ascribes to him who governs liis passions, and sub- mits to the law of God and the law of earth. And that man, when he comes in the ordinary way of justice, under circumstances of provocation and necessity which justify the appeal, no matter what may be the conse- quences, no matter who may be trampled upon, in the course of strict and stern justice, that man is entitled to your applause rather than vour disapproval. HOW CHARACTER .SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN THE CASE. But my leai iied friend says tliis is a miracu- lous seduction, and herein lies the germ, the kernel of the defense in this case. Now, I have no objection, gentle- nieu, I tin*! n.> fault with tlie extrava.,Mnt L-i. ririciition of 842 TMJS T1LT0:N~BEK(]HEE TUIAL. Mr. Henry Ward Beeclier by Lis counsel. Aside from this, question, aside from wliat I think I can show lias t>een his conduct in the matter under investigation, they have no higlier adiuiration for this defendant than my- self ; tbey have no better appreciation of his great and commending ipialities than myself, and they have no more readiness iu according to their client than I have the meed of approbation and reverence. But when from all that they derive a principle: when upon that they erect a proposition, either of fact or morally, that it was impossible for Henry Ward Beecher not to sin, I differ with their conclusion. The argument prevailmg through all the addresses of my learned friend is: "Why, Mr. Beecher is a good man ; he has been a serviceable man to the world; he has been a great preacher, a great author, and distiijgi-'ished in the lyceum and upon the platfor rendered great service to the world; he is a great man, and, therefore," says my friend, Mr. Evai ts, " it is im- possi ]jle that he should have committed this offense. It is against tlie law of his nature ; it is against all the im- pulses of his being ; it is against all the traiuiag and the discipline of his life; he cannot have been guilty ; it is a miracle; it is a miracle if he was guilty; and you, gen- tlemen, on the part of the plaintiff.why you mnst produce Butficieut evidence to convince the i dry that a miracle has happened iu our midst." Well, what is this teach- ing, gentlemen? Is all our experience of life to be dis- regarded? Are we to have a new version of the Scriptures ? Are we to have new teachings in regard to the nature and the fall of man ? Are we to be told that there is no sin among the apparently pure and great l That there is no hypocrisy in the world ? That there is nobody who steals the livery of heaven to serve the devil in? Is that our observation of the world? I know Mr, Beecher does not believe in original sin, I think ; I am sure he does not believe in total depravity ; but what becomes, under this doctrine of Mr. Evarts, of the teachings of Scripture that we are utterly depraved, that none of us are good, no not one ? that the heart is deceiti'ul aTio\'e iill things, and desperately wicked ? What becomes of this theory of the depravity of human nature? Was there a fall, and in the • sin of Adam did ajl men sin ? Is it the teaching of inspiration that human nature is depraved, dc( jeitiul and desperate ? And what becomes of tbe Atuuam-ut, if not so? ^Tiat necessity was there for the suffering of a God? What becomes of the asonj^ of Gethsemane, and of Calvary ? Where was the necessity that a God should descend and die to redeem the sms of humanity ? AU this is to be rewritten if it is a miracle that good men apparently should sin with all this leaven of unrighteousness, with all these wicked and sinful tendencies of the nature, ■when it requires the constant guardianship of the Holy Spirit to hold the redeemed heart true to its faith and professions iu it' life. If these things are true, what be- cnrnes of tbe Uo,.trines uf my learned friend, who stands before you and in the presence of direct proof, in the presence of confessions and conferences whicli could only be produced by the consciousness of most deep " depravity, who yet says that this man is pure and saintly and God-like, and that never in his whole life has his gai*ment been stained by the smell or spot of sin ? Well, gentlemen, this has been the theme upon which the most pathetic eloquence and the highest utterances of the greatest oratory have been dis- played for thirteen days before this Jtiry and the world. It is the only impressive, stirt-ing, moving argument which has been addressed in so many forms, with such powerful ingenuity by my learned adversaries. I deny the proposition. Great and good as Mr. Beecher may have been, he is yet, in the eye of God and in the eye of men, a fallible sinner. There is no one perfect, no, not one. I know the value of character. In this land of om^s, where character is so valuable and so efficient, where, aided aloue hj a good character and an honest life, the humblest of us may aspire to the highest honors of society said State— I know the value of character, and esteem it properly, and give it its due weight. I don't know, gentlemen, but I may say, so far as my own judg- ments and convictions are concerned, that if this case depended upon oral evidence alone, leaving out at least one witness, Mrs. Moulton, tliat I would hesitate long before, against the oath and charac- ter and the position of Henry Ward Beecher, I would be- lieve this offense, although imputed to him by men who I beiieve to be as honest and as honorable as any two who have ever adorned either the ranks of learning oi" that business position so highly extolled by ruy learned friends. [Applause.] I give great value to character, I reverence character, and specially if it is that holy chai^ acter animated by sincere piety, by worship of that God whom, if I do not adore in a Christian spirit, I yet rev- erence and fear ; that character which, under such im- pulses aud with such devotion, is given to the interests of religion and of men, and I will not assail it lightly. 1 will not be the organ of light assault upon such a char- acter; but when it forces me into a court of justice, challenges investigation, claims entire purity and excel- leuce; when it seeks to overturn the reputations of men, if not as holy, yet as exemplary as himself, reputa- tions as dear to them as his is to himself, thea I ex- araiue that character fearlessly, and I shall talk of it as, iu my .i udgment, the evidence shall justify. [Applau se. ] Judge Neil son— Officer Rogers, you instruct your officer ui> stairs to exact from the people in the gallery- a promise to keep silence, otherwise the gallery will be closed. I am quite ashamed of the gentlemen on this floor, and of being compelled to say to them that this applause is disrespectful to the Court and disrespectful to you. Think of it a moment— if it had been any single man or some one in this court that disturbed a speaker and an auditory by demonstrations of apidause ! I could SUjUlIXG CP Ul' MU. BEACH. 84^ not 'beiieTe it but for tliis c-xliibition. [To tiie juiors.j Crentlemen. return at 2 o'clock. The Court tiien took a recess until 2 o'clock, OUTSIDE OPmOXS OX THE CASE. The Coiut met at 2 p, lu., pursuant to ad- jourioneut. Mr. Beach — :Mr. Poiter quoted the opraion of a gentle- roan of very considerable prominence, both in the profes- sion to -vrhich Tve belong and in the world of letters— Mr. Eartlett— and declared that when the first reTelations of this matter became public Mr. Bartlett expressed a spon- taneous and decided opinion that it was a case of black- mail. Whether this opinion was expressed to my friend Mr. Porter, or came tK) him second hand, I do not know. And my fiiend indulged the expression of gxeat regret that a gentleman of the ability and renowTi of Mr. Bart- lett was prevented by other engagements fi-om under taking the cause of this defense. I certainly am not in- clined to detract anythlngfrom the high enconiimi passed upon Mr. Bartlett; it is undoubtedly deserved. But >Ir. Bartlett, in addition to his professional labors, is in a very important degree connected with a leading news- paper institution of the City of Xew-York, and the refer- ence of my triend Mr. Porter to the opinion of Mr. Bart- lett. connected with the fact of that association, justifies me, I think, in repeating what I suppose may be possibly an expression of sentiment upon the part of Mr. Bartlett, or the paper with which he is so intimately connected, upon the particular siibjeet which is now under discus- sion. I may remark, however, that of whatever value the opinion of Mr. Bartlett may have been In the early stages of this coiatroversy, and however clearly he may ha\-e formed and expressed the opinion that this was an arrant case of blackmail, it would be difficult for him or any other gentleman to maintain that conclusion in the face of the very clear and decided evidence given upon that subject by Mr. Beecher, But speaking upon this subject of prestimptlon of innocence, arising fi-om a previous good, superficial character, with- out any power— for we cannot see the heart ; we cannot search the secret recesses of human nature ; we cannot explore all the mysteries of personal life ; we but see the superficial character in the public acts of men ; and, it is true, from those developments we may, with reasonable safety, form a conclusion in regard to their essential merits. But yet judgments are deceptive. They give us no clear and satisfactory clew to the true In- wardness of a man. We do not get at the bottom facts. We have to judge, as well as we can, from the ordinary manifestations of a man's life, unable to trace his aets to their motives, which mii.y be exculpatory, or condemning, with m>ne of that Tit) erring infaUibility with which we are each to be judged hereafter ; and we cannot well say of any man, even With whom we are personally acquainted, however esti- mable may be ail his characteristics an.'', associations and api>aronT acts — ^we cannot after all say to him, or of Mm, that he is a faultless human beia^ ; and the error of this argumeHt founded u^on a mischievous moral proposition of Mr. Evarts is that it is contrLidicted, not only by the teachings of iaspiration. but by the revelations of our daUy lives; and it is well expressed and exposed in a paragraph or two which I adopt, and which I suppose Mr. Bartlett, if he had had the happiness, and my friend the gratifleation of an association with this defense, woiiiil have very readily expressed upon the trial : One of the principal arguments in behalf of Mr. Beecher's innocence is his alleged incapableness of the crime charged upon him. Incapableness : If I had not seen that as coming from 3Ir. Bartlett or The Sim, I should have thought it was a Beecherism, [Xaughter,] His counsel in the court-room and his friends out of It are never weary of dwelling up^ n the impossibility of his having done what Mr. Tilton says he has done. The incident of his lone and successfial public career, his lit- erary and oratorical achievements, and his services to the Church, the nation, and to humanitv in general, are reeoimted and appealed to as proofs that he could never have yielded to temptation and fallen into sin. In a word, the effort is made to take him out of the common categoj-y of the human race and place him by the side of One who assuruedthe weaknesses of our nature only to resist and trittmph over them. If there is anything plainly revealed in both the Old andtheXew Testaments it is that all men are more or less prone to all crimes. The very first man and first woman introduced to our acquaintance are described as guilty of ingratitude, disobedience, and lying. Their first-born son mmdered his brother, and their posterity, in a few centuries, became so corrupt that they were all but e5:teiTiiinat-ftd by their Creator off the face of the earth. The survivors and their descendants kept on in the same career, and their history, down to the very latest period, is one long tale of depra% ity. Drunkenness, treachery, cmelty, murder, theft, adultery, incest, and every kind of wickeilaess that can be imagined are charged upon them with pinless precision of detaiL Abraham repeatedly showed himself capable of cowardice and lying, Jacob cheated his father and robbed his brother of his birthright. Joseph's brethren only refrained from murdering him that they might sell him into slavery. The Hebrews that came out of Egypt were so rebellious and ungrateful that they were denied entrance into the Land of Canaan, and their childi-en were constantly engaged in quarrels and civU wars among themselves. David committed adultery fii'st and mm'der afterward, Solomon was a voluptuary and an idolator. The records of the kings of both Israel and Judah show them to have been almost without exemption cruel, revengeful, and brutal in their passions, and their subjects apt imitators of them, ham,' he said ' Before you talk to a heathen like me you had better convert some of your own ministers.' * ^V\iy, what do you mean?' says the other. ' I mean that some of your most eminent pastors and editors can be seen any night in the third row of the theatre, sitting with prostitutes in their laps. Go with me to-night and I will show you one.' ." The pastor said he would go, and they did go, and he was shown Mr. Johnson, the pious editor of The EvfUHjeJist, a great advocate of temperance and re- form generally, a distinguished Christian— he showed him in that relation. He was tried, he confessed, and he was deposed. Well, you remember the case of Kalloch of Boston (it must bvi within your recollection), who at one time ex- cited so much attention for his distinguished oratoricaJ powers ; and you remember what his history was. Well, gentlemen, I have a great many instances of that kind, furnished to me by gentlemen Interested in the subject of this examination, giving instances of the infinnity and the fall of pastors and religionists of high standing in the Chirrch, and of high reputation in the community. I do not care to present them all. You remember the case of Dr. Magoun, to whom mr learned friend has often listened, as I have, with gi-eat admiration. He Is now the present President of the Jones College, a Congregational institution. He was licentiovis. He was deposed. But he confessed and re- pented, and he was restored; and now he is a leading minister of that congregation. Well, the case of Horace C. Taylor, one of the chiefs of Oberlin— he was guilty of seduction ; he was convicted ; he was imprisoned ; but he was released, and he waa restored, but he fell again. I am just now furnished with a memorandum to the effect that the Rev. Richard Fink of Grand R^pida, Mich., was recently foimd guilty of adultery with a young sister of the church, and his resignation waa accepted. He was a very popular young man, and waa termed " the Beecher of the West." He, however, like n man, and " Alexander Hamilton-like," as the memo- randum says, confessed. Well, the case of the Rev. Augusttis Doolittle (or St, 846 THJ^ TlLTON-BEECtiMR TEIAL. Clair, as lie cbanged Ms name to), wlio did not l<.ng iuain- tain Jiis connection with tlie Baptist Ciiuroii ac Hoosack Falls— I had not looked through the memorandum when I read it, or I would not have alluded to that. There is a little inforniatiou upon this subject to he derived from a publication which has undoubtedly fallen under the ob- servation of my learned friends upon the other side, by the nev. Mr. Fairchild, the pastor of the First Congrega- tio.vial Church, in Mausfleld, Ohio. I am not proposing to read, gentlemen, for the purpose of argument, any part of t]iis production of Mr. Faii'child. But I refer to it merely for the puri>ose of the history which it contains upon this i>articular subject. The writer of these pages was for seventeen years as- sociated with a minister in college work, and for several years of that time associated with him in the pastorate of a college cliurch. He was an earnest preacher, and especially gifted in prayer. Three years ago he was accused, upon the testimony of a single witness, with criminal intimacy with the wife of one of the deiioons of his church. Although at times for years there had been hints of scandal, yet not one in a hundred gave the least credence to the story the witness told. The wit- ness was maltreated and mobbed. The accused denied the charge and asserted his innocence with the most solemn asseverations that ever fell from human lips. The denials and asseverations were repeated day after day, in the most solemn manner, for three weeks, until, at length, the " horrors of hell got hold upon him ;" for he believed m a future judgment and future retribution, and he then confessed that the charge was true, declaring that noth- ing but the undoubting belief of an endless hell had saved him from suicide, or induced him to confess. For years and years this criminal intimacy had existed, his accom- plice sitting before him every Sabbath and her husband, aii unsuspecting, receiving from Ms hand, each two months, the bread and the cup. Such is the mystery of ini