Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1874-08-29

Was given 20 him, and after q fes noomentss TAI.
be htt Ne an amazing pity that 81 this june
HASDKD OVER TO TIVE POLICE
~ would have saved much that followed
which is deeply deplored. Mr.. Beecher's de-
trees ~ the situation was bOundlsss. He
blsmCd himself Tor much that had occarred
He could not tell how much OF the impending
trouble could be attributed % Mrs. Tfton's un-
have reprtssed. my earnest desire" be saws,
"to AVOID q pubic accusation and the evil
which must necessarily aOw from IL and which
have nov resulted fTom e, has been one OF the
leading motives that must explain nv action
curirg these four years in this matter"
While IN q morbid condition OF mind mo-
dneed by these distressing difficulties MOaiton
again called on him; his manner wAs kind ana
corcilisung. he professed. however, 90 believe
that Mr.. Beeoher hsd been seeking Tilton,s
downfall, had lesgued with MIR. Bowen against
him, and by his advice had come near DESTROY
ing Tuton's family. Mr.. Beecher expres-ef
many AND strong regrets At the misfortunet OF
that family. Moulton caught Mp some OF those
expressions and wrote them down. saying that
~ Tilton could see them there would be no
trouble IN procuring q reconciliAfio This
paper, which lie dated January I, 1851, vas en-
trusted by Mr.. Beecher 20 MOultons Keeping
without reading, nor was it read 90 HIM. Th,s
paper, sometimes called the apology and come
times the confession, IL In no proper sense Mr.
Beechers production or q correct report of
what be said. No man viii believe, for Instance.
that Mr.. Beecher said 81 humble myself before
him (Tiltonl a. do before my God" Another
sentence, "her forgiveness 1 have" Nc. Bee
cher states was not said, nor the semblAnce OF IL
VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION
arises in this connection: 10 what does the
apology refer? IL declares Mrs. Ttlton guilt
lees, and vet Tilton says IL refers 60 adultery
which Mr.. Beecher denies. Without noe con-
steering the weight OF credit 10 which the re-
spccuve parties are entitled where there IL q
conflict between them, we believe and propose
20 show from the evidence that the ORIGINAL
charge WAS improper advances. aud that a.
as NNNO w.Hwm.~
enlarged into adultery. The Importance of IN,
p apparent, because IL the charge has been %
changed, then both Tilton ana MOulton are
which necessarily ends their nflaence in this
controversy. What IL the proof that the chargs
In the first instance was sdnlteryP It IL salt
thar IL WAS and that the memorandum in thu
hands OF Tilton in hts wife's handwriting sas
20 such effect. But this Il denied by both Mr.
Beecher and Mrs. TiltoD, and the written papsr
is DOT produced. It Is said further that sr.
Beecher confessed the fact OF adultery; bat his
again is denied by him, and such alleged con-
fession is Inconsistent with the traction be
received that evening from Mrs. Tilton. II be
hsd confessed, what service could the retractiOn
render? Why procure one At sll IL, ss alleged,
Mr.. Beecher had that evening confessed adul.
terry To Tllton and hOuhOn, or 20 either2 What
OF Decenbef SOP Ne Sn.se9 On x .se i evening
advances, which, OF course, Mr.. Beecher de-
MED. What occurred In the matter 81 the re-
traction that evening, and all the sabsequ ent
persons directly concerned in dealing with the
scandal, are consistent with this view, and with
no other. The reIaction procured referred 90
improper advances, and tO nothing eise. It is
not likely, IL the ain offence had been charged
Mr.. Beecher would have been satisfied with
anything short Of a retraction OF that. There
is sort VI postscript TO the retractiOn IN which
the charge of improper advances n explicitly
denied; thus showing, We submit, that this was
the charge that was IN the miRds OF both Mrs.
1llton and Mr. Beecber, and no other offence.
But look further. Mrs. Tilton has Ia tue last
four years many times said verbally and in writ
ing that the charge WAS the lesser offence. This
is important under the rule that where q com
plainant has made different and inoOnsistent
statements OF the offence he alleges his credi-
bility Is damaged, and In most cases DESTROYED
IL The written statement OF the offence shown
TO DIR. Storrs by TiltOn and Carpenter, which
was made in Mrs. TIltOn's handwriting under
the demand OF her husband, who saws he dIcta-
ted the precise words chsracterizing the offence,
the charge was an impure proposal. This state
ment Mrs. Tilton retracted, and ssys she pro-
tested against II - false when signed, and alter
walds saw DIR. Storrs and told him 50. DIR.
StoTrs in letter 10 the committee conf ms the
retrsction. In the manuscript prepared by TIL
ton, which he called The true story" tue Of
fence was stated 20 be improper advances. The
''true story" TiltOn was in the habit Of reading
TO newspaper men, personal friends aud to 9TH
ere, without, II would seem, much discrimlns-
ton, considering how anxious he prOfessed to be
not TO make known his secret.
BIT. Beecher testites that he met Tlltsn on
the ferry boat about two weeks after the publ
cation OF
THB Woodruff SCANDAL.
and they talked the matter over. lie SAYS that
Tilton was az trst mysterious and non commit
Al, but on their way home in Brooklyn Triton
invited him INTO hls house, where the "tTue
tory" Was exhibited 20 Mr.. Beecher, aud a pro-
ongec conversation vas had, v hich lasted tai
midnight, and during all this not ono word was
aid or limited by TiltOn that he believed
Beecher bad committed adultery. GA the
oEusTy, be asserted bis mistaken confidence
q his Hife's purity, and complained only OF the
improper solicitation. EN-SuperyisOr Harmon.
who like Mir. BeecheT Is one OF our well known
and respectable Cit zeDs, testifes 10 substan-
tally The same experience with Mr.. Tilton as
10 the nature OF the charge. MIR. Harmon goes
further, aud testifes not only thst TiltOn read
TO him the "true story" in which there was no
alCg stion OF adultery. but that TtltOn desert bed
% hun his FIRST interview with Mr. BeeCher on
the evening OF December 3Oth, aud then in
charged Mt. Beecher with improper advances.
Mr.. Harmon explicitly states that IN all his con-
versati which were NUMEROUS, with Triton,
for more than two years, he at no time alleged
adultery AZ the offence Of which he complained.
The testimony before the committee shows a
similar statement by Triton % various other
persons up 10 within a very recent period. The
further fact that Tilton treated the matter
during four years as al offence which could be
properly spolOgized for and forgiven, T. wholly
inconsistent with the charge in its present form
Triton in his written statement complains that
Mr.. Beecher "abused his (Illton's) forgiveness"
IL lie believed 10 cases Of adultery on record can
be produced where an injured husband upon
learning OF his wiie's infdelitv kept the fact 20
himself for liz months, and then, after a private
complaint 10 the party, receives and accepts az
apology for the offeDse, and declares IL forgiven,
and this followed by restoration OF the cJur-
tesies OF friendship. All and other considera-
tons 10 be hereafter referred 20, show that in
no event could the offence have been the crime
OF adultery. IL might have been the charge OF
the lesser offence, but IL IL not conceiyable that
Tilton, in view of his conduct, believed even
that the so-cslled apology was not for the main
oferee. Tiltcn himself, in his cross-examins-
lion, clearly proves this.
Mark his words: he says the day after &c was
procured, he was In MOultOn1s room, and there
met Beeoher, when the following scene Oc-
curl &C. "He tBeecheT) burst out in an express
sion OF great sorrow 20 me, and said he hoped
the communication be bad sent me by MOulton
Was satisfactory to me. lie then and there told
Mr. Moulton he had done wrong, not 80 much as
some others had, referring 20 his wife, who had
made a statement 90 MIR. Bowen that ought %
be unmade, and lie there volunteered % write a
letter 20 Mr.. Bowen concerning the facts which
be had misstated" Here Is clear light as 90
what the apology does not refer 70. IL disposes
81 the apology forever a. paper referring to
adultery. 1t refers 20 nothing Of the kind. IL
the wrong done TO which Mr.. Beecher refers was
adultery, how could these words be used in ref
erence 20 it, she had done wrong not 80 much
some others"? The absUrdity OF such action n
clear Those Uords and the anolaow ans