The New York herald., 1874-08-29


and Carpenter, winch was made in Mrs. Tilton's
bandwrtlng under the demand OF her husband,
who sa ne dictated the precise words chai acter
tzlng the onence, the charge was an impure pro.
posal This statement Mrs. Tilt0n retracted, and
says sne protested against IT as false when signed
Dr. Storrs, IN q letter TO the committee confirms
the retraction. In the manuscript prepared by
Triton. which he called 1.-The true story" the
"true story" Tlton was In the habit or read
ing TO newspaper men, personal friends
much discrimination Considering how S'u anxious %
ne proiessed 10 be not to make known his
secret. Mr.. Beecher testified that he met Titon
on the Terry boat about two weeks alter the publl-
cation OF the Woodruff scandal and they talked
the matter over. He says tnat Tilton was at a. st
mysterious and non nc0mmiItal. but on their way
nome IN brooklyn TiltOn invited him into his
house, where the true story" was exhibited TO
Mr.. Beecher. and prolonged conversation was had
wnich lasted until midnight, and during ali this
not one word was SAID or hlnted by Tilton that ne
believed Beecher had committed adultery. On
the contrary, ne asserted his unshaken conf
dence III his wiles purity and complained only
OF tue improper solicitation. Ex-Supervlsor Har-
known and reputable citizens, testifies TO SUBJ
stantiaiiy tne same experience with Tllton as to
the nature OF the charge MI, Harmon goes further,
"true story In which there was no allegation Of
adultery. but that Hilton described him his first
December 30, and then informed Mr.: Harmon that
he at tnat time charged Mr.. Beecher
Mr. Harmon eapcy saaes pespet That n
his conversations, which were numerous. with
Tilton lor more than two years, he at no time
alleged adultery as the offence OF which he COM
planned The testimony before the committee
shows similar statements by Tiiton to various
other persons up to within 0 recent period. The
further iaet that Titon treated the matter during
iour years as an offence which could be properly
apoogized ior and forgiven Is wholly inconsistent
with the charge IN Its present form. TiltOn, IN his
written statement, complains that Mr.. Beecher
"abused his tIton's) forgiveness" 1t is believed
where an injured husband upon learning Of hls
wlle's lnhdety, Kept the fact to himself
,s,nt for six months and then after private com
accepts an apology Tor the offence, and
declares 1t forgven-and this followed by o restor-
0ther considerations hereafter TO be referred to-
snow that 10 no event could the offence have been
charge the lesser orence but it is not conceiva-
BILE that Iilt0n, in view OF his conduct, believed
even that. sun further. that the soca!led apology
was not for the main offence, TtOn himself In his
crosse Examination clearly proves. Mara MS words |!
He says that the day after 1t procured he
Moulton's room and there met Mr. Beecher. when
the following scene occurred: :"He (Beecner) burst
out INTO an expression OF great sorrow to
he had sent me by Mr Mouton was sa:isoctory To
me. He then and there told MIR. M0utOn' he had
done wrong, not SO much as some others had IRE
Ierrlng TO his wife, who mad made statements to
Mr. Bowen that ought to De unmade), anu be there
volunteered to write a letter to Mi. Bowen con-
corning the lactS which he had misstated." Here
is clear light as to what the apology does not refer
TO. 1t disposes OF the apology forever as paper
referring TO adultery 1t refers to nothing OF the
KIND. III the wrong done to which Mr.. Beecher re.
fers was adultery how could these words be used in
reference to 1t. "He had done wrong; not so much
as some OtherS2" The abSurdity or such claim
is clear Those words and the apology are sus-
ceptlble OF but one construction. They refer, as
Mr. Beecher says TO his deep regret for statements
which he and his wife had, under certain infOrma-
tion few days before, made to Mr.. Bowen, which
led him to execute purpose already entertained
OF removing TlltOn from the Brooklyn Union and
the independents 1t appears also that the next
day Mr.: Beecher did write the letter to Mr.. Bowen
which Iliton says ne volunteered 10 write, AMI
Wnlcn referred To Tlt0n'S business troubles with
Bowen.
MoULroN's POSITION.
Next consider MOulton's course with view OF
s testing ~ ws ,s WAS In hts g. mind ain a. wen
ii Moulton understood the charge to be adultery,
then he is entitled to the credit OF the invention
or discovery that this crime could be the subject
OF an apo ogy, and ready forgiveness and recon-
citation on the part OF the offender and the In
jured husband. That M0ulton did not believe or
by the same class OF evidence that has been cited
In reference to Tilton. He repeatedly declared to
many persons there was no adultery. fortunately
we have statement IN writing setting forth
Moultons estimate OF the nature OF the onence.
MouitOn, In which, among other things. he COM
plains OF Tilton's threatening and Inconsistent
Ssmauc ana n ns purpose to waste no
this time was complaining OF the publication OF the
tripartite agreement, so-caed. In this letter Mr.
haste: shall write for the public statement that
VIII! bear the light Of the Judgment day. God
M faee fae Words @e ana @u;v meS
Mouton replies on. the same day. publicity
wa was ~ no & part Of & his profound policy. AM. and
words, "If the truth must be spoken let 1t be.
know You can stand ii the whole case was published
70 !s to psn se
whole case than otherwise, he crossed out these
and other lines with pencil and commenced
words Occur:-"YOu can stand II the whole case
were published tomorrow" Mouluon was right.
The pity is that Mr.. Beecher did not publish
the mutual friend These two, whatever
purposes would be then subserved by publicity.
Iilton soon became gracious and kindly. But what
first time tnat adultery was the offence ~ Is T It
possible this man Is 80 low in his moral perceptions
as TO believe that minister OF the Gospel, and
that too oil Plymouth Church, could stand up be-
fore his church and the world against the crime OF
adultery No. rlltcn says his wife was possessed
all right and no sin. That she did not discover her
mistake from reading st. Paul, but Griffith Gaunt.
But We have no evidence that this halucination
haa reached and tainted the diplomatic mind OF
MOulton. 1t is right that we should say here tnat
we do not believe the slnless character OF adultery
Tilton except perhaps as a notion OF the Woodruff
school, OF which her husband had become o discl-
pie and shining light, and with which she had no
Tnere is but one fair conclusion to be drawn
from Moultons letter OF June l to Mr.. Beecher.
He knew that MIR. BeeCher had been falsely ac-
cused of impure advances, and that he desired In
his lnm0st soul to suppress the scandal Yet IL The
simple truth were published he could stand.
Knowing this, he said so. Whatever MOuton may
say now, since his malice has been excited by GER
tain exposures, Is OF little consequence. He now
openly stands with TiltOn where he has secretly
been from the beginning. We conclude, there
FORE in view OF these facts and circumstances,
that the original charge or impure advances false
though 1t was, has been dropped by these ac-
cusers, and adultery at this late day has been SUBJ
stituted as an aterthought. We brand this per-
formance as fraud that ought to end all contro.
versy as to the innocence OF Mr.. Beecher Pur-
suing the narrative little 1urther, we find Moul-
ton, who first appeared as TtOn's friend alter
procuring the sO-called apology quietly becoming
the friend Of botn the parties--the mutual
friend Mr.. MOulton, as he disclOScs his
character In these proceedings appears
to be a. very plausible man, with
more vtgOr or will than conscience. One thing Is
unfortunately clear that from this time on he oOn-
trived TO obtain and hold the confidence Of Mr..
Beecher, both In his ability and purpose to Keep
the peace IN good faith. There was certainly rooif1
for an honest peacemaker. Mr.. Beecher knew he
l