The Richmond palladium. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1855-1875, 1874-08-26
From the Inter-Ocean.
MOultOn, the "Mutual Friend

on the wonderful Moulton, until 1T
was supposed that, being the mutual
friend" of both parties, and man of
high tone and judicial fairness, his
word alone would put the whole vexed
and tangled question forever at rest.
Threatened, as we are, with three hun
dred pages of this mans manuscript
as against Beccher's statement, it is
well to analyze the testimony already
given in regard to him, and to inquire
whether this mans general character
and life are such as to entitle him to
! belief, as against that man who, by
common consent, before these scan
dals were let loose, stood forth as one
of the noblest specimens Of manhood
in the whole country, and perhaps in
the whole world. In order to pull
down from his high and commanding
eminence such man as Henry Ward
Beecher, and to consign him to infamy
deep and remediless-for such must
be the result, if proved guilty of Til
ton s charge, as the world would not
condone the lying, though it might
have condoned adultery, if confessed
there must be proof as conclusive
| as holy writ, and there can be in
this case no proof but Beecher's own
oral admission or his written admis-
sion in no circumlocutory phrase, but
Gus English, previously written. which
can contravene his present positive
denial of having committed adultery
with Mrs. Tilton, or having confessed
at any time, or to any person, Moulton
in particular, that he had committed
adultery with Mrs. Tilton And this
statement must be shown to be wholly
written by Beecher, and not by Moul-
ton with simply Beecher's signature,
for it has been quite clearly shown
that such was Beecher s confidence in
| Moulton that he wrote his name un-
der statement which he had not
read, but only as an indication that
| the verbal conversation, which he
then supposed had been fairly report
ed, or noted, but now discovers to be
garbled and distorted, had been held
with Mouiton to be stated to Tilton.
Now let us see whether in the case
of Moulton VS.. Beecher, the testimo-
ny of the former would outweigh that
OF the latter and make it kick the
beam:
l. 1t is in proof, and is incontro-
vertible, that Moulton entered this
case as Tilton's friend, and not as
Beecher's friend.
g. That while protesting to be gov
erned by the highest sentiments of
honor toward Beecher, and assuming
the role of impartial and judicial fair
ness, he actually co-operated with
] Tilton, who sought to entrap Beecher
into the admission of guilty love for
his clifton 81 wife.
g. 1t appears, further, that when
| Mr.. Beecher had received from Mrs.
Tilton a paper stating that the conics-
sion was false which her husband had
cajoled her into making, in the expec-
tation that it would facilitate his re-
pentence and recovery from his wan
derings, thus completely exonerating
Mr. Beecher, this man Moulton went
to Mr.. Beecher with pistol and lay
ing the weapon on the table before
him, demanded that the paper be re-
turned, and thus compelled Beecher
to surrender into his hands the evil
dence of his innocence. Why did he
do this? The sequal shows With
this paper in his hands, Mr.. Beecher
could not SO readily be blackmailed.
4. The memorandum which he made
on which Beecher wrote his name was
simply for the purpose of aiding his
memory in a conversation with Til
ton, and was to be returned to Beech
er. When Beecher asked him for it,
and reminded him that he had prom
| 1 l.
fused but declared that the paper
had been destroyed. The man has
either been guilty of deceit or has told
point blank lie, for be either had the
| orr ginal paper when before the COM
mittee. in which case he lied to Beech
er in saying it was destroyed, or he
deceived the committee by the pre-
tense that he had it, whereas he had
only copy. or had written it out from
memory. Let him take which horn
of the dilemma he pleases. Either
shows him false witness.
5. He sought Mrs Tilton to inveig-
le Beecher into visiting Woodhull
and into the public recognition of her
and her free-love doctrines. | was
told, in addition to what Mr. Beecher
states, by gentleman of veracity, that
he aud his wife were invited to meet
Woodruff and Tilton at Frank Moul-
tons and informed that BeecAer
would be there Moulton seems to
have been as much mixed up with
Woodruff and her free-love doctrines
and practices as Tilton. There was a
time when Woodruff and her sister
lived in great elegance on Murray Hill
on the fruits of their blackmailing op-
erations, which they organized into a
regular system, and Tilton and Moul.
ton were for a time their frequent
guests. Had they been able to per-
suade Beecher to indorse Woodruff
they knew he was ruined, and this is
evidently what they intended.
6. Moulton SO worked upon Beech.
er's conscience, sympathy, and regard
for his good name, and the good name
of Mrs. Tllton and Of the families o1
both Beecher and Tilton, that he ex.
torted from Beecher at various times
the sum of seven thousand dollars, the
principal sum of five thousand dollars
being raised-as the records show anG
as Beecher states-by mortgaging his
house on Brooklyn Heights.
This money Tilton now denies thai
he received, and says Moulton, if he
got it, must account.for it.
Here are the three men, principa
parties to the scandal, the prosecutor
prosecuted and principal witness, a,
Observation-Disclosures having, afte1
receiving the five thousand dollars
told Beecher he should deny receiy
ing it.
Tilton denying that he received it
and Beecher affirming that he paid i
in cash to Moulton, who was war,
enough to decline check-and tha
he did so is supported by the incon
trovertible fact that his house is mort
gagged for that sum. which. with hi,