New-York tribune., 1874-08-14
ALLEGED REASONS FOR SILENCE

THE COMMITTEE SAID TO BE IN THE POSSESSION OF
STARTLING EVIDENCE AGAINST Mr.. MOULToN-A
LETTER THAT WOULD "MAKE HIS HAIR STAND
ON ENDr-MR BEECHER SAID TO HAVE BEEN
BLACKMAUED DY SOME ONE-A PREVARICAII0N
OR wORsE-FEATUREs OF THE REVENUE CASE
CHARGES THAT MR. TILTONs ALLY ONCE CON
spIRED WITH AN INFoRMER TO FALsIFY EvI-
DENCE.
One of Mr.. Beecher's friends. who does not desire
to be named but who is a responsible gentleman
and in position to speak from positive knowledge,
is authority for the following statement: Two
prominent members of the Committee in comparing
notes of the testimony came to the conclusion that
Mr. Beecher had for few years past been paying
money to keep the scandal quiet and preserve
peace but that after finding out the folly of this
policy he had been too much chagrincd to admit
the fact even to his legal advisers and confidential
friends. The two gentlemen finally went TO Mr..
Beecher and taxed him with paying blackmall'
Mr. Beechcr was much astOnishcd as if he had
been charged with levying backmail, but admitted
that he had given considerable sums to have peace
and quiet. To whom he had paid this money, or
under what circumstances. or at whose suggestion,
the gentleman did not state, but he added that
letter of Mr.. Moulton had been discovered which
would make that gentleman's HAIR stand on end
if he knew it still existed A day or two subse-
porter of THE TRIBUNE that something very bad
against Mr.. Moulton had been discovered by the
Committee.
"You refer to the letter of which You spoke to
me p asked the reporter. NO. was the reply; it
js something great deal worse than that
Information was asked of other members of the
Committee as to what steps were being taken to
inquire into Mr. MOutons character 1t was learned
among other things that Mr.. WinslOw, one of the
Committee, had made inquiry of prominent lawyer
and oflice-hoder in Brooklyn who was intimate with
Mr. Moulton. and he had replied in terms uniavorable
10 Mr Moulton This lawyer member ola political
club whose rooms Mr.. Moulton frequents, and
prominent leader IN the Ring TO which Mr., Mouton
lends his character in various ways. He has been
intimate with him socially and knows the man as
the general public does not.
One of the Committee also admitted that when
Mr. Moulton first appeared before the Committee
and claimed to be the holder of the letters and
apology of Mr.. Beecher. information had been vol
UNFAIRLY rendered them to the effect that he had
positively denied that the apology existed, and fur
ther that documentary and other evidence could be
obtained relating to entirely different cases which
would place Mr.. Moulton in the light of falsfying
documents and misstatng their contents. As this
is what it is now charged has been done in repre-
sentng the apology written by Mr.. Beecher, when
in fact 1t was written by Mr.. MoultOn, The TRIBUNE
reporter asked for further information, and
finally referred to the person volunteering the
This gentleman. in answer to the reporters in
quiry whether Mr. Moulton had told him that there
was no such document as the apology in existence.
answered:
"When Mr.. Mouton was put forward as the re-
pository of Mr.. Iilton's documentary evidence. l
went to one of the Committee and warned him to
E Ar ipf,t In
and told him that Mr.. Moulton had declared to me
that no such document had ever existed. At the
time spoke 10 the Committeeman was satisfied
that Mr.. Moulton in claiming TO hold this among
otherpapers had told etherthc Committee myself
a falsehood Now that know that the apology was
written not by Mr.. Beechcr, but by Mr. MOultOn
himself, | am satisfied Mr.. MoutOn prevarcated
only. The fact Is, Mr.. M0slt0n Is man who justly
prides himself on his power, Of preyarcatiOn. He
told me in November last that Sir. Beecher had
made no confession, written no apology TO him, and
that no such document existed. He knew TO what /
referred, for | had told him very plainly what
wanted, and his answer was a!tfully framed TO lead
me into the belief that there was nc such document
III existence, and never had been | conclude from
the admission by Mr. Beecher of the existence Of the
document that he mised me-"
do you know ANYTHING about Mr.. Mouhon's
character for veracityir
81 have heard from the very best authority that a
few months ago Mr.. Mouton was publicly de-
pounced In the dinng-rOom of the Delavan House
at Albany for having gone to Washington and
sworn to what he knew was a lie' Mr Mo1.ton did
not resent or deny the impeachment but remarked.
Very well; and so. | suppose, with his ildorse-
ment. it is proper to believe it.p
Did you know anything about Mr. Moutons
misrepresentation Of documents ~
" told a member Of the Committee that law
firm in Pluc-st., New-l0rk, MssTs. Doohttle.
Davis ~ Lyon, could give them information
on this point Of strange character. 1t is a
long stOry-too long to enter into woodworking
not only Mr.. Moulton's reputation bat that Of ins
firm, aud anticipating maj tteTs which Congressional