New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1874-10-05

sooner
the stoop than he Immediately recognized. and
loud cheer rose up from the whole crowd The cheer.
and after Its disappearance the assembled throng grsdu
ally dispersed.
SOUNDING THE BROOKLYN SCANDAL.
TILTON AND MOULTON INDICTRD-MR TILToN AND
HIS COUNSEL ACCEPT THE ISSUE AND ARE READY
FOR TRIAL-MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE MIR.
BowEN's SUITS AGAINST THE EAGLE.
Immediately on his return to New-Y0rk last
week. the Rev. Henry Ward Beecher applied to District
Attorney wnslow of Kings County for admission 10 tho
Grand Jury room to lay complaints before that
body against Theodore Tilt0n and Francis
d. Moulton for scandal. Mr.. Winslow at
once drew up indictments In tho cases. ana
on Saturday morning Mr., Beecher went before the
Grand Jury and gave testimony upon which they were
based question by OF the jurors s understood to
have aroused Mr. Beecher into emphatic denial OF all
the charges made against him by both TtOn and Mou
His speech to the jury represented TO have been
singulary earnest and effective. The jury at once
found true bills against both Tlton and Mouton and at
II O'Clock submitted the ndictmentsin the County Court
Here they were Immediately removed to the Cty
Court, where three judges sit in different parts and
where, consequently, the trials can be pressed more
speedily than in the County Court, where only Judge
Moore Is sitting
The Indictment against Tilton contains two counts
The first is based the assertion In the last statement
that Mr.. Beecher had held interview with himself
and Mrs Tilton to determine the paternity OF Mrs. Ill
toms child, at which interview both Mrs. I'll
ton and Mr.. Beecher agreed upon the date at which
their alleged guilty relations began. This AMT Beecher
declares be false, scandalOus malicious ana de-
flaming libel" The second count based upon Tton's
allegation that Beecher committed perjury In swearing
TO his answer the suit begun by Tilton against him.
The indictment against Mr.. Mouton has two counts
also The first Is based upon the passage In Mr. Mou
toms last statement in which he details Mr.. Beecher's
alleged confession and justification Of the adultery
charged with Mrs. Tton. The second Is based on the
same story, for publishing which Miss Edna Dean Proc
tor had him indicted.
Mr. Tilton and his counsel, the Hon. Samuel d. Morris,
we're closeted most Of Saturday afternoon, and the
former declined to see any one Mr.. Morris subse
ouently said his client was in the highest spirits. On
reading the Indictment he said 1t made the issue upon
the question OF adultery as direct as he could ASK inc
Issue which his client had all along camored for was
now made up. and an early trial would be urged. he
did believe there to be found in Brooklyn
men who could reject the testimony which he
was prepared to Offer adding that he said this with the
full realization that tho other side would succeed in hav
ing the court reject the testimony Of Mrs Tlton ana
that of Mrs. Bradshaw, Mrs. Morse. Miss susan D. An
thony and to whom Mrs. Tilton had confessed
In the evening Mr. Ton wrote brief letter to the edor
OF The Herald in which after uttering lbelous state
ments against Dstrict-Attorney winslow which THE
Beecher's action is to be attributed "to the
fact that the Plymouth Committees report has failed
10 command popular credence, and that MI
Beecher and his have found that they
refuge the desperate attempt TO place
mo in the position of apparent criminal. and so to
discre dit in the trial Of my case by loading me IN
advance with the Oboquy Of an indicted wit
ness" He adds In this exigency deem 1t
my duty, soemnly and with full sense OF
my responsibility, to reafirm the literal and alb
soute truth of my charge against the Rev. Henry ward
Beecher and reassert the literal and absolute alsty
of the special pleas by which he has vany sought to
uctantly rendered me- and the end that there may
delay in the decision of the controversy, demand
The in iictment Of Mr.. Tilton was generally accented
as the first practical step toward the nna Dersy
claimed by lawyers that Mr. Tilton's suit against Mr
court because based upon an alleged crime since
cOndoned. At any rate its speedy trial Is improbable.
a anS s OF dSa Ss ff0s are
which the public take less interest for the the
Widely known to have been malicious and utterly
without foundation. Its prosecution would involve no
exclamation settlement Of the allegations against Mr.
Beecher The latters action on Saturday Is therefore
looked upon the shortest way to the solution OF the
Mr hilton and his counsel, Judge Morris, called upon
the DstrictAttorney mt noon time ana we're informed
that bail would have to be given today.
MR.. BOwENS SUITS AGAINST THE EAGLE.
William c. De Witt, counsel for The Brook
In, Eage appeared Saturday In the Brooklyn City
Court Judge Nelson and in behalf Of his client
moved that two the actions for libel brought against
that newspaper by Henry c. Bowen be consolidated
into one He said that the provided that where
there were several suits In the court by the same
defendant involving substantially the same oense the
court might II il deemed IL expedient, order the several
be consolidated into one Tae motion was OPP
posed by Mr. Bowens counsel and the Judge took the
papers and reserved his decision.
SOME POINTS IN THE BEECHER CASE.
To the Editor Of The Tribune.
SIR: The following points in the Beecher case
appear to me be noteworthy: Tton's card contrasts
Beechers " tardy Indictment with his own prompt
acceptance OF the ISSUE" Now the facts l. Beecher
was obliged TO get the indictment through a Grand
Jury he laid it before the first that has sat since
Tton's only "belOus" action-his statement. ITO the
public" over his name. g. The GaynOr indictment
was met by Ttons avernent and Mavericks testimony
that the first statement was published without
TtOn's knowledge or consent. A libel could hardly
have been proved, whatever might have been believed
g. The charge in Plymouth Church against Tilton by
West was not libel, which malicious publication, but
SANDER which is only cOwardly malice and not an in-
dctable offense. Ii. RI
Nec- York. Oct. 3, 1874.