The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-04-29

| ana Moulton SAID 1t was, showing him MI
| was a memorandum q conversation; Mr. Tracy
4 said he inen read II carefully, and told Moulton
that he did not see prevented a denial OF the
| Woodruff SCANDAL; mat the letter declared Mrs.
| TtltOn 10 be innocent,
..sINNED AGAINST yor sINNIxG.n
| Moulton then showed him Mrs. Tiiton's letter OF
Fetracti0n; the witness said lt seemed to imply
! that Mr.. Beecher had been ATTEMPTING The virtue
OF Mrs. Triton without success; nc asked Tor the
history OF the paper, anu Moult0n SAID that after
! IIlton had accused Mr. Beecher the latter went IL
! 1Ilton's house, ~ his Absence and obtained tins
| relraction; that Tllton learned OF this IRON ms
| that Mr. Titon came to him the next day, greatly
offended about 1t, and that he (Moultonl then oU-
tanned the retracton from Mr.. Beecaer; Moulton
1 said thar the statement IN the Woodruff
publication, tnat he obtained this by thrcat
| was ialse; that he obtained IL from Mr.. seecher
/ by representing Illton's anger and his own
| opinion that Mr. Beecher had acted unwIsely in
| the matter; that Mr. Beecher said ne wanted the
| letter Tor hts protection, and that he lMoulgon
promised to preserve both that and the letter
tanning tue accusation; Moulton said that IN max
ing this promise he put his hand on his pistol and
| said that he would protect the paper, II 1t was
given TO him, with his HE; he said explicitly that
Woodruff article was entirely false in TINS par
ticular; Mouiton SAID that the letter containing
| the witness thought Mr.. Moulton said 1t had been
| destroyed; Mouton said that
THE LETTER OF EXTRACTION
implied that li!ton had coerced his vile into max
ing the charge, and that IL was THIS which gave
article considered was that in regard an alleged
interview with Mr.. Beecner in reference TO induc-
Moulton said that this part OF the article was
| false; the witness testified that Moulton said
him in regard TO those parts OF the article which
he mad declared to be false; Moulton said he did
V0e ena ssef sac 10 res
tons with his vile; the witness said ne
ts aaae M and 0n Mr. HoSton Mr. sa sse'no
the witness then asked what he did charge,
and Nj. Moulton said he would rather have him
ask Tilton; MOulton then said that Tllton was TO
be present at the interview, went out, aud re-
turned with Tnton; the latter asked the witness
ii the etiquette OF his profession would prevent
him from being counsel for Mr.. Beecner, IN the
event OF a controversy, If be (Mr. Tilton) made 10
the witness statement OF his charge against MI.
Beecner; the witness replied tnat ii one OF two
paroles TO q controversy made stat ment oil his
case to him he should not feel himself AT lloer.y TO
counsel Tor the other; MI. Tiltoa then began
TO read manuscript, explaining passages as ne
10 discriminate between the contents OF the paper
and The verbal comments; Mr.. lnton read
the manuscript through, the reading and
the talk occupying about an hour; the
witness was asked II he believed the paper
1 which was produced in court as a part OF che
"true storyn was the same as any part of the
| paper read by Tllton at TINS Interview; witness
as being the same IN both papers; IN both,
THE RELATIONS OF TlLToN WIN BOWEN
Bowen. the letter Of January /, 1871. the letter Of
Mrs. Tilton saying that Mr.. Beecher mad asked her
to oe VIE 70 MIN. and various otner SUBJECTS,
contained things not IN the paper produced In
court, which only purported to be q fragment; It
sisting the arnorous peas OF her pastor; AR. Tl-
ton SAID that he mao drawn up TINS document
with the view OF publishing reply To the Wood
null scandal; that he should suomt It TO Mr..
Beecher, who would nave 10 ne satisfied win the
truth; the witness salu the question was whether
this was the truth. and referred Mrs. lllton's
letter OF retraction; MIR. TilJon then became ex
that ne had visited Mrs. Tilton when she was slcE
aud induced her to write the letter IRON his dlcta
ton; he said that Mr. Beecher had admitted
the charge against him In the letter OF apology;
the Witness read the letter OF apology again,
ADMISSION Of any specldc charge; TlIton had
previously said, in aenouncing MI. Beeener, that
prove 1t; the witness asked If he meant with his
wife and 1llton replied mo, but with another
woman or '9a maj, ms w ever was gave
Woodruff any information IN regard 70 the scan
aal they mad very long conversation Isa IN the
regard TO the Feelings he then had toward Mr..
Beecher; Mr. Titon said n substance, that they
were NOT unkindg; the ~ssness asked why, Il he
TO BURY THE SCANDAL
he did not simply deny 1t, instead OF publishing
such document as he proposed; Tllton replied
that this was what these women wanted him TO
libel against them, and would result In tneir
bringing u SUIT, and take the whole matter into
Court; the witness ridiculed this idea, and Ttton
tDen said that the Woodruff article covered too
many points 10 be met by general denial; I1lton
with q simple general denial; ne added tnat While
man might know that Police Gazette contained
Whole PAPER mes S We GsOf Tor Is maa
also contain Z hundred iacss; Tilton said
%ba sOI Mrs. %ooSau SAID Mrs. stanton and
Mrs. Davis mad said TO her, or deny that Mr.
Beecher obtained retraction from MS wlle after
tnls they went down 10 tea. and then, returning
to the study, continued the conversation untli
ten O'Clock; before TINS the witness nGd eomoated
Mr.. Tilton's arguments against making q general
denial; MI. Tllton mentioned tnat ne could not
deny tnat he presided at the SteInway HAL meet
ing; during the interview he discussed with Mr.
i1lton the probability OF bis wne's charge OF i'm.
proper proposals against Mr.. Beecner, suggesting
tnaL 1t was the result OF misunderstanding on
her part; that she had misconstrued some word
or act OF Mr.. Beecner; Mr.. Tiiton said ne thought
Beechor might not nave used the words ''wish all
that that lmpes'' alter asking Mrs. Triton 10 be
wile TO him; the witness strongly urged upon MIR.
I'll on the probability Of Misunderstanding,
which no believed would be a satisfactory expla-
nauon; lie SAID that II Tllton and Moulton wished
TO bury the scandal they should deny the Wood
hull story aud
DESTROY ALL THE DOCUMENTS IN THE CASE;
Mr.. ll!ton SAID that no would not permit the doc-
uments 10 be destroyed, Tor Ia tnat event Mr.
Beecner would turn aud rend him; The witness
said mat Mr.. Beecher could have no possible nio-
tive Tor reviung the scandals TIlton SAID he
Thought Mr. Beecner would but, II Mr. Beecher
dld not, members OF Plymouth church would, who
accused him OF ssanderlng their pastor: the wit
ness thea suggested tnat Mr.. Triton ana his vie
aud Mr. Beecner should lay the whole case before
q few eminent citizens OF Brooklyn, ana that tue
documents should tnen be destroyed; Mr.. Triton
ended wltnoGt any definite result; some
tinle during the evening, perhaps after TIL
talk in regard 10 what was TO ne done for Titon;
the witness said that, under toe circumstances,
In view OF T1ltOn's connection WITH Mrs. Wood
hull, whose life ne had written ne did not believe
that TIlton could get an editorial position on any
leading paper; he thought however, that n I'll.
ton went 10 Europe Tor lew years, where lie
could correspond with various journals, the un-
popularity attaching 70 HIM would die away aud
he could obtain an editorial position his return;
during the interview with luton the latter said
tnut Mrs. woodruff must nave obtained her story
from statements originally SET snoat by Mrs.
Morse, upon whose peculiarIties lie dllated the
witness suggested that each person involved
should make separate DENIAL OF tue part relating
10 himself or herself but to this Mr.. TIlton
would not CONSENT Mrs. PaulIna Wright DAVIS,
IL Wa said, could deny the part OF the scandal
winch related to herself; during the evening
Mr.. Tracy said tnat the scandal could never We
buried long as the documents relating 10 1t
were IN existence; he told AR. Moalton That II he
remained rhe custodian OF tie papers ne would
get involved blnset remarging that he tAr.
unn la ulg