New-York tribune., 1875-02-26
THE INCARCERATION TRIAL.
THE PLAINTIFF AND Mr.. ,socLToN ACCUSED
OF CONSPIRACY AND PERJURY

p,cu.pns's TESTIMONY CRrTICIsKp-A
IIKs READ ON ORAL CONFESSIONS AND oN oN'N-
sPrRAcKs-FRANcIs D. MoULroNs NrhaHSI IN
-uv c.sF-vHY THE LETTER on CONFUSION
Has NoT BEEN PRODUCED
NJ Tracy continued yesterday his opening ad-
s,ss in behalf of the defendant. in the suit OF Mr.
-lton against Mr. Beecher. Progress In the morning
.,oU hut during the afternoon session Mr.. Tracy
.roh. vary rapidly and gained much lost time. Mrs
Ca.harine Carey Smith and Joseph H. Richards
ars condemned for their part in the case and Fran
els d. Moulton charged with conspiracy and
.r;me The principal disclosure was the fact that
the edefense have witness who is to testify that MI
1Iton showed him copy of the so-called confession
,fMrs TiltOn months after it was said to have been
destroyed.
VIGOROUS ASSERTIONS FOR THE DEFENSE.
Nearly twenty minutes were lost Yesterday morn
Ing before Mr.. Tracy was in readiness to proceed
with his speech in behalf of the defense. When be
finally took his place behind the mprovised desk OF
tin boxes old boards and law books the uneasy au-
aence settled in their seats To hear the unrav-
,ling of the line of defence Mr. Tracy dashed
vigorously into his subject, and for some time
kept the complete and interested attention OF
his auditors. But finally he struck vein OF
srgnment-the citing of law authorities-whch
was of the utmost importance 10 the dehberatlon
Of the jury but was exceedingly dry in the opinion
sf spectators. The first topic considered was the
testimony of Mrs. Kate Carey Smith and that of
Joseph H. Richards The story of the former the
speaker characterized coined in the brain Of the
woman. He thought that the fact of her putting
The words dear father" into the mouth Of
Mrs. TtOn was proof of the falsity of the
statement, as those the words, he argued.
that the witness would in her devOtions before
her priest Mr. Richards sharply criticised for
gvIng testimony which il was asserted, he himself
thought Of no value except when taken into con-
nectiOn with other scandals Then the non appear
knce of Francis B. Carpenter commented upon
BY the speaker who made promise TO show that Mr..
Carpenter not called because Mr.. Tilton's law
yers knew that If Mr.. Carpenter were placed on the
witness stand, a cross-examinatiOn would have hurt
the plaintiffs case.
Mr.. Tracy now asked his colleague, ex-Judge
Porter to read from a number of law authorities
oral confessions for the purpose of showing the jury
that testimony such that of Mrs MoultOn was
dangerous and should be received with great eau
uon. After Mr.. Porter finished reading Judge Neil
son suggested a later authority than any cited by
the counselor which. however concurred with those
read Mr.. Beach begged leave to read an authority.
and was allowed to do The Interrupt
tons of Judge Nelson and of Mr. Beach
were incidents not usual TO openings. and they
served 10 bnoy up the interest of the audience. The
theory of the defense in regard TO the writing and
sending of the letter demanding Mr.. Beechers re-
tirement from the pulpit and from Brooklyn was
explained. and 1t suggested that the letter was
q trap set by Mr. Bowen to make breach between
M Beeeher and Mr. Tilton, that the latter could
not form any alliance with The Christian
CniOn while at the same time he mir.
Bowen) could discharge Mr. Tllton without
fear of the consequences. The speaker then
boldly charged that conspiracy against
Mr Beechers reputation had been carried on since
December 26. 1870. by Theodore TiltOn. Turning
upon Mr.. TiltOn and shaking his forehnger at HIM,
Mr.. Tracy declared that it matter of business
an affair of dollars and cents. Ex-Judge Porter
then. at the request of Mr.. Tracy quoted number
of authorities regarding cOnspiraces, after which
the speaker resumed his line of argument. appealing
10 the True Story" to contradict the testimony OF
Messrs Tilton and MOultOn.
The character of Francis d. MOultOn was next
pictured by Mr. Tracy and the colorng given was
anything but complimentary The mutual friend
was described as a person used by Woodruff
d Robinson TO do a certain class of business Tor
them in Washington and Albany, the nature OF
which demanded that he should have some ndu-
ence with some lever of public opinion, and for
that reason he in 1870 sought Theodore
Triton. who was an editor Of The Independ-
mt and of The UniOn, and trusted
friend of Mr.. Greeley Mr.. Tracy's next efort-a
eomparison of Mr.. MOultOn 70 Judas lscarlot-
brought out an attempt to applaud by the audience
Judge Nelson threatened to adjourn the Court, ana
Mr.. Tracy continued. He stated that the acts OF
Mr. Moulton. Mr.. TiltOn. Mr.. Beecher, and others
from July 1870. To the time when charges OF adul-
terv were made were inconsistent with that crime.
He would make it as clear as the MONDAY
sun In the heavens. he said, that the charge
of adultery was not made at the interview on
Dec so. 1870 between Mr.. Beecher and Mr. Illton.
IL rad been shown, be declared, that four days be-
fore that interview Mr. Tilton told Mr.. Bowen that
the charges were "unhandsome proposals; IT would
he further shown that Mr. Tilton had told five per-
sons that the charges alleged at that interview were
also "unhand3ome proposals" hr. Iracy's next
1ranch of argument-and the most important
of the day--was CONCERNING the "so-calied
letter Of confession" of Mrs. IlltOn. WHICH, he
said might still be in existence for aught
ne knew and the nOn-productOn of which he CHAR
aeterized as a great breach of faith. Why don't
they produce the letter 7" thundered Mr. Tracy,
turning about and locking down upon Mr.. Beach,
who was calmly taking notes, and then glanclng at
Judge Nelson. He then said that that missing
letter would prove that the confession was one OF
"jmproper advances and not of adultery. The
startling statement next made was that
the defense would produce an unlm-
neacbable witness to prove that Mr..
Tilton after the Woodruff publication, read to the
witness what he Mr.. Tiltonl said was copy OF the
alleged confession of Mrs. Tton and that that copy
did not contain a charge of adultery also that MT
Tton told that person that the original confession
was in the hands of Francis d. MOulton all this,
notwithstanding Mr.. Tilton aud Mr. Moulton nave
sworn that the confession was destroyed at the
20 afUrna