New-York tribune., 1875-02-05
TLToN SHIELDS HIS CONTRIBUTORS.

| that article and say II you wrote itf
The Witncss-Mr Eyars will you step here moment ITO
the Court May speak conadentay to the counsel moment
| your Honor
Judge Nelson-Ycs Sir II he permits it.
Mr Eyars and the witness here consulted together for
short time
@ Now ask you II you wrote that Mr Tilton' A No.
| Sir.
Q Was published with your knowledge and APPROVAL A
No. Sir.
O. Did you in any way exhibit either in that Issue In any
subsequent issue any disapproya OF that article! didn't
observe either this article the other until two or three weeks
after my attention publicly called to it Then acerlaned
omy great astonishment-
O. You the one that was excluded A. Yes sir they
were both written by the same pen.
O. That purported be speech OF Mrs Woodhu' A. No,
Sir Here are two articles printed from correspondent
Mr. Evarts-No have not asked you that.
The Winess-I thought this vas another There are two in
succession.
did expressed good deal Of dissent and regretted their
publication.
Mr. Eyarts-Dont talk about their publication, who WAS
the writer Of that one? find looking at this one that It
is written by member Of an orthodox Congregational church
and contributor to TIE CTtttdH Chto and member o
Mr. Beccher's coerie Of writer's
Mr EgartsNow may as well have the name-oiher"Ise
we wll all be aspcrsed. Who was the writer'
The Witness ITO the Cour ask your lIonorspermsion
to shelter the name OF the writer, it being lady
Mr. Eyars-I don't know who the ladyis nor do care who
she is but it seems to be some disparacement -
Judge Neisonl hardly think think the witness should
omit it.
Mr. Evarts-The whole circle asperscd
The witncss-I called Mr. Eyarts to and gave him that
hint in private.
Mr. Eyarts-I told you hal not asked you who wrote IT,
The Witness-But told you it written by one Of BIZ.
Beechcr's personal friends.
Mr. Eyarts-You gave it to me in confidence and didn't
dyulge it.
The Witness But you to put question TO me to
make me diyulse It.
Judge Neilson-You can answer whether you wrote It,
Mr. Beach, think the witness and Mr Eyar shord con
tnue this discussion during the 1t one O'Clock
[Laughterl
Mr. Eyars-We should lose audience which the only
motive its continuance. ITO the wtnesal Now you have
not answered think my question whether you had either Ia
this issue any subsequent said anything in your pa
per dscountenance Of this article approval Of III l. No
Sir; spoke personally about it,
G. You to the wrtcr' A Yes, Sir
O. Not to the pubicf A. To Of The writer's friends
Mr. Eyars-Now appreheud, if your Honor please tn;
am entitled to read the article
Judge Neilson-The same ruling as TO the other
Mr. Morrs-IIc says he disayowcd it,
Mr. Eyars-e says he did in hs newspaper di-avow IT,
but spoke the writer abou;t We 80 understand him lie
spoke to the writer, he says
judge Neson-IIe didn't dsnyow It in his paper lie did
otherwise disayow it. think shall rule it out.
Mr Eyar,s-Your Honor Will exception The article
has 70 bad name think ought be read its own g.
count TO show that it j. bad as il represented
judge Ncison-Wc viii take recess Io the inro
Gentlemen please be your seats punctaaiy at O'Clock
THE WOODHULL BIOGRAPHY AGAIN RULED OUT
After recess the cross examination was continued
as follows:
Mr. Eyarts-[Paper handed to witacss 1ooA At t' and
see il that is issue Of your pressy A. Al except B. T.
Tracy, January .? lS;L'
@ Wei, that happens to be The name Of the owner Of it,
that is printed, II il A. No. Sir
@ That hardly could be issue OF any mans press. could
IT, A. Certainly not OF mine
g Well ask you Il that was the s5re Of yoar pre-s' 4
say all but the written name on IL.
O. This is the Life OF Mr.. woodruff, about the manner oi
composition OF which you testified in yoIr drcct examination
A. Not her life, Sir. but narrative Of it,
@. Well, biographical sketch OF it' A. Yes. Sir.
O. paper production Of which you spoke as 10
the manner OF its cOmposiuoai A. Yes Sir
Nj Eyarts-I offer this in evidence The witness has
given concenn, it, composition your Honor
will remember, in hs direct examination introduced by my
learned friend saPpoc OF Cogc, AN entitled TO pG ii in
evidence.
Mr Beach-I your Hono- please do 10, deem this pubIica
ton admissible II has been ruled ont by your Honor
Perhaps the circumstance somewhat changed under which
il IS offered But il appears that that kech OF Mrs
Woodruff was corrected after preparation by her husband by
Mr. Ton and certain parts Of it which not h author
ship as they were prepared by the husband OF Ms woodruff
were omitted in the sketch which written and prepared by
Mr. Ton with which he not harmony, and that was
he had any connection Win it, prepared and Issued in
pursuance OF an arrangement between himself and
Mr. Beecher AMI Mr.. Moulton FOR the purpose OF sup
pressing the scandal which il under examination.
1t is offered for the purpose Of concluding
Mr. Tlton, identifying him at least with the opinions Of
that lady which she expressed And when 1t appears
plainly doe. under the evidence it stands without
contradiction that they not his own opinions IN regard TO
that person. when Ills clear that prepared for common
purpose between the plaintiff and Mr. Becchcr
that it i. immatrrial The object Of is production sad
was to identify Mr. Tlton with certain opinions and SEMI
ments and prove his appreciation in regard TO the public
history Of this lady and her opinions When is perfectly
apparent that it il not real expression Of his
views that it q device or s,ra'agcm arranged
upon between these parties for specific purpose
acknowledged and known be device and candid
and sincere expression Of opinion the Of the writer
it seems the introduction Of such paper is wide
from the purpose which il offered and that il is in Itself
mmaera therefore submit yoar Honor that the general
opinions which may be given by Mr. Tton in regard TO the
character public personage they the expression
Of his own real sentiments in regard to that person
doctrines which she might advance arc mmleIial 10 any
issue in this case But your Honor will further perceive far
as have observed the nature Of the evidence offered.
that it is not by any in itself adoption Of the
opinions which imputed to that lady II il sketch his
tory Of public person with the particular subject
out of which connection with which, she growA
rons Now how does that matess Sir this actoni
1t is only upon the argument and theory that sHch sketch
history Of public parsonage is approval of the
opinions which that person may be supposed maintain
submit to your Honor that history either OF nation or an in.
dydna is not in it, whole, matter Of evidence against
itself either in regard to the facts the events
which it may detail, and that the APPRECIATION OF
historic parsonage By historian is Ly no
means an adoption Of all the opinions approval OF all the
.f4..H II 1
the production Of sketch Of the life of Mrs Woodruff 10
connect and identify Mrs Ton with all the opprobrlun