New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-04-22


league Of that character. to this association
between these three gentlemen Now. II that
premise w@ assumed, I might with great
propriety admit that the declarations Of the
parties engaged In the common transaction, with
common purpose might he admissible; though DO not
believe 1t. sirI do not think they would be- do not
think that Of this character with refer
To lawful and private purpose. under any cir
cumstanees makes the declaration II one Of the parties
to that transaction admissible against the other when
the private business interests Of them raised
and involved In collateral matter. They not part
ners Sir. They arc not consprators They are Co
actors for common purpose in regard tn admissible
and legal but does that make the declarations Of
either evidence against the other in collateral and
independent transactionf Mr.. Tlton prosecutes Mr.
Beecher upon an alleged cause Of seduction Ii
transprcs IN the course Of the revelation OF
the affair that attempts made by the
two parties to the alleged offense and action.
and friend who acted in the interests Of both,
that certain steps taken for the purpose Of sup
pressing the publication Of the accusation the circu
stances upon which the accusation rested. Now sub
nit to your Honor that would follow that in tho
action OF seduction the evidence Of the declarations Of
these various parties the side of the Immediate par
ties " the action In relation to the and motives
which governed their transaction in the attempt to
prest the scandal, would be evidence against the
others although might admit 1t. Sir for the purpose
OF argument The last phrase which the gentleman
read from the testimony Of Mr.. Moulton shows exactly
what the arrangement was with Mr.. Beechcr by Mr..
Mouton in regard to the influences and the In
which those influences were to be exered upon Mrs.
Woodruff TO prevent the notoriety OF this scandal.
q After the publication OF that card THAT l. be Wood
hun cardl, what occurred with reference to ~. Mr.:
said he had been sent for by Victoria Wonu that
he had TO her. and that abe had poured out
had connected his Titons we's with Mr. Reeohsr.
1t was connected in this article. saw Mr. Beecher
IL. IN thatH he
way to Influence that woman against the publication OF
he hoped would, and did see her, in consequence Of
my consultation with Mr.. Beecher
In the Of the evidence various steps have been
narrated with reference to the intercourse between
Monitor and rlton and Mrs Woodruff; and those two
gentlemen have said that these steps taken in
sequence Of this arrangement aud giving the largest
scope. Sir 10 the application OF this testimony Of Mr.
MoutOn. Then TO particular transaction that
H. the publication OF the Life Of Mrs Woodruff" Now.
according to the admission which have made in the out
OF this argument. Sir II 1t should appear that the
publication Of that Life concurrent act between
these three parties-to wit, Tiltou and Mouton
and Beecher. and that Tillon and Moulton had ~
signed that the motive, influencing this lady
and supprcssing the publication OF this scandal why.
then my admission wOnd that evidence, and make
il possibly material in this particular aspect of the arg'
mcnt But refer again. Sir to the first extract which the
counsel read from the testimony Of Mr.. Mouton. The
question WA asked on lTtihilnel'
O. Has he ever talked with you that is Tlion nn the
subject of the effect that the publication OF that Lie hal
With him about il Re didn't with me At the time.
yss a 4Gu TAXED WIN n' 'n' nc aia not VIII" your
a. Tell us what you talked to hint A. told him that
thought be ought not to have published 1t: o, .,
many statements in it seemed extrayagant To mr-niny
STATEMENTS in it seemed extravagant did think 1t
reply to tha@wHen say that he didn't talk to me-
mean that he didn't open the subject; opened the s,l'-
la Of e cSay ns To- Mrs. Ps WP"Shn from he
scripts furnished by her husband &c.
Now, Sir, that disengagcs that Transaction entirely
from the cooperation Of Mr. Moulton and Mr.. Tton 1t
was an independent act, upon his responsibility,
adopted by Mr. TOn and without any reference or con
currcnce with Mr.. Moult0n or Mr. Beecher There
allegation in this evidence that Mr. Beecher ever
approved Of the act that he ever consulted in regard
10 it, There evidence that Mr. Moulton ever APP
proved OF this OF the which to be
taken the purpose of accomplishing the common OBJ
ect OF the three partes-to wit the Cancellation OF Mrs
woodruff Then Sir, there concurrent purpose,
unity OF action in regard to the publication
OF ths Life" as between TtOn and Moult0n and Mr..
Beecher There IL 70 argue our part that Mr.
Beecher acceded 10 approved this publication, or
countenanced 1t justfae act for the purpose OF se
pressing this Islander. 1t expressly appears that Mr.
Mouton dscountenanced and dsapproyed IT, and there
il not particle Of evidence in this to show that in
any the stages OF its production ever brought to
the knowledge of Mr. MOultOn that lie did not condemn
H. And now. what il offered sri With this perfect dis
Indignation OF these two parties. with this perfect indie
pendencc OF action upon the part Of Tilton in
regard 10 this publication, with this express
and emphatic dscountcnance the part of
Moulton in this publication, they ask 10 prove the
declaration OF Mr. Mou!ton against Mr.. Tun for the
purpose concluding his rights for the purpose Of i'm
putting motive 10 his action and enabling the counsel 10
relieve Themselves from the iuences Of the
ment far it made, aud carried out, for
specific purpose. between these three parties. And
now Sir upon what principle the declarations Of Mr.
MoutOn, under these circumstances, TO be received
against Mr.. Titon The arrangement, the connection.
the league the parties al regard to this partc-
lar act being dissolved there being this dseOunenance
on the part Of Mouon and this hostility of purpose OF
policy as TtOn and Moulton by what principle
shall Tilton concluded by inmical, adverse decara-
tons Of Mr. Moulton In regard to that Act submit IL
your please that there is no justice or principle IN
the admission OF such evidence and II If very grave
question: Sir whether the great interests OF party in
litigation are thus assaled and destroyed by the
declaration antagonist party in regard 10 ic par
ticular event about whirh the inquiry Is made.
Mr. Eyarts-Mr. Mouton an antagonist party
Mr.. Beach-Mr. Moulton in regard to thai Transaction
was antagonist party
Mr.. PryOr-Yes. SIR.
Mr. Beach-And, although in regard to other matters,
Sir In matters Of friendship and amy. and cooperation
in regard TO this scandal there may nave oeen friendly
intimacy yet that by ustifes the declarations
of Moultou made in the of Mr. Tilton. There
must be some closer intimate legal connection be-
tween the parties TO justify those declarations
and your Honor is asked, under these circumstances
tn permit the dec arations OF Mr. Mouiton
even without inquiry from him In regard
To them to be produced in hostility to Mr. Tton sub
NIT 90 your Honor that there principle Of evidence
40 far ar can perceive and no sentiment OF Justice, in
the admission OF such declarations We are to be Judged
Sir by legal evidence by own acts and by our own
and no man. unless authorized by u.s. speak