The Portland daily press., 1875-04-29

w
was not true that witness said to Wood, uff he
thought there were circumstances in which w.
in was justifiable, and particularly in this case
and that lie might be told and a card of deni-
al published. Woodruff objected to card but
said they had been verbally denying the story,
while the question was whether there should
be q card. Recess
Inc plymouth church ladies who came to
aolirt this morning with Mrs piltou returned
aft er recess bat unaoeOmpani ed by her The
examination of Tracy was suspended and Mrs
Ovington was recalled to he examined by the
prosecution.
EX-.Judge Fullerton croSs-eX amiued in sup
port of the theory that there was a conspiracy to
entice Mrs. Tilton away from her husband be-
fore publishing the fact that the church COM
mittee had been appointed.
Witness recollected that she testified that
she was out riding with Mrs Titon july 18th.
1874. and the next day Mrs. Tilton left her
home Tilton mad been before the committee
on the 10TH and that fact was known to wit
ness. She sent note to Cleveland epouiripg
if Tilton was before the committee, aud he
sent back reply in the affirmative. Witness
Immediately sent message to Mrs. Tiltnn 10
apprise her This was about o'clock in the
evening The following morning Mrs Tlton
came to live with witness. The note sent to
Mrs. Tilton was substantially that she was full
filing her promise to let Mrs. Titon know
when her husband was before the committee
and tn at Cleveland Informed her he was She
also tod Mrs Tlton in the note that she could
come TO her whenever she chose
The letter of inquiry of1Ovington and his re-
DIV were read aud put in evidence. The reply
simply says, ''He is here. but guess you need
NOT send for Mrs TiltOn." Mrs Tilt0n's not.
to Mrs. Ovington was also read as follows:
My Beloyed-Do not fear for me Iwill stay
to night and come to you in the morning. We
will both trust and wait on the Lord"
Affectionately yours, from sister
ErJzARETu
Witness said she expected on receiving that
reply that Mrs. Tilton would call next day,
yet it is true, as testified on cross-examination,
that Mrs. Titon's coming to stay was a great
surprise to her.
Sherman here offered in evidence an orig
inal note from Mrs. Tilton to Mrs. Ovngton,
referred to on the direct examination and since
found, and the contents of which note Mrs.
Ovington rad communicated to Mr.. Tilton.
The Judge asked how it would be if some
thing was now found in the letter besides that
Mrs. Ovington communicated to Mr.. Tilton.
Fullerton-That is just what they want it
for.
The Judge would not allow the letter to be
read.
The examination of Tracy was resumed by
Evarts.
Two or three days after the interview last
spoken of Moulton asked him to call on Beech
er He did so and mentioned the fact OF the
interview with Moulton and Tilton.
The prosecution objected to the particulars
of that conversation as an independent tran.
saction, undertaken not at Tilton's request but
Moulton's.
Evarts asked if they had not so connected
Moulten and Tilton that Moulton stood pro tan
to for Tllton in all these interviews.
The Court excluded the testimony
Witness cOntinued-All this time his only
source of knowledge about the scandal not open
to the public was conversation with Woodruff,
Tilton and MoutoD. The final letters of Beech
er and Tilton of December 2lst. were read in
the paper. Tilton read to him. The only thing
about lie was whether simple denial OF the
scandal would be lie or not, and the witness
was arguing that it would be truthful, but Til
ton thought otherwise. Witness contradicted
Woodrutf's testimony that he had suggested
sending Moulton to Europe. 1t was of Titon
only he spoke, not Moulton and Titon Wit
ness denied Moulton's statement that he had
told Tracy the facts of the case that Beecher
had sexual intercourse with Mrs. Tilton, and
that Tracy thereup0n said that must be exclude
ed at all hazards, and that though he did not
recommend lying, he thought this was case
in which lie was Unsuitable. Witness was
very emphatic in denying that any such con-
versation took place during his Sunday inter-
view with Moulton or at any other time.
His attention was next called to the passage
in TiltOns testimony about the Sunday night
interview, in which he (Tracy) said this was
case which should be summarily dealt with
and in which the truth should be denied, and
tn lying was justifable. Witness denied
having said SO. He may have said he should
take the responsibility of telling that form of
lie if it was the case of his own family. They
were arguing that the scandal could not be
truthfully met by simple denial, and he was
urging that the scandal was essentially false
and could be truthfully denied, and he may
have said in that way that if there was any lie
in that it was one in which he would take the
responsibility of it. 1t was untrue that he
said to Tilton that he would never forgive him
for condoning his wife's crime.
Evarts here offered evidence of converse
ton between Tracy and Moulton two years
after, namely, june Oath, 1874, when Mouton
asked Tracy to come back and have something
to do with the case.
Mr.. Beach objected.
Mr.. Evarts holly inquired whether the re-
maiEder of the trial was to be conducted on the
rule that Moulton had nothing to do with Til
ton and did not represent that side in all the
negotiations?
Beach replied that Tilton was not to be con-
cluded by con, ersations between Moulton and
one of the present counsel for the defendant,
HIS Honor had already decided that Hilton and
Moulton were not one, but that there was some
slight difference as to representing Tllton as
far as zeal and devotion went. Moulton, who
had been sneeringly called mutual friend"
and need not be ashamed of the title he so well
merited, represented Beecher at these inter
views in far greater degree than Tilton.
introductory to Moulton's calling Tracy's
attention to the Bacon letter, and was followed
by others which have been the subject of evil
dence, and which were really all one confer
epce, resulting in what is called the "Carpen-
ter card" as it was in Carpenters handwriting
and also in a conference with Beecher. Besides
Moulton was TiltOns representative in the
matter
Beach replied-On the contrary Mouton was
the special agent of Beecher in opposition to
his old friend and was endeavorng 10 suppress
Tilton's answer to the humiliating and dam
aging charges of DR.. Bacon and Offering him
$4,000 to suppress it, Beecher and Moulton on
one side, MoultOn representing Beecher and
Tilton representing only his own manhood
and desire to vindlcate himself, yet the coun-.
sci had the effrontery to get up and speak of
Moulton as Tllton's agent in that transaction.
Court excluded the testimony unless foun-
datlon was laid for It,.
Witness said that on the evening of June "a,
1874, the day on which Tilton's reply to DIR.
Bacon's letter was published in the Golden
Age, Moulton sent for him. He had no au-
thority from Beecher. (Testimony as to that
interview excuded.)
Witness was next questioned about his inter-
view with Moulton July "a, 1872. He said that
he took the letter from Mr.. Beecher to Moul'
ten.
Beach objected to getting in the testimony of
the witness as counsel and having arguments
that he might have urged to Moulton now
sworn to by the counsel. (Witness-Whereas
Tilton had given no authority to Moulton to
represent him on that occasion.) He consid-
cred this attempt an evasion of every principle
of equity and right which ought to be secuted
by the indignant intelligence of the court
The Judge said witness might state what was
done, but no arguments.
Witness said he took the letter from Beech
er to Moulton, asking for Beecher's papers or
copies of them to be used before the church
and Mouton refused.
Court adjourned.
OATITHEDN EEEV INN