Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1875-06-07
,e nurse. Mitchell. Til.on's narration, the

the nurse, Mitchell. Tilton's narration, the
sneaker said was not only false in detail, but in
morale, for he had sought to throw the onus Of
his wifes agitation, caused by himself, upon Mr..
Beecher, for the purpose Of relieving himself from
the suspicion of having used force, which was
true, and of imputing it to MIR. Beecher, which
was not. On coming home anxious to hear the
resuit Of the interview with Mr.. Beecher, result
which he supposed would be in conformity with
the instructions he had given his wife, he awoke
her and learned to his CONSERVATION that he had
been placed in worse predicament than that In
which the letter of the Goth had thrown him.
There has been no contradiction OF Mrs. Mitchell
in any respect, by either Illton or Mouiton, on
their return to the witness stand therefore, thefe
is direct conclusive proof that the recantation was
got by coercion of husband upon weak, sick
wife The letter to DIR. StoTs was "another OF the
tunes which Titon played on the pipe of his wife.
Did the jury have any doubt that the same coer-
cion was used to get the i1rst letter on the Ioth
Mr. Evarts argued that Mrs. Tilton was induced
to give the recantaon by the plea that, in the re-
traction she had given Mr.. Beecher, was the proof
that the original letter had been obtained from her
by force and that it could be used against her
husband. 1t contains no contradiction OF the re
traclion-only an explanation of her reasons for
giving it. Moulton, in 1872, told Tracy that the
retracton implied more than retractien OF false
charge: that it implied coercion, and that it was
that which offended Mr.. Tilton. Tilton said the
same thing to Mr.. Storrs.
MI. ENdElS SAILS uC hau ihauC ~ SiCai 'io'
ing was charged at the interview of December ~
except improper advances. If that was not the
charge, and the whole charge why does not the
prosecution prove something else The destrnc-
ton of the paper of accusation was fatal to the
prosecution. The law admits of no two construe-
tons in regard to the necessity of original evil
dence in a matter like this and the letter OF re-
traction admits of but one Interpretation OF the
letter of accusation. Mr.. Evarts added that he
reposed with entire confidence upon the PROPOSE
ton that if there no charge at that time there
never was any charge. There was no question
that Mr.. Beecher never made any confession, or
that he bad denied the charge and repudiated it
from beginning to the end. On this central point
Tilton and Moulton were convicted of perjury on
the evidence Of their own handwriting and by a
cloud of witnesses.
Mr.. Evarts then passed to the pistol interview,
saying that he was proceeding rapidly over all
that appeared to him important to touch upon.
According to Moulton's own account of It. the en-
tire object of that interview was TO retiacc Mrs.
Tilton's false step in giving Beecher reiutation
of the letter of accusation. Mouton says that
the argument he used to Beecher to get the re-
traction was that he would protect it with his life
vet this man is shameless enough subsequently to
say that he gave it to Tilton to give to his wife to
destroy, and both these men used as a plea that
there was no black-mail, that nothing was said at
the arbitration about destroying any papers. All
the testimony in regard to the occurrences of the
night before shows the absurdty of the idea that
Mr.. Beecher had any confession" to give up to
Mouton that day.