The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-04-29
mittee. as naa been informed Of /. By M. cIeve.

mittee as had been informed OF II by Mr. cleve.
land.
TO Mr.. shearman-w Witness Identified the note
she sent 70 Mr.. Cleveland, aud his note 70 her Ia
Iahd was :" read '0 py Mr. s8earman a ana was 10
ascertain II Mr.. Triton was 10 DO before the cou-
mittce as In that case she desired
no TELEGRAPH THE FACT
10 Mrs. Tllton The reply OF Mr.. Cleveland was:-
"Inton is here, but guess you need not send Tor
the letter Of Mrs Tlton TO Mrs. oylngton was
70 the eifect:-'I VIII stay tonight aud come TO
Lord"
The witness said showed the note OF Mrs. Til
ton to my husband that evening.
To Mr. Fulerton--l Thought Mrs. T1lton might
call On mo IN enc morning. she said in tne note
she would; bu' ner appearance as my house was
great surprise 10 me.
10 mr.. Shearnan-sirs Tilton called on us be-
fore BREAKFAST; mad no expectation that she
would come other IMAM 10 pay an ordinary can;
promised Mrs. Illton tnat II at any time knew
that Mr.. Iilton went before the committee would
inform her Of 1t, ana | fulfilled thaJ promise by
writing the note to ner; Mrs. Ttltoh asked me TO
write 10 her,
The witness was about stating the reasons Mrs.
Tilton had stated for asking ner (Mrs. Ovlngton)
W write TO hef, our. on obJectlon. Ihe court ruled
this out, saying Mrs. Ovngton had made herself
perfectly clear. They could not take Mrs. Tiltons
reasons for asking Mrs. ovington TO write 10 her.
MIR. Evarts submitted that the witness was en-
celyng the note from Mrs. Tilton, but the Judge
ruled out the offer on the ground that that matter
had been gone into before.
Exception by Mr.. Evarts.
THE EXAMINATION or MR. TRACY RESUMED.
TO Mr.. Evarts-l saw Mr.. Beecher aud sta, ed co
him regarding the documents ana the statements
made n reference to them by Mr.. Moulton.
Z. Did you state anything TO Mr.. Beecner con-
corning the charges which were made to you and
dlsciaimed by Mr. Moulton2
Mr.. Beach objected, on the ground that he
could not see how statements made by Mr.. Tracy
to Mr. Beecher as to what Moulton mad said could
be admissible, as Mouron not 1ilton.
Judge Nelson-I do not think we Will take that.
Mr. Evarts argued the point, and offered TO
prove such facts as had been communicated by
Mr.. Tracy to Mr. Beecher concerning those
charges.
Witness contnued-Up to the time OF my in
tervlew with MIR. Woodruff nad not heard any
thing OF the scandal, EXCEPT wnaG l read In
the papers; the conversations with Moulton and
Woodruff were my only sources OF information on
by hilton did not contain the final letter OF De-
cember; during the discussion between Mr. Til
ton ana myseil AS TO wnat answer Ilton would
not be truth under tine circumstances; | SAID IL
would: that was the discussion las 70 whether IL
would be Wing or telling the truth; argued that
ii would NOT be lying said nothing in the inter-
view With woodruff about MoulLon going to Eu-
rope; lilton's going TO Europe was the only topic
OF mat kind referred TO; never said to Mr.. Moul-
ton thar U there was sexual Intercourse between
Mr.. Beecher and Mrs. Hilton
1T MUST BE CONCEALED AT ALL HAZARDS;
never said that TINS was a case In which lying
would be iustllable: / never said that this was a
case IN winch toe truth should be concealed, and
that lying IN rete ence TO 1t would be right; SAID
1t was case that should be summary dealt with;
may nave SAID tnat II IL was case OF mine /
would lake the responsibility OF denying 1t: / aid
say TO Mr. Tilton that If he published the charge
nm and MS vile and nr. Beecner also / never
said TO MIR Tllton tnar the world would never for
give him Tor having condoned his wifes crime;
never said any thing OF the kind; had an inter-
view with MIR. Moulton on or about the oath of
June, 1874. III was proposed TO give the language
OF the Ihterylew.l
TINS evidence was objected to by Mr.. Beach.
Mir. EvaTts SAID u merely represented MIR.
Tracy's Tentroductlon into the case.
Mr.. Beach commended that Mr. hilton could not
be concluded by Mr.. Moulton's declaration TO MIR.
Tracy in Ilton's absence. 1t was enough for MIR.
TlltOn 10 answer lor himself and that ne would
do, and IL vas also enough Tor The witness To re-
veal the declaration OF ms auondam client. Mr,
Moalton, as mad been sneeriugly SAID, was the
muluai Irlend OF Tllton ana Beecher; but those
declara ions dld not bind Mr.. Moulton unless at
the express wish OF either party.
MIR. Evarts said the subject matter OF this inter-
view was material. Snertly alter the publication
OF conversations and Consultations which have
been gone into by the plaintiffs side in their evil
aud between Mr. Beecner and Mr. Mouiton, as
representing Mr. Tllton or Mr. Beecher as 10 what
was 20 pc said or to DO dooe IN regard TO placing
the difficulty as raised ny the publication oil the
Bacon tier, Mr. Moulton, On page ia would be
found 10 have testified that he had q conversation
told MIN had seen General Tracy concerning
reply TO the Bacon letter. and asked
nim and Mr. Tracy u replied he H had i''s seen a
letter In which lie thought ne detected my haudi-
work" Now ruis interview between Mouiton aud
Tracy occurred on the oath OF June, aud was
part OF conversation concerning how tue letter
OF Or. bacon was 10 DC dealt with, ont Of which
the suoject OF conversation to which Moulton re-
iers IN his conversation with Mr.. Beecher. We
don't want TO 20 into the conversations VITA Ar.
Tracy and Mr.. Beecher, but tnis interview Is a
single anu preliminary interview by watch Moul-
ton drew Iracy's attention TO the Bacon letter
and tie suoleet OF the answer or dealing with III.
Inc further interviews That are thus prepared for
In evidence that Mouiton does stand IN
the position OF representing Triton III the
conduct or consideration Of TINS matter. Mr.
Evarts continued to argue the right Of the wit
ness 10 testify what occurred at this interview
between Moulton and tracy. 1t brings Mr.. Tracy
back iuto this case ia 1874, while the other inter-
view vas ia 1872. Tue counsel desired to snow
that 10 the end Of June, 1879, MouIton resorted
General racy for counsel In the interest OF tue
parties for dealing with the then new statement
oil the matter growing out OF the Bacon letter.
Mr. Beach sald the counsel Is urawn by his own
reelection on the To some lalse premises ana
has mistaken facts. He seems TO think that this
interview in June was but an antecedent and pre-
limnsry part TO a continued aud lengthy discus
SIGN between air Mouiton and tue witness. The
interview which the plaintiff nao proved
interview with Mr.. Beecner ia when
MOulton communicated to Mr.. Beecher the con-
mony derives no interest because II occurred
with Mr.. Tracy, VINO was not then material ~ the
case; Ia mat relation tGen, there Is nothing whcn
tusthes the couosel IN saying Il Was continue
ton OF interviews between Moulton ana Tracy,
or that It is u declaration between these two
parties on gwen subject; Mr.. Beach dsdained
Inc ptetence that Mr.. Moulton was the representa-
tive Of Mr. Iiton: on tue CONTRARY, 10 that inter-
MoULros WAS THE AGENT AND RMIssARY
OF Mr.. Beecner, aud was lalthless 10 tue interest
OF his more ancient frlend Theodore TitOn; lie
1t was who mad said ne would rather pay Sc, COO
tnan have the answer published py Tnton, and
IL Is In evidence that he had offered MIN that
amount II he would NOT publish the answer 10 that
letter; Mr.. Tracy ana Sir, Moulton we're working
for Mr.. Beecner, fighting Tor Mr.. Beecher
aud arguing Tor Dim, while Iillon was standing
alone, hgniing for mis- MANHOOD and his own
rights. YET tue counsel had the effrontery 10 ar
que taat Moulton was WORKING IN the 10 terest OF
hilton. Mr. Beach insisted that there Is no prin-
ciple OF right, that there is nothing TO snow any
on the part OF Mr.. MoultOn which justi.
nes toe position Ia which II was sought 10 place
him.
Mr.. Evsrts replied that this Interview was after
the publication oil the Bacon letter, and II was
had with a view TO preventing injury TO the fam
tly OF theodore nlton, when would DC Likely to
grow out Vi It becoming u subject OF newspaper
controversy.
Judge Nelson said ne thought that strengthened
the objection TO It's admission, and Mr.. Beach con-
CURED with HIS Honor.
Mr. Evarts after some lurtner argument asked
that his exception De notea.