The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-05-25
NEW YORK HERALD TUESDAY MAY 2S 1875-TRIPLE SHEET

her Is untrue; It needs emily him 70 make that
fact public, and vet with his wife publicly accused
ne leit ner unattended, not because ne loved ner
HE LOVED HENRY q. BOWEN MORE.
80 In theodore Itlton's own nandwritna we
have deliberate statement, which ne read TO his
was libel and ITO. and ne says he does not pno-
llsh lt-hrst, on his own account, and second, De.
cause II Mr. Beecher was exonerated, ~ Woula
Then after Mr.. Beecheris return from PeeEskin,
In July, 1873, after the impndent MESSAGE sent oY
hedpatn the charge against Mr.. Beecher was
changed 70 adultery; ana now this self
con essed cucSold, who hourlshes pair
oil anters not belonging 70 him, comes
with gold, and says that the charge was adultery
from the beginning. Despite TINS fact both he
and MOulton mad for years in all their intercourse
elmer among themselves or Others, maintained
tnat me charge was one OF Improper sohc!ta-
tiOns" only. Alter the character or the charge
was changed they prepared a report for the In
yestigatlng Committee TO make. This report has
united by him 10 Henry Ward Beecher on the
SUNDAY following the time when the charge was
Judge Porter read from Mouitons evidence as
TO the circumstances surrounding the preparation
OF liitons proposed statement for AIR. Beecher
Mr.. Beecner, having confidence in Moulton,
agreed TO make statement to the committee
taxing Gil the blame uDon himself and that state
ment ne prepared and delivered 10 the COMMITTED
They intended TO entrap Mr.. Beecher into use OF
language corresponding with TINS report tnat ne
had committed an offence against Theodore Illton
so that they could construe IL into the commission
OF an undenned offence. Mr.. Moulton, IN the IN
tervlew with Mr.. Bsecher, showed MIN Mr.. TIL
toms prepared report for the acceptance OF the
Plymouth church examining committee, the
paper which Tilton haa expressed his willingness
10 abide by. Triton admits this paper, and says
he would have been satisfied " IN It's adoption.
Their desire was Ito exonerate Mr.. Beecner rom
All censure. That statement Tlton read TO M0ul-
ton ana 70 the committee. BUT Triton proved
false TO That statement, and ne exchanged 1t for
the one which he made on the 20tn OF July. They
wanted TO commit MIR. Beecner TO tue admission
OF an underlined offence. That was wnat Triton
and Moulton counted upon dong. But Tilton Ior-
got when ne was writing that report that ne was
actually making record against himself and
ADMITTING THE FALsEHooD
OF the charge OF adultery. Tiiton did not then
know that IN the Judgment or the law what man
writes for another TO sign Is record against him
self OF the truth oil what he writes dis counsel
understood tnat better than he du himself. Here
then, Is the verdict rendered by Theodore Tilton
before he called you TO the bar. If his language
be true II was an ''onencen aud 1t Is not true
that any solicitations were ever made by Mr..
Beecher. TINS report shows that that was what
Tilton had charged him with-ony an offence.
That was ali ne imputed.
Judge Por -er then read from the report in ques-
tion, commencing, "We the Undersigned constr
tuting the committee OF Plymouth church TO whom
were referred certain publications of DR.. Leonard
unanimous reporIsm luis ielter 81 Dr' Bacon
contains the socalled letter or coDtrition-that is,
u embraces what purports TO be the crime OF Mr..
Beecner, not In so many words, but the facts
garOled. lie called attention to the letter OF
apology which Tilton ana Moulton said means
auultefy That was plainly absurd ana at once
apparent ''rhe committee the READ from tue
relort AGAIN. appointed an interview with Mr.:
and Mrs Hilton with respect 20 these charges, ana
they appeared as witnesses with letters and papers
apperLalnlng TO the accusation and implications or
adulteres. They have all been mtsrepre-
senteu. The committee nrss INT ervitwed
Mrs. Tilton, ana her modesty OF manner and lndig-
nant denial that ner has band was the author OF the
liDeI0us charges Impressed them with the truth
OF her innocence she paid q nigh tribute to her
husbands chivalrous character. theodore
TlIton has had Just cause OF offence, but he de-
cined To state the nature OF IL because to ex-
plain IL woulo include the name OF otner persons,
and that no possible good could come BY exposing
Their md that Henry Ward Beecner's statement
corr oDorates the statement which Mr.. ana Mrs.
1llton make. The pubic impression that
Theodore Tiiton had been in the habit Of pelking
against Mr. Beecner IL unjust. the CON-
mitee, after hearing these three witnesses, report
that they should rise In respecI TO Plymouth
churchn
Here there is a written retraction 10 the hand
wife had left his n ousehold and SIX days after he
went uefore the Plymouth church committee
Now this paper, submitted TO Mr.. Beecner on the
14th Of July, stamps Tllton as Hdr II that letter
OF apology ever meant adultery IL was then. Yet
Tiiton certlnes here that 10 did not mean adultery
The apology, he says, was designed ITO cover
complicated transacllon.h Adultery OF his vile
with Mr.. Beecner could not certainly mean to
imply complicated transaction III Henry
Ward Beecner mad debauched the wife OF rlton,
and III MR.. Beecher had confessed adultery with
Mrs. ltlion, what does Tlton mean By writing
that Mr.. Beecher had suffered misrepresentation.
Was IL In imputng improper solicitations TO I1l-
toms vie Tiiton had said further that within
ten days from thence he would phDlisn ms sworn
statement. Did he mean TO make that sworn
statement a lie Which Is nOre 10 he believed,
the written stai ement OF July a. prepared for the
committee, declaring that Mr.. Beecher Is inno-
cent or the written statement OF July 20, declar-
lug that ne was guilty OF adulteryf
The Court adjourned al this point till eleven
O'Clock this forenoon.