The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-02-27


prove; but II the personal explanation IS not sus-
centlbe OF proof the rule is PLAIN.
he misunderstood what MIR. Beach had said, and
thought that he had denied the right to make an
explanation He would afirm now that the lacis
which General Tracy would specify they would
prove.
General Tracy then SAID to the jury that he
would endeavor TO state no facts when VIII not
be made plain TO them by evidence which they Will
present As TO the facts To which he was about
to refer, or any subject that was material TO TINS
case they would prove them all by witnesses. II
the plaintin has dragged III matter which Is not
mater al 70 TINS case he took it as right 10 make
explanation where ne was concerned. He would
speak hrst to what transplred be ween the wife
OF the plaintiff and himself What transplred De.
tween himself and Mrs. Tton he ore she went
before the Committee OF Investigation Is a matter
not material 10 this case, and yet TINS is brought
had controlled Mrs. Tiltons action before the
COMMITTEES. II I understand the plaintin's ev.
question and answer for his vile. saw her 10 speak
her for the nrst time IN my life about thirty or
mittee. We never spoke word about what she
should say, and never so told plalntln. was in
troduced TO Mrs. Tlton by her steplather, exjudge
Morse, who Is one OF the most respected citizens
OF Brooklyn. knowledge came to me on that day
in July That the plaintiffs vile was IN the house
OF friend In Henry street. and that she expressed
desire 10 communicate with some o. the authorities
ofPymoutn caurch. called at the house and found
with her stepfather 1 asked her If she wanted
to go before the committee. she said yes, and
got the committee together to hear her. NY
only words were to tell her thai II she was asked
questions which m gnt at other times seem inde-
cate, she must not feel annoyed she replied that
she wouC not and then went before the commit
tee was not ab sent from the parlor two minutes
ALTOGETHER. never told Mr.. Tilton that had pre-
pared the answers to the questions for this COM
mittee. II was another unnecessary rejection
That he cast upon his WIFE, About the time OF the
run asked me to cali and see what answer could
be made to that publication. mad been very ont
spoken In my Opinions IN regard TO tnat pnblica-
between Mr.. Woodruff and mss sell was not pro-
fessonal one was to receive no compensation.
He told me That.
MR.. MoULroN HAD SOME PAPERS
which 1t would be necessary to see before any
view W was ' to introauce Moulon to mvseif that
might see those papers. The interview was APP
pointed and /! took place between Moulton, III
ton aud myself. Two interviews have been spoken
OF, but remember but One | do not remember
that Tlton was with US when It commenced. the
OF apology as 1t was then called, now known as
the letter OF coutritlon. The Woodruff publica.
knowledge Inc retrac!ion was also SHOWN me
and anOlher letter or very little importance. The
% tins a% to s
b na The snue t. asPea m aSoS T
asked him II he dld that. aud he replied that there
was no truth IN II. then asked MIN III regard TO
Steinway Hall meeting. lie SAID tnat was not
true. He SAID he had not given Mrs woodruff
h@ wharf ron or SAID Of it, as To
there was any foundation for the story. He SAID
he wanted me to find tnal out from Tilton HIM
SELL TltOn came into the room after this. He
might have been there before. ] did not snow
ne was su coming and nd was surprised TO see him:
don't know what the etiquette OF your
Permit YOU 10 be Counsel @
He read a draft which was greatly lnterpoated
and underlined and showed much labor The only
was what now turned out to be the letter to Dr.
Storrs, though then it DID not purport to be
such. 1t contained also the letter OF apology. IL
Is true that | dad examine this letter carefully
with reference to the Woodruff scandal. When
Iiton made the charge of improper proposals
did again take up the letter 10 examine its bear.
ing In mat view oil the case after T1lton entered
SHOWN here, have never s en- IN the world.
mean the letters OF Mrs. Illton and Mr.. Beecher.
Q! January 20, 1872: so know that the .'lrqe
there was but one conversation between
Tton on this subject was as | have stated. Til.
ton denied the truth OF the Woodruff statement IN
any Of the stores Mouton SAID he could DENY
1t. Why could not Tilton also deny 1t Tllton
said he could not deny 1t, because while tnat
story was alse there was true one, and he said
he could not deny the lase story without telling
the true one. ! argued against that view. The
q man could DENY u story which was substantially
untrue, though there might be true story con-
nected with It. held that 1t could ana ought. /
ADVISED silence because Tllton refused to deny the
Woodruff story without telling the other story.
and ! undoubtedly did say that, az between
to pursue. AS lar as MoultOn was concerned,
argued 10 omit to deny It was lie. We had a
and out OF the case alter December, 1872. saw
Mr.. Beecher once on the subject, and had "a casual
conversation with him on this subject once in
January, 1872. was not of the case until alter
the publication OF the Bacon letter, when Moulton
brought me to MS house: where lonnd rilton and
said ne wanted me to come back again In the case.
He was very much excited and outraged at the
publication OF the Bacon letter. He said that the
difficulty was not yet hey Ond settlement. He (Mr.
Tracy came into the case IN June, 1874, at the
solcitude OF Mr.. Mouton believing him to be Mr..
Beecher's friend. That was his history OF his
nectiOn with this case. He mad stated in an inter-
view IN the Brooklyn Union as to his understand.
ing Of the case. AS soon as ne saw That Mr. Tton
changed MS charge from one OF improper prOpo-
sal to- one OF an entirely different character he
gave Mr. Tlton notice That ne could not be ned TO
tue promise he had made him. There was
difference between himself and Mr.. 1llton except
In so far as he told him tnat ne could not be his
counsel II ne brought different charge IRON the
one he had originally stated. Before he mad APP
pearsd IN TINS case ne nad submitted the question
sociates In this case Mr.. Evars anu Mr.. Porter and
they had expressed the opinion that there was
nothing in the matter to prevent him from ap
pcarlng In this case the counsel Tor Mr.. Beecner
lie thought ne was entirely free, according to the
opinions OF eminent lawyers, to appear Mr..
Beecher's counsel in this suit.
Mr.. Tracy stopped talking at seventeen minutes
The Judge-Have you concluded your opening,
Mr.. Tracy?
Mr.. Tracy-I have not, sir.
the Judge. addressing the jury, said :-Gentle-
men, you Will De good enough to call at the Comp
trollers oflce on Monday morning, before you
come into court, and you will receive your COM
pensation Tor your services, so lar as they have
been rendered. With regard to extra compensa-
tiOn for the 0nerOus duties that have been thrown
upon you, That question can be better determined
wnen we know the extent to which your labors in
TINS case may be prolonged. You viii please at
tend here on Monday morning, at eleven O'Clock.
The Court was accordingly adjourned to that
hour on Monday morning.
CARD FROM Mr.. BOWEN.
The following card has been published by Mr..
Henry G. Bowen In relation to General Tracy's ad-
dress
The statements made by Mr.. B. F. Tracy in his
opening address TO the Court and Jury in the