New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-03-30
THE CONFESSION TO MRS. MoULToN


The morning session of the Beecher-T iltou trial
yesterday devoted to three witnesses. each
called for a different purpose. Mr.. Davii Bows, the
New-York merchant in whose family Miss Turner
resided for q month two. was called to confirm
the latters testimony to the length of her stay in
his family By reference data he established that
Miss Turner was right in her recollection of the
time she was in Tarrytown and correct in her state
ment that she had remained until the family of Mr..
BOWS had returned from their California trip
John WinslOw, ex-District-A Attorney of Kings
County, and member of the Committee of Investi-
cation appointed by Mr.. Beecher, was called to tes-
fy to the fact that Mr.. TitOn had proposed to him
as the only member opposed to it-a plan of silenc
ing the scandal by the adoption Of report which
Mr. Tton had drawn up generating Mr.. Beecher
Mrs. Tilton, and himself. On the cross-examnation
MI Fullerton endeavored TO commit the witness to
the statement that Mr.. Hlton had proposed this
plan IN order to shield Mr.. Beecher but Mr.. Wins
low insisted that Mr.. TiltOn, without naming any
person. had urged the acceptance of his plan the
ground that investigation would cause to a
great many persons Mr. Tracy. who conducted the
examination of Mr. Winslow, took opportunity to
set his motives in appearing for the Committee
in their true light. Mr.. WinNow testified that
Mr. Tlton had accused Mr.. Tracy of q breach
Of good faith in appearing against him
after he had solemnly promised not to do so. Mr..
Tracy had retOrted that he had not done without
giving Mr.. Tlton notice that he considered himself
sbsOlyed from that promise when Mr.. Tilton ad-
vanCed his charge against Mr.. Beecher from i'm
proper solicitation" to adultery" The further
fact brought out that in his action as counsel
of the Committee Mr.. Tracy had worked with
out pay OF prospect of remuneration. On the cross
examination Mr. Fullerton made many inquiries as
tba foIxar
before the Committee, but obtained no definite an
swer. He also made inquiries as to alterations
made by the Committee in Mr.. Beecher's statement
before giving it to the press Further inquiries in
this direction are threatened by the counsel for the
plaintiff.
Thomas James Turner Mr. Beecher's farmer at
Peekskil, was called to add another link in the
chain of evidence which the defense relies upon to
contradict the extraordinary statement of Mrs.
Moulton relative to Mr. Beecher's verbal confession
Of his alleged offense with Mrs. Ulton. The minute
ness with which MIR. Turner was examined and
crOss-examined indicates the importance which both
sides attach to Mrs. Mouiton's story; it is looked
upon, indeed, as among the most vital points in the
case The defense do not hesitate to say that it
was manufac tured, and promise to prove an abb;
the plaintiffs counsel exhibit deep interest when
the subject is touched upon by the witnesses. The
that no such scene could have occurred has
put the plaintiffs counsel on their mettle,
and they watch each development with anxiety.
When Nr. Turner swore yesterday that Mr.. Beecher
had left NewYork as late as o'clock on June 2,
Mr. Titon, with a sigh of relief, turned to Mr..
Fullerton and SAID in an undertOne, THAT'S all
right" When the witness had partly developed
his story indicating the subject it bore upon, Mr..
Monitor left his reserved position in the ante-room
OF the court chamber. and took seat by the side
of the plaintiffs counsel.
The evidence Of Mr. Turner yesterday shows that
Mr.. Beecher was absent from New-York from two
O'Clock on June until nghtfall on June 8; and that
of Mr.. Perkins, a few days ago, places him at
Worcester Mass. on an eastward-bound train Only
the morning of June remains to be accounted for,
and this is the important period; for Mrs. Moul-
ton, on her direct examination stated that
the interview lasted for three or four hours;
that he left her to go home to lunch and that she
saw him the next day or the day thereafter On
the cross-examnaton she stated that the interview
was in the morning. and that she could not remem-
Der that Mr. Beecher had called the next day or the
day after that. but she thought he called again
during the week So it now remains to show where
Mr. Beecher was on the forenoon of Monday, June 2,
1873 and on Thursday, Friday, Saturday. and
Sunday of the same week. OF course if he can show
by other testimony than his own that he was not
at Mrs Moultons on theiMonday morning, her story
of the confession is invalidated, circumstances
and her positive testimony leave no other day for
the interview than that named. If only Mr..
Beechers word be set against hers upon this point
of course opinion will be divided. After the posi-
tive promise made by Mr.. Tracy, the public look for
other evidence than that of Mr. Beecher on this inn
portant issue of veracity.
A MIsCHIEVOUS PENCIL MARK.
After recess Mr.. Beecher's counsel resumed their