The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1875-02-05
TILTON.BEECMER.

ol France has increased 3S,SSOOOO francs
the past week,
TILTON-BEECHER.
New York, February 4.-The Brook.
lyn City Court was again filled with spec
tntors this morning, among whom were
many ladies, Mrs, TilIon was accom-
panied by Mrs. Field, Mrs. shearman
and three other ladies'. Mr.. BeeCher, his
wife and two sons were present, support.
cd by the usual Plymouth Church delcga.
tion, Tilton resumed his place on the
stand and his cross examination was con-
tinucd by Evarts lie was shown paper
which he could not identify Us the letter
written by BeeCher to the Cleveland Con.
vcntion, which caused tho political differ.
euCes between Beecher and himself; wit
ness said | cannot remember anything
that would reveal the differences between
him and me at that time; nor can re.
member the year OF that discussion be.
tween him and me relative 10 politics; II
was then the general belief In the Repub-
liCan party that he had betrayed II; | was
there with the general bulk Of the lic.
publican party and Bcecher was support.
ed by Andy johnson; from that period
there were no occasions which brought Ia
together on public affairs.
l first took part In the womans rights
movement after BeeChers lecture In tho In
stitute; this was sometime in 1860, before
tho war; suppose that as all persons
taking part in that subject have only one
side, and may be regarded as having I'D.
vanCed opinions on TINT subject, In that
light, | may bc regarded as having ad.
vanced opinions in the matter; this
brought me into contact with about one
thousand speakers md writer's on the
subject; Gen. Butler, Chiei.Justice ChaSe,
Wendell Phillips, William Lloyd Garri.
son, Anna Dickinson, Miss Anthony and
others were among those whom ! knew
and became acquainted with through
this channel; also became acquainted
with tho subject through the columns Of
the Independent and various tracts; the
chief dGnunciatiOns | have mNde against
the marriage relation are since the time
Bcechcr invaded my house.
The witness was hero shown u letter,
and he said--I am the writer Of this ar.
tiClc, and It was published by me the Of.
tiCle was dated sometime In December
The witness also identified another
article written by him and published In
the Golden Age, September 9th, 1871; the
article was entitled "rheodore Tillon's
Rejoindor to Horace Greeley"
Mr.. Beach insisted that the paper 10
which this was tie reply should also be
put before the counsel.
Mr.. Eyarts replied that this discussion
between Greedy and Tilton covered that
one subject and they only desired TO read
that rart Of the article. The controversy
was settled by Shearnan reading the
paragraph relating to tho subject from
Greeley's letter, giving an illustration Of
what he Greeley ment by free love. A
paragraph from Tiltoh's rejoinder was
rcad, stating that II seemed to him tTil.
tom that Greeley inferred by that para
graph that hO was In fayer OF free love,
but this TiltOn disclaimed. Other por.
tiOhs Of the same article were read refer.
Ing 10 divorces Of parties not we'll treated
and advocating the right Of divorce for
ill.treatment and cruelty. Witness was
shown another article published IN the
Golden Age and which was an extract from
the Troy Times. He could not recognize
II, stating that some editors Of papers were
some times parties who least read them
Mr. Beach objected to the article being
read as witness could not recognise IL.
The court ruled out the article as he
stated that an editor waS not always TO
be held responsible for what appeared
In hiS paper. Witness stated that he
never saw The article until now,
aid neither with his consent or against
II was IL published. Another issre Of the
Golden Age, dated September IL, 1873,
containing another article waa shown 10
TiltOn.
Fullerton objected to this article heing
introduced, and argued that The editor
could not be held responsible for what
appeared In his paper as the correspond.
eh0e Of a person who claimed to be heard
on certain subjects, and that Tilton could
not he held responsible for these utter.
anCes or that they were the expression Of
his opinion.
Mf. Beach said that the plaintiff should
not be made responsible for all expires.
sions Of opinion IN his paper. This was
not his opinion, but was the expression Of
a third party. g.l...
Eyafts argued that he was held liable
for the expression Of his opinions in the
editorial part Of his paper, and he
has got to prove that he did
not write II, but that II was In.
serted without his knowledge, and that
when II was brought to his notice he did
all he could to extifpate II. These ex'
ptessiOns we're from his office, and for tho
purpose Of impfessing the public. The
speaker submilled he was responsible for
these ultefahccs whether he wrote them
or not.
The Court ruled that the matter should
be confined to articles written by himself
or published with his knowledge and sane.
tion.
Witness was then shown an article and
said he did not write II, and never OBJ.
served II until two or three weeks after
its publication. When his attention was
called to il he expressed a great deal Oi
dissent TO its publication, II Was written
by an orthodox member Of Beeehet's con.
gregatiOn, who was a lady. He did hot
disayow II in his paper
The Court took the usual recess.
r. T....... - A.. pt.- <;.tt..