davidaulloa/AmericanStories huggingface dataset:
New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-03-31
ARGUMENT OF MR.. SHEARMAN.

Mr.. Shearman-If your Honor please, the
witness Woodey has testified that he these slips and
had them in his hand at time previous to Nov. 2
1372. suppose we ought produce oonirmatory
evidence that point before waiting for the rebutta
We tell of doubt If the gentlemen
wise, they will not attempt to dsprove that statement
but they may not be wise, and they may attempt 10 dis
prove it, and then suppose, II we come In with testi-
mOny in reply 10 their rebuttal thoy will say that that
testimony ht 10 have been put In at this stage OF tho
Now, propose to show that those slips were in
existence long before the publication Of the Woodruff
scandal; that they were known in newspaper offices
We have connected the plaintiff with those proofs six
weeks months prior to their publication We pro-
pose show that such slips In existence in order to
make our story reasonable and to sustain the statement
of Woodley that of those slips we're in his hands.
| Mr. Bcach-Show that they were in existcncei
Mr. Shearman-Certainy We must show that they were
in existence in order TO connect him with IL and now
propose show that they in existence and thus TO
make reasonable and probable the story which Woodley
told OF their being in existence and IN the plaintiffs
sight some months before the publication. All We
are trying show is the existence, considerable
time prior To the publication of prOotslps Of these
articles.
MI Bcach-shOwing the existence Of them necessarily
shows the contents.
Mr. shearman-wc propose to show their existence a
considerable time prior the publication Of these arti
cles and prior to the time when .Woodley says he saw
them in the possession OF the plaintiff IL seems To me
| that this is entirely material.
Mr. FullertonIti not at all TO be wondered at, Sir,
that they desire to bolster up the witness Wood
ley but at the time they cannot do 1t In this way
They OF with the proposition that Woodey swore
that had slips OF this article, called or known rs
the Brooklyn scondal Now. Sir there Is no such proof
AS that In this Woodey did not swear, as recol-
ect testimony any such thing at ALL but even II he
did It would not this evidence admissible In this
case In the place Sir In order TO prove that these
printed slips of that scandal they Unjust prove the
contents OF the paper to which the witnesses attention
was called And again, they do not propose to prove
that these printed slips contained the scandal as II was
published but they propose TO take the Judgment OF TIL
witness upon the subject whether those slips did not
contain substance ofthe scandal and therefore tho
proof entirely Irrelevant The plaintiff has been con-
In way with tho publication Of what's proposed
now to be proved w tho wneas W the existence OF
New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-03-31
THE TESTIMONY! OBJECTED TO AS NINA
TERIAL.

Mr.. Fullerton That Is objected to.
Mr.. Hnl-Before it produced publicly, mean, In
the Woodruff CLaJlin WeekIyf
Mr. Bcach-We would like to know, Sir, what the coun-
sci propose to prove
Mr Hill propose to prove by this witness and two
others that prOosHps containing the substance Of the
article which published in Woodruff Ctaftn s
Weekly under date Nov q 1872. distributed among
newspaper men, to this gentleman and the other two
witnesses in particular, of them in the Spring, and
another about May 1872 and the third before tho Sum
mer of 1872 and suppose that they were the
publications which the witness Woodey has spoken
OF.
Judge Neilson-How do you connect the plaintiff
with it'll
Mr. uill-woodley connected the plaintiff with 1t.
Mr Shearmau-We should like to know what Is the
ground Of objection.
MI BeachWhy, that it is totally immateris, and that
it ia secondary, and calls for the Judgment of the witness.
Mr. ShoarmanYou dispose OF that last ground Mr..
Hill, by another question.
Mr.. Hill-very we'll. TO the witness Did you receive
some proOfslips Mr.. Williams, printed matter from
galley proofs tho subject matter Of which scandal
about Henry Ward Beecheri
Mr.. Fullerton-That is objected to.
Mr. shearman--Then we may well get at the merits
at We trying " obvato your objection that
ii secondary.
Mr. Hill propose to show the last OF them in mo-
mcnt
New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-03-31

ouite certain: think Mr.. Bowen signed " nrsE"i
Rowan or Mr. Tilton; Mr.. Boechcr signed IL ias''
know. ot
O. What became Of this printed slip when you ~" Nv
the first meetingi A That was attached 10 'hi'
ment. ..,oa 10
O. The very one which you saw then was a''ache" '"
tho ayrcementi A. think the very one, Sir
O. Do Won reooloct the fact that it was attached whc
Won procured the signature Of one OF the parties u
A. think 1t WAS Sir.
O. And formed part OF the document, did iti A. les
Sir
O. Was that paper read over during any one Oh 'noSo
conversations that you have relatedi A. doh hho"
whether II was read Sir aloud but was passed around
and each one looked at 10 remember reading the papo
myself and think 1t was read by the whole doh'
know but IL was read aloud am nat certain.
O. Did not Mr. Tlton assert In those conversations
whenever that paper was alluded TO- OF upon Vi
the occasions when alluded TO- that ts Statements
so far ma be WAS concerned were truei A. don't re-
member OF his saying anything about it, Sir; don't
think he did. Sir.
O. Was tho truth Of the statements discussed at all
A. No. Sir.
You did not nor did any there, charge that they
were untrue, did youi A. We did not go INTO tha''
think.
O. Howl A. I don't think we went into that much SIT
n rhat was not discussed then at ALI A. don't think
II was, Sir -,
O. DO you know what became Of the original drat oi
that proposed "Trpartite Agreement which MI WIKI
son produced and read at the first meeting AZ MI ou
toms house. A. don't know, Sir
O. Did you ever 1t after that first meetnS' a. NO.
Sir.
O. Do Won know what became OF any proposed altera-
ton which Mr. Tton prepared to that agreement at any
time IL he did prepare onei A. don't remember ABOUT
that Sir Mr. Tlton-the agreement that no interlined
when spoke OF his attaching another paper, and which
TO be ncorporated-that was at tho second meeting
O. MY question embraced any Of these meetingsf A.
Yes SIR the second don't know what became OF that
paper Sir.
O. What did you do with the paper thus cmended !;
didn't YOU take 1t to Mr. wilkeson A. took that paper
to Mr.. wikeson; yea. Sir.
O. When did you take it to MI wilkesonl A. Tho next
day. TO have 1t complete.
O. Well did you take this printed slip alsoi a. Yes,
Sir; took the whole thing
O. Did you take the proposed amendment OF MI TltOn
A. Yes Sir.
O. In his own handwriting was il A. Yes Sir.
O. And did you give those to Mr.. Wlkesonf A. did.
O. Did You leave them with him. A. Yes, Sir.
O. And have you seen them sincei A. No, Sir.
O. DO you know now where they are' A. No, Sir
O. You have no knowledge. then understand you of
either one of those papers after you handed them to Mr.
wilkeson to engrossi A. No. Sir.
Q. And never saw them afterwardf A. never saw
them afterward
original papers.
New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-03-31
ARGUMENT OF MR. HILL.

Mr.. Hill-Now, may it please your Honor, va
have this connection estabished-ts connection OF tho
plaintiff with this publication By the Woodhus First tho
conversation in his presence in ISL which Cowey heard
and has testified TO- wherein he listens approyngly-at
leas senty-whe scandal Of that description Is being
cir, ulated about his own WIFE Secondly, have the
statement OF Cook at another time, think at an earlier
time than COwley tthe order, however, can make bur
little dierence) in which the thing Is established:
and then again. in 1872 find from the testimony OF
Mr. Woodley that Mr. Ton and Mrs Woodruff are In Tho
Office together talking about this scandal understand
bs testimony and my learned friend srove very hard TO
get the witness into confusion with reference To this
poInt-whether they reading from manuscript or
from proof-sips. Your Honor cannot fail to recOIcct
the examination Of WoOdey upon that very point Now
Sir as confirming WoOdley about the existence
OF proofsps at that time Offer TO show that they
had been distributed among newspaper men, and were
nerfectly well known newspaper We cannot, in
any way that know Of show that these papers we're tho
Identical papers which were there present ana WHICH
Woodley referred to- but 1t Is competent for u.s. a. IL
seems to me- show the existence Of proosps at that
time as well by Woodley as by some one else having
shown Mr. TiltOn's anmus in relation to prooisls ny
these three witnesses coming 10 point ana eliminating
with Woodey 1t seems to that then the onus at least
ia thrown upon the plaintiff to explain them have inc
| examination OF Woodley before me, aud read:
O. Now James at the time OF this conversation. was
A. on yes Sir there were. The proofs were all ready
| there to 90 TO the press for their publication
O. Who had them in handi A. Miss Clanln, BITS WOOL
| bufl and Mr TltOn. Col Blood had gone on -
o. Now were you not before that time familiar WIN
nroos and printed slipsI do not mean on this subject
his or any other subectwas that any part OF your en-
ploymentl Oh, yes, Sir, was usually TAXING Ihci up '"
| the printing office"
Then in another place we find this question and
answer
O lam now speaking Of the particular time when tho
conversation took pla 3e, and said there were sono
Sins there Did you those very ones in your hhns
i'm any way1 a. did have printed sips IN my ianis,
bat don't know what they were or what thcy conhV"
| at all -. ,.o ,,,ot,or y, a.
| having been in their handsi A. Yes, Sir.
Then step further my learned friend, reexamnns ts
witness said:
az understand. am talking OF the time when II w's
really published and when you were arrested a az
not look at all at the scandal heard them talking ab0u
| 1.-THE Beecher scandal"
So that they were as understand his testimony talk
ng about this Bcecher scandal, and about prooIshps
which were then present Now, show by these three
witnesses the contents the prOofps and that theJ
were identical in substance with the article subsequently
| published BY Mrs Woodruff.
New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-03-31
TIE WRITING OF THE CHECK.

W
Mr.. Fullcrton-How long after the award
was made before Mr. Bowen his chocki A. 1t was
Immediately. Sir, IA remember.
O. Had he a blank check with hint A. I don't know
whether no had or whether no borrowed one; am un-
certain about II.
O. Did yOu lend him tho money to pay the
awardt A. No. Sir I did not; he did not need 1t;
I agreed to ] remember hs asking 1t done
quick he said didn't know what the sateof his finances
were aud ne wanted draw check and said he "Will
YOU lend me the money If haven't the money!" and
said. IL will, with pleasure"
q lie did not borrow IT, OF any part Of H. from y0ui
A. think he came to my Office morning and said
be didn't want it,
q Do you recollect whether anything said, when
he drew that check about dating sheadi A don't
member. Sir
@ Tax your recollection. now. peasei A. 1t might
have dated the next morning. 1t very probably was
q No. | want your recollection upon the subject
am not inqurng 20 the probabilities OF the case
anu quite that IT not dated ahead for he GER
tainy the money; there occasion for dating
It ahead for going TO give the money II he hadn't
A.
q Now sincerely hope that yOu will answer my
question and indulge In any reflections upon the sub
tect A was giving the reason why supposed IL
not dated ahead
Mr. Tracy-I submit that the witness has answered.
Judge Neilson-The counsel asked him If anything
said about dating Il ahead.
Tho Witness-Thcfe was not.
Mr.. Traey-IIe said there not.
Mr.. FullertOnAnd he said good deal more than that,
and he added II could not possible because and
ITO the wtness Now, ask you what he said; do you
recoect suggestion OF this kind, don't know whether
have got the money not, and Will date my check
ahead ~ A. No, Sir.
O Did you see the check which drawni A. Idon't
think did, know drawn saw him drawing
tho check.
@ Do you know whether not the date then and
therS inserted of the date when 1t drawni a
think It was
o DO you know, ash yout A. I don't know that
saw tho check; couldn't say.
o. Very well; that Is what want you 10 cay. Was
ANYTHING said 20 Mr. Ton at the time Of delivering
check al 20 when II should be deposited for collection
A. No, Sir.
O. DO You mean by that that you don't recolcet, or
that YOU have positive recollection that nothing
sa,dt A. don't remember that anything was said, Sir.
O. Now Mr. Cianin, have you stated all that was said
hetvoep the parties you recoect Of in reference to
the arbitration OF the difficulties between Mr. Tilton and
Mr. Bowen on your crossexaminationi A. No, Ell;
cannot have stated all THAI was said Tor we talked
about
O Have you stated all that you can recoiect that was
saidi A. All that remember, Str.
u leone now 10 the execution ef the "TTipartte agree
msnt" You were present when some OF the pTne'
signed II, I understand you 70 sayi A. think W"
present when Mr Bowen signed u and when Mr. Beeche
signed II; was not when MI TIlton signed it.
a Which VI tAs parties signed " ffssf 4 am mo-
New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-03-31

~, yuo,.o, Worry wolf Now Mr. ClafIn, will you
he kind enough TO tell who named the hrst aroiao
at that meeting at Mr. Moultons housef A. couldn
do IL, Sir: IL is impossible ,
O. Did you nsmo any onei A. don't romemoef'
think there were halfadozen names spoken or
O. Did you name any onoi A dont rome"ooi ~
ing any ono but Mr.. Froelant.
O. Did You name Mr.. Freelaldf A. did, SIT . ,
o. Very WILL Now, who did Mr.. Titon name' A.
think he namod Charles storrs $500 .,.,
O. Who nam d the third mani A. DON'T NM .
y. was named Sir don't know how 1 came III 'noio'
am sure went there at the suggestion--
N No Iheg yonr par Ion. don't want you 10 'ei ho
q, xhose sucgcstion You went there; am TALKING aoo"
what took place after you got there. A. Yes ,,,.,.
o You didn't nam5 yourselfi A. NO. sn' ui'"
name myself "a . r don't
know. $500. y. ro. oor
q No were Won named that night "a on arbitrator !.
certainly didn't myself. and don reineni'o
either Of those gentlemen saying
o. No Mr. ClaAin; won't YOU bear IN mlnu 'no Huo'
tion were YOU namcl that night "a an aro'u"'oi ",'
Won returned from Mt Bowens or were you named a,
some ub.equen period the history of that aroi'raon
A Idon't remember being named at ALL Sir
O. That does not answer my question
Mr. subcommittee. Il does. Sir.
"a rr,cvI suhnlt 1t does II he don't remember
being named at all, he certainly don't remember D'ns
namod that night
Jndge Nellson-I think that Ia 40, air.
Mr. Fullerton Sir, don't want IL asuuVoo' VI
reasoning: want IT as positive fact
Mr. Trncy-That would require very little reasoning
MIR Phil fon-That Is the reason you are capaoie OF
doing H. m, the wtnessl Now. will you tell me
whether you were named arbitrator that mighty A.
don.i rcncct can't tell YOU 1t is impossible to tell
you. ,
. You have recollection OF having been haneu
A | dont remember Of having been named, sir
New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-03-31
TIE DRAWING OF TIE PAPERS.

q Wero any papers prepared that night in
reference ~ the arbitration The paper that nave
spoken of. M other paper
O DO Won refer 10 the Trpartite Agreement A. Yes
Sir; I don't remember any other papers Mr.. Ilton
spoke Of his agreements with MT Bowen
q But ( am speaking OF the Others MI Cihunl' you
don't pay attention to my question.
Mr. shcarman-I beg pardon, Mr. Fullerton; Won are
asking about papers and now he has been answering
about papers Agreements are papers.
by Mr. Fulcrion-Wcre any papers prepared that night
in reference to the arbitration after you returned from
Mr. Bowcn'.l \ No. sir; there was no writings In iea-
a Thai I, vhatI want to get at. None whatever; I
don't think there were.
d There was no submission drawn up and signed that
night A. No not the arbitraton there certainly
was not; think not
o. That Is just the point OF my inquiry were you
present at "a subsequent period when the arbitration
papers were drawn mp and sgncdl A Yes siri "IS
present when the arbtrators met
O. That don't answer my question. A. NO. Sir WAS
at no other meeting there was no other meeting De
tween that and the meeting in which the arbitTators met
there was no intermediate meeting. Sir
O. You don't answer my question, Mr. Caflin; were
Won ever present when arbitration papers were sgnedf
A No. Sir
O How1 A. No. Sir There papers Of that
KIND that | remember. l thought answered that be-
fore. Sir.
O Wasn't there a submission 10 arDtratlon slShVu ny
both partiesl A. No, Sir.
q By Mr. Bowen AMI Mr.. Toni A. No. Sir; it was
verbal affair, Sir, entirely, as remember IT,
O. Howi A. 1t was . verbal affair entirely, as re-
member IT,
Jnig, N,ilson-It would seem from that to have been
amore common law operation.
MI Fuuerton-Yes. it seems from that
MI shcarman-[ Sotio roce "seems, madam nay, tits"
O. Don't you recolcct after the arbitrators made
their award that the written submission was given 10
Mr. Bowen and he took 1t away with hint A. Written
submssiODi
O. Yes Sir A. OF the case to the arbitratorst
O Yes A. don't remember II, Sir.
O. You have recollection upon that suigectf A
haven't any recollection about that
O. Well, when did the arbitrators meet TO hear the
statements OF the respective parties They met the
night following this Tuesday night else the next night
Wednesday or Thursday night think, Sir.
O. Well did they meet the next night after that second
meeting OF which yOu have spokeni A. lam not certain
Sir 1t was the first second night after; think the
second.
O. And where did they meetf A. At the same place
O. Who were present at the meeting OF the arbraorsi
A. Mr. MOulton, Mr. TiltOn, Mr.. Bowen Mr. Freeland,
Mr. Charles StOrrs and myself.
O. Statements were made by the respective parties,
understood you TO say A. Yes. Sir; they were their
own lawyers, AMI we got through quick. i,aughtcr.l
Mr. Tracy ito Mr.. Beachl-That was an unknd re-
mark.
Mr. Shearman-I think ought to move to strike that
out
New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-03-31
THE TESTIMONY RULED OUT.

Judge NeilsOn-I don't see the connections:
think must rule that out Slips may have been elrcu-
latng all the newspaper Offices and yet they may hAVe
been very different papers from those that were IN Mrs
woodhus Office and very different papers from any that
Mr. Tilton ever saw
Mt Hill-we Sir, my LEARNED friends asked me tho
object OF this proof and stated 1t, believe IN fu WI"
your Honor enable time by permitting me 10
make an offer TO prove what then stated
Judge Neson-Yes Sir consider that offer made anu
an exception taken If you wish.
Mr.. Hill--Ycs Sir.
Judge Ncilson-Thatis ALL Mr.. Williams.
New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-03-31
Tho paper was marked. "Ex D, 125."l
TESTIMONY OF GEORGE F. WILLIAMS.

TESTIMONY OF GEORGE +. WILLIAMS.
George F. Williams was called on behalf of
defendant, sworn and testified as follows:
Mr. Ul-Whatis your present businessi A. Editor Of
a newspaper
Q. OF what newspapers A. The Nec York Herald.
Q. What is your position on The HeraIdf "A. Law
editor.
O. How long have you been editor or journalist
A. have been journalist for IL years
O. Mr.. Williams did you the publication OF wood
hui G Cads Weekly under date OF Nov 2, 1872, which
contained the article known tho Woodruff scandal
about Mr. Beecherl A. have seen that paper, Sir
O. Now desire to ask you If you saw proof slips con-
tanning substance OF that article at any time before it
was producedl
New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-03-31

these slips n should indulge in inerences thu infer
would DE that the paper which was put into the
hands OF this witness and which he saw some time In
1872 was quite different thing from what WoOdey nm
dertoOk to in existence. At all events Sire
before they affect the plaintiff In this case by any
thing that printed In the shape Of slip Of this scan-
dal whether it contained the scandal itself the sub
stance" Of the scandawhatever 1t may have been. they
must show that he had connection with the pubca-
ton and above what has been sought to be estab
lshed by the witness WOOdley.
New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-03-31
THE WITNESSES ACQUAINTANCE WITH MRS
Woodruff.

@. Mr.. Clafin, do you know Victoria Wood
hull! A. Yes, SIR, | know her a little.
q. Well. how little or how muchl Laughter.1 A.
have her two three occasions she has called
at my office twice.
q. Did you return the CALI A. Yes, Sir; did once.
q. Where did you call upon hcrt A. / called upon her
in Broadst.
q. What numberi A. l have forgotten the number 1
could not say.
q When did you make your calf A. think after
she here.
q That don't aid me in getting at the time. A. Well
don't know when she came, am
q. How A. don't know when she came. remem-
Der calling there. Mr. Vail, Of the Bank OF Commerce
q. Now, don't beg, take anybody with you. A was
going 10 say Sir, that could fix from him. Sir he
called with me.
@ Well, haven't time for you TO 90 over there now
| and FIX 10 A Yea
| O. Have you no recollection OF the yeari A. I could
not say the year Sir.
O. Was IL soon after she established herself in Broad
A. IL was pretty soon after that know, because
| rather VI novety-lady bankers there.
New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-03-31
REDIRECT EXAMINATION OF Mr.. CLAFLIN

REDIRECT EXAMINATION OF MIR. CLAFLlN
Mr.. Tracy-At whose request did you go to
see Mrs Woodruff at her house,
Mr.. Bcach-That is objected to.
Mr. Tracy-The question s at whose request did you go
to Mrs. Woodruff at her housed
Mr.. Beach-We bect to that.
Judge NcisOn-I think will take that Sir-at whose
request if at the request OF any onei
The Witness-I went at the request OF Mrs. Woodhuls
lawyers and OF MI Bowen; met those lawyers there,
Mrs woodhus lawyers, and three or four other friends
Of hers.
q. That was the only time you say you were ever In
her housei A. That is the only time, Sir.
Q. Where ii, Mr. Clan, that Mr.. Tilton proposed
that this Trparte Agreement" should DO left in the
possession OF Mr. Moulton A. think was at-I think
the last meeting Sir, the meeting when the paper
nished-that H. when II finally settled and agreed
upon.
@ What difficulties submitted to the arbitrators,
Mr. Clafni
Mr.. Beach-That Ia objected to.
Mr.. Tracy-What is the objectiOnf
Mr. Beach-The objection is that it calls not for what
took placefor the language for what sadbut for
conclusion
Mr. Tracy-I call for q statement that calls for him
state what difficulties were submitted
Judge Neilson-You inquire what was said on that
subject.
Mr. Tracy-I do call for what was said on that subject
subject matter about which have inquired nothing
our crosse Examination.
Mr.. Tracy-Oh, yes you have.
Mr.. Bcach-Not a word except for the conversation.
Judge Neison-I think he might state generally what
he can of the conversation in regard to the difficulties or
the ouestions 10 be submitted, not his Inference but
the conversation.
Mr. Blackwell, Is II admissible your Honor, after the
conversation had gotten each party direct and
xautiOn, TO open the same subject again for re-
directi
Judge Nellson-Perhaps not; think, however, in this
instance he may ask that question.
Mr.. Tracy-GO on.
The Witness-What is the question
BY Mr. Tracy-State what was said concerning-state
what was said at any OF these meetings touching the diff
fcues that were to submitted Ia you. and what d
between the whole three.
Mr.. Beach-No, Sir; no. Sir; II Is calling upon you to
state what was said not your conclusions
Judge Scilson-State what said and by whom Mr..
Clanin.
The Witness-We II said that the difficulties we're
10 DE settled in this way by arbitration the paper
be signed.
O Well, what difficulties and between whomi A. The
papers
Q. What difficulties and between whomi
Mr.. Beach-"What was said about the difficulties 7"
| submit, Ia the question.
Mr.. Tracy-That Ia the question I call for.
Judge Neilson-lTo tho wtnessl-Telate what was
| said.