New-York tribune., 1875-02-26
TIE LETTER OF CHARGES THE KEY OF THE
PLAINTIFFS CASE

Was that letter a confession of adultery as they
now say it what she says in that letter
that they induced her to sign TO Dr. Stor charge Of i'm
proper proposals That i the vital question IN this case
the most important question tina. you have TO consider Upon
very much Of this hnse- Certainly, far the
plaintiff caseia concerned turns entirely upon this ques
lion II can satisfy you gentlemen that that letter did
contain charge adultery then Of course the plaintiffs
ends Why don't they prOdGee that letter II they would
produce would end the question of fact involved in this
issue ON this point wouldn't ii? There would be no room
for discussion no for argument Il would settle this
question one way the other and would tell you who
f,fying here and who telling the truth, They only
need produce ha, letter 70 determining lhs whole question
Where 4, III Why don't they produce it, They had it, They
promise keep it, acredy the evening when Francis d.
Mouou obtained that reracon from Henry Ward Beecher
Their failure produce now is the most outrageous breach
OF faith ever knew characterize litsant in Of
justice
Henry Ward Beecc had gone from this interview Moul.
toms house to h, sick Wife ana he there confronted her with
the which he had received from her husband She
hardly knew what she had made She knew that she had given
ie,r to husband bat whether she had faint, glimmer
inc conception the charge whether she for granted
that she charged Mr. Beecher her husband had told Mr.
Bc.cher he had charged him do know We oni know
tha low sc has knowledge conception Of what
tia, letter but w confronted with the friend that she had
mnred when she found the thai being made Of IT,
vhcn he found being perverted she gave reuac,ion
tst charge her friend aud pastor that night IL the following
language: .n - .o-.
.atied by Importantly and weakened by sickness gave
letter pang my friend Henry Wsrd BeecbeT under
aces that that would al difficulties between and
NV husband Ths, letter nov revoke was persuaded
-alost forced-vhen was IN weakened tiate OF mind
regret 1t, and recall all ,s statements
signed + r. TnTON
Tde.e 10 ay eYpcty Mr. Beeeher has never offered any
improper soctaon but has always treated in manner
beconIiug Christian and g,ntIemaI
(si.nedl KnEABsTH n TILTos
Now p.,teep that rehacion isel furnishes conclusive
evidence Of ,e charge which Nj Ton made
Mr. Beeer that be doee charge adul
,.ry There no sg on 10 the OF. OF adultery in This
reirction s IL il eiracon of improper olcitstou,
Do VOC believe seDmen thai the charge had been
adultery against Henry Ward BeecheI that night he would
have cone down sck and eonteBted hhnst With
charge smpy o. improper sobcsopsi DOM you think that
The reyscp would have been broad the charge Would
he have been sa,ed with anything les Bu how happens 1t
gentlemen charge adultery and nothing had been sad
Abou, improper sostons happsne MAI hDd ihoee
words Improper solicitations" n the language ~ one OF
hs.e psre on very evening" Bl there than Thai
in hb re,raoou which Indicates TIM Of the charge
You will zee that fret sc written aRd signed by Mrs
Ti,on maes reference all 20 the paiure Of the charge
when discovered che Immediately adds postscript %
u covering The charge which he understood TO be made by her
husband Can you have conclusive evidence furnished
Won Of the nature of the charge which Theodore Tun then
made than this fun-hesf Iapprehend not.
OTHER CONTRADICTIONS IN Mr.. TUT0NS STATE
NENTS.
Mr. Bccchcr takes this retracton. returns to
Aoutcs, house and does Qet see him 'gsa tha!