The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1875-04-29

morning. we Will Dotn trust kuu WALL
on the Lord.
Afectionstely, you sister,
ELIZABETH.
To Shearman-I showed this note to
my husband
To Fullerton-I told her what l heard
from Cleveland and invited her, if she
desired, to como to my house, l did not
expect her the following morning, but
thought she might have made call on
me, us she was in the habit OF calling on
me and had been for years.
To Shearman-I did not know what
time to expect her to call; she came be-
fore breakfast, and | did not expect her
so early; | wrote this letter because !
had promised to inform Mrs. Tilton
when her husband would be before the
committee.
Shearman then offered to read note
from Mrs. Tilton, of which the witness
hal repeated the substance on her prevl-
examination. An argument ensued on
this point, but it was ruled out by Judge
Nelson, and the witness left the stand.
Tracy Resumes.
Tracy then resumed the stand and
testified: During this interview nothing
was said to ME about repeating any Of
the conversation 10 Beecher | SAW
Becchcr after this, and told him Of the
conversation; Moulton asked me few
davs after this interview to see
Beecher and told him u portion of the
interview
Mr.. Evurts proposed TO show the facts
communicated to Mr.. Beecher, but this
was objected to and ruled out.
The witness contnued-Before this in
tcrvicw, knew nothing of the Wood
hull scandal, except what was public the
final letters referred to in the true story
here were not read to me at that inter-
view; during the discussion between
Tilton and myself as to how this scandal
should be met; the question OF what
would be lying and what would not be
lying, were discussed at this interview |
said nothing about Nuulton's going to
Europe; MOulton never told me that
Beechel was guilty of sexual Intercourse
ut that interview on Sunday, nor did |
say to hlm that if 1t were true it was S
case in which lying was justihabe; moth
ing about sexual intercourse or lying
about it, if it were true, was talked of
betw cen Moulton and myself ut any
time; | saw at that interview that this
was case that ought TO be summarially
treated; | said that this story was essen
tiully false, but to to take all the points
separately, TO specify them and deny
them would not be lying, and that |
would take the responsibility Of that
form of denial; said that II this scandal
was published in the form he proposed
at that interview it would destroy him,
his wife and Bcccher; nothing was said
at that interview of Tilton's having con-
donrd his wifcs oiIense and that the
world would never forgive him.
Mr.. Evarts asked the witness for the
details of All Interview between him and
MoultOn on the oath Of June, 1874, but
this was objected to by Mr.. Beach and
the court ruled it out.
The witness continued-I had an in
tcrvicw with Mouton at his house; he
sent for me; our conversation was about
Titon's letter to DR.. l.. V. Bacon; l had
not seen either. The court here ruled
ont the conversation which took place at
tti itnSotSyicw, and the witness continued:
Aft@r this Interview | saw the Bacon
letter. also heard it read at this inter
view; | read it next morning in the
papers; there was also IN interview be
tween a journalist and myself about this
publication next day; on the 9th
saw Mr.. Tilton; be called
on me at my office; remember an in
teryiew with Moulton in July, -, in re-
gard to Obtaining the documents from
him for Beecher; | took letter from
Beecher to Moulton; the latter was dated
July "a
Witness was asked as to how this in
tcrview occurred.
To this Beach intcrposcd an objection
on the ground that it was collateral ryi-
dcnce, and therefore it was immaterial 10
the issue.
The counsel on both sides argued the
matter to some length, when Judge Neil
son ruled that Evarts could prove the fact
of the letter and not the conversation.
The witness then testified: Mr. Moulton
declined to receive my letter, asking for
copies of letters in his possession, and
asked me TO take back Bcechcr's letter.
Court adjourned.