The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-06-15

Beach, VINO seems bent on defending all kinds OF
people. resolved 60 throw his Ggis even around
the apostle Of free love. Referring 70 the asser-
ton Of Mr.. Evarts THAI the $1,000 received by
Tiltou rom Bowen divided, all but $1,000, be-
tween Mouton ana Messrs. woodruff Robinson,
counsel denounced II as a bold misstatement, and
pointed 10 the fact thar tue books OF the nrm OF
Woodruff 4 Robinson showed that the $1,000 was
duly credited 20 Tnton, and drawn ont by him
from time TO time, as exhibited IN the entries No
then passed on 70 consider the weight 70 be at
tached 10 the scrap OF paper inscribed "Spois
from new friends for tho enrichment OF old"
Counsel argued that Bowen was not new irlend,
aud Woodruff Robinson and the other sub
scrlbers 70 the Golden age were not old friends,
aud that il was Impossible Tilton could have writ
ten IL Mr.. Beach called attention 10 the
MANAGEMENT or rue TRIAL,
and said It was dinncult TO determine II Henry
Ward Beecher was the defendant In this case. lie
alluded to the display MADE day after day by the
parsans OF Plymouth church. or the noral tributes
and the otner exhibitions or partisauship. He re-
ferrsd TO
MRS. BKEcHER's PRESENCE.
ana fnsinuated that the s'gentle and venerable
matron" was forced to come TO the trial for the
object OF influencing the jury. Mira Ttlton waa
also pre- vailed upon to exhibit herself In the court
room by way OF countenance 60 the defendant.
During the first days OF the trial chow unctious,n
cried the counsel, sswere the greetings, how
hearty the welcomes that passed. between Mrs.
Hilton and Mr.. Beecnerl"
Mr. Beach lost good deal OF the ear ana SYM
patty or the audience when he entered on q vim.
dication Or Victoria G. Woodruff. The Reccher
people were rather pleased at TINS yuIr pas on the
part o. counsel, and had no objection 10 hear him
laNn al fhoFl Ina naaa tnat al
that Ine woodruff was misrepresented ard
misunderstood, and there was q pretty general
conviction that TINS at least was nton's sug-
geston % Beach. without being Beaeh's opinion
BY any means.
Resumlng nis address after recess. Mr.. Beach
dwelI upon the intellectual attractions or Mr..
Beecher. lie had delighted ana instructed the
world through his sermons; he had done grea.
services IN MS day, aud IL was sorrowful renee
uon they should attach 50 great . name and fame
TO a sin me most degrading. No just or legal
result could ever be reached II they were Judge
Nr Beecher BY Ms greatness OF character in place
o. By the evidence presented. Mrs Titonis
pecunartles or character were drelt upon. He
insls1Sd that woman did not fall through
AEGE cARsAL APPETITE
she aces nothing but cheerful duty and disas
socates It from all ideas OF lust. he could under
stand this peculiar woman (hrs. Tlltonl yielding
herseifr 70 Henry Ward Beecher with positive ex.
ultation, deemlag Il pure and sinless inter
course Counsel read several letters OF Beecher's
and Mrs. Tilton's and several times repeated that
portion or Mrs. Moulton's evidence where she
states MIS- Tl,ton told her she would go before
the committee ana dcny everything. throw her
HUSBAND overheard and stand BY her pastor.
Counsel made reference to the action OF Tilton IN
taxing back his wife after sue had left him and
Mafe ar hat h.
fact that General sIckles, VINO mlrdered toe adul-
terer, subsequently took back his vile and ex-
planned TO the satisfaction or most people his mo-
tves Tor doing ~ Christianity does not depend
upon Henry Ward Beecher,m exclaimed Beach,
launching out into q beautiful picture Of tho
grand proportions strength, pu pose ana progress
OF ne Christian religion
OVATION TO BEAca.
The Court adAGurned az four O'Clock anu = hen
Mr. Beach made his appearance GU side the coaft
room he was followed BY dense crowd. claDping
hands and cheering. all the way out 10 the Court
House entrance ana down pars Or Fulton avenue.
Mr.. BEAcHis ADDRESS.
shortly after eleven O'c.ock Ar. Beach resumed
his address fOlows:-
u Your Honor please. publication 70 the
Your Hon0r's notice It's character seems 10
demand that some Application SHOULD be made 20
the Court founded upon the facts stated IN ii: but
before MAKING any application TO Your Honor
connected wlsn the subject OF the article would
be gao 10 have a consultation with my associate,
Mr.. Fullerton, who has not arrived, and dan't
wish 10 appear 10 be guilty oil any delay IN making
Whatever sugge ition may seem TO 10 important
70 TIE Court; and AZ Your Honor VIII permit me
At the opening or the Court after recess g.
ear whatever may be needful 20 say snan be
OF my learned hicgd Ia his ailnslou to Mr. William
o. Bartlett quoted IN the course n tne remarks
had the honor 10 submit 10 yourself and the
Jury the other day an article IN the sum a paper
vita which be Is connected. and infereutlAlly
though not oy assertion, perhaps, imputed 70 him
the authorship OF or connection with, That article
Mr.. Bartlett mas addresses q note 10 my friend,
NJ, Porter, diselaiming all connection win the
fore, That ] should make the Announcement TO
Your Honor. Ny friend Mr. Porter mas also been
OF my argument attributed 10 MIN negleci 10
regard 70 supposed concession, not directly
made, but. as suppose, BY silence, In the argu-
the defence substantially conceded the TACT oil i'm
proper solicitations ada essed By Mr.. Beeecher 70
AIRS TLton. He has assured me that miscon-
ceived entirely the character OF Ms illusions AMI
his address 70 the Court and the jury upon that
quite satisfied, sir, that he Is correct and that
r. .scOaceiVed tue nature oil his remarks upon tHas
Gallon 10 me also, sir, 70 have had brlei con- I
versati0n with Mr.. Porter, rom whicA learned I
that be was unconscious OF the severity % the 4
tern which he applied 70 every misstatement, and +
u a1Orda roe great pleasure 70 say, SIR, tHat
temporary misconception WHICH may have ex-
ls1ee between as las o-eE very happily ana cor- i
q n W removed.
NJ Eysrts-f ] mar b allowed 70 saJ a single 4
word. ~ wa ma ter " great surprise 70 " 4
lnat tie distinction which we supposed was - /
manifest N tie discussion % - whether or no MI.
Itton's cnafgs was q scullcfy, a. now, % 81 4
improper proposals, seemed 70 be concluded IN 4
tie course Or the observations or our learned I
TREND. Mr.. Beach. and the consideration OF the \
TACT as 10 whether the fault OF tEs defendant 4
was 81 one KIND or tho other, A. for The caarge Il
made, no dOubt II was conceded that there was .
charge made 81 one KIND or the other a. certain
time it vas also conceded that u was Withdrawn
~ toe 1iie on the sane nigat, ana tnat II was 4
plaza in that respect without there being any con-
cusl0a abuut the POINTS We we're discussing. fnAt
was or view 81 the matter.
M. POrter--i world ike 70 stats single word
10 Your HonOr. Ny friends statement the other I
day was Undoubtedly, broader than ne intended /
10 make, and ! perfectly appreciate the TACT tnat
W. are al VERY liable 70 iall IN that error. I'm
quss,iOnabiy N my reply eviaccd something u |
the same degree OF heat that would naturally
arse On q question Of 20 much Importance. How
ever the remark may have created the impress
sion that he charge OF undue proposals wes not
denied. IL was denied, n Your
Honor plshss, in tue frsl place BY Mr.. Beecner
uader 0Afn, and In the next place Though our
40 rsNs "a Nar Tan n