New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-06-16
MRS. PILToNs CONFESSION.


Now. what was tho confession of Mrs.
Tltonl don't the confession made In July Tor
that Is proven beyond dputeta IT, far as the tesii-
ony Of Mr. Tton Is concerned to its character II IL
beyond dispute.
Mr. Eyarts--Hs proved what was stated TO Mr.
Beecher; hut IT is not proved that she said it to him
Mr.. Beach-Is it mott
Mr. Evarts-It IL not proved that sho said 1t to him
Mr.. Boach-Yes it Ia proved that she said II to hlm
Mr. EvartsIow Is IL prOvedi IL could not be proved
II is proved that that Is what he SAID to Mr. Beecher
that is Ill that is proved.
Mr. Bcach-Is it ALT
Mr. Evarts-That Is all
Mr. Bcach-Is that all
Mr.. Evarts-Yes.
Mr.. Bcach-well, let us see. Mr. Tilton says TO Mr.
Boccher "My wife, In July. made coufc zion to me OF
this character" Mr. Beechcr. II Mr. Triton Is to be be
lIeycd-and I am reasoning upon that thcOry-ar.
cecher admits by his conduct and his action that the
charge IL true.
Mr. Eyarts-Thnt L. your argument about Mr. Beochers
confession.
Mr.. Morrls-I submit that these interruptions moi
proper
Mr. Dcach-Oh, there is no objection to them.
Mr. Fullerton fin an undcrtonel-No; tho moro the
better
Mr. Peach-The question between my learned frlond
and myself is whether there is any proof In the caso thai
Mrs Tilton made that confession Why. have read to
sion made by one paramount which is reported to the
OTHER and by conduct declaration acquosced 10. is
proof upon which decree can pass and yet the counsel
fell me that that is evidence OF confession that II
docs not prove where is repeated to the party interested
ani that party the truth contained in the con-
fcson that that does not that tho confession was
made! How did Mr.. Ton get iii Where did 1t come
'front.' How could Mr. Tilton have made any representa-
on 10 Mr. Bcecher in regard to the confession II lie had
not received 1t from Hrs Tiltoni And when MI
Bcecher recognizes 1t statement made by Mrs TitOn
and lodges the truth OF it, does learned friend
want any better evidence OF the fact that Mrs ton did
make 1t than that In case in &C Barbour, which CUP
pose il the one referred to by your Honor il lie said that
The foundation Of the rule which forbids granting
deer of divorce on tho unsupported concession OF
party, il the fear OF collision and imposition on tho
Court when, however the OF the rule fails, the
rule itself Hence when the confessions are made
under circumstances which entirely preclude suspicion
of COLLISION or imposition tho confessions will be received
aud decree granted thereon without further evidence
Mr. Evarts-That is, Mr.. Beechers confession Is good
against him, but Mr. Til;ons confessions
Mr.. Blackwell. will suspend my argument and al
low the gentleman 10 finish his, IL he chooses.
IMr. Beach here paused AMI held q very brief whis
perod conversation with Mr.. Evarts.
Mr. Beach, therefore assume, gentlemen. that 40 far as
the actual confession OF July 1870 is concerned there is
no que In regard to its having been made II
evidence is credible. Mr. Beechcr at least that
there was confession statement to certain extent;
Air Bcccher admits that the charge by Mrs. Tlton
Of improper advances and no goes right 10 Mrs. Tton.
according 10 his evidence. and asks her how she
could by possibility make false charge Of that carac
ter II perfectly certain, therefore. that tho paper
executed the Goth OF December contained some mpu
ton, q charge OF some character. against MIR.
Beochcr. Mr.. Tiltcn swears, and the evidence
OF Mr.. Moulton supports him, that It
charge of sexual intimacy AL their inter
course with Mr.. Beecher. according to their nara
tive OF ital their intercourse with Mr.. Bcechcr
founded upon the theory that tho charge adultery
True Mr Bcccher denies this and driven 10
the question of determining between tho evidence
the part OF the plaintiff. consisting OF Mr.. 1ton, Mr.
Mouton. Mrs Moultou and Mrs. Bradshaw, OF crcum-
stances which shall allue and OF the letters M
Bcecherbetwcen this and the sole denial OF Henry Ward
Bcccher himself And tho question is gentlemen
whether that sole denial, unsupported by single sy
liable OF other proof shall the testimony posi-
tive and direct OF thIce witnesses and the accumulated
force Of circumstances against which the reputation q!
saint could stand and tho accumulated force OF the
confessions contained in Mr.. Boechers own letters
That Is the point that is the ISSUE Not whether Thco
dore Tlton enamorcd OF Victoria C woodruff not
whether he committed the base outrage imputed him.
at winsted whether he was cold cruel. heartcss
husband not whether he had sacrificed his name bis
character and his fortune to the profession Of ec
doctrines aud to vito associations. The question is
whether Henry Ward Bcccher. proven guilty OF adultery
by the testimony Of these witnesses and these crcur-
stances and these letters, shalt be permitted TO come
upon the stand In court of justice and by his OATH
unsupported, overturn this weight Of evidence.
The confession In July shall therefore assume 10 be
established have said to you that adyersarcs
would not permit us to tho precise the
paper which given by Mira Tton tho c9th OF De
cember to her husband TO facilitate his interview with
Mr. Beecher In the accomplishment Of her desire break
up the arrangement between TiltOn and Bowen aud TO
induce her husband withdraw that demand for tho res
ignaton Of Mr.. Beocher But its substantially
were stated TO Mr. Beccher and In tho form IN which tho
evidence was given got at the assertion Of both
Moulon and flton Of the contents Of that Instrument
But 1t Is not important, gentlemen 1t 10 not important
consider that paper . very secondary matter What
was the ebJectt To induce Mr.. Tlton to eco Mr.
Boeoher and withdraw the demand for bis