New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-01-20
srpE-LIGUrs ON THE EVIDENCE.

Isrly unsuccessful yesterday, and ex-Iudge Porter
had his time for his pains II, however, the object
of crOss-examiDatioR is to let in side lights and to
change the aspects Of the salient points of the
troyersy the defense singularly successful and
ex-Judge Porter had atmosphere for his pains
Jealous admirers of Mr. Beecher who expected to see
the witness finch and his testimony shrivel and
crack under bot fire of cross-examnatioD, went to
lunch and subsequently to supper with impaired
appetite and temper. Mr.. Moulton smiled
when he took his seatl smiled all the
way through, and when he rose to get
his overcoat smiled again as he whispered to
friend that it was easy to tell the truth. He was
not disconnected at any stage Of the proceedings
but played with his handkerchief with All express
zion of amusement his face, was entirely at
his ease and, as many of Mr. Tilton's friends
claimed was the best witness ever seen in court"
But it was a cross-examinati9n in name rather
than in kind. Ex-Judge Porter made no effort to
confuse him questions were put to him in pleas
ant voice and in a courteous manner; and from be-
ginning to end there was an utter absence OF the
vulgar arts and cunning devices by which lawyer
eggravates the torture of the victim in the chair
and casts suspicion upon his words and acts The
scope Of the defense was much more comprehensive.
The jury and the auditors since the opening of
this case have been breathing the atmosphere of the
plaintiff. Ex-JGdge Norris in his opening address.
placed Mr. Beecher's correspondence and the other
documentary evidence in the case under the lens of
his Interpretation. All the negotiations which Mr..
MOuton conducted, and all the devices by which
silence was maintained and by which the main
facts of the controversy were kept beneath the
face, were analysed in detail, and the in
ference was drawn again and again that
every effort at compromise and cOncealment implied
the defendants guilt Mr. Moulton in his testi-
,aonv hos afren 0thened these impresgione Mr..
Beechers letters have been identified and read to
the Jury and the witness has himself interpreted
them as confessions of guilt. The negotiations in
which he took so active part have been rehearsed
by him. and Mr. Morriss construction has again
been placed upon them. The jury-bOx has become
saturated with the theories and differences Of the
plaintiffs side. Obviously the defense wanted to
turn the side lights and ch snge the color aud re-
lstiOns of the evidence
Mr.. Moulton, in effect, was used q witness to
prepare the way for the presentation of the defend
ants case, and the eross-examinatIon was con-
Quoted, therefore, after the manner of direct
animation. This will readily be illustrated.
Mr.. Moulton hitherto in this case has appeared in
the light of Mr. Beechers friend devoting himself
with untiring zeal to his service from Dec 30, 1870
TO midsummer, 1874 He has been introduced TO the
Jury as Mr.. Beeoher's confidential friend, who re-
NAMED true 60 him until the charges of blsckmal
were MADE. Inc Qe1elSes on obheI 0auO, lDIrO-
duced NJ Moulton as the schoolmste and lifelong
friend of Mr.. Tlton, going fishing with him in the
Summer, taking him to NarTangansett Pier during
several seasons visiting him frequently dining with
3im, acting as bis banker, helping hin when lie
Golden zoe was started lending h;;:1a money con.
Quoting the negot for the award of $1,000 to
nm Tor re abrogation of the Bowen contracts
Sympathizing with his views in regard to woman
suffrage and joining him in his attentions to Mrs
Woodruff.
Again, Mr.. Tilton has appeared as a man who
could have crushed Mr.. Beecher but who
willing to expose him The letter of MI. Tilton to
. friend in the West was called out by the defense
to show that he had denounced Mr.. Bowen as draw
ing an assassnating dagger upon Mr. Beecher and
that he had regarded the Woodruff publication as q
wrong aud an insult to his wife. The reply which
Mr. Titon wrote to Mr. Bowen's notice of dismissal,
1t was shown, was put in type IN the office of The
Golden Age, and sent to Mr. Bowen and Mr.. Beecher.
Again the prosecution have introduced Mr.. Moul-
&on as the advocate of the policy of silence at every
stage of the controversy. The defense questioned
him closely in regard to his intimacy with Mrs.
Woodruff in order that the jury might infer that
the first publc accuser of Mr.. Beecher had derived
hints from him. He admitted that he had talked
with her upon the subject of the scandal but denied
that he had described the pistol to her she
subsequently represented. He described his early
visits at Mrs. WoodhulPs house. and acknowledged
that he had met her at Mr. Tiltons and at his own
house. He did not know bow Mrs. Woodruff
aseertaiped the facts about the pistol. After the
publication Of Der story Mr. Beecher had called his
attention to the rsfeTsnse e pistol, and had told
him that be rsms@6sIea f5.hinr Of that kind: Mr.
MoutOn had reblied that it not strange thSt nc
did not remember it, as threat was made on the
evening when the retraction was returned Mr..
Noulon was closely questioned during this portion
Of the examination, but was not disconnected.
Mr.. MoultOn has hitherto appeared as the agent
of Mr. Beecher in paying $1,000 to Mr.. Tilton with
out the knowledge of the lstter Ex-Judge Porter
questioned him concerning his own financial con-
nection with that paper aud concerning its in
creasing expenditures.
The meeting between Mr.. Tilton and Mr.. Beeeher
on Dec. 80 1870 had been described to the jury as
relating wholly to the main cause of this action.
The dismissal of Mr.. Titcn from The Independent
and The Brooklyn Union had nothing whatever to do
with this meeting. Ex-Judge Porter elected the
fact that prior to that meeting Mr.. Tnton had IN
formed him that Mr.. Bowen had threatened to dis
miss him. and had described an angry interview be-
tween them in relation to Mr.. Bowen's charges
against Mr. Beecher. Mr. Tlton had then told hin
that he had no doubt that Mr.. Bowen's Charges
against Mr.. Beecher were true.
Mr.. Beecher according to the plaiptIf's side, IN
variably shrank from making pubic denial Of the
truth of the charges. The defence intimated that
Mr. Beecber had favored public reply to the Wood
,bull publication, but that Mr. Moulton had
seied silence. Mr. Beechers letter challenging Mr..
Aouiton to produce the letters which had been in
trusted TO him was read in evidence, although 1t
had Iaen excluded ON the previous day. Mr.. Moul-