The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-04-20

/
began 10 rummage among his papers. Presently,
drawing forth copy OF Beecher's direct examina
ton and reading precisely the admission Just pre-
vlOusly denied.
"Strctly speaking, he aid not SO charge me-"
said the witness. stroking his chin with his
finger. The excitement was pretty high IN the
court room. Beach and Fullerton insisted with
the Court that specific answer was demanded.
His Honor seemed disposed TO throw the official
mantle OF protect around the witness. Finally
the witness replied that ne did not believe Mr..
Tilton AS making the charge personally, In a few
minutes alter the Court adjourned, and the ex-
nausted lawyer and witness betook themselves
home.
THE EVIDENCE
Shortly after eleven O'Clock the cross.examina-
ton oil Mr. Beecner was resumed by Mr.. Ful-
lerton. The attention OF the witness was called
with Mr. Moulton ana Mr.. Tllton al Mr.. liiton's
house. He could not tell exactly how II happened
was to make call on Mr. Hilton. He did not
member tnat he went there by way OF appoint
teryieW, a. given on his direct examina-
ton, stating that he expressed great SYM
injury he nad zone MIN, and Tor the special dis
tress and trouble there had been in MS (Mr TIL
the unwilling lnlurer or MIR. Tllton; he sent an
apology to Mr.. Tlton, denying the charge OF I'M
proper solicitations TO ms vile; personally ne
never denied to Theodore Tllton tle charge Of I'M
proper Solicitations Mr.. Beecher sad 10 never
Tllton's housenod nor 70 MIN IN ms business rea-
lions, aud that, SO lar as ne had unlntentlonaLy
Done injury TO his vile and through her 70 him. ne
was heartily sorry Tor Il, and naa asked her lor-
gIyenesS; so far as ne tMr. Beecner) Was
tom oP Mr. Tlto6's Ttes arectons would
be The more serious charge-a charge
against his moral character would also De serious
AS 10 why ne did not indicate himself from the
charge II he lelt innocent, ne replied that that
urged ana denied; il had been denied TO Theodore
Tton. AS 70 why M. Beecner ana MOI 9 il we
the circumstances Of the interview lucy naa
been talking 81 NJ. lllton's business aHalrs ana
family. Wnen Mr.. l1lson came ia he said 10 him,
II substance, what ne had been saying 70 Mr..
conducted himsell.n witness could not give the
words. As 10 whether he supposed TINS language
OF MI. Iiton was based upon tae idea taat ne nad
been making improper advances 70 Mrs. lllton,
sald ne dld not thlnk anything aoont ~ ne con-
sdered his moral character involved IN the charge
OF winning tue affections OF Mrs. Tilton. tie aid
II unconsclousy when ne should nave been con-
sclous During his acquaintance with MIS-. Ilton
ne mad not seen anything on ler part that tntt-
mated 70 him that she mad placed her afectlons
upon MN. Looking Dack upon MS conversations
with Mrs. Iiltoa he sara mere were sonLe eoaver
satlons that ought not 70 have oeen suca us tne
statement that II gave rim great pleasure
10 be at her housenod; hat II was
and works and with admration Of some
letter Mrs. fAton wrote. witness was then cross
examined win respect 70 the letter ne wrote Il.
G. Bowen on January =, 1871. His object IN writing
4 that letter to dISaDuSe BOWeniS mlnQ oil the
stories that had been circulated against Mr.. Til
he did not recall the TACT OF saying 70 Frank
Carpenter. Have you seen IneodoreY he Is
Carpenter saying 10 him. 1T will ruin you anu
nton too" proposed q s sinI rs , q MT Mt
passage occurred II am Wiling TO appear before
you aud make statement which viii settle this
domestic dinculy,p he could not state Ter whom
he prepared that statement; probably IL vas Tor
Theodore luton; wnen ne drew tnat paper he ala
not know that ne knew Inc cnarge against MN
was adultery II was Mr.. Redpath wno represented
10 MIN on tne 18th 81 July, AZ Peekskti, that the
charge was adultery; mere vas memorandum
pre- Jared at Moulton's suggestion; IL was pre-
pared ior MS (Mr. Beecner'sl consideration IN
consultation with Moulton 70 see whether u was
best 0: nm 10 accept Il; as 70 wnS ne ala not
state the charge against him, ne observed mat
the M mOrandum was prepared az Mouiton's sug-
gestOn, IN oruer that lie (Mr Beecherl might con-
slider Il merely; u did not represent ms leellngs;
he wrote a note 10 MouIon. aated July 10, 1874,
stating ne needed W see him that day, and not 70
iau nm; ~ presumed Toe noe had reference
10 one point 81 TINS wnoe analr; he was
not willing that the dnlsulty should
settled IN any otner VA man by investigation;
lie ala not make ii matter 81 discussion. because
al tina time ne ceased 70 nave confidence IN
Moulton's geaeraisaip. At TINS point tnefe was
considerable WranglRg between the counsel. and
finally witness sald the paper was suggestion
that the sta ement OF Nj. Itlton should Gear nlm
(Mr, Beecne) 10 some way before the examining
committee; II lllion satisfied the committe Mr.
Baecner SAID ne Wlling 70 iet the wnoe thing
drop: wat preceded Tue writing II that letter
was the estao ishng ii Mr.. TIltun "a business ana
lamily: wnen mat letter was written ae did not
III i wI1 49, sen ~. lefter n{aaatne1
X - -N ~ -
49, 49, bkookLiA EeoruaIy Z. lesl
~ 'AA1 DLAA h n II ~ .oiis "ltn
re.cieS ~ ves.er'i.v Nm said me trae raj coma
when YOU woald t.e 10 r. Give from me an Qresson
OF them writing. } say, therefore, very cheerfGly.
that, HOtwtn staining the great sule ing which he nas
caused u l-4izaoeth AM Hysff beai MIA 70 mace'
s@'' ~ Nv w 49, II - 80 ~ ,rs AZ.
1900 y 80 strtl. nj kno,x fvsslt ~ IN s,.W
en1eav0r rs al f6p ana Mr. Eeecher as wonld lave
hln ia similar circumstances act t0wari
ought g all aat your ONn good onces m this case
have ~ ne {! hsher mora I e ing man gignt oth.
cFNlse h@fe L'sl So1is r0x
r. Ep.rr Nossfroy -''
80. $50. ~, r.,,o-,,.r ..a. 80, 800. -.
NOws 49, 80 100 ~ 49, 49, uas
shoN ~ 800 ~ 20 - ~ aoyus ~ .lne
y - Nl4stV1t a W hVsf haAuy thina ~
vas -, -. ......t. ;. -, ~. , -. :.
20 al 5OuA aNicusi0u ~ suc VAc W. "AVs0 ~
3 9iE. MOu4lGA on AAAk Ia. ihtduluRl