The Portland daily press., 1875-04-30

after the Sunday interview with Titon at
Moulton's house that he first had a conversa-
ton with Beecher about the scandal. Thinks
that the Sunday interview was the latter end
of November 1872 At that interview Titon
asked whether if he made statement to him
and afterwards got in collision with Beecher if
the etiqu- tie of the profession would low him
10 he counsel for Beecher? He replied that he
should not AS a matter OF memory he does
not reeollect what he understood by collision
al that time, whether an action at law or col
lision in other form. He remembered what
Woodruff testified.
Q-Woodruff'S version is "Fiton asked
should he and Beecher ever go to law would he
(Tracy) be allowed by the etiquette Of the pro-
fession to be counsel for Beecher, and Tracy
answered no. "Now l ask you did you mean
YOUR promise to extend to all collisions social,
legal and others?
A-No. He used the word counsel and must
have meant legal collision.
Q-When did you notify Tilton you were
absoIved from your pledge if he should change
the character of his charge?
A 10 July, 1874
Q-When had he changed it?
Al can't say, but l know he did change it.
Q-What was the nature of the charge be
made against Beecher when you gave your
Ale had not made it then, but L gathered
from the papers the next day that it was inn
proper solicitation.
specific charge of adultery you considered your
self absolved from your promise?
Al did.
Odd you consider litigation could arise
between them on account of improper So
licitation?
Al did uot. The idea did not occur to me-
Odd you give your pledge to Tilton with
out understanding the nature of his accusa-
ton against Beecher?
Al did not know except what he told me.
1 knew the Woodruff publication charged
adultery and was denied. l saw Mrs. TiltOn's
charge, retracticn and letter of apology, and L
had asked Tilton if he had charged adultery
and he said no.
Q-From facts before you when you made
the pledge, what did you understand the charge
to be?
Al had no definite idea of the nature of
the charge. knew it was not adultery. |
understood Beecher had made improper solicit
tations and had been repulsed.
The Court here took a recess.
Cross examination of Tracy resumed at 70.
Mr.. Beach arose and called the attention of
the Court to portions of the report of the trial
in the official reports, which were incorrect.
Counsel read these passages and it was admit
ted that Henry b. by some mistake of the re-
porter was substituted for the name OF Mrs.
Stanton.
Witness was then further questioned about
the interview with Woodruff, Moulton and Til
on. He said he understood at the close of that
interview that the charge against Beecher was
improper solicitations, which were refused by
Mrs. Tilton. Up to that time he had not re-
celved from any source an intimat0n OF the
adultery charge. He understood his pledge to
be that in a litigation arising out of the subject
of that conversation he would not be counsel
for Beecher.
Q-Now as a lawyer, tell me how you thought
litigation could arise out OF improper propo-
sails.
A-Witness said he had no idea of the kind
He dismissed the idea of litigation from his
mind when he heard what the char e was. He
did allow his pledge to stand after hearing what
the charge was, aDd that it was improper pro-
posals, but it was merely promise under
general rule That rule applied to the particu-
lar case stated to him. He gave that pledge
and allowed it to stand, knowing it was not
possible that litigation in court could arise out
of the charge then made against Beecher. He
knew the rule he stated could not be Gale
upon to reply; it was inapplicabe to the charge
then made, yet he listened to AL these CONVEX.
satiops.
He didn't consider that Tilton seriously re-
quired pledge. He doesn't say he didn't con-
slider Tilton was serious, ut when he asked
the question he gave promise in the ordinary
sense. He supposes TIton was serious and re-
lied on that promise. Witness came away
supposng this and knowing his pledge to be
imperative, never spoke to Tilton on the subject
afterwards until July, 1874 He had forgotten
till Moulton called his attention to it, He be-
came d witness to contradict certain state.
ments of Woodruff and Moulton, and he has
under GA put himself in contradiction to
them. He is counsel in this case He had not
dissolved his connection with it, He took a
lunch with counsel to-day. He believes they
were 10 consultation yesterday, He does not
consider the lunch an essential part of the pro-
fesson. There might have been more or less
talk about the trial going on but no profession
al consultation. He does not contemplate
withdrawing from the case. 1t was he who
opened The case for the efence..
Q-Were you the author of that opinion?
A-Well, to large extent believe.
Q-Were you the author of that opening?
Judge-You can't ask this.
Beach, think l can sir when there is de-
livered an opening overcharged with magnity
and unfairness by one who is afterwards on
the witness stand. 1 have the right to know
whether he is the author of those calumnies.
Witness-If you want to know whether L
accept the responsibility.
Mr. Beach Gnterrupting and bringing down
bis fist on the table mo sir; will hold you TO
responsibility. (Laughter.)
Judge-Mr. Rogers, see to the audience.
Wit ess-I think am.
Odd you compose it all?
A-Tbe greater part of it ii not all.
Q-During the preceding interview to the
one you have spoken of with Woodruff did
be not tell you Beecher &C mmitted adultery?
A-No sir.
OWL you swear to it?
Al think will.
C-Will you make up your mind and ans
wer? (Laaghter.)
Witness denied that Woodruff stated so dis
tincty, but he he Insinuated something wrong
on the part of Beecher He did not tell wit
ness Beecher had advanced money for Titon's
family. Witness did not say in rep.y to Wood
rufus communication about money being ad-
vanced by Beecher. that it was the most dam
aging piece of testimony whatever. Wood
rutf's communication to him at the interviews
given before the one with Tilton was under the
promise of strict confidence.
There are some things in the "true story" as
published different from the papers Tilton read
to him. The subjects treated are the same, but
the phraseology is different. The paper Tilton
read quoted from the statement by his W life,
''My friend, Henry Ward Beecher, solicited
me to be his wife with all that implied" He
did not say to Woodruff, "This matter must be
covered up" At the Fifth Avenue Hotel in
te1view with Gen. Butler and Moulton in rela-
tion to papers referred to by futon, it was dis
cussed whether all the papers referred to by
Tilton before the committee should be produc
ed. He thinks Moulton was not present when
he made the suggestion about the papers. He
stated what in his judgment Moulton ought to
do with the papers in his possession. He will
not say h. advised Moulton not to produce his
papers. He went there at Moultons request to
see his counsel, Gen. Butler to consult about
what Moulton should do before the committee.
He did not consider himself as counsel for
Moulten. He. went as one invited by Moulton
to cooperate and as friend of Beecher, whose
advice Moulton said Beecher would be likely
to take, and as a member of Plymouth church
anxious to cooperate in preventing the publi-
cation of the scandal that he felt would pro-
duce more Generalization than any event OF
the century. He did not go as a general phi
lanthropist or from universal benevolence. He
had previously spoken to Beecher about the
scandal. He consulted with Beecher; he ad-
vised him. He considered himself as adviser
in the sense one man would advise a friend.
He did not consider Beecher considered him in
the light of leading counsel or was grateful for
his advice, owing to his professional position.
If Beecher was grateful to him he supposed his
professional position was taken into account.
After that he saw Gen. Butler at the Fifth Az
enue Hotel.
Odd you tell Mr.. Benz f. Butler that you
were there as counsel for Beecher?
A-No, sir; not in that sense.
Odd yon?
A-No, did not.
Q-Not in the PRESENCE of Moulton?
A-No, sir.
Q-Is it possible to refresh your memory?
A-No, sir.
Witness said he also had conferred with But
Ter in July, 1874. at Boston. He went 10 see
him on the subject, not to consult but to confer.
He went because of message he understood
Butler had sent Beecher on the subject Beech
er told him. Beecber did not send him. Wit
ness suggested he would go and Beecher OBJ
iected. Beecher saw Sbearman next morning
and withdrew his objection, and Shearman