The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1875-02-02
THE OLD STORY.
THE SCANDAL SUIT.

WOoBRUFF's TESTIMONY ADMITrED-rILToN
GAuLEB TO TEE sTAND-ARGUAEST OVER
HIS RIGHT To TESTIFY.
NEW YORK, Jan. H.-There was the usual
crowd at the Tilton- Beecher trial to-day
The counsel aud principals were on hand
early. Judge Nelson, upon opening of
court. gave his decision upon the point
raised yesterday by Evsrts, as to MI. WOOD
ruff's giving & relation of what occurred at
the interview between Gen. Tracy, Moulton
and hisnself when Beecher was not present
Judoe Nelson said that he hadexamined
the Ssushorifies on thesUbject, and ruled tkaS
the witness might relate all that occurred at
the interview. The attention OF the
coErs was called To q pamphlet issued
from the Tribune office, entitled part one
OF the OffiMal report of the Tllton- beecner
trial. Judge Fullerton stated tha: instead OF
having evidence only on the trial there were
comments relating to Moulton ana the coun-
sci. ar. Beach paid an elegant tribute 70
Moxitop witness and Evares In turn
said that they were not actors on the stage,
Judge Nelson said that be would confer
with the publishers about this matter.
Franklin r. Woodruff then deposed: Moui-
ton proceededst TO tell Tracy about the case
that the points published by Mrs. WoodhuN
wero true. Mo4alton said he had been trying.
to keep the case covered up. Tracy said that
he did not recommend lying, but III
this case he thought was
per sctly justifable. He also recommended
that either Meulton or Tilton be sent TO
Europe. Cross-examined: 1 introduced
Moulton to yoo on that occasion. think
you asked MoultOn if TIE scandal rested on
ANYTHING else but the letter of coutrition
and other papers, and he said there also re-
manned the statement made by Mrs Iilton
TO her husband. l don't recollect being
'present on any other occasion in the study
than at this interview. I have heard the
''True story" read. This interview, / think,
began about or5 in the afternoon and
ended at night, j think. We had supper,
which lasted about an hour, and the
balance OF the time was spent discussing
the WOodhull scandal. The pistol
scene eane up for discussion, and
Moulton said it was Incorrectly reported
there. think you said to Moulton that the
part of the story which related TO him could
be refuted, and i think you read the story
paragraph by paragraph do not remem-
ber that Mouiton at that interview denied
telling the story to Mrs. WoodhEll, nor did
he admit having told it. The counsel read
portions of the Woodruff article, and asked
the witness If MoUlton denied telling them
to -iirs. Woodhuli at that interview. The
wikness replied that he had
NO REMEMBRANCE
OF fne parts oftAe scandal read. as ne took
no 9nteres: when they were discussed at
that 1nterview. don't think you advised
far ss it related to him. / was in the habit
of going to Moulton's in 1871. L met Tfiton
there. He was out of employment and
wished to start paper and said
s15,000 or $4,000 would be enough
80 start with. He announced that he
was goiag to start IL, and advanced then
6. 600. There was about $4,000 subscribed.
/ paid IN 81 500 and got his note for the
amount. saw Mr.. Southwick and told him
about it. have never paid the 5000 but
was released from 1t. This concluded the
testimony Of Woodruff, and Ex-Judge Full
lertOn called Theodore Tilton, who took the
chair. Evarts objected to Tilton's
being sworn, and made a long argument.
Tbs counsel maintained chiefly that all the
authorities were against the right OF hus-
band or wife to testify for or against each
other, as their rights and privileges were
equal. and the innovation destroyed and
defiled the privacy and sanctity of the mar
riage relation. Mr.. Evarts read from sew
eral ens neDt iurists in support OF his posi-
ton. He claimed generally that If such rule
were adopted. perjury and the violation OF
the nearest and dearest relations
OF eonfideuce would follow. The law, said
Mr.. Evsrts. throws around the great civil
system of domestic inviolabiEty the pure
rObed figure OF silence and Secresy. III
does nothing by halves. 1t is complete,
thorough and perfect and states the tact so
that all can understand. Gen. Pryor argued
on behalf OF the defense and said that be
would adhere strictly to the point Ia dis
pute. The question was this: Was plain
tiff in an action s competent witness IN
his own behalf. The common law
excluded all parties in suits in which they
were interested. We had now attained to that
humane and enlightened degree that GRIM
inal indicted was allowed TO testify in his
own behalf. In 1857 the barrier was re-
moved by the legislature of New York from
a party Interested in cause testifying on
his own behalf, and by a subsequent altera-
ton of phraseology he was compellsble
to testify. This was the law which governed
this case and would allow him TO tell the
story of his own sad wrong. 1t might be
argued by the other side that Mrs. Tilton
was party to the action. She, the connsei
admitted, had an interest of feeling ana re-
pute, bat it was not sufficient to constitute
her party to the cause, as the act OF 1867
excluded the wife as party to the act. Hr.
Tilton was not in a situation to be acted on
by il, but Mrs. Tilton was, and this Is what
the law meant. The counsel was quoting
legal authorities in support OF his position
wher the hour of adjournment arrived, and
he will continue bis argument tomorrow.