New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-04-29
ANSWERING ARGUMENT OF MIR. BEACH

ANSWERING ARGUMENT OF MR. BEACH.
Mr. Beacl-The counsel is driven, and neces-
sary driven Sir by his reflections upon the ques-
ton in debate TO false premises and mistaken
facts enable him TO reason at all upon the question
He assumes that this interview IN June which he now
rnposes to prove but the anteceden the prelimi
nary part of continued and heightened discussion upon
the same subject between Mr.. MOut0n and the witness.
Now Sir, upon what authority does he do thatf The
interview which proved was subsequent to July .,
1874 az appears from the book and the page referred to
by the counsel.
Judge Neson-That is the interview with Mr. Beecherl
Mr. Beach-Yes Sir the interview with Mr.. Beecher, of
July 8, in which Mr.. MOulton communicated to Mr..
Beecher a conversation he had had with Gen. Tracy.
There was nothing in the position which Gen. Tracy
occupied at that time in connection with this interview
which charged Mr.. Beecher with any RESPONSE
bility for his declarations and it only through
the circumstance that what occurred between
Mr. Tracy and Mr.. MOulton was subsequently cOmmu
nicated TO Mr. Beecher and approved by him
recognized by him, that became at all material or evil
dence at all in the Now, in that relation, Sir OF
that interview there is nothing which justes the coun-
sci IN saying that IL was continuation OF previous
conversation between Mr. Tracy and Mr. Moulton there
is nothing which authorizes him TO say that the rejection
OF this prior interview is dslOcaOn OF the intercourse
between these two parties upon given subject. They
were separate and independent interviews, but whether
or not they relate TO the same transaction discussed the
question, viewed the same pOlcy suggested Dy
either party as proper to be adopted with reference
10 the Bacon letter, we doHt know. Counsel only
saws il was the preliminary Introduction to
that discussion, that it the recall OF Mr. Tracy to his
allegiance this transaction. There Is nothing Sir to
Justify that The simple proposition before your Honor
il whether having proven conversation occurring be-
tween Mr. Tracy and Mr. MoultOn upon the strength OF
its communication subsequently TO Mr. Beecher and rati-
fcatOn by him, action on lis part III regard 10
H. the counsel entitled prove another be-
tween MI Moulton and Mr. Tracy against Mr. Ttonwho
so far as II appears heard it, to whom it was never
who authorized it, But II Is sur
prng your Honor that sucha proposition shouldbe made
Supose il were upon the t.ne subject, suppose Mr.
Tracy was the authorized repre- entaye OF Mr. Beeeher
where is the authority from Mr. TitOn conferred upon
Mr. Tracy or upon Mr. MouOn TO consult upon the sub
tec Of an answer 10 the Bacon letter upon any other
subject connected with the Bacon leteri Andby
what right do these Two gentlemen, disconnected with
Mr. Triton in interests, attempt by their consultations or
suggestions or declarations conclude the legal rights OF
party 10 this action. But, furthermore Sir, my friend
sin insists that Mr.. MoutOn the representative
Of Mr. Tilton' Indeed Sir! In regard TO the
answer to this Bacon letter, the representative
Of Mr. Tilton authorized TO negotiate and
sneak for Mr.. Tilton, guiding the policy of Mr.
Tton In regard to the proper answer honor ana duty
called for 10 that Why, he the special ennis
sary and agent of Mr. Beecher working in the interests
Of MI Bcccher in my Judgment fatheSs To the true IN
erc,ts of his more ancient friend. He cndehN0ng
Ia suppress the answer 10 the calunieS ana fe0achts,
under the leading of Dr. Bacon produced as against MIS-
tOD: aud he it was who says that he would rather pay
Tue H. OOO-I think the evidence justies me III saying