New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1879-09-25
SUSPENSION or FRANCIS j. NoULT0N

REAsoNs FOR TIE ACTION or gUE MANAGrHs or
the PRODUCE EXcuAAGE AIR. MouHp>S
VIEW OF IT-ILANKiIS WojDICTF's STATE
MFNT.
The Board of Managers of tie Produce EX-
change has suspended until further notice Fr"ncia y.
,oul.on aAd william \. Hazard, composins ih' iin "'
Francis D. Mouiton q Co., Tor conduct " ncon'istr"t
win he Just and equitable principle of trade, on c""i-
plant made b.. woodruff Mclean that Hiou.ton * 90.
declined 20 furnish account Of transactions lh s'i
during 1876 and Is77. When cited before the Conn
piaint Committee ana he Board OF Ad"-cIs' III ''o"'
ION denied their jurisdiction.
Inquiry was made of Sir Mou'ton yesterday IN re-
gard matter, AMI he replied; "hen was cue"
before the Complain, Committee did not consider 'nsh
an instrument the collection OF debts nor an lA''
msnt t. any part OF the and by advice OF coun
sci submitted writing exception 20 Their Juri.-
dIcfon IA entertain the complaint entered by Noodri
& Mclean, also refused To- submit the matters III
viewed - the committee had no power 10 compel Tue
attendance Then the Complaint COMMITTEES
referred the matter 70 The Board Of Managers, and az
ttcv also are not On instrument for the collection
of deb nor for any pss; OF the process, refused to
submit 10 their iur sdicon any questions
with reference To the matters nj issue All THIS was
done by advice counsel Inc matters az issue have
never been submitted To committee. and want MT.
Woodruff 20 try the case in conrt. For this reason
refused 70 submit the Compliant Committee or the
Board of Managers. aud they have suspended myself
and partner as q matter OF discipline, from the pIiV
lcges OF the Produce Exchange. am advised aud be
neye that the action Board of Managers is unjust
and unustfable have not violated, IN any Respect
any Just or equitable principles OF trade"
Did the Board of to refer the matter TO the ArO-
tratun COmipittecV
The Board does not claim the right to refer such
matters to arbitration"
"were these transactions made on the floor OF the
must politely refuse to answer any questions reat-
ing 10 the matters at issue"
For what reason. do You suppose. Woodruff d
Mclean brought this complaint against youF'
IAN article was published IN Inis city IN August the
appearance II which Mr.. Woodruff attributed 10 me-
but OF cogrse am not rssons9le Ior Its ape france,
since the first article appeared at that lime we were on
speaking terms, and Judge his present proceedings
are n part ~ LIS expression or anger"
Franklin Wnodruf. OF +. WoodIu Mclean. was via
tied at bis Office, No Al souh-st. by TRIBUNE
uorier who SAID 10 nm that Wac stated
pension OF MI. MoGton resulted from dispute with his
Mr. Woodruff replied "Ycs We had occasion 70
port action the part OF Mr. Moulon's firm To
The Complaint Committee OF the Produce Exchange.
And when they summoned him. IN order to ascertain
1t was a for the Arbitration Committee, he denied
their Jurisdiction IL tnen went regularly before the
Board of Managers aud he denied their jurisdiction.
Nothing remained for them to do but to suspend the rn
"Dd their action touch The merits Of the dispute with
''No. II was simple application of the rules of the
Exchange"
Are willing to state the nature of the difference
should prefer not, 1t such quarrel "a often
We turned Mr.. MOuton cargo OF salt. which lac
| was to sell on jOint He sold H. and have
received our hall profits, nor any accounting"
Nor any explanation or defence !"
Nothing. We then acted ne should act I'm any
case OF kind and referred the matter 10 the proper
committee. II II singular that MI MOulton shond
deny their jurisdiction. lie ~ IA member Of the EN-
change and helped 10 make its rules No" be declines
| TO abide by It's arbitration"
Mr.. Mouton Ia perhaps pest known To the public
the Mutual Friend " In the BeecherIitOn affair. He
obtained confidence OF Mr. Beecner AND became the
depository Of whatever letters or papers came INTO
stcnce connection with the matter, including prNafe
letters which but Mr. Beecher had any right II
appeared In the evidence in tho against Nh
oochrr that Mr. Tton had 20 these letters and
took shorthand notes OF such he deemed necessary
10 case but when Dir. Brecher, Ia defend himself
against deadly accusation asked for what he had con-
hded this friend. refused Ia letter In which
he told Mr.. 1iltOn has seen only part OF the
papers possession and would De more surprised
the entire OF the than you can
bly, be-" THIS inrn-d 70 have boon only Written by
Abolition, nut dictated by Iiton himself
Mr. MouitOn, In his testimony during the trial, recon-
ciled all his contradiction or hmS0lI by
then he was lyngj no telling the truth. lie
represented himself as having carried on extensive
scheme Of alsehoOd over period OF years the
foundations OF society and preserve the reputation
| The man whom he concluded finally ~ try crush.
Z" Did you lie for hmf asked Judge Porter or Mr.
| Moulton. e did" We have your word for ' The
question put bY Judge Porter at the elimination OF
| series or questions, represented strik-
| lug light the character Of his relations to Mr..
Beecher Mr.. Mouton had been describing
them; So then, tho inception or your friendship for
the Rev. Henry Ward Beechcr stormy night
when you learned that he had debauched your end 4.
fused him to the letters by which be wished to
defend himself from foul charged" This produced one
| Of the most dramatic effects of the TRIAL.