Year: 1875

Mr. Fulert0n-Cerainly Sir.


Mr. Eyarts-whete Is the cross-examinationf


Mr. Fullerton you will find 1t commencing at psse 46s


Mr. Evars-ThIs cross Examination, which seems to be the
basis Of the present inquiry, arises In this way:


20. Now, Mr. Tlton, at what period at ALL did you
entertain discussions any public print OF which you bao con-
aton N the social connections OF the sexes A. We pr
will you tell me a little distinctly what you mean by the


O. Well lido not wish to give opprobous name, nor 90


wish TO characterize It improperly but the opinions tat con
and its maintenance only during continued attraction and aec


ton, and permanently If those sentiments had ohanged


Then be gives an answer which certainly Is basis FOR th
inquiry and on. Then give the sentiments as he pun
shed them In his newpaper-my point being not Whist his
opinions he had secret opinions but "a to the opinions
that ho pomugaed and proved them by their promugaton
There several aspects doubt in which this PROOF II per-


nent but has to do with the public position that ths VII
the subject and which have proved by his publ
cations Now, my learned friend a. understand, ask, nun
wba his real opinions were at that time That quite mma
enal IL they different from his published opinions; anih
they were his published opinions why then Of
course 1t IL immatcral


Judge NeilsonI suppose they intend, in degree to
qualify or Illustrate.


Mr Eyarts-Iow would qualify tho publication OF them TO
have it said that he enter aims different ylewsf


Judge Nelson-I don't say it would.


Mr. Eyarts-If they will show publication that qualities
them that would be in the line Of inquiry which pursued
that would bo legitimate, no dogbt



sense all testimony, il understand your theory that
perhaps goes the moral status Of the witness


Mr. Beach-Exacrly.


Judge Nei son-IIis integrity.


Mr. Beach-Exactly.


Judpe Neilson-A departure what to he the
pcr state in which heart ought TO be- and possibly that
might be the subject OF inference which this may explain


Mr. EyasBut even then we right to infer from tho
publications Of his views.


Judge ilson-Undoubtedly.


Mr. Eyars-whch have given in evidence Now to show
that his real opinions different from his publication OF
them would not tend reinsate In regard 10 wei ;ht


Mr. Fuerton-I propose prove that his rea opinions
were different his published opinions at ALI that Is noty
object


Judge Neilson-I will take it, Sir.


Mr. Eyas-Your Honor will be good to note my excep-
ton.


Mr. Fullenon-Now Mr. Tlton, will you go on and give US
your views in relation to marriage.


Mr. Beach-As they existed that time in these publications
which been given in evidence upon the other side


The Witness-We Sir have since can remember.
the years OF having any thoughts at ALL enter
tanned any other the subject Of marriage and divorce
tnan those which will express very briefly First as TO
marriage concerning the common opinion enter
tanned throughout all Chrstendomhed believe, IN all CIV


zed society," by all good men and women-that II is the union
OF one man for life for better or worse through
storm and camnot only for life perhaps, but possibly
beyond life As to divorce, / hold the common
opinion entertained not in this State, or in
our Knckerbocker legislation but that wider and more
general opinion which Is incorporated in the legislation OF The
New England States the hand and the Western States
on the other to be not generally known that the
State OF New very singular unique and exceptional
code Of divorce This State is out Of harmony with all c SIS
erhood Of the subject Of divorce For here
under our legislation there is divorce for o solitary cause
that alone whereas in in Massachusetts,
Hampshire, the or hand and in Pennsy yyaua
Ohio, and in all the Western States on the
other there Is divorce for multitude Of reasons
VIII give illustration. hold for instance as the great
.,iy OF the American people do, that IL womans husband
treats her butay she entitled If she wishes it, to divorce


hold that If he negecs support her. and allows her to go
into extreme poverty and priyalon she is entitled IL
che wishes It, to divorce. hold that il he Is a
habual drlnl<ard, rendering the life OF his wife and
children dangerous from his frantic pams that she ened
IL she wishes it, to divorce So might state other grounds
on whsh is entitled. If she wishes it, to divorce
Now. Sir those grounds are held legal and valid FOR
divorce in almost every State Of the Union except New
York A woman who goes into o court In New
Haven and says TO Judge and Jury that her
h-sband butay her will get devorce because the law
don't interfere law permits divorce; but II that same
woman living in Connecticut but in Brooklyn should
into Judge Reynolds and carry the evidence before
Judge and jury she could get no divorce and the
Judges reply would be, MADAM, however just your
cause is, the law of this State peremptorly forbids
divorce save for one cause Now thought that the ciy



the sancty of marriage all combined to demand that
should change New York code OF divorce and adopt in its
place the New England code the Western code Does that
answer your question?


O Giving divorce for different causes A. Yes, Sir.


O. 1t your doctrine them that husband and wife should
he eparted at will according their notion OF propey
but it should be regulated by awr A. Why, certainly Sir
NV only point law should interfere in such
cases as have named Let give you another illustration
For instance the law OF New Hampshire permits
hahn
that is to say in New Hampshire which good old New
England State, if a away from his wife
and stays away year, the law gives her, II she
wants II, divorce but, in the State OF New York,
may from his wife and go to China
live years. and she cannot get however much she may
desire IT, divorce Now Iwould like to ask the intelligent
Judgment Of the world why there should be such law in
New Hampshire giving divorce for descron for one year. and
why there should prohibition divorce in New York State
for deserton for lifetime.


O. Then s your doctrine Mr. Tlton, understand
you that a right desert his wife simply because
he thinks he has discovered affinity in another A.
No. Sir that the doctrine of devils and damnatiOn.
Mr.. TILTON AN ENEMY OF FREE LOVE DOCTRINES.


@. That is the doctrine of free-love, is it not T?
A. didn't know that feeloye had any other doctrine except
the secrecy OF bad behavior.


O. Well this doctrine Of freeovehaye you advocated
if A. have never Sir, and all my writings, and they
vome the subject contain repeated references over and
over aea Of condemnation OF reeoye long before had
occasion to find my heart pierced with the bitter reflection


that there had been feeove in my house, and that my
family had been destroyed thereby.


Mr. Beach-There was something said nthese publications
which have been read Mr. Ton toward the sentiment that
marriage should continue longer than there was union OF
soul what do you by that expressionf


Mr. Fuller,on-Do you anything else than thai
the principle prevailing in the State, If please OF Con-
neccu should prevail everywhere that court Of competent
jurisdiction should pronounce between couple where there
was such an ncompby temper that they could not live
together in harmony and peace' That Is precisely what


Ia fnrhi