The New York Herald Newspaper, January 20, 1875, Page 4

Continuation of Moulton’s Cross-Examination. TTTLING WITH BOWEN. Tilton Thinks Mrs. Morse a Dan- gerous Woman. TO A FRIEND IN THE WEST. Hov ba Fe Q Q Ounvs. The sletgh bells, jingling merrily, im the staid city of Brooklyn, and the sleigns filled with happy families of married couples and children, taking advantage of the snow, gave such a chill to the court room yesterday that the dullest sympathy Was moved by the picture of domestic discord there. A wile was looking calmly on at a litigious husband. Another husband, alleged to be her seducer, was surrounded with bis orood, waiting fer the awful verdict. Is was @ stern representation of justice to see ail these beings and their social forces {acing eacn other in the little square hal! of justice while the Many sieigh bells made music in the Keeo outer air, BEECHER YESTERDAY. There was Colonel Beecher, the de/endant’s son, with his pretty, girlish wife, of whom he seemed to be quite fond, Happy will they be, looking a+ this contentious scene, if they deduce from it the lesson ail important, if earliest learned, that “along pull is @ strong pull,” and every misstep on a vital Brook.ys, Jan. % 1871. Mr, 8. 0, Bownw:— six—i hereby authorize Mr. Francis D. Mouton to act nmy beball in full settiement with you of all my ac counts growing out of my contracts for services to the inuleyenstent amd the Brookiyn Daity 0 nim THe ODORE TILTON, Judge Porter—Acting under that letter how ) much did you receive (rom Mr. bowen for Mr, |Niiton thing of sworn confidence returns to plague the inventor, Mr. Beecher came tn shortly before the opening, with his wie. His hairs are rapidly changing gray, Abaid spotisatthe back of the crown, where nis long hairs are parted. He walks with a@ slight stoop and wears an old mantle or talma, which removing he sits erectly in bis chair and soberly watches the performance. Mr. Beech. r, like all» the dramatis person®, das changed conduct during the triai, He began it, under the incitement of its novelty and publicity, with an exuberance of confidence and a certain amount of enjoyment of tts droll- mess. He has for several days past been conspicu- ous for lis sobriety and negativeness, and tus coarsest adversary could not observe anything in his conduct to criticise, Yesterday he listened at; tentively with @ iace set to the key of beaven’s comiors and the pitcn of the eartp's satiety. He moved forward among his lawyers and spent that extent of time among them which showed that he designed to be saved by works as well as by faith. A nigh idea of nis intgliect 1s beld by lis adversaries at (he Bar, and they say that they see the very finest touches o! the de: lenge to his personal suggestions. His lofty forehead, his eyés, which are like natural cameras to receive ali the impressions of nature from forms to temperatures; his extended face, ampie in every feature, not one cruwa- ing the otper, and his high, ripe color, the mellow ripeness of an appreciative vld age, insen<ibiy atiract tue study aud admiration of men. That ue was created and periected to communicate to fellows the subticties and profound lessons of the lite of which they were apart is Manifest vy the exquisiteness of his sepsibilit his eXpresseu, ike a sensitive plant's, ase ect toucbes vim, ‘The command to go and preach would appear to have vecn superfiuous Lo tited with the splendor o! bis graces abd seusibilities, He looks the Man Ol Sorrows and acc looks af coe loity oracle, voluntarily speaking tue truths of an irresistible autuority. No woade ay we lave said before, that Ms people gatner ground him in citla-lke faith and tn him in- herent proois of the reality of bis comission aud inspiravion from on high. MUS. BEECHER was attentive as ever by ‘Is side yesterday, and drew a oead on Frank Mou.ton all day, She kept up the coid sintie, like sunsnine ou snow, she has nad ali this whe, and spoke sometimes to ber nusband and son, quaintly aad crisply. By Mr. Beecher’s side Was JUSTIN D. PULLON, the celebrated pastor of the bapvist church, who got in a suarp fignt with Tiicon some years ago on the subject of beer arinking. Fulton atracked Tilton’s laitiudinarian notions in the Jnlependent, it 16 said, on the subject Of drinking aie and veer, Tilton responded by saying that Folton himself had drank laver beer with Tilton at a Bowery gar- ainted with grief, He den alter one of Fustou’s sermons. Tuls was de- pied. A quarrel ensued and Tilton, be- ing inside = thes press, = got’ tae” nom- inal auvantage. This inc endeayored to have a press of bis OWn; but failing to get support tor it in Buston came to live in Brookiyn, wuere he puviishec the Outlook and re- ceived @ puipit. He bas Leen an ardent aavocate for close communion. His paper has perished; but with ius huge, browd bead, dark eves, chin figure and »pped whiskers, he waa consp.cuous as one of Tiiton’s old victims i happier years, Wilnam M. Evarts being another. For te frst time A PRIEST OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH appeared in court—Rev. Father Carrol, of St. Vincent de Paui’s caurcb, Wiliamsburz. He looked on very quietly, and had neither the ex- pression v1 pain nor enjoyment. THE USUAL SET OF FEMALE were present—filton, Field, Kaymond nd Shear man. They had precisely the Same seats and be- haved a8 usual, quietly and without inter. ference, There were no flowers. Mrs. Tiiton listens, looks around, keeps uer veil up and snows human nature, as li unaware tual just now human nature is teeing her Win great uniormity. It is @ bappy gift of Pi ovidence to make ail collars fit us, alter a while, without chafing. Littie Dorrit, raised in the Marshaisea Jail, took her itie as heroicaliy as Mrs. Tilton, coming somewhat iater mto Open court. Her manner is a good deal like that o/ the Irishman’s, Who, asked to piead guilty or not guiity, repiled that he could not say till he ad heard the evidence. She is getting it all. ON THE BENCH were Mayor Hunter, of Brouklyn; Associate Judge Reyuoids, woo formerly was the first lawyer of Brookiyn, aud State Senator Murphy. They ail watched the case without indifference, Tilton Was gr.ve aud quiet. MOULTON bmitted toa very polite and much improved style Of cross-examination without resentment or suiienpess, aud up to the wuddie of the alternoun session held bis own | Jairly, He i8 « study—not for anything mysterious in him, but for the apparent incompat- ability of sQeb coo: behavior with such a nervous temperament. he answers with readiness aod precision, ahd does not appear to require finesse to neutrasize the croas-examination. It 18 proba- bly the gatet cuituce ef 618 evenings and bis asso- | this cliuions which 1s hea | to his relief in ; 6 Le extremity. Tne hours has given to novler part of wis tind retura to do him service when vusiness habits, weaitn and Worldly comiort are superseded by the tuexorabie, Very Uitte Was obtaiped Irom Mr, Moulton yes- terday to affect tis jury. Much ¢ to be eliciied probably would have had no jury in- fuen Very much was inquire ing ureievaucy, and the perfect courtesy on both sides mae ihe rial of character by talent tue state O/ armed peutrality. WOODRUFF IN COURT. A very suggestive thing was appearance of Moulton’s seuior partner, Woodrud, who is not @ relative of mis, but, on tue contrary, a very con- servalive and uiutrusive man. He entered witn Moulton and sat by is side, and im this act uissipated the rumor that he wus Malcontent or dissatistied with Moulton’s beuavior. Woodruff is of the great merchan's o1 the period—a square, solld, unopiiivnated, gray-vearued man. fie ts a tae head of the reio;m party of brovkiyn, whica op- poses Witat is caiieu the King. To-uay the tesiimony reia‘es itself. TUB BYIDENCE. Francis D. Moulton crossexamined by Judge Porter—i bad the account you reierred to, aud banded tt to my bookkeeper to pat ti in shape, and 1 will have tt at one o'clock; Mr. Tliton's count he has iiimseli: if you choose I ¢ wcvounts at one time; i should say thatl saw Mr. Beecner almoss as irequently a# Mr. Tilton; Mr. Tilton was the most irequentiy at my house; we were in the habit of making excursions together auring the summer; we went ishing together and have been to Narragansett \ogeioer; 1 chink te Grst ation | passed with Mr. Tilton was in 1868; We were o0t in the West or Washington logetuer 1 Was in (oe navit of going to Lae Golden age office very frequeatly; | was in sympathy with the wo- man’s rights movewent; [| have been pres ent with Mr, Vilt-n at some of their con- ventions; it was a+ Newport; | do pot think we met in Richmond; | went down to see Me. Bowen upon a@ letter of sutuorization from Mr. ‘Tilvon to Mr. Bowen to setrie Mis account with Rim; ! acted as fis attorney, if that be attorney. ship; I think the ietier of authorization is quoced in Ny Statement; I have the original if itis in my statement; it las been among my papers aud ought tobe there now; Judge Morris anu Mr, Pea: sail have wy papers; tue autoortly trom Me, ‘Tilton mace me represent niin, Jud@e Morris taen vegan to look for the papor into 0! au amus- | Was sought | Mr. Beach—We object to that. Judge Nelson, however, did not sustain the ob» jecuon, and the witness proceeded: —!ne amount Was settled by arbitration; it was $7,000; 1 never received any mouey from Mr. Beecher, except jor the tultion Of Bessie Turner and ior Mr. Tiiton’s use; Ll reveived $5,000 In one amount, and some otuer sums were received from June, 1871, to May, 1573, making somewhere between $6,000 ana $7,000 in ail; | never visited Mrs. Beecher; my intimacy Ww ta her has been very slight; | bave met Mrs. Morse several tim very pleasantly when f met her; my relations with her were of a [riendly nature; I met ber once at Mr. Tilton’s and once in the house she was living im in Scherweruorn street; [do pot recvilect the date of my visi', wut. will try and remember beiore I leave tue stand; | have met Mrs. Hooker two or three times; I met her once in Richmond, at a woman's riguts meeting, tu Lo71; Leitner tntroducea Mrs, iiooker or Mrs, Davis to the audience at the s0- icitauion Of either Mrs, Hooker or Mrs, Davis; [ dio pov preside there ;.1 did not goto the conven- tion with either of those ladies; 1 went with my wile and son aud Mrs, Sarah Sutherland Eddy and her daughter; they were nut delegates to the con- Vention; on the evening of December 31,1 think it Was, When [went to Beecher’s house, f sald. to hun, “I nulerstand that Mrs. Beecher is repeating stories against Mrs, Tiltou; now such stories ougnt to be stopped; they only tend to increase troubies,”” and he said to me that Mrs. Beecher knew Mrs, Morse Was @ dangerous woman—tnat was the substance of what te said—and her en- mity to Mr. Tiltou might induce her ro usten to Mrs, Morse, aud he wouid try and control it; tuatis as near as | remember ; Mr. Beecher sometimes ou my advice, I should say very generally; Mir, Tutor acted sometimes coutrary to my aitivio disapproved of Mr. Tiiton’s letter to Mr. Beecner advising Mr, Beecher to resign and leave town— that 18 to say, | Gisapproved ol it Without the sig- nature of Bowen; the letter was compleced on either January 1 or 2; it was not sent to Mr. Bowen; I ‘did. oot disapprove of his writing the letter; I told uim he ought not to publish it; I ad- Vised him not to publish it. Mr. Beacn—There were two letters bearing the date inquired of by the counsel; it seems to me that there should be Some distinction made be- | tween them. Mr. Porter—There should be if there is the least doubt, You understand it to ve the letter in which he repeated tne Charges 0; Mr. bowen against Mr. Beecher? Moulton—Tnat is the letter [am addressing my- Sel! to, sir. Mr, Fulerton—There are two letters of January 1, Is7L. A. I did not kuow anything about that publication, nor did Mr. Tilton, as he told me al- terwards; | advised against its publication in Jan- uary, i871; 1do not remember that it was ever printed by Mr. Tiiton; 1do not remember that it was ever printed in tue Golden Age; [saw proois of an articie prepared by Mr. Tilton in whict was incorporated tois letter of Mr. Bowen's; Ladvised then against its publication; Mr. Tilton showed me those proois; I saw the poem “sir Marma- duke’s Musings,” after 1t was printed; 1 thought it ought not to have been published; i told him sv; 1 do not remember having heard of the bio- graphy of Victoria Woodhall jore it appeared; Idia not approve of the publication; | remember a letier to a Irtend in the Wi the letter you nave Just handed ine ts in Mr. Tuton’s band writing, Juage Porter then rea TO A FRIEND IN THE WEST. Livinaston Street, Brooxtys, Dee. 31, 1872. My Dxan Frtexp—I owe you aiong letter. I am un- weil and a prisoner in the house, leaning back in leather cushioned idieness, and wriling on my chau board be- fore the fire. Perhaps you wonder that i have a fire, or anything but a learthstone broken and crumbled, since the worid has been toid that my household is in'ruins. And yet itis more like your last letter—brimful of tove d Wil, and sparkling like a fountain in midwinter. Nevertheless you are right. Lam in trouvle, and [ hardly see @ path out ot it 11 is just (wo yeara ago to day—thie very day—the last © year, that Mr. Bowen litted his hainmer, and th an un/ust blow smote usunter my two contracts, dent aud the other with the Broos: ‘ion. The public little suspect that this act of lus ed on his fear to meet the consequences of horrib arges which he m st Henry Ward B tr. Thave kept quiet on ect for two years through ilingness to harm othe myseit oefore thy pubil time (or my vindication, 1 fi ned my diffeulties autil these no 2. Know that Bo’ that um ‘ago paid to me the pecuniary damages which grew out ot his br of the contracts, aud gave me a written y aud something like an apolog ement, so ras Mum c ed, 18 final. Assassinating against 1 e'gy man, not growing mercly, but exhaled with ev phiue’ Vapors, irom Bowen's ehary own “the tongue is a wild beast that no like a wolt n last four or flve weeks, or ever since [ saw the uli libel, Chave berdiy fad a restful day; and L whole thing over at night, Waking the ‘next morni t fur work. Ave you an. ‘eplion of what it isto euffer the keenest possible injustice? Uf not, cone and learn of me. Yo say nothing of the Wrong and insult to my wite, in whose sorrow | have greater sorrow, I have to bear the additional indiguity ot being misconstrued py halt the public and by wany triends. For instance, it is supposed that T had a conspirator's hand ip this unboly business, waoereas I am as innocent of tas ot the Nathan inurder, It is hinted that the livellous article was aciually written by me. wiereas (being in the norta of New Hampshire) Cdid not know of its existence till a week my own city and tamuy. My wife never named it in her iétters to me, lest it should spoil my mood tor pu king, (You know Iwas then tolling day and night ior Mr. Greeley’s sake). Q, too, it is the sneer ot the clube that I have de ated into an apostle ot free love, whereas the Whole body of my writings stands like a monument against thi rable theory. is charged that I am in financial and with Mrs. Woodhull, whereas I have not t, nor veen her tor vearly a yeur, muy acquaintance with her is tnis:—In . & few Inoaths after boweu charged us crime Knowa to hua oor of the Mudepenient in ling like Hercules to keep hen it was thac Mrs. Wood- yer to me, sudden Moreover, it and had and whi tine same identi ks ago. Think of st to suppress one earth- cal tale which she ; itl Waen f was d quake Mrs. Wood € stool! belore me portentous with ar it was I todo? | resolved at ail hazards to k W avalanche until L id securely U e original sturm. My feyr that she would si what she told to me, » prevent this catas! e I resolved (and. he ike a tovi, ana yet with af ) to nage her such a frien link of doing me such aharm. So n nt ‘services (including espe ink), all with a view lo put to me and mine proves, ure mot ould never d her s00 pine lavor {hold her o ® rose almost as high in my estimation as she had one la Beecher Hooker and other y¥ Who has not met Mrs. Wood idea ot the admirable im- is capable bf producing on serious ns. Moreover. I felt that the current denuncia- beth € ly Stanton ent women. ' Novi huil ean have an adequs pression which sh pers (ons against her were outrageously unjust, and. that, | like myself, She had been putin a false position betore the pubiic, und Usympathized keenly with the aygrava- tion of spirit which this produces, This tact teut a zeal to all [ said in her de: e. Nor wasit unul after had known her for a number of months and when I discovered her purpose to libel & dozen represenia'ive wouen ol the suffrage move- ment that 1 suddenly opened my eyes to her real ten deneles to misclie!, and toen it was that! indignantly repudiated her acquaintance and Uave never seen her since. lence her late tirade, Well, it is over. and I am left to be the chief sufferer | in the public estimation t to do im the emergency (which is not clearing puding itveltdutly) | have not yet decided. @ Wiat L could do would be to take from my Writing desk and publish to-morrow moruing the prepared nar- rauve and vindication, woich, with tacts and d5cu- ments, my legal Advisers pronounce complete. This Would explain and clarity everything, both and small (including the Woo (hull episode, which is but a minor partof the whole case), bat if 1 publish it I must not only violate a kind of honorable obligation. to be silent whieh I had voluntarily imposed upon myse!t, but | must put my old triend Bowen to a serious risk of being smitten dead by Bercher's hand How tar Bowen would deserve his fate cannot say; butt know that all flymouth Church would huat tit asa rat Well, perhaps the future will 1 without my own hand, bat, what ther-beaten self, i wisi to , & happy New Year. Fraternally yours, {EOUORE TILTON. P, 8, Before sending this long letter (which pays 1 debito you) | have read it to my wife, who de supplemeut it by sending her | vel my skein for me ver happens io wy w the and Yood wi litle white cottage anu its little red checas, Witness -I received that letter irom Tilton; 1 do not remember tue exact date I receiy PL: do not remember to whom it was aduressed; [do not Know to whom) it Was written; 1 do not know Whether it Was ever sent: It was given to we; L suppose 1 have held itever since; I know Mrs. Woodhuil; I believe J saw her first in the spring of 1871, somewnere iu April; I believe | met ber urst | at her house in New York; our next meeting, shortly erward,. Was at Tieodore Tilton’a a hand in bow | house; 1 can fix the date by re that appeared in the World gaw her suortly afcer tt rring to a card shortly atterward; f publication of Wat card; 1 had. never seen her beiore that inter- view; TY saw her within a day or two afvr the first imterview; Mr. Tilton was bresent at that interview; I had @ conversation with ber then; | aaw her afterward whenever tuere was occasion jor it, irom time to time; | saw her last in toe spring of i872; she was living then in Sixteenta street; | visited her accompanied by Theodore Tilton; he was with me when I visited her vetore; | have also wet ber in my own house; 1 do not remember ever stopplog over otght in the game honse with ber; | uever travelled with her: Loo not rememver ever (meeting her ourside of New York; my interviews with her lasted some- times an four, sometimes two hours; my inter- views with her were bot always confined to Mr, ‘Tilvon’s adairs; | lave made statemenss to ber in regard co the stories against My. Beecher; [ nave made statements to lier in regard to Mr. Tute | do not remember mentioning any ladies’ names to her relerring to the ‘Tilton business; I do not remember wat transpired at toe interview on the dist oF December in the presence of Mr, Beecher; I did bot read all Ber puviio statement; | do notremem- ver what part Tomitted; 1 never stated to her that | cook @ pistol and went to Mr. Beecher y burtet me like , nd, to my giad surprise | with Lucretia Mott, Eliza- | great | beseeching manner; you asked me & momen: ago | Whether 1 read any part of that statement or whether f read the whole of it; [can tell you; [ did read that part aoout the pistol scene, and I can Cell you Ol something that Wili ve of interest to you in regard to thal; Mr. Beecher asked me | about that partof it that reierred to the pistol scene, and asked me u I remem ered anyth about that pistol part; he said be did not; I said to Beecher | remembered about the pistol sven: Course there Was no threat, and I do not won ier | that he aid not remember it; [do not rememoer pringing Mrs. Woodhu.l to my house in a carriage bat I may have done so; ldo remember a conversa- tion at my house when she came there to sre Mr, Beeciier, when she tried to get lim to pres.de at her meeting; that meeting was arranged by a letter; 1 thing Mr. Beecher brougnt me that letter; | do not think [had heard about the letter being sent to oir. Beecuer; 1 nad a talk with Mr. Tilton about Mr. Beecner’s presiding on the same day he saw Mrs, Woodhuti at my house; I had no conversation on the subject previously; I did not tell Mrs, Woodhull that Land Mr. Tilion did not want Mr. Beecher to know that her letter came at our instance; [tnink Mrs. Wvodhuil dil not re- main at niy House that night; i never iound Mr. Titom at Mrs, Woodnuil’s house when I calied there; [%etleve he aiways leit when I leit; | dis- approved of tne Bacon letter; 1 advised ayainst its publication. f Q Did you advise against Mr. Tilton’s first state- Meut to the committee? A, Which do you con- sider as his first statement, Mr. Porter; he made three; there is a first, second and third statement to the commiitee; one was veroal. Q. They were not ail to the committee? A. Yes, sir. Q, The sworn statement ; you had advised against the one he culls the “sworh statement?” A. Yes, sir; that 1s the second statement, Q. Dia you advise against making that state- ment? A. Yes, sir, I did; [do pot kuow how Mrs, | Tilton found tuat ont; it was not from me; 1 do not think Lever told the pistol story, except to Mr. Tilton; | reported the interview ana what oc- curred there to him; 1 advised Mr. Tilton against publishing the true statement; 1b never was pub- lished; f condemaed Mr. Beecher tor obtaiming the retracnon from Mrs. ‘Tilton; 1 do not remember on the Sist of December or 1st oi January advising Mr. Beecher not to see Mr. Tilton; | do not remember on any occa- sion advising him noc to see Mr. Tilton, but to com- mufnicate throug me; | advised silence in regard to the Wvouhul calumny; he discussed puolish- | ing a denial to the libel; L aia not see how it could | be done; I had not read all of the Wooduall libel at coat time; [understood very well what It charged; I don’t think | have read all of it up to this hour; | have had conversations with people | about it; I knew the charge against Mr, Beecher that the article contained; I did’ not know it was to come before it appeared; I needed to read | @ portion of it in order to find out what they did | charge; [read more than that portion about my- | Seif; 1 think 1 read the portion prejudicial to Mr. Beecher; [ do not know What else the articie con- tained; the alterations lu the Zagle card were made by Mr. Kinselia, with my concurrence, Judge Porter then read:— ‘ Lhave seen in the morning papers that application has been made to Mrs. Victoria Woodbuii tor certain letters of mine, suppo Moulton (interrupting) —What page? Mr, Porter—247. | for certain letters of mine, supposed to contain intor- mation respecting certain iifamous stories against me. She has two business letters, one declining an invitation to a suilgiye meeting and the other to give her assistance soicr These aud ali the letters of mime in the hands ol any other person they have my cordiat assent to publish. 1 wali only gdd in this €onnecuon that the stories and rumors wffich have fora time been cireu- lated about me are grossiy untrue, and I stamp them 1 general and in particular as utterly taise. Judge Porter—Why dia you concur in striking out tuis word ‘4alse” and tusert the word “un- truer? A, [ do not rememver why the word “false? was cut out and the word “untrue” in- serted; tue phraseology Was made by Mr. Kinsella. | Judge Fullerton then stated that he thought | there Was a nusprint somewhere, and when the original document that “faise” was correct. Witness—I told Mr. Beecher he might fall into a mistake by call ng tue committee of investigation ; by advice of couuse! I wrove uim tue letter that { did on August 4; 1 was not in’ litigation at that time, nor did I expect to be; my adviser told me to write that letter; General Butler was my viser; he wrote mea letter on June 29 or that was the first that I heard from him; I had not written to him belore; he bas been a friend to me before—an adviser, the same as hé was in this case; 1 have never paid hiw @ fee or employed him as a lawyer; Ido not think be was ever connected with our eQaiys in Wastington; he had been counsel for Mr, Jayne agains Dota relation between him and me, sir; I don’t understand the quest.on in that way; that was not a re.ation between Mr, Butler and myself; he was the counsel jor Mr. Jayoe, and never was counsel forme except When he was my adviser; | there was no frtendly advice while be was counsel against us; the tricndly advice began io this mat- ter; General Butier 18 a personal inend of mine; he Was but so when he Was counsel for Jayne in the sults ugainst our firm; Afr. Tilton “tatro- duced General Butier to me; we settled with tie government; we made @ settlement through Mr. Jayne; Ihave known Mr. Jayne ever since that’time; | have not conierred with Mr. Jayne ou Mr. Beecner’s affairs: we have had con- versations adout it in New York; 1! did not sen, jor him iu regard to it; | remember seeing him a the buth Avenue Hotei; | tamk General Butler wrote mé that letter on June 29; he has acted since as my adviser; there 1s a uiflerence between counsel and adviser; my letter of August 4 was written oy him; the letter of August 5 was not written by him; lt wasarepiy to Mr, Beecher’s of August 4; that letter was written by myself, in conjunction with Theodore Tilton; Mr. Tilton was | not present when General Butler wrote the lette: of August on the suvject; I have lawyer’s .ees to General Butler; I have not paid anything to any counsel in tois matter; I have not engaged to pay any o! the fees in this case; 1 have not contributed to the ex- peuses of this litigation in any form; | do not tuiitk [ have contributed to the publications that bave been made irom time to ume; | have paid nothing and promised notuing; all that I paid was lo my, own litigation. Q. In connection with the indictments ? Mr. Beacn—Walt one moment, I object to any evidence of auy libei suit, i Judge Neilson—all that I have ruled out, Mr. Evarts—lt docs not bear upon this witness in Weigaing His testimony by the Court or jury. [ Unuersiany, Your Honor, that when we offered to Show (ne atcigude of this witpess under the pudll- cation of thi Suits for libels, you ruled that that does not con- sutute evidence (o affect his credit with the jury &6 to His Statements in this case Judge Neilson—t so ruled. it has been decided Tnoge than once in this case that a crimial tndict- ment does not afiect the testimony of the witness. Mr. Evarts—I do not say that, but tt 13 tnat he ts made a party delendaut on tue same side o! a con- trovers» in which he now appears as a witness. In the condition o! persecution, i you please. | don’s care whether it 1s persecution or not, Judge Nelison—i don’t know tuat it 1s. Mr. Evaris—Nor 1; but that he holds that post- tion In regard to the suita fled against him, justly or unjustiy. He is indicted for libel against Mr. Beecner, Judge Neilson—That does not affect him here, | Mr. Evarts—You so rule? Judge Neilson—! so rule, | Mr.“ Evarts—anything that goes to show the @nimus or opposiiuon between the witness and the | party against whom he 16 testifying 1s primary evidence to show that he ts not @ disinterested and impartial witness, butis iimself a party 1 the controversy, and now we Offer this position if all these suits a8 evidence tuat he is not an im. Partial witness, but is & party to the controversy, | . Judge Neiison—{ am rullug on the assumption that some third person not named has had, or has. some litigauion with the witness, a case in wh | that third person was the mover. We ha already that shis Witness is hostile to the a: | aut, avowed by nimseli yesterday. That iact dis- thietly appears. Mr. Evarts—tiave we tt down on the record vhat he has Said that ue is a hostile witness ? never paid any Mr, Evarts—On, their friendly re ations ceased, That is hot an avowai Uiwt be is nostiie and bit | terly nos Judge Neilson—Your indictment ta broad enough. hr. Bvarts—That the jury will yndge of Judge Netlsou—i tuimk you wust ve content With an exception. Mr. sris--Buts Your Honor tells me you ex- clude it on the idea that it 18 @ mere transaction with a wird person. In part, M "Jods arts—Well, in part. Then the part that Will @ chird pi o1— Neilson—Is ruled out. Dir, Evaria—She third person! Bow ts ita thira person? Judge Neiison—On your statement, thata thira person has Wrought suzt against the witness, Mr. bvaris—Aud he bag been indicted, Judge Netisou—He has been indicted and ta the deieudant, wd Mr. Evarta—We don’t offer the indictment as proving its trath. } offer tt as a prosecution agaiust lim on the compiatnt of Mr. Beecher, and your Honor excludes that aa not bearing on the question as to Whether the witness 1s biassed. Judge Neilsou—It is very clear to me. A bring an action against B lor a large estate. B cannot wurh aroand ana bave the chief witness indicted in order to aifect his testimony betore a jury. Mr. bvarts—J offer it as aifecting the animus of the wituess, able, If Your Honor pieuse, . Jude won—L au very clear abont this. Bos wis y extended remarns. Mr. Evaris—f do bot propose to argue it any further; bat i propose to take Your Honor’s raling Ido in dente form. We offer to prove vy this wh | heas we positiem in which he stands tn relerence both to tie puble prosecution aad the crvil suits that nave wrown up since this controversy be- tween mr. Tilion and Mrels hia suit. We will embrace tue who Honor rules them out. Judge Netise es. Mr. Evaris—Now { olfer cach of the matters sep. | arately, und take Your Hovor s ruiug. Judge Nelison—They wui ue so found, and I make the same roling. The Court then adjourned until two P. My AFTER RECESS Francis D, Mou'ton was recalied, and his cross examination Was resumed by ex-dudge Porter. Lie Was questioned as Wo Mis teller of Augasi 6. and and Your and demanded a paper from him under threat of Vd T but as they could not fing tt Judge Fullerton sug- ) f " ested that they ase the printed copy and substi. instant death; T never stated auytu.ng to that | i} iF ture theorigimal when it is found. effect; I never charged Beecher With a piteous, 4 shit Vid Judge Porcer then read;— ' 3 of Was eXumiued 3¢ was found | us in that business; that was | be bad not been coaterred with | indictments, and under the civil | Judge Neilson—Their Irtendly reiationa ceased, | Cheve things are quite disunguisu- | ener arose other than | | whatit meant: He replied that it wasa repiy to a lever from Mr, Beecuer, dated August 4, Q At the the that reply was prepared was any one | resent except you and Mr. Tilton? A, ldo not remember, Q. Wuo vid the writing of that letter ? A. Theo- | dore tiiton; I do not remeber whether I en- | grossed (tor not; do not remember if it was in my havdwriting; f think It was engrossed by & | copyist:; it Was im repiy to Mr. Beecher’s letter of | the previous day, | Letrer handed to witness, The witness read the court ail the time, Having read it, the witness said, “That is the document.’ Mr. Evaris—We propose to read the letter to | Which the document just read vy the witness was an answer. Your Honor tnought the letter was not necessary, because the testimony sowed the friendly relations that existed between Mr. Mouttun ana Mr, Beecher beture the 28th of July letters, The reai point of the letters was to show the triendly relations between these parties, The witness stated that those relations had been Iriendly, but thas could not be gathered from the letters, @3 there was novwing hostile in them, But the letter of Mr. Beecher to Mr. Moulton became the subject | Of aconterence between Mr. Moulton and Mr. ; Tilton. They then prepared this answer, which Mr. Tilton drafted and Mr, Moulton signed. They | then sent tc forth, Tat, therefore, makes it an actin which this plainuf participated, | part of the transaction between those two parties | in reference to che investt | of tne investigation, The letters stood in Your | Honor’s appreciation o1 them, as mere letters of | Mr. Beecher, because, whether or not they broke off their retations, Your Honor willsee by those letters that when they come tbe an act of Mr. | Tiiton in withnolding access to Mr. Beecher, that ; Was the immediate concern Mr, ‘Tilton had with the matter, Mr. Beach—There was a letter addressed by Mr. Beecher to Mr. Moulton on the 24th of July making @ request for letters and papers connected wita this coutroversy, That letter, without our objec- tion to it, 18, I believe, in evidence. I believe, also, the le‘ter uf Mr. Beecher to Mr, Moulton of the 28th of rig 1874, was also given in evidence, Mr. Porter then proposed to read the Fenty. of Mr. Beecher, bearing cate August 4, 1874. 1 ob- jected to that letrer, and it was ruled out, on the ground that the statements made by Mr. Beecher to Mr. Moulton respect'ng detais, parvicularly oi what was satd to be the origin O1 the breach of their friendship, were tnadmissible—that any par- | ticulars of the controversy between ihe wituess and Mr. Beecher could not afect the declarations or introduce the declarations of Mr. Beecher and the witness as bearing upon the main issu: of tms controversy. lam not aware, sir, taat the letter to which reference is now made, August 5, 1874, was then presented or discussion or consicera- tion, Lam not aware that any offer was made of that letter, or any objection wade to it on our be- hadi. ihe oniy objection we made, or pow offer to make, is to the le ter of (arya 4, by Beecher to Mouiton. If the object of the ietter oi August 518 to lay @ foundation for letting in the letter of Mr. Beecher 01 August 4, why, then, we object, 80 posed to prove declarations on the part of Mr. ; Tilton, im 80 iar as those declarations are material | to the main issue. [see no oojection to their in- | troduction; but I desire to press the objection | maue yesterday, on which Your Honor ruted, in rejerence to Mr. Beecher’s letter or August 4 I stated yesterday what I supposed to be the rule of law, witnout any specific examipation of the ques- tiou in regard to tne admissibility Of the detais of conversations between @ witness and a party against whom he 1s introduced for the purpose of | prea the presence of malice or ill will, 1 have | looked at the case of Poynton vs. Poyaton, decided tn the Court of Appeals, and at page 280 of tne re | port from which I quote there is the following Janguage :— | . In anacuon for slander the plaintiff, as a witness*on | his own behalt, stated, on cross examination, that he } had htigation with the defendant. tie was then asked | how many suits he had with him and the causes of | action. Held that the Court delew properly exciuded So much of the inquiry as relited to the causes of action, it Wx8 in Lo Way inaierial or pertinent. to the rysue, its | materiality consisting solely on the bearing ot the credit due to the phantif as a witness, aud was, therefore, only coliateral to the issue, Now, sir, the authorities seem to me peculiar}: applicable to the preseat question here. The diti- cuities which are supposed to exist because estrangement and ill lecling between the witness | and Mr. Beecher were connected with the very | Subject of the litigation of this action, and if ina | controversy bevween the witness and Mr, Beecher witness 1s permitted to make declar: tions which are muterlal to tue main issue which directly effect ‘she interest of Mr. Tilton and this litigation zere, Your Honor will | perceive by tbat mode of inquiry Mr. Beecher is | permitted to produce his declarations toa third | party against us while we were not present. If necessary, sir, 11 you will permit me, | wiil look a | Moment to the opinion, which may be tulier than ; the marginal note, The opinion says, sir, “The | evidence proposed to be given by the answer that so .nuch Of the question a8 Was exciuded was in no Way Material or pertinent to the issue found between the parties, and which lormed the sub- ject of the trial, Its materiality constituted solely its bearing upon the credit due to the plaintii! as | @ withess, and Was, tuerejore, collateral in ite na- ture, Inquiries of this character must necessarily be made in another way, otnerwise the trial of issues upon feelings would be often so far ex- tended by them as to Obscure the real points in- volved in the controversy, and obscure the minds of the jurors cailed upon to decide them, The ob- ject of such inquiries 18 to show that the witness may be giving his testimony under some ‘feeling or impuise inconsistent with an im- Partial disclosfre of the truth. It is not material to imquire the particuiar process or the detail of circumstances by means of which that feeling may have been produced, for the fact | Itself is all that the case can require to be proved, | and ali that the jaw will permit to be shown. The discovery oi the motive under which the witness at the time be giving his evidence 1s the end and object to be attained, and that can always be accomplished by the direct inquiry concerning its existence or concerning the facts tuem- | selves, ordimartly indicating the existence of | improper motives. It is sufficient to show | that the = dimiculty affecting bis teelungs and | ikely to infuence bis eviuence exists between | the witness and the party it may ve given | against, and that can always be shown without pursuing a detailed inquiry into the circum- stances attending its development.” That au- thority, sit, very aviundantly sustains the prop- osition which I submitted to Your Honor yester- aay and which you at once ‘recognized as jaw, Now it may be Said, sir, that this ietter of Mr. | Beecher, upon August 4, necessarily came auder the observation of Mr. Tilton at the time he was engaged mutually with Mr. Moulton in preparing she reply to tbat instrument. it will be ior Your | Honor’s considerauon how far the presentation of that letter to Mr. Tilton—il it was submitted to him, which does not appear—and now iar his ac- ceptance or repudiation of the statements of that letier may be admissible. Certainly, suiicient yet has not been given to allow the production of that letter under that aspect of the question. Mr. Evarts—As | understand this iefer was not objected to. Mr. Beach—I object to that letter, or any part of that letter whica, in the judgment of Your Honor, will lay a foundation sor the imtroducuon of Mr. Beecher’s letter. The Judge—Mr. Kvarts may read the last letter. WHAT MOULTON SAID TO BEECHER WHEN ASKED FOR DOCUMENTS, i Counsel for plaintiff tuen read the letter as fol- ows :— No. 49 Remsen Senet, Aug. 5, 1874. Rey, Hexrv Warp Berouri :— My Dear Sir—tin all our acquaintance and friendship I | have uever received trom you a letier of the tone of ‘ourgot August 4. It seems uniike yourseli, and wo have deen inspired by the saine til ndvisers wiro had 50 Lament ably carried your private aifairs betore a commitiee of ¢ your church ‘and theace veiore the public. * in reply, let me remind you that during the whote of | the past four years all tue documents, notes and memor- | anda, which ‘you and Mr. Titou have imtrusted to me, have been so tutrusied because they bad a reterence to | your inutual difereices. i hold no papers, either of yours or Jia, except such as bear on this case. You speak of “memoranda of affairs not | Mediately connected with Mr. Tilton's ti | You probably allude here to ‘the memorand: | your diMeuities with Mr. Bowen, but these have @ direct | Fete to your present case with Me ‘ilton, and | were ¢ ‘ited with me by you because of such reter- ‘ence, You speak aiso of a letter or two trom your | brother and sister, and iam sure you have not iorgotien the apprehension which entertained lest Mra Hooker should fulfil a design which she toreshadowed to gnvade your pulpit and read to your congregation # confession ‘of your intima with Mrs, Tilton. ou speak | your wishes.” Th fect to Mr. hd uch, nor do f be The papers wi kiven to me to e * parties. Bit th them bas been, and sti ts, to pr party from bey imjuriously exercised 1 any sub- ito. (both yours and hi | to the wishes of Ject of my holdin the wish 0! against the on are incorrect in saying that Mr, Tilton had access tom lepository of materiaia” On the contrary, L | have refused Mr. Tilton such access During the rauon of his ementhe came tome and his case vy pplews vuless I pertucted him the use of all the documents, but I recua Hite fini writing: ot voyrs wh me to be re | from my tips in sh tg! the pap | htrprtee ia ean possibly What idie rumors may have existed in newspaper offices | Kilow not, Lut they have not come trom me. osing yous letter you say, “LGon't ask You to place mmittee dny papers which Mr." liton "ma inade from time to you had ot which I Mr. Tilton has see session, and would b facts of the case than you rthand. my vp ne entir have given you, but I do orth wit place before’ the cominitiee hi have ritten or deposited with n reply, Lean oniy say that I cannot justly place before the commltiwe the ers of ong of the partes without doing the same with apersof tbe other, and [cannot do this honorably pt either by logal process compelling, me or ise by | sent in writing. not only of yourselt, but of Mr. Til ton. if whom i shai couter co the subject as speedily osslle ‘ow will, 1 trast, see # groater spirit of justice in this reply than you have iniused into your Unusual letter of August & Very rospecttully | KANOIS D, MOULTON, | Mr. Evarts—We offer in evidence the letter to which the one just read 13 an answer, i having been communioute? to and read oy Mr, Tuton, Mr. Beach—That may ve true, but It does not appear in evidence, and, in mny judgment, tt should appear from the witness’ direct examination whether the coutents of the letter were communi Cated to Mr. Tiltou or now Mr. kvarts—There ts no pretence that there is any other lever of the dita of August than the oue ibave read, Every word oj the i@.ter of August 6 Was written by dir, ititon, and tn that letter be makes turee seperate quotaions from Mr. Beecher’a letter of August 4. One principle | 0 evidence the writer of an answer to a letter | 1. USt be hold to have Knowledge of the letter he auswers. Itis aiact Wiigin nu KNOW cdg! Mr. bie hat would ve true U the letter to which tl letter at great length, adead stience reigning tn | It is a | tion or the suppression | far as it 18 DOW offered, and s0 far as it 18 pro- | f | Script from the books of tue account 1 other papers, which I hold “subject to , and ail be could | rpoly Was uddresae! was adaressed to | NEW YORK HERALD, WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 20, [875.—TRIPLE SHEET | the party making the reply. It does not appear that the quotations were given to Mr. Moulton to be embodied jn the letter, The Jadge—I think tt would be desirable to in- terrogate the witness on the subject. Mr. Evarts—Does Your Honor rule that the let- ter is not evidence at present? | _ The Judge—I express a wish to hear the wit- ness’ statement in regard to the matter, was then interrogated in regard to He said that the passages were quoted in the reply by Mr, Tilton and himseli; the latter was a reply to the letter of Mr. Beecher of August . hia etter was drawa up by Mr, Tilton and imself, ‘the Judge—I think the letter may go in now. BEECHER REBUKES MOULTON AND WANTS HIS PAPERS. Counsei read the letter as below :— Brooxiys, August 4, 1874. ¥,_D. Mocttoy, E 9 icc lanta Sin—Your Totter, bearing date August 4, 1874, ts this minute received. Ailow me to express my regret and asconishinent that you refused me permission even to | see certain letters ind papers In your possession rei ting to the charges made aguinst me by Theodore Tiiton, ani at the reasons given for the refusal, On your solemn and repeated assurances of personal | friendship, and in the unquestioning confidence with | which you inspired me of your honor and fidelity, # | placed “in your hands for sale keeping vi | letters addressed to me from my brocher, my sister | and various other parties: also inemoranda of affairs not immediately connected with Mr. Tilton's matters. | Lalso trom time to time addressed you confidential notes ; relating to my own self as one tried would write to an- ovher. “‘Thesé papers were never placed in your hands | to be held tor two parties, nor to be used i any way. They were to ve held for me. I do not wish them to be suvject torisk of loss or scattering from my careless habits in the manner of preserving documents They | were to be held tor me. In so far as these papers were concerned, you were only @ friendly trusice, holding papers subject to my wishes. Mr. Tilton has made a deadly assaglt upon me, and has used ietters and (ragments of letters purporting to be copies of these papers. Are these extracts xenuine ? Are they garbled? What are their dates? What, it any- thing, has been left out, and what putin? You refuse my demand tor these papers on the various pleus that if | speak the truth in my statement Ido not | need them; thatarl make ‘eessin! use of them it will be an injury to Mr. Tilton, that you, a8 a friend of both parties, are bound not to aid either'in any act that shall injure the other. ‘But I do not desire to injure any one, but to repel injury attempted upon me by the use of pypers commt erédly toyour care. These documents have been seen 1 copied; they have been hawked for sale in New York newspaper offices: what purport to be my confidential notes to you are on the market. But when I demand a sivht of the originais of gle ot which you are only trustee, that I may defend myself, you refuse, because you are the friend of both parties! Mr. Tiltos has access to your depository for material with which to strike ine, bat ot permitted to use them to defend myself! I do not ask you to place before the committee any Papers which Mr. Tilton may have given you. But Tao demand that you fortawith plage before the committee every paper which I have written or deposited with you. Yours truly, H, W. BEECHER, TILTON’S ACCOUNT WITH WOODRUFF & ROBINSON, A copy of bank account between Tilton and Woodruff & Robinson was here handed tn vy coun- sellor@efendsnt. lt commenced in January, 1871, Being handed to the wituess he said tt was a copy | Of the account of his firm with Theodore Tilton; he believed it was correct; their accountant made it. The paper was put in evidence, and Mr, Hill, of counsel for the defendant, read it, a8 follows Theodore Tilton in account with Woodruff & Robin- sons— DEBTOR. 1871—February 3, cash. + $500 00 February 14 cash 500 09 February 94, cash 500 00 Mareh 4, cas 90 00 March & cash 1,500 00 May 3, cash. + "600 00 Rovember 18, cnsh. 111s 62 fovember 25, cash. 1872—January 27, 1,009 00 April 26, cash. 1 00 May 27, cash. 100 00 May 27; cash 0 00 May 27, cash x 500 00 Sune 8 CASN. sess cesesereese 4 &) 00 June Il, to Woodruff & Robinson, guardian, interest on bond and mortgage. 240 60 ugust 12, cash, . @ = Angust 22 cash! baat 00 September 1, onsh. : 843 1 November 8, F. Woodruff, guardia est on boud ana mortgage. 297 5 November 8, cash 500 00 December 2%, cash. 0 00 1873—April 21, cash .. 170 48 cuxpr, & 1871—January 7, by cash . $1,004 33 ‘ May 1, balance of int 452i Novemver 13, balan count 500 00 November count iia 250 00 | 1872—Janaary 2,0 accomt 1,00 0 7,000 00 April, 5, balance of interest on account, a 5 , balance oF inierest on account 100 00 November 28, balance of interest on ac- count... pees see 726 1873—April 21, balance of interest on account. . Ww Od Total... $12,951 45 BEECHER tN ACCOUNT WITH MOULTON, The paper which] now produce purports (said the witness) to be an account of the receipts and | disoursements uf moneys received by me irom H. W. Beecher; it is a corredt statement as far as taken trom the books; I believe one or two checks haye | been Jeft out; [ think there were two payments in | currency besides that account. the paper 1s offered in evidsace. DEBIT SIDR. 1S71—July 19, paid Rev. ©. C. Beattie, check. $155 27. August 4¥, paid Mrs. Tieo. Tiiton, check, $2, 1¥72—Januiary 19, paid Mr. Theo. hitun §) May 2s, paid Rev. A. M, Reed, check, $247 76. j May 25. paid Mrs: 1. Tilton $25, July §, paid Rev. A. M. Reed $118 12 October 24, paid Mrs, Tilton $50. 1875—-March 7, paid Rev. C. C. Beattie, check, $845. April 5, paid Mra 7. Tilton balance of $600, $225. May 8. paid Theodore Hilton, check,.$1 July sI, paid Tilton, indorsed’ by 0. W. Ruland, attor- ney, check, $350, August lo, paid Theodore Tilton, check, $280; Septem- ber Lz, paid Theodore Tilton, olieck, $300; september $0, check, rheodore Tilton, $5.0: December 9, paid Taeo- dore Tilton, check, $20, December 16, paid A. M. Keed, check, $20 % 74—Kebruary 24, paid Theodore Tilton, Mrs. Theotore Tilton, cash tor check, $50); March 30, "paid Theodore Titon, O. W. Kuland, Check, $40; May 2. Theodore Til- n. indorsed Golden Age, by O. W. Ruland, attorney, May 26, paid Theodore Tilton, check, $300; tooting in pencil, $6,075 15. cRepIT sipK. 1871—June %, received check of H. W. Beecher, $15 85; enber 14, received check of Il. W. Beecher, $150, received check of H. W. Beceher, $294 76. eurusry 18, recelved $50); May 2X received In peneil, footing $6,100 61. Witness said—These starements were taken | froin the books oO: the firm of Woodruff & Robin- son; the cntries were made at the dates on the dooks; itis taken from my own in- | dividual accogut im the leiger. Ip reply to Mr. Porter, the Witness said he would bring the ledger to-morrow to show vim how it was ment Ws an extract from witness's account with the firm. Q How does it happen that all the sums re- ceived by you Irom Mr. Beecier do rot appear in tne account? A. [tuink there were some sums whicn | received in currency, and whicu U im- mediately paid ut; [did not deposit them; these do not appear in tue account, : Q. That occurred in several instances? A. I do ; Mot know; 1 think in one or two; I have no means | of ascertaining tnia, as 1 did not keep a memora: posited to my credit. Q. Ifthe books show an account between you | and the firm, how does tt show an individuai ac- | count between you and Mr. Beecher? A. Itis put | down so from & memorandum. { received the ac- count [rom our accountant. | believe yr. Tilton has one of nis own. Mr. Porter—We would like to have the ledger. What does it show? A. It shows my credit account and the checks that I paid out Q. Whatis there on the books to show to who the checks were paid’? A. The account which is kept Lbere Was paid Irom no other money than that of Mr, Beecuer, Q. What is there to show that the money was received {rom Mr. Beecher? A. ‘he credit on the book 13 irom Mr. Beecher to me. If you allow me | Lwiil show you. | The counsel here handed the witness the bal- | ance sheet to which ue relerred as tia traa- etween Henry Ward Beecher and Francis D. Moulton, and tue latter, quietly perusing the paper, read aloud | various items o1 Sums received irom Mr. Beecher, | Wita the date and the amounts set iorth, and the parues, chiefly Mr. and Mrs, Tilton, to whom the money was paid from time to tune, | amount received comes out as $5,000, Q. In the accounts of your firm can it be shown | what were the financial transactions between | yourselt and Mr. Tilton, or were these accounts | Kept separate? A, ihe account was between mysell aud Mr. Titon, | q If L-understand you, there was no account sir; bhere was not. Mr, Beecher on the books of the firm? A. No, sir. Q. The occasion for this account appearing on the book was onty to iniorm you woen money Was | recetved irom Mr. Beecher und when tt was pata | Out by you im ks on the firm’ A, Yes, sit. Wuen you made currency paymeuts from Mr. Beecher and when they were not given | through the firm there would, snen, be nO ac | Gountentered of? A, No, sir, Q Have you got a compieté account of the money which you ¢ itrom Mr, Beecher? A. | No. sir; tuere is no complete accoums of ib Unless that bea complete one. } QQ. Am ito inier, then, that all tee money you | received from Mr. Geecber is not accoun’ed (of on \ this paper? A. Twice, I selieve, I eived money trom Mr, Beecher Wuich is not entered there. Q. Did you receive money from fim turee tim that is pot bere? A. Lam sure L did not receive from bi three times; 1 snouid say toat | wave not recetved it ‘rom him three times, Q Can you state, sir, the total amount received by you irom Mr. Beecher? A. | caanot, sir. Q How much did you receive on any of these occasiuns? A. On one occasion | Deveve I received | $300 from him, or thereabouts, Q. How much at the otnes time? A, About $500 I should think, Q Did you receive, tn January, 1871, from Mr, Tilton $4,000? A. Wuid, Q When was the first draft made om that money? A. The first drait was inade on February 3, 1871. Q. Did the $5,000, which you received from Mr. Beecner, enter into that accoun’ of Mr. Tiltou's which kept, im anything? A, No, sir; 1 don't think it did, Q. Do you know how Mr, Tilton kept his money accounts before he piaced the $4,000 in your care? A. He kept ls money, | believe, in Vank aud with indiviouals. . % . | Q, Tiis $4,000 was money which Mr. Tilton gave | you to be depositea? A, Yes, sir; it was. @ Was this money given vou by him ourrency respective | this state- | | dum; as I received cnecks i hada the money de- | The total | then, between your drin and Mr. Beecher? A. No, | Q. Nor was there any account between you and | orin checks? A, I think {t was in checks, but I don't remember positively. Q, Waa there # deposit of $7,000 about April 5 With you, and on woose account was itmade? A. That was on Henry C, Bowen's check. Q. When was the Golden Age establisned, Mr. Moultou? A. It was established in March, 1871. Who was the editor and proprietor of the len Age? A. Theouore Tilton was, Q. Was be the pubdisher of the paper also? A, Yes, sir. A. l really Q. Was Mr, Tilton’s paper a success? gout knew, bow that stands; it is still in exist- ce, | Q. Wergthere assurances of stance made in ; the enterprise? A, Certain parties said they we uid contrioute M{ the paper suould prove suc- 5s! Q. Did you contribute to the undertaking? A. I Sonar DUH $1,500, and 1 subscribed $5,000 to- ward it, Q. What was the date of your subscription ana contribution? A, I don’t remember exactly. Q Was it before or after the publication? A. Probably belore the pubitcation, Q. Can you state when you patd the $1,500—was it that same year? A. lt was that spring, I think. Q. Did you receive a note from Tilton for the | money? A. did, and I returned him the note | beiore the close of the year; his notes were made payavie if the paper was a success, cf What was the date of the note? A. [cant | say; the uotes were arranged by my partner, Mr. Woodruft; | gave back the note to Mr. Ti Q. Was that alter the pubiication of tne life of Victoria Woodhull? A. 1 believe it was, but I am not certain about that. Q. What interval occurred between the receips of these notes and ther return? A. The notes were all returned in the latver part of 1871, L think. ). What was the aggregate amount of your con. tribution toward the Golden age? WA. lt was- about—I don’t remember exactly, M Beach here objected to questioning the witness ag to fis busiuess relations with Mr. ‘Tilton, and Mr. Evarts said that though this line of evidence might aot be in itself pertinent, 1% wouid be shown to be important as connecting facts which they would elicit from his answers, ae isda regarded the line of evidence as proper. 3 What were the conditions upon which these notes were made payable? A. They were only made payabie in case the Golden age proved a ee a he attempt t blish th Q. Wid the attempt to publish the paper prove a success? A. It was carried on, but Plows know Whether you will consider it in the light of a suc- cess, Q. What was the object of giving the notes back? A, It was im accordance with an under- standing with my partuers that each member of the firm should give his own notes, Q. Did any other member of your firm contribute toward the paper? A. Yes, sir, Q. Did you lend Mr. Tilton ‘any*other money ? A. Yes, sir; I lent him money from time to time. Q. Is there any account in eXistence of the money you lent him? A. No, sir; I lent bim | money whenever he was in want of it, Q. How did you pay bim the money—in what form? A, Sometimes in checks, Q. Have you got any of these checks? A. Well, I think 1 have some of these checks, Q, Let us see them; have you no others here ? Mr. Beach objected to witness being culled upon to give the evidence until the checks are pro- duced. | _Q. How long have you been lending Mr, Tilton | Money? A. Ihave lent him money from April, 1871, to the present time, How much would the total sum lent amount | to? A, It is within $2,000, 1 think; it does mot amount to over $3,000, | _ Q. Did you indorse the notes you gave him?, A. T didn’t indorse his notes, nor aid I become re- sponsible for them, Q. What amount had you belonging to Mr. Til- ton at the time you received the $3,000 from Mr. Beecher? A. I don’t Know, sir, * i Q Nor what it approximated to? A, No, sir. | Q. Did Mr, Tilton draw money in checks from ; your firm? A. He drew in cuecks, I think, or | came himeelf tor @ check. The Beecher counsel here indulged ina brief | Consultation, and when Mr. Porter again broke | the silence he did 80 saying, “I will now, Mr. | Moulton, take @ step back and come down to tae incidents of the evening of December 30, 1870, Q. On that day did Mr. Tilton come to your house or did you go to his house?. A. He came to my house; alter leaving my house I went to Mr. Beecher’s house and met him at the door. Q. Did you meet him in a iriendly spirit? A. Yes, sir; I met nim in a friendly spirit. Q. Were you peremptory in your manner | When you met Mr. Beecner on that.occasion, or were you polite? A, Iwas politein manner to | bim, sir. Q. Wiil you state what you said to Mr. Beecher? | A. [said to Mr. Beecher Mr. Tilton wants you to | come to my house, and he replied that it was prayer meeting night and he could not get away; 1 said to nim he bad better get some one else to attend the prayer meeting and leave with me. | .Q. Did-you tell him why Mr. Tilton wanted him ? | A. 1 said iv was in regard to a letter and nis re- lations with Mr. Tiltow’s family and in regard to @ letter trom Mr. Bowen. Q. You iad heard of that letter before? A. Yes; | I heard of it from Mr, Tilton. ae Where did you first hear of it? A, At his Ouse. Q. vid Mr. Tilton call to see you about the letter? A. No, sir; he sent ior me, | Q. Did he give you the letter to read? A. No, | sir; he toid me what the substance of the letter | was, } _Q What was said about the contents of Mr. ; Bowen’s letter? A, He said that Bowen had wold him of Mr, Beecher’s adulteries, and that he had | told Bowen that Mr. Beecher had made unhand- | some advances toward his wife, and he told me | that Bowen charged various atulteries on | Beecher, and that he hdd made coufessions of them, i Q, Did he specify the adulteries or the names of | the parties with whom they were committed? | A. He did not specily the adulteries or the par- } ues. Q. Did you ask him about them? A. I askea him what unhandsome advances had been made | to is wile, but he would not say; he said that | Bowen promised to furnish him with the evidence | of the aduiteries, but had not done so; he gave that information to me as an excuse for his not having Bowen's signature to his ietter to Beecher; , [took @ memorandum of what he told me at the | time and used {tin my statement. | _Q Was that the day on which you noted the pre- | cise hour in which you came in Enis connection im } AY beak to the alleged intimacy between the plaine til and deiendant? a. { noted it down on @ paper when Tilton gave me the information, |" Q Have you got that paper? A. I have the paper—tt is here. Q. What was the date on which you wrote that ? A. [t wasin the afternoon of December 26, 1870, about three o'clock, that Tilton made this com- munication tome; 1 noted the hour because it Was lmportant to Tilton; | made the memorandum | also to show my authority on the subject, q. You have given all the conversation which occurred on that occasion, A. 1 saw him several times afterward at my nouse, and I was frequently | at nis house; Lsaw Tilton between the 26th and the 30th of December two or three times; I saw him ! on the 27th; he came voluptarily; he told me then | that ne bad sent word to Mr. Bowen that he was | going to see Beecher, and said that Bowen had | previously promised to give him the evidence; he | said Bowen had threatened to discharge him from his papers if he told what he said about these adulteries; but that he would not be influenced by any threat. Q. Was anything satd in relation to the partica- | lars of the ietter to Mr. Beecher in regard to Mr. Bowen? A. [ do not Kuow that he said anything to me on the 26th of December in regard to Sending lim that letter; the nex% interview was December 30; there had been no conversation dur- ing the interval in regara to the communication about Mrs. Tuton; when Mr. Tilton came to my house that evening | was pot aware that | Bowen had failed to sustain the allega- tion about Mr, Beecher; Mr. Tilton in these successive interviews said he nad no doubt o} the truth of Mr. Bowen's statemeut; to his letter of January, 1871, he gave the substance o! the inter- view which he had witn Mr. Bowen on that sub- ject; Mr. Tilton, 1n the interview of December 26, | Said’he had no douot of the truth of Mr. Bowen's slogy, because o; the unhandsome advances which Mr. Bee rt mice to his wie (Mrs. Tiiton). y. Had oir, Tilton previousiy ever said anytoing to you injurious to the moral character of Mr. Beecher? A. Not untii December 26; at that time be Said Mr, Beecher's longer preaching Was an im- position on Piymouta cuurch. Q. Was there anybody present atthe time? A. Dou's remember that there was any one present when he tuld me that. | Q Had he ever said anything previously detri- | Mental to Mr. Keecher’s moral character? A, He Spoke of him as jacking political courage; that | Was belore 1870; that Was said im relation to the Cleveland etter, | .,Q When tn pecember, 1870, Mr. Tilton told you | Mr. Beecher preached to several of his mistresses: | every Sunday, did you believe it? Odjected to, and objection overruled by the | Court. ‘ | A. Leontdn't and didn’t believe it at the time. | Q. Your wie was a memoer of Plymouth church | atthat ume? A. Yes, sir. | 2Q. Issue still a member of Plymouthchurch? A. Her name 1s stil on the roll ol membership, bat she is 10. a communicant, nor bas sue been since | 187)—not Siuce sne came tn possession of the facts. Q When did she cease to attenu’ A. I can’t an- swer that qu@tion; | don't know. Q. Did sue ever attend alter 1870? A, She did | for some time alter January, 1871, | Q What churca do you attend? a, 1 do not | go regaiarly to church at any time, | Q. But you did attend Plymouth church? A. Yes, sir. | se Does your wife go to any other churen? A. No, air. | na When did you last attend religious services | at Plymouth church ? A. [ last attended Plymouth charch on the evening that the investigating Com- | mittee made ther report. [char Tunder- stood there was going to be a meeting of the church, Q. That was not an snswer to my question. When did you jast attend religious sérvices tn Plymouth churcuy A, | don't remember the ocoa- sion particularly, but it was with my wile. Q. Since the Sunday 10 1968 when oo satin Mr. Tition’s pew and were introduced by bun to Mr. | Beecher? A. Yes, sir. Witness sald that | Mr. George C, Kobinson, who 18 nis wife | uucle and head of the firm ef Woodrufl & Robin son, is & pewhoider in boat coucch, and that ne | (Moulton) was in the tabit of suvseribing to te cuurch When ne Was Wont To attend there. The examination at Chis point closed, and Court adionryued uuti Gleved o'clocg Cais fqranaga, |