The New York Herald Newspaper, February 10, 1875, Page 4

‘DT THE GREAT 804 The Plaintiff Hurti Own. Case. yn g¢ His LOSING TEMPER AND PATIENCE. Mr. Evarts and the Witness Break- ing Lantes. pe LSE MRS. MORSE AND MRS. WOODHULL. Telling Her Was to to the World. The Garrulous Mother-in- Law. “Did Not Bathe, but in Hot Wa- ter with Her.” The Woodhu!l entered again into the proceed- ings of yesterday. She comes and goes like an apparition, affrighting all concerned mi the legal dpama. Sheis distinctly visible in the warp and woof of the court fabric, running through both, not like the old Persian strand of gold, but asa thread of eviiomen, Like Balzac’s story ofthe murdered y, Wao was quoted in every fireside narrative of the community of La Saile to color and intensify the interest, the Woodhull drops into the current of testimony a3 an ominous beacon to avoid rather than to seek, To the com- mon mind which has not investigated this story this woman reveals the rocks and the quicksands which even the legal pilots have yet failed to fathom and locate, Which side will bring ner for- ward as a witne: Both repudiate Ler, but her constant cropping up {rom day to day indicates that if pot desirable as a witness she mus: be to- valuable as a re'erence. Will the aefence call her? Tilton swears he never communicated to her the story she pub- lusifed, which caused an earthquake whose qaiver- Ings are not yet stilied, Will the plainti® call her? If available, why 1s this woman not produced? Ahd there is another or SeX destined to illustrate this strange, eventiul history, who, like the Woodhull, has ap- peaied and disappeared in the course of the trial. THE MOTHER-IN-LAW. Mrs. Morse, the mother-in-law of the platntiq, bas achieved a notoriety second oniy to the Wood- hull, The mother-in-law, from time immemorial, Ras been reckoned in the prejudices of the male sex next in malignity of mischief to the devil uim- sclf, Tilton dia not say go yesterday; but the Altered tone of his voice, the vittter emphasis on hig words, showed that to him at least the tradi- tional mother-in-law was no fancy of the brain, but a living and tormenting reality. The euphony of his dulcet notes, in reply to Evarts, turnea to discord at the mention of her name. “The open gates of her lips,” said he, “told the scandal to the world.” Evarts said aside that these, indeed, mast have been ‘‘the gates ajar. BREAKING DOW Tilton did not sustain the strain of yesterday's cross-examination. The counsel, Mr. Evarts, was more than usually in earnest, He seemed to be the sentient conduit through which the whole animas of Plymouth church, fashioned intu a deep faMal of exhaustiess interrogat. ry, flowed over on the witness, He was unequal to the assault. He Jost the splendid seif-possession that made him re- markable before. HIS RETORTS 0M counsel lost dignity, and his replies were weak andembarrassed. He played with words rather thao with thought and aimed ratner to be bril- fant than direct. Without forgetting facts he May have trusted more to imagination than usual, and yet when one studies the peculiar nature of the man as heretofore descrived, and the mstietic and poetic character filustrated by the printed evidence which has been forced upon the public by the defence, it does not seem to be unnatural that the testimony of Tilton shonla abonnd in vagaries sometimes resting on stilts and as often taking the commonplace shave of what is knowo as Lohemianistic fancies, He is not unlike a diamond whose several facets flash a fiffereat light according to the glare upon th EVARTS WINNING LAURELS, Mr. Evarts, who hitherto has been regarded as a ‘awser far better suited to argue a constitutional question before the Supreme Court of the United States than to introduce the corkscrew of ex- amination into a personal question like that now peuding, bas developed a remarkabie phase of mental character in his abiliry to meet the ree quirements of his present dificult task, and bas exhibited rare delicacy, refinement, shrewdness and force In penetrating the intellectual arcana represented by the witness whom he is now en- gaged in probing. ‘ Judge Neilson discoverod a fresh occasion for comment, He said a uote had been sent him to the effect that persons were in the habit of stand- ing behind the jury and making prejudictal com- ments on the trialevidentiy intended to reaca the ears of the jurymen, He said this wasa very grave offence anu whoever in future might be found indulging in the practice would suffer, The Judge’s remarks made a profound tmpressiva. Entire stiliness prevalied while ue spoke. A wave of rumor passed over the reporters’ tables as to the man likely to be gulity of this indiscretion, and the impression was given that an over-zenious friend of Mr. Beecher’s and a writer by proiession was the guilty person. THE JURY SPEAES. The foreman of the jury took occasion after the recess to say that the remarks of the Court might be coustrued into a reflection on nis fellow jurors, but he protested on tueir behalf against the im- pression tuat any remarks dropped im their vicin- ity were in the least regarded, even if they haa been heard, IN THE TOILS, ‘Tilton 18 now said to be in the tolls, Be ad- mit he told Mrs, Morse Bowen's story of Beecher’s aduiteries, and tbat he knew her char- acter a8 a loud-mouthed gossip. It would seem that he mignt as well have communicated his story to the town crier, It was bound to travel and be oeard of Woodhuii, bu equal to pat rand near. He did not teli Mrs. told oue whose garrulity was fle testified, too, that mmunistic procession that passed ch walked in the © through the streets of New York arm in arm with he his friend Joha Swinton, and then his prudence forsook him and he quit the track of @ Witness to enter tue Geld of an eulogist of the memory of Rossel. EVARTS’ PO Evarts saw his point insta: Roman Catholics on the jarya to the counsel was irresistibie. man,” exciaimed the wily lawyer, “that orcerea the execution, the murder, of the Archb Pas * This being repeated severai would be strange If these two Vatho should forget i'. y. There are two d the temptation “AD this was the times it jurymen THE LADIES. The asval mber of jadies were present during the oroceedinga, Mrs. Tilton looked cheerful and Unembarrassed, The undeviating allusions of her ausband to her in terms of unbroken confidence fn her morai worth and purity seem to have worked a change tn i@r appearance, and there are those Who believe the ond of the trial will witness & Most dramatic scene tn the reuaton Of the piain. tif and his Wile in open court. TUR RVLOBNOR. op of, At the opeuing of ‘ae court Mr, Beach stated | NEW YORK HERALD, WEDNESDAY, FEBRUA RY 10, 1875.—TRIPLE SHEET; lanation Mr. rday « rns quiry, Uh rent from the mortgage on 0; thera is also a coilaveral Llewellyn property; | did agday, jor L was Rot a pught to my recuilection this mors ve Ldida’t Know was made: the hanes of a friend of ming {of this propercy al Liewellyn Park a8 col arity, so that t se ol any deprecta- of property my house in Brooklyn would nos ve SOld to pay the mortgage. A ap mrtgage to secure the same A. Yew And not 13 , Sir. imereasing the obiigation? A, No, (. Now, to whom was the principal mortgage, and to Whom Was vollateral mortgage? 4. To Mr. Franklin Woodrai, {. Aud Who Was the friend who Was entrusted with Unis diseretion in regard to the collateral mortgage? A, Franklin Woodruff, ny Q. He ts the person to whom you had owed the money. And to Whom the mortgage ou your Liv- ingston street house haa been mae? A. Yes, sir, Q Whe executed this collateral mortgaze to Woodrull? A, 1 presume he executed it uimsel!, «. Now, have you any idea or recollection, Mr. Tilton, of having authorized anybody eise as your attorney or represeutative to execute a mortgage on the Llewellyn property ? A. No, sir. Q. You are very sure of that? A, Yes, sir; lam n of it. uVarts (to tue Court)—I suppose the prover ould be to bave these mortgages orougut into court, so that we can see Waat they are ? Tne Judze—Yes, sir, @. You have spoken of the value of that Llewel- lyn Park 10 did you pay forit? a. [ bought it by plecemeal, a littie at different times; my impression is taat I paid about $4,509 tor a portion of 16 in the advertising co.umns 0! the /ie pendent of the pro, erty came througa the Mdependent; \t went to pay for an advertise. in that journal; the advertisement had been d by Hemar y ; 1 paid cash; £ m $00) L oelieve —wn i took som he was ima tight 7 ward, so that finaliy 1 had some thre «. Now don't you know taat there 18 g on that Liewellyn Park property? A. Tonly know what Mr. Woodrut! told ‘ue this morning; [had a hurried 1 rview with bim, nd { don’t under- sta 21 transactions myself; Mr, Woourar ENT CONTRACT. Q. Now, as to whether your contract, made the 20rn, or about the 20th’ ot December, with Mr. Lowen, in respeet to the Mdependent—was it a ; rs? or u two years’ contract? A, Weil, sir, Lremember yery di Union was tor with (he Independent Was two yea Q. Was it not two yea tion? A. L don’t KaOW Q. When you gave to oulton on the night Ol the voth of December Lhis letter, in your wiie's handwriting, you say that you thought iv Mr, Beecher 1uterposed objections to coming that that would induce am to come, did you? A, Or words to that effect. Q. And was it not to be used unless for that pur- pose? A, I didn’t say that exactly, sir; I said L uidn’t wish Mr. Moulton himself to break that sub- ject. : qQ. I mean it was not to be used by Mr. Moalton uniess it proved necessary? A. Yes, sir; | knew tbat that note would bring Mr. Beecher to ths interview; It Was got tor the purpose of being the basis oa which I, as an honorable my se!t-respect to old that interview with fin; it first occurred to me to use tt lor the purpose of jetcaing Mr. Beecuer on the day on which the tn terview was held; tt was wrirten the day betor 1t never oecurred to me to use it, I think, until Mr. Moulton suggesied it—thas possibly Air, beecher might not come. . Now, Mr, ‘Tilton, I understand you to have satd on your direct examination that the motive and odject of this interview with Mr. Beecher had solely relation to the protection of the reialous between your wife aud Mr. Beecher, and prevent thetr Leing vrought ont into publie.ty or discussion by Treason O! of 1b connection With auy con*roversy that might arise between Mr. Bowen and Mr, Beecher? A. If [understand your question, that was tha purport; the object of that interview was to protect Eizabeth in connection with the pub- licity growing out of the controversy between Air, Bowen and Mr. Beecher. WHO'S AFRAID. Q. Were you atraid? A. No, sir. q. Waita moment, [have not got through with my question, Were you alraid—— A. No, Sir; oa, warned you, Mr. Tilton, that that was le questi Were you afraid that Mr. give public.ty to these supposed sir, east? A, No, sir. eczived late you say on the Silst, from Mr. Bowen, notes of your dismissal on the termination of your contracts. ‘These notes are not here. Did they include aiso a statement that he Was ready to pay or settle all demanis, and wished to do sof A. [ don’tre- member as to that; 1 tuimk Mr. Moulton had these notes; [ Won't be certain about it. Mr. Bvarts—We have understood that they can+ not be nad. Is that so, Mr. Morris? Mr. Morris—Yes, sir. Was uot the wotification you received from Mr. Bowen that your engagements with the Jide pendent and Unton were then and there terminated, and that he was ready to settio With you in iuit of all demands? A. I don't remember the conteuts of his notes: I re- member that there a briet note—I think two Notes, oe as the publisher of the /ndependent and perhaps I was, 1 bes your pardon, Q. Tnave nor my who Beecher wou relations ? ar A the other as President oj the Brooklyn Union Asso- her they aid or did not ciation. Q. Can you say now whi contain this latter clause; with you in tull of ali say at v 3 I cannot y received the notificatiun; I shouid nine o'clock or ha it was ou saturday e last of the year; 1 went round to Moul- alter receiving it; I had not seen him before that evening; 1 went around to talk witn him about tt; Mr. Moulton was not at home; | sat at his cesk and began a@ letter in reply to Mr, Bowen's tecte MOULTON COMES IN. Moulton came in Irom Mr. Beecher’s house a little evening; We contiaued tne interview I think that later in the evening, as the a3 waning away and the bells of Si. Ann's toring, | think We Went out into the street ten to (hem; tat is my recouection, ‘ liect that you Went out into the . iP. , When you first saw Mr, Moulton at A tol Q. Now, sit his house, didn’t you invite him out of doors ? When I tirst saw him ? Q. Yes, that evening? him. q. Didn't invite him immediately? A. Did not ately; he invited me to read the note ne Mr. Beecher first, ‘om Bowen you mean, A. No, I didn’t invite No. 23—He oad just brought home the retrac- Q. Now, do you remember how many hours yon waiked ets that night with Mr. Mouiton A. I don’t think we walked a great many hours; m. lection 1s that just as the year Was Btep- pin © across the bridge inco the new one, We went out to hear the chimes of St. Ann Q. When tue calmes were over did you separate immeuiateiy? A. | aou’t rememver whetuer we did immediately, sir. q. Didu’t you have a prolonged interview in the streets, proposed by yoursel! to be in the streets, Which occupied one or two hours? A. I walked Witu Mr, Mouton late at night, | had been greatiy aroused by the injormation he had brought to ine from Mr, Beecher, and lute in the evening, as my habit is, 1 walked and be Walked with me, and the new year overtook us. Q. That is ail you have to sayaboutit? A. That is all. Q. You can't say Whether it was two hours you Walked together that winter night? A. I can’t say; Ihave au iudistinct recoliecdiop that} weut home turriedly to inform Elizabeth of the return of the papers. and came back to Mr. Mouiton’a, but still | won't be positive about that, and then We walked the streets; I won't be positive about that. THE WITNESS WEAKENS. The witness parried badly. Counsel pressed home his questions, varying their form to reacno his object the better. Tilton fell back from point to potnt, nis voice lost its clearness, he hesitated, a@rew timid, fushed up and showed embarras ment. THE REPLY TO BOWEN. Ll began to prepare my re v to Bowen, dated January 1, tne might be ore; I think it was fia- ished the next day, with the exception of some Tevisions which Were incorporated in It, after consultation with Jeremian Robinson, Franklia Woodruff and Gordon L, Ford. BERCHER’S RELATIONS TO MRS, TILTON. |. Now, sit, tuere is noriing In that letter about '. Beecuer’s relations to you or your wile? A. No, Sif, that was all designedly omitted, Q. Did these geutiemen advise you to leave out any such matiery A. Mr, Robinson advised me to carry myself out of te case entirely; I had writ- ten tue letter wud suomitted it to Mr. Robinsoo, nu fis Suggestion to me was fo leave Myself out of the letter—to leave my OWD Case Out of tue letter, Q, And you were out of it when you finished tt? A. Well, F was somewhat in it, sir. Q. Did you aiter tue letter? A, f did, in obedi- ence to tie suggestion; my letter was too persouul ang fery asl fret wrote it; Mr, Rovingon sid, “Keep Calin and act juaiciousiy,” and #o I took out certain phrases of th 1 don't remember exactly What they were; he said that if my leer Were published it Would havd a better eect i! it Were periectiy calm and judicious; 0 | took out certain purases | thought were tuo impetuous and wrathy. Q. In the state it was when you showed it to Mr. Rovinson? A, No, sir; Mr, Pord saw tt | thing on Sunday morning. New Year's bay; ne came Upon ive in Lue parior When | Was Writing it, Q. You snowed itty lun? A I read itto him; 1 think I read to nim what there was of it in (the state in which ic was the: ‘ Was the whole o1 tt written? A. No, sir; I until the let “ae DOC in a completed stat you told as the only changes Pa certainiy January 2 Q Weil, out so iar are ol it yt, Add Mr. Woodrad was the mortgagee? A. | man, might hola | abt to know when it haa ai to that ev took 80 showe [don't rememt q rw aN Your's morning t reau " ence O16 Was the same phraseology may have veen a ner 3 wh ast ig now, bw litule more disc Q Did he advocate striking out anything? A. sir; he gave me no advice whatever; 1 didn’t SK Nim for auy duvice; 1 think Lvead it to lim as @ matter of fact, Mi, FORD AS COUNSEL, I didn’t understand any relitions that Mr. Ford had with any lagy except ms wife. Q. No mnproper relations? sion? Lam not asking about anything improper; did tt refer Co hun as a trustee of one of tne ladies referred to in tuat letter to Mr. Bowen ? Mr, Beach—I don’t understand that any specific person or lady Was named In that lecter. Mr. Evarts—l don’t say that any lady was re- | ferred t Mr. Tuton—I don’t understand your question yet, Mr. Bvarts, Q. Did you know that Mr. Fora steod tn the relation ol trastee to one of the ladies reterred to in your lerter to Mr. Bowen? A. No, sir, 1 did not know It; I never heard of any such thing. .Q. At any rate, Mr. Ford did not advise you to leave out that part? A, I don’t remember (hat Mr, Ford gave me any advice on the subject; there Was no disparagement of my wife in the original letter; 1 had advised with Mr. Robinson about the letter, who said to make it more caim, but 1 never thought tor a momeut of Introducing my wile into that iette Q. Now, sir, im your direct examination did you | say this, referring to this letter, “the preparation suider a sense of duly. Thad writtea & Mr. Bowen reciting all the facts; that I nud en at over very careiully, taking the advice ¢ '. Jeremiah P. Robinson, Mr, Moulton aud Mr. Gordon L, Ford, acuog oa ther advice and upon the advice of the oltest of those gentie- ui Mr. Robiuson, 1 had settied to keep out of this letter aii ground of diiference between Mr, to ° lewter A. What is your | was a harmies? communication, but I didn’t su poxe--if the Card ®'Ood just PO tr great pudlic Would imagine Mr. Beecher and Airs. fiton ro be meant, Q. You didu’s think that there are so many nyoody in Brook here y were? woud fave seen a small, narrow ¢ that would haye known, but tbe great public would not nave knowa, Q, Does pot & small, narrow circie in scandal | tena to cecome a much wider eircley A. 1 think it does; yes, sir. nough Q. Now, Mr. Triton, have you any doubt that that pubiicatiou—stopping as 1 have suggested ana as you have accepted it—thar that anavuu ment of the act tuat she knew—taat that ofgtself caried danger of scandal concernng your tamuy and Mr, Beecher, whether tuere would be | any trath or falsehood init A, Woy, sir, mas- | much a8@ certain number of people must have kuown to what it reierred, there Would have beet to that extent danger; srill, f don’t tuink that that card of itself would have multiplied the num- ber o' people who did know; 1t was the threat of publication which the card contained that was the aenacing evil. ‘ Q. [he actual publication of the facts and the particulars you dian’t consider as conveying any spark of scandal in this community? A. On, 1 should not say it was not aspark; I think any suck a publication would be a spark, EVARTS’ TRIUMPH. Mere was Evarta’ triumph, his chief and only one. How did Woodhull get her information about Beecher’s connections with Mrs, Tilton ? That was the question to which Evarts brought his genius a3 a cross-examining lawyer to boar in the effort to secure a satisiactory answer, Woodhull did not ovtain her “points’™ from Tilton. This was posi- tively sworn to, He did tell 1t to a lew friends, us he had many times said belore. Mis, Morse, the mother-in-law, Tilton’s béte notre, was told the story. So far so good, Mrs, Morse was his wife's Beecher and myself ?? A, Yes, sir, 1 said some. thing like that, THE BOWEN ARBITRATION, that letter to Mr. Moul- cpress a wish or desire to have your aiturs with Mr. Bowen speedily settled or closed? A. No, Sit; nov at that thnel did not; 1 told him y clearly 1uid Want affairs setcied as soon | s thight be; I gave him the note on January 2; L asked Mr. Moulton to be one of the turee arbitra tors to close the matter; I did not think | nad any right toname the others; 1 did subseguently select three out of a list that Mr. Bowen sent me. Q. Now, sit, did you place in My, Moulton’s hands At tliat time, anytoing but this letter to Bowen of the 1st of January? Mr. Beach—That improperly assumes that he placed Doth papers tn uis wands, Mr. Evarts—Not necessarily. I think | have ex. | amined bitu about those. A. If you wish to know | the papers which I put into Mr, Moulton’s hands at that time L will tell you what they were; tnree papers—one a little note authorizing Mr. Moulton to settle my aifairs for me; tie other was a copy of my contract With the /adependent and the third was Iny contract with the Union, Q. You gave lim that Bowen letter? A. Well, I did uot put it into his nands tosend tt to Buwen | At that time; he decitned to take it to Bowen; he did Doo Want Lo take it to Bowen; my frst propo. sition about that Paper was to publish it; (nas jetter Mr, Mouiton did not wish to be published; then I wanted him to deliver it to nim in pereot and he said he would take charge of it; I handed it to Bim, and ne read it to Bowen about the sth or lo:nof January; Ltnink the first report that came [rom Mr. Bowen was the payment of $4,000 to me for some notes; that 18 my best recoliece tion; I will not be accurate about the date; Mr. | Bowen wanted a secticment, not cnly of pecuniary Matters, but a settlement of other matters; we botn wanted an aroitration, but Mr. Moulton pro- hibited 10; the actual arbitration was held en the 2dof Apri, 13’ | have an imuistinet recollection that on New Year’s Day I met tim at someoody’s house; [ had interviews with Mr. Bowen on the 2th, 27th and 28th of December, but not about business Matters; they were aoout the scandal and the expulsion of Beecher from his puipit; have said that 1 informed Mra, Tilton of these matters, but I dia not consider them as busines? ALL THE WORLD WOULD KNOW. And it Was in consequence of this Info nas ties. as [have understood on your direct exami bacon, Uhat she felt a soucitude to have some in- tercourse b ‘een you and Mr, Beecher? .A. Well, Sif, Lue answer to that question 13 this—— q. Ldon't want any conversation, but Task you whether you pave not said, in your direct exami- nation, that in consequence Ol this threatened cootroversy between Mr, Bowen and Mr. Beecher your wife felt anxiety whica led to your interview with Mr. Beecher? A. Mrs, Tilton thought that if Mr. Bowen and mysell drove Mr. Beecher out of his puipit ali the world would koow the reasoo why, anu be would be convicted. a. mother and it was natural enough she should hear a3 8000 a8 an acquaintance like Mrs. Brad. shaw all oi the scandal. Evarts now had the cue | and he foliowed it up with an earnestness that showed he felt the importance of the admission, BUSYBODY MORSE, Q. Now, as you didn’t suspect Mr. Beecher or Mr. Moulton of having informed Mrs, Woodhull, how did you imagine she got her information? A. Throagh the open gate of the lips of Mrs, Nathan 8. Morse, Q. That was yourtheory? A, Yes, sir; not that it went from Mrs, Morse to Mrs. Woodhail, but that it went through many moutns; Mrs. Morse was in the habit of saying that! made suca and such charges, and ttey got to Mrs, Woodhull’s ears, Q. Weil, f nave nos asked you @ word about that; you suspected, then, What Mra. Morse had pubicly said? A. Private, sir, Q. Well, private with pub'teity; you don’t mean that sbe whispered {t in Mrs. Woodnull’s car? A. No, she didn’t Walsper tt in anybody's ear, but spoke itoutloud. (Laughter,) Q. You thought that was tne source of Mrs, Woodhuil’s information? A. Yes, s.r, the ortginal not come trom me nor Mr, Beecher. Q. Lunderstand that neither of you had commu- nicated any Of the occurrences during this confl- deutial interview in the early part 0) '71 and in the close of 70? A. What was the question, sir ? Q. Neitper you nor Mr, Moulton nor Mr. Beecher had cofimunicated these stages or conferences that took plac: between you three to anybody? A. Ican’t speak for Mr. Beecher.or jor Mr. Moul- ton; [spoke tu a few of my iriends ubout certain of the Manwuvres that were being maa Q. Well, during this period? A, Yet for in- stance, [said to many treads that Mr. Beecher had demanded the note of retraction, lar. Evarts—I won't take any ‘'.or instances; this is a cross-eXamination, Mr. ‘Llton—Don't make it more cross, then. (Laugnier.) Mr. Evarts—It is mild in manner; but itis nota cross examination that authorizes spontaneous statements. ‘tne Judge—You are only to answer the question. or. Evarts—Now, these interviews haa been, during (ha; interval be.ore May, 1871, more or less of confidential conierences? A, Yes, sir. A. Yes, sir, inends. Q. That youcan answer? A, Yes, sir: I undere took to teil you that When you said you under- stood to the contrary, thing I ao understand to Mr. Evarts—Well, NOT ANXIOUS FOR BEECHER’S SAFETY. | the coutrary. Q. That it was im consequence of your wife's knowing of the tireatened trouole between Mr, Bowen and Mr. Beecher. that she was solicitous that you should nave an interview with Mr. Beecher? A. Yes, sir, it was lear and anxiety. Q. Now you know What oa, and you cawe to the transactions of tue 7tn of Feoraary, wiere three istters were writlen and communicated to the | persons to whom tney were addressed, and alter that, a8 ( understand, there was no troudie of auy kind or coucern im reference to the publicity until the Woodaull card of May 22, 18715 18 that so? A. That was the frst threat that was puolished; Mrs, Wooduuil publisoed a card May 22, 1871, Wreatening to expose the story. Q. Well, We have got that in evidence; don’t re- peatit; that was the first, wasn’tit? A, oat was tue first 1 Knew anytuing o1; Mr. Mouiton, in the 1uterval between Fevruary 7 and May 22, went to Florida; t don't remember exactiy the interval, but i Should tniuk he was gone about six weeks; he Went on account of ms health; iy imp-ession is thas he was sick about—I think the culmination of lis sickness Was about tue midule of January, and then it Was a Very siow recovery; Le was ngs | Saul out trom aii this when be was ou the way fo the South; Mr. Moulton carried on his business i , from his bouse hke @ general from his tent; he | design wer never Was shut out irom any activ: HOW THE STORY GOT ov Q. Now, sir, as I understand tae matter, all that bad passed vetween you and ™ Moultoa and Mr. Beecher regarding any relations with your wile during the period were contiaential and for purpose of being ket secret wud assisting in keeping secret whatever these relations were? | A. Yes, sr; that was Mr, Mouiton’s lavors in the matter. : Q, And the conference and action toward that not intended to be made public, were they ? at ail, sir. Q. Now, sir, did you ever suspect Mr. Beecher of having communicated to Mrs, Woodhull tue basts ol her tareat of May 22? A. No, sir; nor to any | other person, sir, Ver suspected him of communicating? A. t I suppose may be inferted from your views of tls case, Did you ever suspect Mr. Moulton of commuaicating to Mrs. Woodnuil any of these matters? A, No, 8t answered tnat question belore you asked it; Mr. Moulton is above suspicion. | Mr. Evarts—Well, you know what the Scriptures | y = the man that answers a question beiore itis asked. Q. You say you did not? A. I did not, sir. ( Weil, 1] understavd you then tuat when you first Went to see Mrs. Woodnull at the appearance | of (hat card, Which Was only @ premonition, she then gave you substantially ali the matters that she pudlistied in the jall of 1872? A. Yes, sir; all the horrid incidents and more desides, 1 think; aidn’t connect taem with Various persuns as sie cia there, Q. Weil, I gathered from your examination that there Was uothing that she knew in the jall of 1872, Or projessed to KnoW, What she aidn’t know, or prolessed to Kuow in May, 1872? A, Well, for instance, sae told mein May, 1s71, that ahe had carried the edition of ber Stemway Hall speech | into Mr. Beecher’s study and there given 1t to him; that is a statement ol what sne told me in the various Vivid and extraordinary incidents of | the crimina| relatious which existed, | Q. Yes, and the pistol scene and all that? A. | Yes, sir; Dot as it Bappened, but as tt did pot hap. | pen. q. Well, as she stated tt. She told it to vhen? A e told me—— Q. Now noma'ter. Iaon'tcare what sne told you. Tonly want to know whether lam might io | uhderstandinz your directexamiuation? A. Well, what is your uldersranding of it ¢ Q. This, that all toose matrers that related to her articie of 1872 to Mr. Beecher's relauons to | your wile and toward and to any operations or movements of yourself or Mr. Moulton wita Mre Beecoer in the same connection, all thas were contained in her article of 1872 that nave bearing @nd relation sue mentioned to you in May, 1871? A. I don't undertake to say that sne mentioned in May, 1871, every identical particular which she afterward put into her story of November, 18723 I did undertake to say that all the extravagant incidents of that story of 1872, namely—wei, I won't rehearse tuem—that they were thrown out toen in avery Violent and energetic speech by her to me, in May, 171, THE THREAL OF EXPOSURE, Well, that’s what I understood. sne told you her story 1 you Bat when it Was unconnected with the varioils persons, ladies and gentiemen—other people? A. Yes, WHOM she aiterward named as her autnority. Q. Weil, We don’t care about that. We are not talking about tiat, At that time, in May, 1871, she did not give you any authority did sue? A. No, str; Lasked her and she deciined to give m Q. Now, you Say you read that note with @ shud- der? A, Yes, sir, q Had youany doubt when you read it that that reference to a distinguished preacher and the wile Of another distinguished teacher would ve understood by tie pubiic in Brookiyo as reiating to Mr. Weecher and you? A. No, sir; | nadn’s any expectation, I hadn't any thougut that the public would Unuerstand it; out when she put itinto my hand and I )ead it L swiitly interpreted it to my- self, and agit contained a threat of publication and exposure | shuddered from head to foot iw contemplation of tt, Q. It didn’t strike you then that that pubtication would risk tne gubic’s baving &0 Idea that your family and Mr, Beecher were toby it? A. ait; elt; but the card itself coutained to expose those facts dimly hinted atin i', and it was that threatened puoll- cation whieh Would have carried dismay through our housenoid, 4 Lonly Want to know what the 6 mind waa, Y¢ sate of your 0 ue dered then thar the publica. Woodhutl, #0 (ar ag it stated thar ale kueW O18 COse, a4 80 Jorth, unconnected with any {hreat ol giving more particuiarseyou thougat \hat would be a harmiess publication in these communities, did yout a No, sir, [did nos tuink Mr. Tiiton—Hut understand, that whatever I communicated I never spoke to Mrs, Tilton’s de- traction, but I was never anxious to spare Mr. Beecher, Q, And although they aliuded to disclosures about your wile ? A. No, sir; the only protection which 1 put over Mr. Beecher was just So lar as it was uccesaary to protect Mrs. Tilton. not been Deceenary to protect Mrs, Tilton I wouid have allowGl Mr. Beecher to go to his destruction jour years ago. ® Mr. Evarta—\We underatand your disposition. Mr. Tilton—It is pretty diMcult to understand, Q. Buc still, ail the motives o: going to Mr Beecher was solicitude to protect Mrs. Tilton y A. Yes, sir. Q. And yet after that you do not scrupie to t a3 muci as you choose of the coniidential matters between you, Mr. Moulton and Mr. Beevher? A. [ never had a confidence with Heary Ward Beecner tn my ilie, Q. Wil you answer my question? A.I have answered it im my statement. Mr. Evarts (to the stenographer)—Read tne question? Lt was read given above, Mr. Beach—The answer, sir, 18 responsive and proper. Tue Judge—tit 1s proper so far as it goes, Q. | understand you to say ihat, notwithstand- ing the whole motive of this Interview OL the Sook add Weat loliowed tt was to protect your wie and hot love to Mr. Beecher, yet you did not scrupie timmediatety afterward, or while tuey were going over, fo disclose es much as you pleased of Waat a? A. Yes, sir, Paid; 1 snould — well, that is aa answer, Beach—No, uo. Withess—I mean to say I was ander no obliga- tion to keep anything Secret; [ was under no obligation to keep it seeret except for the sake of my Wie and not for the sake o¢ Henry Ward | Beecher; | did not seruple to tell wnat was going on; I selected whom I shuld speak to avous it; told them what I saw fit; ic was from Mrs. Morse that the first silegations of the transactions theca proposed and carried on during that eariy season came. TELLING ALL THE WORLD, Q. Now, sir, how did she find out what hid passed confidentially between yourseil, Mr. Beecher and Mr. Moulton? A, Because | told her and she told ail the word. (Laughter) Q. Youknew tnat? a. Yes, sir, _Q And she was ome Of the persons you told? A, Yes, sir. (Renewed jaugrter.) Q. And you knew ber tofirmity when you told her? A. Yes, sir. (More and very loud laughter.) the Juage—I shalt be obliged to adjourn the Courcif such demonstrations continue, 1 regret very much indeed that itis. necessary for me to Say So much, buc it disturbs the co:nsel, Is 20t re- spectinl to the Court and does no good, Q. Well, Was any part of your shadaer when you read this card o1 Mrs. Woodhull occasioned by your fear that your own imyradence might have con- tributed to herkoowledse? A, Idon't understand how to divide the suuddertng; IL Was a spasm of agonized teeing on my par’; what its component parts were I do not remetoer. Q. it was a great surprts A. It was, certainly. . You did thea have ttin your miud that zou | had told Mrs. Morse and Koew ver infirmity? A, I instantly tmagined whence the stories came, Q. Tuas What I call making it a part of the suudder. Now, up to this stage of the matrer, no particular progress was made throngn tie winter tm couecting your money irom Mr. Bowent A, I don't kuow that Mr. Moulton made any eifort to do 80; Le Was sick; perhaps he did do sometning | the money was not collected, Q. Now, wuen was it that you took advice con- cerning the pecuniary interest between you aod Mr, Bowen ? | Mr. Beach—He means legal advice, | Mr. Evarts—Yes; you have spoken In your direct examination oi naving taken advice? A. 1 con- suited Frederick A. Ward; 1 do not remember tue date; | tuimk @ year had elapsed thouga; the legal advice Was a$ to the vuidity of ine conrract— wheter the contract was good: perhaps in a sec+ ondary sense it mignt be regarded as advice cuon- cerning the co'lection of the claim; [ tovk advice ag tothe point whether those contracts I had drawn—not being a lawyer—were good for the $7,000; Judge Reynolds said they would stand until doomsday, THE BOWEN CONTRACTS. Iwill tell you why ne did not pay me; Mr. Bowen Wanted to aroitrare in the begiuuing oi January, 1871; he Wauted to make the paywent of that money which he thought 1 needed; he wanted, through the paymeat of that money, to get me to sign & paper Co the effect that he and | Would keep the peace; he was afraid, in other words, of the storm he had raised betweeu Mimselt aud Mr. Beecuer: he wanted (o arvitrate, tnat not only our business aduirs but other diticuities could be settied; | understood the reason, out Mr. probivited tt, . | THE GARRULOUS MOTHRS-IN-LAW, | “She didn't whisper it in anyvody’ayar; no, sir, | she spoke tt out loud.” The bitterness with which the witness soid this displayed the littie regard he entertained for his amiable mother-in-law, It was @ Moulton clear revelation that Mra, Morse was toe evil star of bis existenco, that he coulu wish her weil at the North Pole or tn the New Jerusalem, but in his household she was the last of her sex that might & expect & weloume, , He made me a payment, but not having any ref- erence tO My OUtiness With the Jndependent or Union; | think Mr, Bowen's notes were $4,000; ib was a matte: envifely distinct irom my business; they were not Jor arrears Of salary or anything of thet Kind: my linpression ts that | had sod to or. Bowes some shares in the Brookiya Crion stock which | ned at an eary eriod, aud also my impression is tua’ | took sume Rotos from Mr. Gibson; = at ali nts 1 neid Mr, Bowen's notes for #4,000 or 000, but they bad porning pendent or Union; . source; the stories went from her; tt certainly aid | Moulton nor Mr. | Q. There had been confluential communications? | Q Very well? A. 1 can’t answer whether Mr. | Beecher had considered them confidentialor Mr. | | Mouicon had, but I had spoken to some of my and ifit had | to do with the Jnde- | Bowen came into tue | office one day during alocat eampulgn, think im | observe, Mr, Evarts, if I had carried 2 banner tf Aogust or september, aud (here was acertatn | Would ave oyly veen to my bogor sot to my candidate tor offce—i need not nis name, I d.seredic; L have no objecuon to rying & ba: ye ‘ty had been tain his accoun nted to repud t wa. the most ie pare of the ¢ yunlty: Mr, Bowen wn irom Connecticut and wanted me to supoort him; I decanea to doit; he pressed the matter, and I saia, “lam the editor of this paver by contract, and its master; ne said ther ohe WAY In witch he couid become It's n Y and I said “only one, so long as I ain the editor oy contract, I shail not support the man” it Was @ jittie Hurry between us; the first and ouly one in fifteen years; he said there was only oue Way, and that by changing the editor of the paper, by break- | ing the contracts and taking the penalties, | THE WOODHULL CONNECTION. Q, Now, when you went over to see Mrs, Wood- | hull, upoo this sort of summons, in May, 1571, ber | person Was nota stranger toyou? A. What visit | do you allude to, sir? | _Q. When you went over after that sort of sum- | mons she sent im reference to the publication of May 22, 1871? A, I had seen her once and been in- troduced te her, Q. When was that, and under what circumstan- ces? A. Une day, I can’t recollect tue date. snortly before that occurrence, a gentienf€n called at my office, and, in the course of some conversa- lion, asked me if | had ever seen Mrs. Woodhull, toe Broad street broker; 1 said no, I never ha he told me si@ Was a very remarkable Woman, Mr, Evarts—I don’t care tor that. Witness continuing—L waiked down town with him and was tniroduced to her; I had an inter- vieW l suppose four or five minutes tongs that was the lrst ume I saw her; very sb rtly after that came this card when she sent for me, Q. About how soon was this? About what date was this, the previous interview? A. My im- pression is if was @ very short time previous to the publication of that card, Q. You think during tae monthof May? 4 I think 80, yes, Q. There you saw her alone inher office? A. No, sir; I saw her husband there and one or two other persons; [ don’t remember all the persons there; If was @ kind of a levee. ‘This gentieman go with you? A, Yes, sir, i@ And introduced you and remained? A, Yes, r Q. It was an interview in her office with only yourself and your iriend? A. My impression is that others were there, . And this lady and her busband? A, Yes, sti I think others beside were present there in t oMice; tere was quile a number of people there, but I won't be certain about thar, Q. Now, sir, when did you last see Mrs, Wooa- ) hull? A. Toe last ume I Saw her, sir, was in the | month of April, 1872, shortiy beiore the Cincin- nati Convention that nominated Mr, Greeiey, Q. And what interrupted or broke off your inter- course with her at that time? A. Did [not give that in my direct exammation? —, Mr, Beach—Never mind; they want you to ree peat it, Mr, Evarts—We only want the fact. Witness—My atiention had been called abont | that time to an arvicle. a proof siipof which was shown to me, in which Mrs. Woodhall proposed to vilify and blacken the names of a dozen or titeen | Weil Koown ladies connected with the woman's suffrage movement; I went down to see her, and asked her wether or not tt was ber article, | Whether it was prepared for her, whether she de- | signed to publisa it, and tae substance of the re- ply she made was that she did not design to pun- ish it; that she had not written it, and that sne did not approve of it; out a lew days aiterward L learned that though the slip had not been pub. lisned, stiil proo!s had been taken o! it, und it had been sent hither and thither to various editors ana other people, and I then went down and up- braided ler for that, and bad an tnterview with her such as | have related; { tarned my back upon her, and never saw her since. . That 1s the article you have spoken of. I | don’t know whether you gave it the name of the “Lit for Tat’ article? A, Toat ia my impression ag to the title, Q, And among these iadies thus exposed to pub- lic comment were acquaintances of yours, were there’ A, Every one o! them, sir, Was an iotimate acquaintauce, . |. Every one of these fifteen ladies? Yes, sir; I know every one of them, I think, personally; I | Know ail the ladies connected with the woman’s suffrage movement, more or less, Q. Avd tuat was your personal feeling or rée- | sentment of the matter, that these lauies were | among your [reads and persons ior whom you had respect? <A. Yes, sir: I told Mcs, Woodhull that 1 was an outrage that woman wivm J had dee | Jended avainst the attacks of others should now | turn around and attack other women, and washed | my hands of her trom that moment; I saw Mrs. Woodhull very irequentlv—sometimes at her own house aud sometimes at her ollice; 1 also saw her #f Mr. Moulton’s house aud at my house; 1 think | she was three times at my house, VISITING CONBY ISLAND, Iremember on one occasi'n gving with her to | Coney isiund; 1 did uot vatbe with her; [ thing | that she and ner busband came and stayed ail | bightat my nouse one Saturday oight and part of Sunday, during which Mr. Beecher made tnem a visit in the afternoon, and Mrs. ‘Hiiton later tn the aiternoon; Wuether they stayed at my house two nignts or ove 1 bave forgotten; posaiviy two nights; 1 toiuk, sir, that when we went down to Coney Island it Lhd Saturday afteraoon, and | that in coming back it was the same Satarday | evening that.they stayed ali night; 1 won't be posi | Uve about that. : | Q See tt Ican refresh your recollection, Do you remember taktug a carriage? A. No, air; the car- riage took me. | Q, At your house and her In it with nobody else and golog to Coney isiand and there bathiug to- mether? A. No, sir; | was never m the water with her, except im the hot water in which I have | Coney Isiaha with her, oa stopping at my Rouse, ) Jeaving her in the carriage, going Inand getting some Manuscript anu talking with her about that, | showing that on my Way to Moulton’s and that that related to this business; no, sit; 1don’tre- | member anything like that. ‘ | Q Now, wnen you went there late at night after the Coney Isiand excursion to her hoase, did the carriage leave you there? A, Ldon't remember, sir; |.dou’t remember che occasion or the crcum- Mr. Tiltoo—! | testes; 1 don't 1 of taem; but 1 ne 1 her a great many cour. nerber Whether that was oue rshowed any manuscripts to her having relerence to Mr. Beecher or to this business; taat lkaow; I do not know bow Mrs, Woodnui! got her reverence to | THE CATHARINA GAUNT LETTER; I talked very freely among my personal {friends about Mrs. Tilion aud er letters at ft times and certain times, Q Youdid not, then. respect your wife's solici- tude tuat no eye sould see her letters? A. I obeyed ho such injunction as that, sir; I talked | With tbe few persons who knew the facts, | Q Amoug those (ew peopie’ did you talk to Vic- tora Woodhull about the “Catharine Gaune | rel bine A. No, sit, never, nor Of apy other letter | of Mr: Tilton’s, |. @. as you know, tf there is a refere ence odhull letters to the Vatharine Gaunt let ju do not know how she became possessed of a reterence? A. Not uniess she became possessed Of it by hearing tt Noating about | irom people to whom I had told it; she did not get | it irom me. Q. This story that Was floating about must nave started from you? Anything that peopie knew | about the Catharine Gaunt letter must haye come Originaliy irom me, but i did not state it to Mrs. Woodhull, LA com Q. Now, sit,do you remember an incident in which you aud Mrs, Woounull and her sister appeared in @ public procession ut honor of the Commune tn the streets cf the city of New York? A. I was present he that occasion, but we did not appear b togetiier that proc i a'terward that they appeared in 100 personal friend John Swinton, Q. All the way? A. I don’t know. Turning to Mr, Swinton, who stood immediately benlnd him, the witness said, Was it all the way? | .Q, And you carried 4 banner on that occasion? A, No, air. . Did you carry it any part ofthe way? A. No, ) sir. | Neither in a carriage nor on foot? A. No, | Bt hat was 4 procession 10 honor of the revered | named of Rossel, when the Frenca government took his life. |. Q. He was put to death for having put to deatn the Chlel Justice of France and rhe Archoishop of Paris? A, No, sir; around the world tt 13 an to- sult to lis memory to suggest such a thing; | say the memory of young Rossel {3 sweet and cleaa and one heid dear by mankind. | Q. Then you were not wich Mrs, Woodhull and her sister tu that procession? A. No, sir; this was @ puolic procession, aud those ladies were ther Mr. Beach—Lhat 1s cross-examination. | wilt Evarts—In pubite procession with these Be Mr. Keach—We don’t want the hisvory of that trial. Mr. Evarts—Well, he hag gone into a oulogy of Rossel. , Mr. Morris—Ana_properiy be might. Mr, Fullertou—Wei, go on. Q. Now you say that after the procession on that Suoday you did not Know Mrs. Woodhull and Miss Ciatlin “were there? A, J never knew any- ting about ie Uuiil alter it Was ail over, Q. Did hot sou see tra tee paper’ A, I don't | TetmMeuber how re news came to me; my impres | Bion ts that | calied at the Louse that eveniag and | there ascertained it; that is my recollection. » Called at Mrs, Woodiulite? A. Yes, i think I did, but Lam not sure of it. 4) That was on the dist of Vecember? A, I don't know: | remember it Was ou Suuday; the police of New York were golng to deny us the Tight of exbivitton, Q You made ity A, Yes, sit, We did, believing this to ve airee country, CARRYING THE RED FLAG. Q Then you think no such thing as your carry gadanner and your holding th@ tabsois coud lave Occurred daring that processiun by any pos- sibility’ A. Way, sir, ie might have occurred very easly, but it dia o Q Wel, it could not occur a8 @ matter of fact? A. Yes, (hat i the only way it could have oc | curred, 4. On that occasion without you knowing it? A, Now do you meaa tu ask me waether i could ha carried @ banner on that occasion without my | Well, sit, { did not Cary a banner ou that occasivn; | walked, knowing ity Q. Without knowing tt now? arm in arm, With a persousl (rend, A. Vuring the whole procession? A, You @ Very Well, We wih OG de UUs | been here; [do noc remember on :eturoing trom | lL waiked arm im ari with my | | ner to the memory of such a mang he went to the scaffold with a Bible in his Nand kissing I!, aad hit soul went up toGod; no man could be ashamed for carrymg a banner for him. Q. How trequeatiy dtd you daring this period 0) your acquaintance with Mrs. Woodnull go with het to Couey Island? A, 1 recollect gotog with her | once, perhaps twice. | @ Did not you go more? A, No, sir; [thin not. 4. Are you certain you did not go more? A. No, sir; Lam not certain about anything. Q. And didn’t you go boating if you did not co batniug? A. 1 went once rowing on the Hariem River with Mrs, Woodhull and her husband. Q. Was that on Sunday? A, {don't rememberd quite likely, Q. Were those visits at Coney Istand oa Sunday? A. My impression 13 that they were on Saturday; I would not ve certalo, nave been there on Sunday; it might well have been Sunday as any other da, . So far as you were concerned or she? A.) think very likely. Mr. Evarts here suggested it was the hour for rece INFLUENCING THE JURY. The Judge—} wish to say that a communication has been handed up by a responsible person say- ing that yesterday persons were standing vehind the jury—not those who are now there—and one person was heard to make Aremark in regard to the ease in the hearing of the jury. That 19 tne suoject of this complaint. I want it unde stool that this court will punish verely and summarily. without respect persons, when any such thing occurs again, al charge the officer having that locality under iis direction-toat the jury must be euadied to go out Without being subject to the remarks of those around, and think it 18 hard that spectator! should so far forget themselves and the respect aye tothe jury as to indulge in apy such observa ions, Mr. Evarts—I have observed, without making any remark about it before, that sometimes spece tators or auditors would lean over that raul, tim mediately behind the jury, and thus bring them. selves quite In proximity to the jury. I think tere Should be a8 much space sor Visitors as pos- sible, yet it seems to me the space behind the jury should be kept ciear. rhe Judge—It shall be so hereafter. ‘The Court then adjourned to two o'clock. AFTER RECESS the foreman of the jury protested against the ime Putation that was sought to be made by the letter addressed to the Court which was referred to oe- fore recess. Being the first occasion on which the jury made any motion to speak, great curiosity was shown by everybody to hear what was offered, ‘The foreman made a dignified and manly protest in a few words, and gave a favorable impressien of his fellow jurymen. The Judge—It may bave arisen a3 on unjust re flection on them, 1am very glad to hear what the foreman nas said, i The cross-examination of Theodore Tiiton waa then resumed by Mr, kvarts. MKS, TILTON'S LETTER ON CATHERINE GAUNT. A book containing letters and statements was handed to the wituess by Mr. Evaris. Witness Baid:—ihis seems to me @ reproduction of the Cutherine Gaunt letter; I do not know whetier it 18 correctly printed; I could not say whether any omissions ure made here; the waole letter Was lithographea in the Graphic, | believe; I couid | not answer ag to whethe: any omissions are no ed | in this print; I remember that the Catherine Gaunt Jetier has never been printed correctiy except im -the lithographic transcript im the Graphic newspaper; there have been muay errora printed; I think very 16w oi the transcripts have Deen put into the book shown me: the Catherine Gaunt ietcer was piven tothe Graphic offive to be lithographed cannot say tor certain that everything was lithozrapued that was sent over; 1 know I sent it over myseli to be hithograp.ed; think 4 numoer of letters tuat were sent Were not lithograpned; whether the “Catherine Gaunt” let. ter was inciuded [ do not know. (A number of leaves Of nandwriting were here handed to the witness.) { recognize this a3 Mr. Mavee rick’s handwriting, but not as the Catherine Gaunt letter; it appears to be a copy ol 16 or of & portion of if; L don’t know whether if ig alt here or not; this 1s a reproduction ot the | letter or of part of It; i don’t Kuow wich; It cad be easily compared with the orlzinal if itis here! 1 don’t tuink these leaves purport to be a waulé jetter; 1 don’t see on them aby marks, or aster isxs, or omissions of any Kind; laon’t sse any | taimg to indicate that thatis not the whole or the Jetter, nor ts there anytuing at all to indicate that | this ig a quotation; my recollection 18 thatin the printing of the letter by some biuuder a line or | two was ieit out, and I recoliect sending it over to | the Graphic, where it was iichographed: my im+ | pression 18 that you will flnd tt litnog:aphed in | One of the impressions iroin the Graphic, bu 1 will | mothe ceitain; 1 do not know whether there ts @ | sentence left out there or uot; Lrememoer that after the Sworn statement was published I made some little comparison between that and th¢ original mao ripts uod ound some little omix |. slung and errors; lt strikes ine there was an errol | iu the Catherine Gaunt letter, bul I do not exe actiy know, Q Did youremember an omission that struck you as important or was it untmportant? A, Tre mewber Wien my sWora statement was. printed, | as it was printed without my authority and witne | out my revision, | leared there were many typo« | graphical errors in 1; tt was printed wich an omis | Sioa in one part, asterisks being thrown 10; 1 ree member some time afterward looking fo see how jar the documents had been incorrectly or cor | rectly printed; 1 remember there was an error 11 | Mr. Beecuer’s letter of the Ist Jan ary; it said, | “other breasts Would acne,” instead of ‘other | hearts,” and there was another error oi a word, and my impression is there was some omission 10 tne Catherime Gaunt letter and one or two other jetters, and I sent to the Graphic oilce to have it | produced, | Q 1 repeat my question, When you saw au | Omission, you did see it, in tig print of tha | Catherime Gaunt letter, as compared with tng | original, did the omission strike you as important | or only unimportant | Mr. Beach—Tae witness does not s:ate positively | that he saw any omission in the lett ot nd | Witness—I don’t remember any, particulariy, | there. | Mr. Evarts to witness—What do you say about | that? | ¥ Mr, Beach—Wait one moment. [ object to assum | tug that there Was an omission in the Catherine Gaunt letter. | Witness—I think there was a sentence or so lef | out. ‘Yoe Judge—1 he question is now whether that tt important or not. Witness— Lo ‘The Judge—Any end. | Mr. Evarts—the trath—fulness of the publica tion of the letter. Witness—No, sir; my recollection 1s there was something about the renewal of the mazriagé vow. Mr. Rvarts—We will see the difference. Mr. Beach—Well, I object to his introducing tt The paper will val for 1tsell. r, Byarts (reading) — Te: ‘ ni Scuomanie, June 29, 1871. My Dean Tazopons:— Mr. Tilton—-I never had occasion, Mr. Evarts, te | compare it with the printins of this book, but | with the printlagin the Argus newspaper. Mr, Kvarts—Weil, We bave got tt ners ag tt wa originally written. (Readiny.| Scvonaniz. June 29,-1871. | My Dear Taeovore—To-day, through the minisiry @ | catierine Gaunt, a characier'of ficuon, inv eyes have been opened jor the rst une in my experience, so that | Usee clearly my sin, Jt was when Tknew that 1 wat loved, t sutfer itto grow a passion. A virtuous womud | shoul) cece iastantiy an absorbing love. iat it ap | peared to me ii such talse light That the love £ teig ‘and reeeived could hirm no one, nor even you, have belfeved unaltermyly until tour o'clock this afters noon, when the hpavenly Vision dawn: me. 1 see | how, as Never beiore, the Wrong J have Gone you, aud | hasien tmmediately to ask your pardon, with & pent tence so sincere that hencefvril (if reason remains) you | may trust menmplicity. Oh! my dear Theo tore, your | opinions are not restfui or congenial to my soul, yet my | own integrity and purity are w sicred ant holy \ning | ine. BiesaGod with ine tor Catherine Gaunt and tor alt sure leading of an ali-wise and loving Provideuce. Yes how Ficel quite prevared to renew iny marriage vow with you, to Keep it us the Saviour requireth, w | eth atthe eve and the hear: Never bstore cou | this. Wher you yearn toward me with trae feeting Assured of the triéd, puritied and restored love of — Mr. Evarts—1 now come to the part that is omit at end? | tea. % | Counsel for plaintiff objected, Mr. Beach stauing | that 1. Was itaproper to make any such remark ta | the bmn of the jury, there being no evidence to support It. | ‘An hufateresting discussion between counsel and the Juage ensued. | Witness suid;—if there ts any error in the copy- | ing do not iay it to the credit of Mr. Maverick, be. cause be 18 a very accurate and mechodical man; am not couscious of any inaccuracy In the paper | and | do not detect any. | Mr. Evarts—1 propose to offer the letter in, | Mr. Fulerton—Ii tue Court please, what ta thie Paper which they now show to tie witness and ‘Which they call the Catherine Gaunt letter? itis said to bea part o. Mr, Titon's statement, but u¢ roof has been offered of taat Jact or that formed aby part of the case. Until that is put iz evidence we cannot take It for xraoted t Catharine Gaunt letter jormet part oj that grate mens, Neither can we take tt for aranted thai Mr. Maverick did make a copy of that letter an¢ | that gnis 18 the copy so made, iay have madi & copy for some purpose of his own, for anything koow. “ne Judge—It is improper to speak of It as sworn statement, Mr. Fuilerton—It fs improper to speak of it at his statement without alinding to it, until we have beon informed im @ proper Way, They produ some louse leaves, & part of what they call a state ment, aod asking if he read iv—that (8, aa for ag tuey were giveb. It should be tn evidence or out ol evidence. Mr. Evarts —Now, if Your Honor pleases, that ts the limputation, fod itis avery serious one. He | says tve impatation 18 that Mr. Liiton has pree | seuted betore the committee o1 the cuarch — Mr, Tiiton—That wWentical letter you old in your | band, Lcarried tt there—— | Mr, Evarté—And tas published ia the same mane ner the etter oO: his Whe, presented as a vitab roint, alfecting her. Tnatis not a ietter oO his wh at an ormiasxiod Of the part oft changes its sen! Now, that is the imputation. The Judge— ow, the question is waather or nos it Is Dot ne 'y tor you (oO prove Unis sratement Which you have sald is sworn to, Mo. verteAnd thut 1 propose to produce, thee aud effect,