The New York Herald Newspaper, February 11, 1875, Page 4

& NEW YORK HERALD, THURSDAY, FEBRUARY JD, 1875.—TRIPLE SHEET. THE GREAT SCANDAL TRIAL ntesidigliateaseemsini Twenty-Eighth Day of the Tilton Beecher Suit, THE PLAINTIFF GETTING TIRED Sharp Passages Between Mr. Evarts and the Witness. BESSIE TURNER ONCE MORE Explanation of the Winsted Bit of Scandal. Mrs. Tilton “Pure as Gold and True as Light.” A long see-saw cross-examination developing a oarnfal of chaff and an indnitesimal measure of grain, a crowde4 court room, a pleasant lignt and atmosphere, a trifle more color in the ladies’ hats aud shawls, aod a female Jace fresh and ravisniog, were among the features of yesterday's sitting of she Court in the trial of Tilton vs, Beecher. The pro- | their fascination stil, There have been greater trials, but none so attractive as this, Wo juryman has lallen asleep, no seats have been facant, and yet the round of the day’s business nag many a time been as dreary as the reading of A country newspaper. Almost all that has beer developed in evidence was anticipated in the huge publications of last summer, and the interest that still remains iu THE OFT-TOLD TALE, though phenomenal, admits of easy explanation. The climax that never comes is daily hoped for, The something mysterious that is to transcend all prior revealments and confound a listening World is on the poimt of being disclosed aud is ever withheld. “Man never is but always to be biessed.” Tat court every morning of five days in the we and will continue to do so to the very ead. THE PARADOXES, Great in the character of the principals to the action, and im its seope, infueace and conse- ences this tri ceedings ho Foremost 1s the theory of Tiltun’s that one of the two necessary to the crime of adultéry can be “oure as light and true asgold.” Equally puzzling is the Beecher theory that ‘the phystcal expres | means Lo more than tue action of | slon of love” the hand in the inscription of a note of affection. TRUE AS GOLD. For over twoscore times the witness reiterated fis faith in the purity of his wife. Yesterday’s eross-examination, taking a retrospective step, brongnt up the records of the Piymouth church investigation, Page afier page of Tilton’s teati- mony was read, in whic the avowal of beitef tm the purity and imnocence of Mrs. Tilton was made in varying forme and with no lack of positiveness. The witness Without swearing to the exactness of the words, | affirmed that they contained substantiatly bis convictions, not alone then but pow. Tilton) is true as gold and pure as light.” This Was bis sentiment always aud remains so still. Mr. Evarts laid aside these admissions witn a | look of sativiaction. What better material coula he provide tor Dis finalappeal tothe jury. li she be “pure as gold and true as light’ as the witness swears she is now as well as then, where is the min? If transcendentalism in love eliminates the Soul from the body, holds tne one irresponsible lor the vagaries of the other, can there not beaa impartial consideration ror both sides? “Is nov Beecher pure as gold and true as steei?” Has he ®rred one iota ia the moral impuises of bisnature? Is this to be the reasoning of the defence? Is Tilton’s theology to be converted into a shield to save Beecher? Snail the engineer get hoisted by tis own petard ? N@AR THE END. ‘The cross-examination 1s now near its close, and will probably end to-day. Ic has been extremely vuluminous. It is im parts very interesting, though the bulk of the disclosures have been an- ticipated. THE SPECTRE OF WOODEULL moved again uneasily across tue boards. There was Mystery somewhere, The ears of the listen- srs were on the alert. ‘Now,’ thought they, “something startling is about to come.” Ques- tions, piled Pellou on Ossa, were thrown out by counsel to achieve one simple reply, “Did Tilton speva three days in July, 1871, in the company of Mrs. Woodnulif” The minds of the audience were actively at work to fathom the point of the inquiry. The wit’ Bess collected Bimself. on slippery groupd—that a trap lurked behind the question—and he threw his head back for a mo- ment, a8 if to catch the purpose ot the counsel's persistency in seeking ananswer. No, he did not spend three days with or he should have remembered it. He spent part of ove day and that was in the company o! her nusband and her- self, The scent for scandal was disappointed and the atmospbere grew pure again. THE LIGHT OF HEAY: In the afternoon, through the pale yellow bilnda Om the soutn side of the court room, the san’s rays streamed to toa giad welcome. Mr. Beech- er’s ace underwentachange. His eyes greoted the saulight, and for @ moment he seemed to for- get ali his surroundings and hall as a harbinger of victory and peace this cheerinl messenger of Heavec. More contained, resigned ana even sheerfal appeared the distinguished preacher. He Durst into a proad Jaugh when Evarts, chuckling with murch, informed the Jadge, in reply to the question if he would close the cross-examination before recess, that it depended on how long recess could be postponed. THE LAOIES sit in silence througa the proceedings. Word escapes their lips, They feel a consciousness that eavesdroppers are in their neighborhood. They are growiug weary of the long vigil. Toeir eyes wander litt They look straight out across the beads before them, and listen mechanically. 4 \ady of uacommon beauty sat aemurely in the Tear of the regular female phalanx. NEARLY 4 ROW. In the course of bis cross#examination Mr. Evarts, by the rigid formulahe imposed upon the Witness in his answers, clearly attempted gagging. He asked the witness if he showed @ paper called “The True Statement” to Dr. Storrs, The answer Was required to be a yes or no; vat here waa Bperpiexity tha: demanded reliet. The witness ‘sowed @ paper to Dr. Storrs which was only the pasis of True Stat nt,” but the full paper itself he had not shown, The difficulty of answering in a monosyliable, without caasing BS misconception, was apparent, Mr. Beach came to Tiitou’s assistance and appealed to the Court, Mr, Evarts continued speaking while Mr. Beach attempted to make himself heard. At last the latter turned snaiply on the former and said, with bitterness, “You must not try to interrupt me,” while bis face tlasaed crimson and his eye anced Vage lire @t his Opponent. it was a ut it Was greatly eujoyed by the ON THE BENCH, Attorsey Wiuslow, member of the luvestigation, gecupied & District Beuen Commitiee of seat beside the Judge during the morning session. He Is a \arge-neaaed, maseive-faved man, with a stroog, projecting nor ke the abutment of a one bridge; & Weil Cc Hon Gl eye. He list a irom interrupting tie waronfal Juage. mouth and @ culm ex- ed attevtively, ond ab- tention oF bu THE EVIDENCE, Mr. Tilton took nis seat jew minut @leven o’c\ock, aud Mr, Evar med hia cro Sxemination by banding witness @ letter dated charm of suspense crowds the | 1 will in any way be remembered | as embracivg a bewildering chain of paradoxes. | “3he (Mrs. | He seemed to feel he was | Hardiya | rv 8, 1869, Tidioute, Pa. and asking him to Janna verity this date. Witvess—t gave consulted a memorandum 900k of iy lecture season of 1893-09, and fud that oo January 8 isdy, | was at Delawere City; I fud also that | was at Winsted, or ; 4 rather, that I was at 810; wary 8, , 189; the proper date of thas be——; It Must have been just suck | an error as you have pointed out previous! My. oath then read the jetter irom Mr. Last 1M iton ch an eXp.anation 1s given of ube Wine le The young girt is spending a hurried vacation at my and having a desire to hear me lecture, and une dins tat T shoud not lecture nearer rk 2: ‘as put into a ro {she Was putin a room that ha exchange rooms with her, not do without a fire my- 1 tor two rocking chai and read to me; went to seep; this was in the ome gentiemen caine—pernaps dT ‘0 the chureh to n the bed and mn; pret | Que of them was'yoursel w x the platform: when I returned | ieanwhhe the lady had gone to sleep and awakened again, and was siting up when I returned; if apy ot the servants saw her with ner dress unduttoned they must ¢ taken advantage of my absence to intrude young girlalone in a strange place; 1 never with her dress uubuttoned ; she accompanied me to the | leetare, and apon returning to the hotel she went die | rectly to ber room ant I to mine, and Lsaw ber no more nati the next moruing; but perhaps rvants stole in upon her a second time and saw her with her dress | Unbuitoned. Witness resuming—That is the matter that ts | known, or has veen spoken of, as the Winsted im- pucation, or scandal, a8 It has been called; it was | more receot ip its relation to the period of 1870 than Thad supposed; that | was at Winsted on tne 28th of December, lsu; {cannor reeall the genueman, Mr, Hastings, by mume, but my recollection of the matter ts that while [ was lecturing out West M | was then my associate in the Independent, re- | celvea some question or some Statement that the | story Was belay used to my discredit; that is my recollection; this letter was Written 1D conse- | quence of my hearing some reproach upon myse:f | in tots connection, and this was written as ao ex- planation; th was written a lew days after 1 bad been at Winsted, THE WOODHULL AGAIN. Q. Mr, Ttiton did you know or hear of the exist- | ence of slips in advance of the pubiication of tue Woodhull scandal belore tt was published? A. Q Did you never? A, I wish to amend that | | Answer; pertaps | don’t understand your ques- | thon; alter my return from New Hamspbire, at the | interview at Mr. Moulton’s house— | .Q You have toid us that A. 1 was then told ) that slips had been presented to Mr. Beecher. No, q That | understand, You vuen heara it forthe | first time? A. Yes, sir, Q. Have you never heard that for several | Months belore the publication os the Woodhull scaudal slips O1 1¢ were exhibited in the daily paper ofices of the city of New York, or some | of in? A, I dave heard in the later days a | starement to tnis effect, that certain newspapers | had the essence of the story; im what shape J don’t know. Q. The essence of the story that afterward ap- ne Woodhull pablication, you mean? | of the story of Mr. Beecner’s rela- | wonsh | *. Tiltou. A. For instance, I have p with M Q, Well, you did hear? heard that some gentemen knew tue story, some Wille ago; liad ic in (heir ofices; what tounda- tion theve was for ty | don’t know. q. You remember to have heard that that pub- | Neation of the Woodhuils, as 1t appeared in No- ) Vember, in wboie or in part, had been put into the shape O! siips or type, and hud been exnbidited in Some Of the newspaper oftices in the city of New | Yorx, otuer than Mrs, Wovauull’s own newspaper | fice? A LEGAL WRANGLE. Mr, Beach—Why do you ask that? Mr. Evarts—To get at the facts. . Beach—We object. he Juuge—I think you may inquire as publication. Mr. Evarta—I think I have aright to find out whether le ever heard of it, I must frat ioquire whether he ever heard of it. Mr. Fullerton submitted that the question should | be Limited to the time of the publicaiton or Deiore | the publication, Mr. Evarts—rhe cross-examiner can generally tell the witness what point he Wishes to arrive at. Mr. Beach—There 18 no necessity for care or concealment about a point of this kind, The question is whetber prior to this publication he | had heard of the fact that taere were slips in ex- istence of the whole or part of ti. Tnac is material and that alone, ‘ne present question which calls Jor intormation or rumors alter that period is totaily immaterial. | ‘Toe Judge—t think ne muy answer the question. | _ (Sienographer reads the question by request of Mr. Evarts. Mr. Beach—I object to the question, unless lim- | ited to @ time prior to tue publication. Toe Judge—“e may answer the question. | A. I never heard sach @ story a® tnat until | within the last year or two. | Q Now be #0 good as to give m near as you can, of the 1 some notion, uency with Wuich you were in Mrs, Woodhuli’s office during the period | iearned the lact yesterday j to the | j aiso Twas at Wite | Grea times; I can’t say whetner he Ww: ings, dated Tidiowte. Pa, January 8, | | at that time a clergyman, the Rev. Mr. Gubere | Now follows this question and the answer that! | Letter.” where I ver whether Naven, dida't you? A. I don’t remem! he contributed at this time; ne aid for many years; he was one of my mostintimate friends; he member of the Methoatst Episcopal Church ; Mr. Haven has been at my house perh ee bun. there in November or at any particular date; 1 simply ; Tecoilect the fact that Bishop Haven, poth before he came to be Bishop and after that, made many | Visits to my house. SECURING THE CHILD, Q. On her arrival from the West did not you re- ceive her at the curst A, Yes, sir; 1 went over to | New York with a carriage. ee & And you received her at your houset A. Yes, Q, And then she went to see her mother that | day? A. Yes, sir, » And you remember that she did come and | talk witn you? A. Yes, sir, Q. Now, can you recollect that it was not until @ Week or ten days alter that—her retura irom the Weat and the v ys your house and remained away? A. | think it was about that. Q. Now, how many days was she absent on that occasion’ A. I have no means of fixing the time; it may be two or three Saye. @nd it may be longer. . Now, do you remember coming to your office during that time of ner avsence from the house or not? Yes, sir, 1 remember sending for her from the office of the Brooklyn Union one day. Q. Had she wich her during her absence at her | remember sending for the child, | | | | mother’s, in this absence, an infant child? A, 1 think she Lad. Aud do you rememper during her call at your ai Your request, sending for that ip/ant und taxing it Irom Mrs, Morse, in your wile’s ce, to your Own house? A. It was not dur. ing Mrs. Tutou’s call on ine at the Union ofice, [ but it was not during Mrs, 1ultou’s c sl at tae Unton office. Q. When wus it you sent for the cnila? A, I cannot idenuly tbe day; I think I wrote a note, WAS It HER HOME? Q. [ask when she came to your house whether she cares ” her home or not? A, Yes, sir, she certainly did, ( Piease 100k at this, and say if this is the mes. sage that you sent tor the cnila? (Letter handed to Mr, Tilton.) A. dJadge it to be so, sir. Q. Ha e ve you any doubt about it? A. None what- ver. Mr. Evarts—I will read this:— E.tex—Wrap the baby very carefall; hou igmgiedistely. FET oto D 6:15 P.M. Q. Who was Ellen? A. Ellen Dennis, my house keeper; the chill came by the hands of Ellen, in ursuance Of that errand on which she was seat; sent that paper and in answer to that paper the child was brougst; 1 have no personal knowledge as to the child being brought back to my house by this person or by that ‘On. A PUZZLING PROBLEM, Q. Do you remember how old the child was at the time?’ A- That 1s always the problem toat puzzies me; Wait a Moment; tie child was born to June, 1809; this was December, 1870; bow much that Mr, Evarts—Well, that shows. Do you remem. ber whether tne child was theo sick? A. No, it could not have been very sick or it would not have been moved. Clear cut evidence was given here. It wag direct, emphatic and precise, quite in contrast to what was given early in the morning. ELIZABETH NEVER DOES WRONG. Q. On the occasion of your attendance and answering to & question belyre the committee at Piymoutn courenh, piease say if this Ovcurred—dia ee upon being asked this question:—*Mr. Tilton, have you ever, alter what you state as airs. ‘il: ton’s contession to you, stated that sue had not Violated ber murriage vows, &c,’—in answer to that did you say, ‘Yes, Elizaoeth was in a sort of Vaporized light—a quality distinguished between ignt and dark; she could not sce that it was Wrong; she maintained, 1u my presence, to her and bring him ORB TILTON, mother, taat she had not done wronj she cannot bear to do wrong; her sense ot having done wrong 18 enough to crush her; she naturaily seeks for ner own peace in u Conscientious veraict; sae never would nave had those reiations 1 she bad supposea at tie lime they Were wrong; Elizabeth never does any- thing wroug tnatshe thinks wrong; for such a large moral nature tnere {sa lack of balance or equipois:; she had not @ will thst exerted sul- ficieut restraial; Elizabeth never does anything at apy time that does not bear the stamp of her conscience at tae thie she does 1. Did you sa, that Im auswer to @ question put to your A. said something like that, sir; don’t know how accurately it is reported. Q. Substantially toat? A, There is a phrase about “Dot violating the marriage vow.” | think asl put that it was, “chat sie thought she had not,” instead of “she insisted she had not.” But the substance of that statement, I think, is very true of Mrs. Tilton. If you will let me look at it now and read it over again, Mr. Evarts, I wiil tell you where I think it is true and where it 1s not. Mr. Evaris—{ wil do so, but I will ask you an- Other question So as to connect it, On this answer being jade by you, so far as it was made, were Jou asked then this question’ “Wid you say, or of time which you Lave assignea as the space of | did you not, that she tusisted that she had ——'’ Your aequaintauce. A. | tuink I stated esterday that I was there very irequently, thougi 1 don’t Many altogether; lrometimes went when occa- sion did not require; I always went wuen sent for, aud sometimes spontaneously. WOODHULL AGAIN. There was a pricking up of ears when Evarts be- | gan to push his question on the witness as to | Whether he spent three consecutive days in the | company of Mrs. Woodhull in July, 1871. It 1s evi- | dent that a host of auxiliaries are enlisted on the Beecher side to’ rake ap all the tacts ana dust of facts concerning the plaintif. The cross-exam- ination seemed to run along a perilous edge of tn- | quiry, giving the audience the impression that some startling divuigement was at hand. VISITING MRS. WOODHULL aT HOME, I shouid say | visited Mrs, Woodnuil at her | house daring the period of our acquaintance ten | know now frequently; I went whenever cccasion | marriage.’ required; 1 do uot know how many times; a good | put to you did you sa; I suppose the question should read, “not violated her marriage vows? lt reads, “violated her Well, in any answer to the question he was alwa that it never seemed to her wrong, and The: 1 Con’t now see that | have wronged you. id you make that answer? A. Something like taat; 1 will pot make oatu Lo the woras; I snoud like to read tt a little more carefully before I au- swer deiluitely, Q. That is enough for me. You have answered and we have got your answer. Now, if you wish to look at the passages which | have read they are included tn pencil brackets, Mr. tilton. (The book containiug tne report was handed to witness.) Witness (aiter looking)—With some little cor- rections, Mr, Evarts, 1 would be very bappy to Dave this statement stand. Here was a striking episode. Evarts slowly Tead a portion of tne statement made by the wit- or eleven times la all, but won’s oe certain; I | | spent the might wager her roof once. and once only; it Was ia the month of September; I don’t remember precisely; I cangot tell where I was trom the 3d to the och of July, 1371; Ihave no data | whetaer | was with her on the 3d and Sth of July. MEMORY DEPENDS ON CIRCUMSTANCES. | _ Q Did you spend ettuer of the nights connected | With those days at the house of Mrs, Woudhull? A. { Was not at tue house of Mrs, Woodhu'l onany might save the one to whicn | have referred. | Q Then 1 wil ask you this direct question, whether on those three days, the 2d, 4th and 5th | In my oind to answer the question; I do not re- | member wheter 1 spent tue 4thof July in the | | Company of Mrs. Wooduuli, nor do I remember | ot Jay, 1871, you were not in the company of Mrs. | Wooanull and at ner house, and did not spend | leugth without the taought of passion or criminal- | elther of those three nights or ope of those nights | ity 1? ness before the Investigating Committee of Ply- mouth church. It was an excuipation of Mrs. Tilton. Mrs. Tiltun, sitting between Mrs. Field and Mrs, Shearman, with a red shawl wrapped around ber sboulders, turned her head toward her husband and there crept into her eyes an expres- sion something that looked like the rekindled fre of love and admiration, She reddened slightly end kept a steady eye on ber husband. ‘ TILTON’S CONFIDENCE IN H13 WIFE. On tiat occasion, Mr. Tilton, were you asked question, and did you make the answer tnatL all read following it? This is the question: - Y Well, 18 sne a Character who coulu have the hizbest revereuce and enthusiasm jora man of Mr. Beecher’s temperament and rel gious convice tions and teachings, and carry itu the extreme nis tl .. And this is the answer:—"Ido not think at ier house? A. 1 Wil answer @ part of your | the thougnts of passion or criminality were in her question with @ peremptory no; I did not spend | heart at ai. 1 thing they were aitogether in iis, either one, two or three of taose nights at her | [think she thougnt oniy of her luve and rever- house, buc whether during those three days I saw her or not! cannot say. Q. Do you mean ‘o | rence as far back as July, 1871, nat, relating to the | mode of spending that holiday and toe days about | ay, in regard toan occur- | ence y"” Q. Did you answer that’ A. Ido not remember Wuether I did or not; 1 I did not then I answer 10 here now; that ts the trath. Q. Were you then asked “that such a character frequently said that during the year following”’— | | have read to you that you didn’t tiink she eve: | did, You do not, U understand, recognize thos | questions and a ers. Then! asked you this | one, following that. Were you asked this ques. tion :—*You don’t believe she ever telt or believed it, do you?” And aid you answer to that question, ‘No, that is to say, in one sense she lovea him. She loved his religious views; sie loved him as an evangelical minister; buy 1 don’t tmnk, upon the Whole, he was as mucn toleras 1 was. Still, of course, Mr, Tra Lcan’t question her motives, A she should say he was more to her than I was [ | can’c dispute it.” Did you bear such a question | and make suco answer’ on that occasion? A. I don’t remember either the question or answer, but what 1s incorrect in the auswer 18 the phrase, | “1 don’t question her mutives;’? there 13 no sense in that phrase in that connection: what I evi- dently meant to say there was I would not dispute her assertion ; in other rosie if she shouid say she loved Mr. Beecher more than me 1 Would take | her word for it, TILTON AS A PHONOGRAPHER. Mr. Tilton, you are un expert phonograpner, | are you not—a practical phonograpnic reporter ? A. Weil, sir, 1am a phonograpber; 1 studied pno- nography when I was a boy, but have not prac- ‘iced it Very much since; only incidentally, not professionally ; T reported some of your speeches, Q. Now, Mr. Tilton, will you tell ns whether or not you are au expert phonographer? A. Solomon Says ‘Let another praise thee and not thine own Ups.” (Laughter.) Q. What has Solomon to do with your case? (Laugnter.) a. He is the wisest man | know of. Judge Neilson—state whether you consider yoursell an expert. Witness—Well, sir, I should have to answer yes, but it is under compulsion, Mr. Evarts—uat 1 understand, and perhaps some Other answers you Lave made. Q. Now, during the period of the conferences and consultations and reading and hearing papers which you have spoken of, im which you and Mr. Beecner, or Mr. Beecher and Mr, Moulton took part, were you in the habit of making phono- graphic copies of ail papers that were ip Mr, Mouiton’s bands that came under your notice, or not? A. No, sir; I made some notes that | thought important to have copies of; | made notes of very ew of them, net one-twentieth part of the whol thing; I would not like to recite here from mem- ory, under oath, of the papers! copied; I made a copy of Mr. Beecher’s letter of January 1, 1871, called ‘the Letter of Contrition,” on the same evening when saw it; 1 made a copy of the letter of the 7th of February, which Mr. Beecuer sent to Mrs. ‘Tilton through ny hand; also a copy of Mr, Moulton’s letter uf the 7th ot February, which | borrowed to show to Mrs. Til- ton; Lremember that 1 made copies of my own letters—for instance, my letter to Mr. Bowen, of January 1, 1871, and generally my own letters; my impression is that or allo: the many letters out- side of those Mr. Beecher sent to Mr. Moulton forty or fifty, are tere not?—that I made a copy | of @ iragment of two—namely, part of te jetrer ol June 1, 1873, @ part or two parts perhaps of Mr. Beecher’s letter dated February something— the “Ragyed Edge Letter” it ts called; just at itis | momeut do not remember making any other copy; if you should give me all the papers and ail the letters in the cage | think that I could take them Up one by one and teli you whether I copied tis and did not copy that; I copied very little; there was a multitudinous corresoondence extending over four years; 1 think I conied very littie indeed; Isnould tbink @ very small portion, Q. Now did you on this exam:nation before the committee in “answer to the question make the answer woich | will read:—"Q, Have you a copy ofit? A, Yes; I think f am not wrong. Q. Can you produce a copy? A. I do not Know; 1 am sorry I cannos tell you; {have a mass of phonograpnic notes; whenever these letters came, whenever there was anything to them that Frank wanted me to see, he would read them tome, Whenever Mr, Beecher said anytning that he thougat, being read to me, would gratify my feel- ings and induce to » compromise of peace ve- tween us, speaking of the Kindness with which I treated him, or of nis difMiculties, Frank read them to me, and, as [ wrote shorthand, 1 alway used to make a copy of them?” A. I did not say “always ;” 1 said “sometimes ;” because morally I did not aiways make them. WERE ANY LEITERS DESTROYED Q. Have you at any time destroyed any of Mr. Beecher’s letters that paysed or came in your hands during this travsaction? A. I never had any of Beecher’s letters; Beecner never wrote me any letters; 1 don’t understand what you refer to. Q. Iwiil repeat the quesuion again, Have you at any time destroyed any letters or papers (rom Mr. Beecher that came in uuder any of these transac- tions, conterences and consultations that came under your notice during the period between the g0th—the 20vh of December to the present time ? A. No, sir; I never bad any to destroy, Q. Have you Sorte ey any papers or letters of Mr. Moultou’s? A. No, sir, not one. Q. Or any of your own, either to Mr. Beecher or to ar, Moulton, or to either o1 them, during the progress of this, of these, consultations between you? A. No, sir; I thiok, Your Honor, that an- Wer Ought to be amended; Mr. Mouiton was io {we baoit of Writing ine two or tite lines, saying, ’ “pear Theodore, come around and dine with me, or at supper; { never kept gay such notes as to! I nave never destroyed any important er. se BESSIR TURNER ONCB MORE. . Do you remember tnat very soon after the 1st the West; but you spoke o| her as an inmate of | my house, Which leads ine to say that notwitb- | janding the fac: that 1 answered you aday or two ago that she ad resided there in 1870,1 find on | reflection that previous to that time sne had longed to @ pubdilc institution of sume sort, and resiaed @ while im the family of Mr. David Dow, of New York; I think those circumstances had evaded my mind; in otuer words, she nad not been living at my nouse continuously; J don’t | think that she was there during tae year 1870; I | dou’t think she nad lived there for a considerabie period before sne left; no, I cannot give the period Ol these absences; 1 cannot stave what years either or bota o; them were; my present impres- sion is that, possibly, in 1803 and 18€9 she was | away either at this institution or at Mr. Dow’s | family, and then she went away to the Weat and was there when Mrs. Tilton was and returned With Mrs. Tilton from the West; that Was in the year 1870; so far as ] have it in my memory these absences were in 1870 or 1860; that is my impres- sion, Q You think, substantially, that in both these years she could not be cunsidered a member of your Jamily? A. Yes, sir; suill may be wrong. Now, before she went to the West she wrote, did sue not, two letters? A, What is that? Q. Before she went to the West in January, 1871, or aiter January, 1871, did sne not write two letters, which have been given in evidence ere ? | A. Yes, sir, 1 presume they are; I did not see her write them; her name is signed on them. | _Q You know of tae letters I refer toy A. Ye air. Q. And you have them sufficiently in your ming to be a basis of recollection? A. Yes. sir, ‘The Court here took the usual recess. AFTER RECESS. After the Court met again a quarter of an hour | elapsed before the proceedings were resumed, The room filied up, the Judge was on the bench, | the ladies in their places and the witnessin the | chair. Mr. Evarts still tarried, and the suspense | was growing painful. Plaintim and defendant it, you have no recollection avout it? A. I nave | would not excite u thought oi jealousy ag io her,” | faced each other, tue one gazing at the gallery, No! any Sorto! notion; if anyining noteworthy and you answered, “I uever nad tue silgntest Jeel- Y had occurred | think | should nave remembered it. Q. Do you mean worth repeating? A. Yes, sir. Q. Then, if You nad spent these three days in ing Oj jealousy in regard to Elizaveth Did you by ‘noteworthy’? anything | answer that? A, 1 do not remember, sir; but it is true, Q. Itistroe? A. Yes, sir; I bad unlimited con- her company, leaving oot the nights, tuat would fidence in her. Lot have been a fact to ix itsell in your memory? A. That Would have depended on circumstances. Q. fhen the passage of threo days consecu- ‘ively With her Woula not have been @ noticeable © fact’ A. Yes, sur; it would uave been, very. Q. Now, if you had done so it would not have been such @ not.ceable lact as Wwouid nave im- pressed itself on your memory? A, Yea, air; ut hadi should rememver it this moment, butitl Q. Were you asked this question:—Tne fact | that she manifested this enciuusiasm, that fact would not jead you to suspect per motives and purity originally,” and did you answer, “Lt would nov; iaterit did” A. ter clause Of that. Evidently the auswer whicn 1 gave to that question Was Coat never until tue dis- closures cate out hadi put ovber toan an iuno- cent interpretation on ier relationsnip vo Mr, had seen her io a coance way I should not remem- | Beecher. ber it. Q Would you regard a visit to her at her own | | house & chance occurrence, that would ‘eave no | their relatious ¥ Impression on your memory? A. I tuink fl had gune there three days iD succession I suouid have remembered it, WHERE WAS MRS. TILTON? Mr. Tilton continued, juton was during those three days of July, 71; [ think she was lo Sehobarie; my impression ut (here ts @ letter from her, dated July 4; my best recollection is that my Wile Was in Schouarie at that time. GENERAL BUTLER VISITS MRS. WOODHULL, Q Do you remember an occasion on which you and she Were together in company with a lawyer jrom Lowell. a Mr. Cowiey, in the city of New York, at Mrs. Woodhull’s or any other piace oi | meeting, where Mra. Woodhull narrated to him the substance or sudject Of her suvsequent pubii- cation im 1872? A. No, sir; [ was in compan Mrs, Woodbail with a lawyer from Luweil, Gen- eral Butler. q | Bave not inquired in regard to General Batier, bat you have said something about him, | niz Were you with bim and wits, Woodnull together? AY iT; he Went with me to ner bouse; 1 do not recall the name of any iawyer named Cowley, of Loweil; | never heard sucn @ uame until now; Idou’t rememoer the jact 01 being im the presence of some third person While Mrs. Woodhull par- raged the substance of ber suosequent padlica. tiou except Mr. Moujton; I heard ber once speak ofitin bis presence, bat in no o:her person's, THE Pac ‘This paper ha issue of Woodhull and Clajin's Weekly, of May 17, 1973; the reason of the puoication by me of the ac-simue Was that I bad been accased by of Mv, Beecher’s iriends With having wrgea nents. aod I wished the gocumenis 1 hud used ald be exhioited to the public a8 accurate and uine; | adopted this very admirat method of luo-sim! publication to prove that fact; J iorget in what shape tue ietters peared in the Chicago Tribune; Mr. Underaiil and | dxed them up, : - WHEN MAS. TILTON LerT BOMB, @ Now, beiore tue Niness wi your wife in De- co.uber, how jung Was it that she bad jeit your house and had none to wer mother's? A. She dida’t leave my house to yo to her wother's; ane came home irom the West, and on the day of ner coming home she Weut ww ver mol ; that is my recoliection; she called at our nouse aa thea Went to her mother’s; ¢ date; thatis m | _@ Now, Mr, Thiton, may ve Wrong a4 to the recollection, however. ou lid among your ac | @aaintances aad coutributora to the Jndependent | would say she love {do not remember where | with | bim better tian me,” Q. Never until this alieged disclosure did you put anything bul an inuocent interpretauon on A. Never until theo, sir; no, sir, Q. Were you then next asked this question and did you make this answer, “For how tong a eriod 7”? *L do DOt kuoy remember | wrote ner some letters Which. 1 she las copied them, Will DX the date; there Was a tiwe when L felt that Mr. Beecher used his iinfuence gre A. But that was Lot in that passionate way; 1 don't remember What | answered to the comiit- tee; lam speaking DOW the truth ua it exists; L mean, Mr, bvarts, to say what until the story was toid me by her own lips tn July, 1570, | had pat no darmiul Construction on their relation, Daving, as T have jast said, Uninsited confidence in my wile, Q. Were you tien, joliowing in this line of in- quirs, asked t ‘To control her domestic rela- tions with you?’ “No, but to win her; he was always trying to get her to say that she loved A. No, sir; that was part of the story she toid me tn July. EVARIS WANIS THE EXACT TRUTH. Q. That question and answer you do nut recog: ? A. No, 1 do not, q Are you quite sure you didn’t make them; that tue Question and aiswer were not as they read bere’ A. Uh, they could not have been in shat couuection, sir, but 1 rewember ner saying that. «q Were you then asked this question—‘‘Sne never would say’ aud did you answer, ‘1 don’t think she ever did 1” A. That was part, also, statement Witch she made to me, Well, [ don’t ask that. | won't take your answer tO\at. My only question to you 1s, aud the evidence must be coulined to it, whetuer it Was put to you and sou made that answer’ A, Weil, Mr. Evarta, 1 have wo knowledge of the question put to me@ on taal occasion Or the auswer which I made to (hem otuer than the imperiect record in that purported cross-examination, which I repudiated the next-day, 60 that now Whon you put the questions to mé again | must Guswer them out o1 my memory as to the exact tuto, ofa | @ No; you must answer as to the exact trath of what you are ed, which 18 whether the Hestion Was asked and you made that answer. Thatisaliam asking you; uot whetver it was true, out mimply wWietie: Kueh @ qoestion wai asked you ad such an answer was made? A. Weil, aod I gave you the answer which | must have made (o tue questio: Those answers tucte are of them correct aud some of them incor Q 218 & great doul of bungling. the previous Fis as whether she ever a » Boocher vetrer than you. 1 Go not remember the lat- | ty upon her 7” | | the other scanning the golden scales of justice | apove His Honor’s head, Theodore Tilton’s cross-examination was re- sumed by Mr. Evarts. He said:— | [know o1 no letrers dated irom or written by Bessie furner veivre her departure for the Wes:, in or aiter January, 1971, except those that have been given in evidence; i do not rememver that | upon the occasion of tae conversation between me aud Mr. Bowen, when Mr. Ulver Johnson was present, belore or on Ube zoe of December, there was any relerence to an occurrence with which L Wos charged ag being connected in Nortntl | Mion.; | rememoper le Nortifleld onc cowlid not fx the dat good while ago—six or seven years ago; | remember staying in the house of a clergyman; | think LI can yet the date by applying to my lecture agent; I never heard tll tls inomenut that there Was @ cuarge against me | in reiauoa to my conduct watie l was at North- eld. BRECHER AND TILTON KISSING. Q. You have reierred to the occurcence, Mr, TiiLon, upon the occasion which you put some- Where, [ tink, rum the 16cn_to tie 20th of Jans Wary, Is7l, tHe occasion during Mr. Moul.on’s serivus tines, in wiico Mr, Beecaer ace sted you in the house of Mr. Mouiton, as he was ieaving, and saluted you With a Kiss on your forehead ? Do you remember it’ A. Yes, sir. Now. in the years of your acquaintance with Mr. Beecuer and up to tue ume of any estrange- meni, On Whatever date you put tuat, M your tne tercourse Witu Mr. Beecher Were you in the babit O1 saluting One another with a ku A. No, sit; | We have done so in earher years oceasionally, | _Q. Task you up to tae period o: your estrange- meut? A. | beg your pardon, | ask you whetner you mean during the last tour years? q. | ask you up to the period of your estrange- ment? A. We were notin the nabit of doing it, out it had beea done, q. Was it @ irequent cecurrence? A. No, sir, not trequenr. qy Bat it was occasional? A, Yes, alr. q There Was notching marked or unusual, was there, during tae period of this iriendsulp taat you should salute One another with akiss? A. it Was no habit, sir; it was ri ¢ @ noticeable event that such a tiing should occur, An ironicai smile greeted Tilton’s admission that in earlier years he and Mr, Beecher had been in the habit of saluting each other with a kiss. Beecher smiled and looked bashiul, as though | ashamed of the feminine weakness, Tliton took | occasion to reiterate that this amiable custom was confined to tne lalcyon days of their acquaint. | ance, when friendship iinked them in golden bands and their pats were among the fowers and under the greenwood trees, ‘The witness was then cross-examined at some length as to what the ‘Letrer of Contrition’” waa originally caled, He said that Mr. Beecuer always characterized it ag ter, througn My, Moul- ton,’ I, said tl characterized it in the “Bacon Letter’? “Phe Apoiwxy ;” | once oc tw! | Spoke to Mr’, Beecher on the suoject, aud always spe @ of It as bis letter; do not remember mal i] Gay description of it, eXcept ia tie “Bacon | Univ oslled it “The Apology; my im- | Pression ts that when a portion of the jetter was printed in what was called the 2 public journals very generally cuaracteria MR. BEECHEWS LEFrER OF CONTRITION} Laccepted the apology and forgave the offence WILD a4 MuCa largeness as 1 thought it yas possi- ble for a Christian man to assume; 1 think it rad likely that f Was asked a question on this subject | before the investigating committee, and mace tue answer you (Mr. Evarts) have quoted, though I have no distinct recollection oj it, Witness was | asked if he had been asked belore the | committee whetber his relanons aud feel- ings toward Mr.” Beecher had been triendly stnce January 1, 1871: and whether he had not answered that his relations and feelings toward lim, since January, 1871, when he made the apol- ogy, down to the time waen the church began to Put out its right hand and take bim witness) by the throat, were iriendly, He answered that they Were friendly tn the sense that they were Dot hose tile, He did not remember either the question or the answer, except as he had read them in the report. ‘That was all he nad to aid his memory on the subject. He did not know whether he was asked that question or whether be made tuat answer; the probabilities were that something like that was asked him and tnat made some such answer. He was further asked whether, ve- fore the committee, he was aske? whether “they” Mr. Beecher) are not now her they were iriendiy up to the beginning of the action of the church in this matter,” and whether he had answered ‘Yes, sir; that is to say, they were friendly in the sense that they were not Im collistonavith each other t” He replied that that was the only sense in which he and Mr, Beecher had been ‘friends for the past four years, All tue recollection ne had that those questions were asked and answered Was {rom the record in the book. He had no recollection of it other than /rom the record, A ietter was here handed to witness, He said it Was the handwriting o| Mr. Beecuer, Witness re- membered receiving that and handing it to his wue; he did not receive it personally trom Mr, Beecner. He received-it from Mr. Moulton. There Was uO date on tue letter, but witness thinks 1¢ was written in the spring of 1873, avout six months alter the events to which it alluded. « “THE GREAT WRONG THAT HAS BEEN DONW YOU.” Mr. Evarts read the letter as foliows:— My Dear Mus, Tittox—I hoped that you would be shielded from the knowledge of the great wrong that has been done to you, and through you to universal womanhood. I cun hardly bear to speak of it, or aliute toa matter than which nothing can be imagined more paintui to @ pure and womanly nature. I pray daily for you, “that vour faith fail not.” You ‘yourself know the'way and the power of prayer. God has been your refuge in many sorrows before, He wili now hide you in His pavilion until the storm be overpast. The rain that beats down the tlower to the earth will pass at I ngth, and the stem bent, but not broken, will rise in and blossom as before, Every pure woman on earth will feel that this wanton and unprovoked assault is aimed at you, but reaches to ersal Wowanhvod. Meantime your dear children will love you with double tenuerness, and Theodore, against whom these shafts are hurled, will hide you in his heart of hearts. ani glad that this revelation from the pit has given him a sight ot the danger that was betore hidden by epertous appearances and proiwixes of usefulness. Ma, God Keep him in courage in the arduous struggle whic he Wages against adversity and brin; much ried, like gold, seven time have not spoxen'of myself, the sharpness and dept o m. my dear and honoreu triend. ‘God walks in the fire by the size of those He loves; and in heaven neither you, nor Theodore, nor I, shali regret the discipline, how hard soever it may seem now, Muay We restrain and turn’ those poor creatures who have been given over to do all this sorrowful harm to Bowe who have deserved no such treatment at their nds. 1 commend you to my mother’s God, my dear friend! May His guile bring light in darkness, and His love be a perpetual summer to you! M9 tra barrie) HENRY WARv BcECHER, Witness said—The occurrence to which this letter reiers isthe publication of the Woodhull. posndal, which had occurred some montas previ- usly. 4 him out, though fined. word conld express sorrow 1m your behalt, HALLIDAY, TILTON AND BELL. & After the publication of the Woodhull scandal, in November, 1872, did you nave a conversation with Mr, Mulliday on thé subject of it, or concern- ing anything that could be said in reerence to i? A. Lremember I had a conversation with Mr. Halliday, at which Mr. George Bell was present Q. Where wasiv? A. At Mr. Halliday’s house. Q. And by previous appointment? A. Lhave forgotten. Q. You were three persons together? A, Yes, Q. Was it by appointment? A. I do not know. Q. Was it by chance? A. [ told you t could not say if it was by previous appointment, and | can- not say it was by chance. Q. So lar as you know, it was a chance inter- view? A. Ihave no recollection whether it was a chance interview or by appointment; I was not then in the habit of paymg Mr. Haliiday visits; I Cannot say that this interview took place ou the 18vn of December, 1872; it was, however, very shortly alter the publication oi the scandal. Q. What degree of acquainiance had you with. / Mr. Halliday belore tatstoterview? A. Very slights 1 do not know that I had any, Q Now, upon coming 10to Mr. Halliday’s yTes- ence, and at the commencement of any disexssion Or conversation you had with him, dja you say to Dim, “1 want to see your? A, J do notre- member that. Q. Do youremember how the conversation was introduced? A. | cannot say. Q. Do you remember whether you stood or sat Q. down? A. Icannot say. a January, 187100 inmate of your house, Mi Q Did you thap say ut came at the request of 831 lef it and went to the West— 0 8] i - | remember that iact? A, Temeuber she wen 8 | Cehuing é Woodhall scandulp? A. I donot re- member that; the time has passed out of my mind; 1 can’t answer, Q. Do you remember, upon Mr. Bell’aconclading some couversation with Mr. Halliday, aud rising to leave, you sald to him, “George, don’t go?” A. No, sir; ) never called him Hai in my life: I knew Mr. Bell trom my boyhood, but not to speak with him much; he was not quite so mucha stranger to me as Mr. Halliday. Q. Tuen did Mr. Halliday, in answer to a look froin Beil, say to him, ‘Don’t go, Mr. Tilton wants to speak to you?” A. 1 remember tnat, sir. Q. Did you then, in the presence of these two gentlemen, say, “f Rave calied to see Mr. Halliday it the request of my friend, Frank Moulton, to peak wita him concerning this Woodhull scandal; Tcome to deny tt; it 18 as false as can be; there is not @ word O! truth in it?” A. 1 do not remember tuat I did; but J said that in substance, “Lused no such weak staff as that,” said the plaintifl, when tie counsel read to bim what pur- Ported to ve his denial of the truth of the Wood- bull story alter it appeared. The word ‘“‘fabrica- tion”? was given as oue that Tilton used in speak- ing of the Woodhull publication. This he demur- Ted to, His language was more virile than tnat. He denounced it in words of fire and brimstone— meant to knock the legs from under it and kill it completely. Q. Dia yon say there was not @ word of truth in it, and tat the Whole story Was @ more fabrica- tion? A. 1 do not remember tne phraseology taat Lused, but my purpose was to impress on their minds tat tuere was not @ word of truth in the .| Whole story. Q. Did you disclaim all knowledge of its publica- tion? IL probably aid. Q. Did you say that you were astonished at its appearance? A. 1 donot reghember thuc 1 said that. Q. Did you, referring to this publication, also say | that “1018 Just us talse a8 1¢ wouid be lov me to go over to New York and say that the tree to front | Of Mr, Halliday’s house was cevered with 600 fags, represeuting ali nat.ons of the eartnt”’ A, 1 do not remember that, because I did not know | that he had a house in New York, Q. I will read it tor you agaim, (Mr, Evarts read | the question.) A, 1d0 not remember that l used | apy expression of that kind, | Q Is that weak? A, Yea, I think rather weak, | (Laughter. . Did you, during that conversation, and after the points ou the questions I have put to you, say to Mr. Halliday and Mr. Bell, “My wite is as pure as light?” A. 1 will tell you wnat I said; I said something like this, “You will mot regard my tesrimony of any value, Go to Mr. Beecher nim. | self, and he will teil you that Blizabetn ts as true @s goid and as pure as ligt.” . Did you not say, “My wife is as pure as light” A. Ido not remember whether 1 said that or not. Q. And did you not add, “You ask Mr. Beecher, and he wii tell you she 18 as pure as gold?” A, | Sometning to that ettecs | @ There was then 1n the course of preparation @ paper call “tne Trae Story?’ A. Yes, q. Who wrote that paper? A, I did, q When did you write it? A. In the latter part | of December, 18 Q. Was it written out with all the documents in. cluded wt that tine’ was it in a complete form of composition Which inciuded the Gocuments that were embraced tn its scheme? A. My impression ia that one or two documents were hot inserted ; for Instance, at that time {had nota Kad U4 of the tripartite agreement before me; my recollection | i# That that document was to ve tuciuded; with Uhat exception tt had been reduced to a complete Jorm, 80 thas av Ordinary reader could take it up aud iollow it; I thin there were one or two papers to be inserted in the paper at places indicated; L do hot think the document was ever made complete by tue addition of the Wipartite Covenant; It was never ii manuscript so complete as it OUugnt to | have been ior pus ication, and 1 do not think the tripartite covenint was published im tne state. Tocnt, out > Was & place indicated jor it; there | were two or three breaks in the | thiak it Would have occupied two or three col- UMbs Of A heWspaper; 1b Was OD Sheets of foois- cap, written on one side; 1 cannot say how ete. good many; 4 Cannot say how aS—ALOUL a8 thick as that (holding upa | Rote book of one oF the stenographers) ; Do copy of it was ever made to my knowledge; [Lever | baw any copy oli Q. Was that paper ever destroyed? A. I believe it was destroyed by Mra, TUvon; It was not de- Stroyed by me persunaily, or hy MY son; my wile told me Suc destroyeu it; itis @ good wulle ago since saw that paper in existence; I do not remember how | ago; my wile tod me she destroyed t (Mr. Evarts | told the witness taat he did not ask tim anything about what bis wile told Mim, 140 Nos remember seeing it simce the spring of 1874; Ihave not seen it jor some months at least; I Temember handing that paper to several persons perusal; { showed it to | fo the fion. W. 0, De Witt; Idon’t remember when; wed it to Mr. | George A. Heil; I lett at im the po: jon of Mt, De Witt; he retarned it in@ day or two; I lelv it in | the posession of Mr. Bell for @ day or two, I think | Ltnink | showed it to Mr, Benson, of this city, au | doit It with him fora litte Waties these are the Only persons | recollect showing it to; Lehowed it 0 seVeral persons, Q.°Did you so show and go ieave this “True Story” with W. W, Goodrici ? A. D0, sir. Q. Did you show it to or leave it with the Rev, Dr, Storrs? A, No, sir; but I showed him the sum aud substance of ttin the course of its prepara. tion; 1 did not show to or leave that manuscript with Charies Storrs. Q. Did you show 1t to or leave it with Mr, Page, the arust?’ A. Laid nor—still | will not be certain aoout that; Lread every word of it to Mr. Tracy; I cannot remember whether I read it to Mr. Mo: ton Or not; tt Was in ats hands, or under his con- | trol; my impression 13 that Mr. Mouiton bud it in his sate. Q. Did you show it to or leave it with James £ Mix? A. No, sir. Q. Do you know Mr. Mix? A, Yes, sir, Q Did you show it to or leave it with Francis B. Carpenter? A. My impression is that I showed him a drate of it, Q. Was it about the completed story or the dvait? A, I showed hin one or tne other, 1 don’t eee Kohl ‘| id you show it to or leave it with Mr, Samuel M. Beloher? A. 1 did not. Q. Did you show it to or leave it with Mr. John W. Harnett? A. Yes, sir; 1 think I showed it to him and left it with bim, Q. Did you show it to and leave i, with Mr James Redpath? 4. | don’t remember doing so. Q. Do you Know him? A, I know him periectly weil; he came (rom Boston to see me and stopped at my house; he 1s @ friend of une, Q. Mave yon auy knowledge or recollection of showing it to him?’ A, | have no recollection, Mr. Evarts, o: showing 1f to him, Q. Do you recollect that you did not show it to him? a. I have aiready stated that I have no ree ollection on the subject. Q. Did you show it to Mr. Thomas Kinsella? A, fo, sir. ther showed it to him nor left it with him? Q. Did you show it to or leave it with Mr. W. T. Clark? A. 1 don’t remember ever having doue so. Q. Mr. Ciark was an assuciate editor with you on the Golden Age, Was he not? A, Ho was io my employ on the boat I doubt as to whet! I showed Mr. lark the original of that aocument; 1 think 4 did not show it to Lim; 1 don’t remember having done so, ir to which I allude to Did you show the pay ‘aitermad Whitney? A. lL believe 1 did not, sir; I it to him, don’t remember anything about it. 8. Do you not rememoer Mea rolled up, and his not taking tt? A. No, sir. . Now, sir, the previous or earlier draft, it there was sucha paper in any completed form, did you show that drait to any one other than the persons you have named? A. I have already told the names of the persons to whom | have shown the statement; but very few persons saw the pamphiet with the amendments of the 1etters of Mr, Beecher and Mrs, Tiiton; it was written m the latter part of the year; both these letters are now 4m evidence, Mr. Evarts showed the witness the lotters re- ferred to, which appeared in Tilton’s printed statements, and the latter identified them. fhey were marked exhibit “344” and exhibit 74.7 Counsel, continuing, said—{ understand you, then, now saying as part of your answer that at the time it was shown to the persons named it did hot contain exntoits 344 and 74? A. It did not, because I had not got the:n then; I copied tne letters im the “True Story” as soon as they caine into my possesston, and all the persons t» whom J showed the *‘I'rue Story” alter that date saw tt 1ts completed form. Q Very iew people saw it, then, without these letters in? A. Yes, sir. Q. Tue original drait, did you show that to Rev. Dr. Storrs? A, Yes, sir; Lread nim the whole ot it, Q. When did you do that? A, About the 20thy December, 1872; I am not positive about tne o°” however, ection . Did you show that paper with the oc er, r. Carles Storrs? A. Idon’tremerisrs 4. 1 a you Co it to Mr. Page, tbe jon’t remember. Q, Did you show It to Mr. Durstey? A. Tdontt remember. with him; I dou’t re- Idian’t leave those sh member having shown fem to Samuel E, Belcuer. Q. Did you show ese original draits co Mr. »t remember, Rea iiat bheae. Of te origival drafts? A. As I 4 copy Of the original pages [leit sue orierainé e waste basket, Q Do you knoy of any copy of that paper now being Lr, Q. tm existence * compleced peer to Mr, Tracy. Did’ you say so ? A. to Q. Uy . undersmod you to say that you read the es, Sir. ‘g, You man the completed paper, not the dratt, Now, wne® did you read it to Mr. Tracy? A. At Mr. Mou*0n’s house, in Mr. Mouiton’s stuay, at ‘n inye View that has been shown in the course of the estimony here, ‘4. NoW, sir, you say that this paper and thie draft: of 1t are destroyed. Do you -know of any copy of it being in existence Y I understood you to mean that toe whole of it had veen destroyed. A. [know of no other copy of the original drait being in existence; 1 wish you to understand tnat two or three pages of the last part of it were found in my wife’s bureau after she deserted her 2. i Sar. Epler te Hered at them there are no a draita in existence ? A, No, ‘tT t ape preserved be given him oy Mr. Morris, The latter Teplied that they Were not then in court, but they would produce them in the moruing, Mr. Evarts—I call your attention to the di it the supposed interview, or the supposed date, oa which you told tnat story to Mr. Tracy. Do you say it was between Christmas Day and New Year’s Day, 1874? A. I think it was, sir; it was not arlier than that; the interview to which I re- ed previously was held with Mr. Moulton, Mr. Woodruff and Mr. Tracy in November. Did you at that time show bim a draft of this story. A. The “True Story’ was not in eX+ istence at that time; 1 did not show him tne “Letter of Contrition” at that interview; 1 showed him the completed story at the interview tu the stady of Mr. Francis D. Moulton’s house. Q. Was the interview at which you said Mr, Tracy was present belore or aiter, or was ft ex actly on the 16th of December? A. No, sir; it wat either Christmas or New Yoar’s, or later; {am not positive. Q. Now can you give us the date of the destrac- tion of the dralt, otherwise than that it was done ag soon as you completed tne original? A. I think 3 soon as I copied the pages 1 threw them iu tue waste basket; I think it was Completed oa Curist+ mas Day; Mr. Carpenter bas a memorandam 1m his diary that L finished it on Christmas Day. Q. How early did you change the writing of the original? A. I think I began drafting the original about vecember 20; I fix tnat date by my visit to Dr. Storrs, woen I took Mrs, filton’s letter 0! De- cember 16 to him. Q. I want you to give the date when you began to add what was the physical draft of tuis “true story.” A. 1thinkit was somewhere about the middie of Decembor; I had two or three iuter- views witn Dr. Storrs, Q. Well, you had no particulars at that time; you had not commenced the graft? A. Thad none Ol the drait with me when I went to see Dr. Storrs firet; I saw him in Marcn ana in December, and also in the course of tne winter, but 1 don’é remember the exact time; I read to Dr. Storra the loose proof sheets of the substance of the whole story; Lread to him the paper, waicn waa afterward copied and fixed together; I nad a con. Versation with him in reference to the preparation of portions ot the draft; 1 can’t fix the exact tume when | commenced tne draft or any part of the dract. THE BOWEN LETTER, j—1 cone now to the part of the medl- tated publication of your letter to Mr. Bowen, of January 1, 1871, You had returaed from tue Weat and foand @ coudition oi rumor that made you thiok it necessary to have some publication? A. Yes, ir. Q. Now, you had been on @ lecturing tour, had younot’ A. Yes, sir. Q. Mrs, Tiiton accompanied you tn 1871-2, on that lecvuring tour, did She not? A. On a part of it; she was witn me for two or three months, J think, while | was in the Northwest; sne was not With me on # greater part of the tour. Q You state that (und here Mr. Evarts read from a book) a8 you travelled tor lecturing pure poses you found terrible stories prevalent there? 1 found @ great deal of mystery in the Kest growing Out Oo! the severance of my relation with the Independent and my appointment ag editor of the Union; the papers taroughout the country said I sbould make an explanation for the Mr, Evarti document; L | severing of my Connection with tne Zi Q. Did you regurd these stories as pr your cuatacter? A, ‘These stories Were circulated In the West; I heard one story to the effect that Tad become a confirmed drunkard; another to tue effect that [ had been divorced; anotl that I had embezzled money. Mr. Evarts—Oa your return to Brooklyn you brought up this matter of the publication of Bowen letter. When was this written, and, Matter of date, when was tt that you indicated an intention oi preparing lor publication that letter? A, | think it Was la March, 1872, concerning the prepara’ accompany that fetter? A. 1 conferred with Oliver’ Johnson and Francis D. Moulton, it I ree member rightly. , Q. How ‘Sariy Was the new matter that was to accompany the reproduction of the Bowen legter itself completed and put in type? A. I don't ree member, sir; I think 1t wad betore the end of March; my best recollection 18 that that was the time; It Was shortly boiore tne signing of the trie tite covenant. Pas Who did you show it to.before putting it to type? A. 1don't remember having shown it to anybody except F, D. Moulton, Mr. Beecher and Oliver Job Mr. Ciaiiin, I suppose, saw it also; the tripartite agreement is fated April % 1874 Sud merece any prcine Berea sh ou ct clause tu it which y COT if ment that Have you & CO} have only dot wha’ v8 in the book; there preparation of a clause tn it by Samuel Wilk ‘Dy | Wien 1 would not sign; changes were made ia ir, Bowen's clause, here nuimoered 1, and io mine, rion is numbered 2; 1 don't know’ whether the original paper 18 in extatence or not. y—We will have that paper to-morrow morni 3 it if @ material point that all these papers shall be producea here in court. It was now four o'clock, and the Judge address. audience said, “Gent em: lease keep Eval) ng. Your Honor, Ate, and Walt until the Jury pass oO ‘The Vourt Was then adjourned by Giese Mauieen tuati! claven o'ereok thus Woepiog.