The New York Herald Newspaper, February 12, 1875, Page 3

NEW YORK HERALD, FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 1875—WITH SUPPLEMENT. the proceedings. She was particularly concerned | in that portion of the “true statement” that re- ferred to her “another abnormal person,” like | unto Mr. Morse, the mother-in-law, During the reading she whispered to her husband, who red- dened greatly in the face, Mr, Beecher spent | much time im the perusal of a paper that looked | like the Christian Union, taking his eyes off oc- THE TRIAL OF REPUTATIONS —_+_—_ Twenty-Ninth Day of the Great i Copied from Snete end he made a clean oopy in | on you and state in advance that this paper would | is OwD od wri . Q Then the artige relating be published in the Sunday Prese ?” to this trivarnite jer A. I don't agiecment is in your own language? “Lam ss certain as that the Day of Judgment is F own words, lest T should wrong him b: mine, ay aRerward ‘noted down mae imemoranduse as tole | lows: °Mr, ut. W, Beecher" On this question a Jong legal argument ensued, EBow Rapid i} pores be A language. | coming.” | a whe a ee r. Evarte, ane Mr. Beach iy recollection ts—if you will hand me the book— | This was thought a novel form of expression | part. Mr. Fullerton. objected, contending that | adopted art of Mr. Wilkeson’s para- | that they ought to know whetner counsel on the ps ae op & Pi 8 » @nd disposedjsome people to sneer. Evarts thought other side Nad before taem the true statement. go! mean to say ofin Sinuating a doubt, and said that was a thing ye nat the paragraph as it ap- 3 18 a8 you pres: ape P ed it im shi A. 1 don’t | miok I composed ti ntire paragraph; I think [ | of the Juture, to which the witness replied, “The | ; That woula speak for itseif, if produced. Mr. | Evarts thought he waa in order tn asking these questions from the paper before him, Scandal Case, TILTON STILL ON THE RACK. Investigating the Tripartite Covenant Question. LIVELY LEGAL SALLIES. ——— Reading the Fascinating Pages of the “True Story.” > It was reasonable to think the very vnpromising Weather of yesterday would diminish the usual Attendance at the Tilton-Beecher trial. Tue | turlosity tobe present was hardly considered so | intense ag to make people disregard the rain for | the sake of sitting in the dim cathedral light of the | court room to listen for four hours to an unprofit. able cross-examination. Yet eloow room was again ata premium. ‘rhe course of the cross-ex- amination was less smooth than on the previous day. It had hardly begun when the lawyers fell to wrangling Mr. Evarts, a8 usual, stirring up the | , legal mastiffs of the opposition until a chorus of growls fillea the chamber, The deep, steaay bass of the Judge interposed with less effect than on | Jormer occasions, but getting restive under the @ggravating persistency of Evarts he summarily put an end to the scene by a determined de- cision. | THE LEADING COUNSEL for the defence is not easily bafled. He gives and takes olows with the nonchalance of a trained | Oghter. He has no sanguineous impu to ree Btrain, The brain is without an ally in the body to impel him to angry resentment. The case is different with the counsel for the plaintim Tne animal instinct of unreflective combativeness ts here highly developed. Wheo Fullerton flings a retort at Evarts, the blood mounts above bis sbirt collar. When Beach is nettled he changes from a carnation pink to @ turkey crimson, ‘rhe pallid face of Evarts remains the same in san- shine and in storm, yet it drops trom tue gravity of death tothe mirtn of Momus without change of expression. THE REWARD OF PATIENCE. H The audience find in these legal tilts the great reward of their patience, Could they have their own way they would so apportion their applause | as to stimulate the actors to more exciting con- fiicts. For ten long days Mr. Evarts has stood alone smid a waste of auxiliary lawyers fighting the case of the defence with rare skill and pertinacity, When attacked nobody comes to his assistance. Bhearman metaphorically hides his head, Tracy hesitates, Judge Porter’s amiability restrains him and Evarts is leit isolated to sustain the brunt of battle. Not so with the plaintif’s side. When Fullerton Jorgets @ point or fails to make. the most of wnathe bas in hand, Beach rises like a mentor behind ana suppites the omission, and when Beach 1s in the toils Fullerton comes to nis relief with promptituae and vigor. In sporting phrasevlogy they are “a powerful team.” What | the one lacks the other contrives to turoish, Ful- lerton excels in quickness, Beach in shrewdness. | The first in grace of manner and delivery wins | the prepossessions of the jury; the latter, in | strength of legal equipment and common sense imposes his convictions upon the Court. No more admirable combination could have been made, The subordinate copnsel are in harmony with the leading parts, and the service as a whole is per- fect. 4 NO NEW DEVELOPMENTS, The developments of the day were not of much consideration. The plans of the defence revealea Ingenuity. Practised hands had evidently labored bn the line of cross-exumination, The witness, however, held his own. pout I was wiiling to sign it twenty times over; my THE TRIPARTITE COVENANT, signed by Beecher, Bowen and Tilton, made the | subject of the early cross-examination. The pur- pose of the defence was to show tnat Tilton, who was at first enthusiastically disposed to Sign the paper, hesitated on the advice of Moulton, and finally signed tt only when it bad been amended to suit nimself so as to leave him ree to relate the | scandal if he pleased at any future time, In connection with this the defence aimed to make \t appear that the signing of the covenant was con- tingent on the paymentto Tilton of $7,000, the amount decided upon by the arbitrators in the case of Tilton’s contracts with Bowen, AFTER THE RECESS | the “true statement” was read by Mr. Evarts, | sentence alter sentence, the witness being asked | to Lientify each to the best of his ability. It was | @ long, long story, the original of which was sup- | | oliection about the circumstance is this: | Mind when that language and glowing paragraph | | burst in with the extravagant expression that if ci ally to glance at Mr. Evarts, THE EVIDENCE. The cross-examiuation of ‘'ieodore Tilton was med shortly alter eleven o'clock by Mr. Evarts, He handed witness a book and We were speaking, Mr. Tiiton, of the tral tion of the tripartite agreement, avout » previous dratt, ditfering irom the actual paper. You have no copy of that drait, as you have vaid. Look in this printed book and see if you recognize twat as the draft that was replaced py tne actual paper ? A. (Witness looking at the book) | coulan’t say whether ths was the original draft or uot; it purports to be; I can’t say it is not or that it 18, Have you no recollection concerning the drait which was altered In consequence of your request or sume suggestion of yours—can’t you trom any recoliection say whether or uot this is a saithiul copy, £0 far as the sense or substance of it ig concerbed? A, I recoilect very distinctly that there was a drait presented wuich, when I care- juily read it Over, 1 declined to sign, and that { made alterations or amenaments in the draft, pernaps rewrote @ part of it, und the Paper | signed was not the first one without tne alterations, but the second one after tne altera- lions had been made; how, whether tunis is a copy 01 that first drait L have no other knowiedge than the Jere fact that this says so, Q Won't you read the article that relates to yoursell? Not aloud, but read it, aud say whether that article is im your recvilection, and, to the best | of your beliel, She article relaiing to yourself in the drafty A. (After looking at the book) [ couldu’t swear, Mr. Evarts, that this was the identical phraseology which was submitted to me by Mr. Woodrull; [ don’t remember the phraseology of that original drait aistinetly enough to compare it with this printed lorm; I Cannot say, Sit, that this was that drait or not; I Woo't say tbat tuis 1s not. THE TRIPARTITE AGREEMENT, Ihave the impression that the draft was in the handwriting of Samuei W. Wiikeson; 1 do not now who was present when the original draft was shown to me; I don’t know that it was shown to me at all; 1 think it was read to me, but I think the occurrence took place in Mr. Mouiton’s study ; the scene that rises to my mind now seems to the clude Mr. Claflin, Mr. Wilkeson, Mr. Moulton ana mysell; that is my recoliection; | don’t remember 4 1t was a chance meeting or whetner any pre- vious appoint:..ent was made; I don’t kuow at what time of the day it occurred, either, but 1 taink it Was in tne evening. Q Did you, on reading or hearing read that draft on that occasiou, express your readiness to | sign it, and offer to do It immediately? A. My seo, | Phat Mr. Claflin asked me, either on that day or perhaps | On the preceding day, Whetber or not, in case Mr. Bowen could be induced to withdraw tne state- ment which he had made against Mr. Beecher, and would withdraw in writing, whether 1 would biad myself not to make any use or circulation of Mr, Bowen’s statements; I said, with great readi- ness, | would; my iurther recollection is that the original draft was brought on (his occasion, tie | interview 01 which 1 am speaking, with a view Lo accomplish that end; my still further recollection 1g that the drait Was read, aud when the para. graph assigned to Mr. Bowen had been read, I said, “Mr. Bowen will never sign vnat.’? Mr. Claflin said something jike this:—"Mr. Bowen has got to sign it; I don’t remember distinctly tne completing of the covenant; | told Mr. Cladin, “I | don’t think Mr. Bowen will sign it;’? Mr. Clafin said Mr. Bowen would have to sign it; I said if Mr. Bowen would blot out nis words in that way I would sign the paper twenty times over; when the Clause relating to mysell pal al read— Mr. Evarts interrupied the witness at this point, aud asked that the last part of the answer ve stricken out, The Judge aliowed the answer to stand as it is, Q. Now, sir, did you then and there, after this statement which you were ready to sign a dozen or twenty times over, did yeu then and there pronane, by movement or words, to actually sign he paper at that moment?’ aA. I remember ex- | pressing my willingness to sign such @ paper, and | made @ motion Jike this (illustrating), and said I Would sign it twenty times over, EVARTS FAILS TO SKCUKE HI8 POINT, Ido not thiuk | saw the paper at all, andI do not remember distinctly whether thetwo con. cluding paragraphs were read or not; I don’t re- member Whether the remaining portion was read | or not; 1 remember the impression mage on my was put into Mr. Bowen's mouth, ol retraction, and J said, *‘{i Mr. Bowen wail sign toatl willao | it twenty times over;” whether the remaimiug clause was then read I don’t kuow; | know that as soon as the document was passed before me for my signature | reused to eign it. Mr. Evarts—Weil, now I won't take that answer. Task to nave it struck out, The Judge—I think it may stana. Mr. Evarts—Your Honor will be 80 good as to note my objection, | Q. Do you mean to say, Mr. Tilton, that when | ou heard or knew of only the part that af- one Mr. Bowen's signature you were ready to | sign ‘Sonnset for the plaintiff objected to this ques- | fon but i¢ was finally rulcd in order by the judge. Witness continued—My recollection is that I | Mr. Bowen would retract his words and blot them Impression Is that tne paper was brought there | iresn that day, posstoly by Mr. Ciatiin, and the | urport of their inquiry was this:—In case Mr. | jowen would sign such @ paper, would I sign it? | Isaid, tt Mr. Bowen will, tuen I certainly will, | twenty times ovér. WHY IT WAS NOT SIGNED. N . | Ol the tripartite agreement nad been presented ? | Gr Roving on Ane wer ithe quseitoD. What pte: | A. Why, Ot course; how otherwise couid it have vented you sighing it? A. I don’t think anythin, prevented me; if I haa chosen to sign it i could have doue so; lexpressec my willingness to sign | Ohe arbitration, and that Was tue one a few days | | donot rememoer snowing it to any person outside | of my own counsel: took his composition; my recollection is that tne | whole paragraph which I proposed and signed was banded over to me; a clean copy Was made oj the covenant Whe T copied in my own handwriting, | yit@n you presented this paragraph ior | the Fig | ready for signature there im your presence? A. Tha jon’t remember. SIGNING THE AGREEMENT. - Q. Do you remember whether the parties were | together when it was signed—you signed it in the Presence of each other? a, I remember they Were Dever ell together; my impiession 18 Mr. | Beecher signed it fret; on second thougnt my im- pression Is that Mr. Bowen signed it first; I signed it next; I wrote my bame over his, and Mr. Beecher signed it over mine, tuifiiling the Scrip- ture injunction, “The first shail be last and the | Jast shall be first there was only one copy; that the understanding, but that understanding Mr. Wilkeson kept a single copy published it witnout authority: there wus @ solemn understanding that there should be ouly one copy, but that understanding was vroken; only one paper Was signed, tae kept that single copy? A. Horace B. Nadin. Q, Was it deliversd to him in your presence f A, I don’t remember. Q. In whose hands did you leave it when you signed it? A. My best recollection that tt was pernaps Coarles Storrs, possioly Frank Moulton; Charies Storrs was one of the arbitrators; my memory ig foo indiatincs to answer that; my im- pression ts that tue paper lingered for several | days beiore all the signatures were made; whether Cherian Storrs or Mr. Moulton got them I don’t now, . Q. Now, air, do you remember whether or no you kad received the check of Mr. Bowen before you signed this paper? A, | received the check or Mr. Bowen on the bignt of the arvitration; L do not Shing fans the paper was signed untila few days alter thar. Q. Are you certain of that, sir? A. 1 thing lam positive of that, sir. WILKESON CALLED A LIAR. Q. Upon reflection can you or not recall whether you had not signed tae paper ana were without your money aiter 1t was signed? A. No, sir; no such incident occurred; as Mr. Wilkeson’: Ment, and it was o ft Vigating Committee; Wiikeson published a Mr, statement o! the fact that I declined tu sign the tripartite covenant because Mr. Bowen had not H paid me; that was a | Mr. Bowea paid me within haif an hour of the arvitration. Q. Now, your recolicction is distinct that you nad the check beiore you signed the paper? A. My Tecollection is this, sir, that the check was paid to me on the very night of the arvitration and that | the paper was signed some days alterward—tirst one sigdature, then another and then another; my | impression is that my signature was two or taoree | days atter I hud this discussion with Mr. Wilkeson about the paragraph | was to sign, Q. Are you certain that you received the check beture you signed that paper? A, Yes, sir; be- cause the paper was not signed till alterwara. Q. Now you say you calnot remember when or where you signed the paper? A. I don’t remem- ber the exact spot, no, sir; I remember that there Was @ disc.ission that followed it~ two or three days. rf Nor the exact time? A. No, sir; [I only re- Member thie very distinctly, that the signing of that paper hac nothing to ‘do with toe arbitration or the payment of tue money, (Stricken out.) “I distinctly remember that the signing of | that paper (the tripartite agreement) had nothing to do with the arbitration of my claim on Bowen | | Pied, and the room Mr. Andrews occupied, and and the payment Of the $7,000,” ‘This statement was volunteered by the witness and was stricken out, A great craning of necks occurred in the audience as if in anticipation of some damaging admission on the part oi the witness, but he sailed over the trouvled waters in salety. THE TRUE STORY, Mr. Evarts (to plaintif’s counsel)—Now, gen- tlemen, have you the pages of the “True Story,” ag it 1s called Mr. Morris—We have not got them. Mr. Tiliton thinks he has them among his papers, I have not em. Mr. Evarts—I ask now, if Your Honor please, from the counsel and the piainwit!, the production of the preserved pages of the ‘Lrue dtory.’’ gave taem notice to produce them yesterday, that i snould need them this morning. Mr. Beach—They might have been produced. Mr. Morris—1 baven’i them in my possession. Witness—1 will give them to you at two o'clock, Mr. Evarts—We pass, tnen, if Your Honor pieases, to another subject. THE BOWEN LETTER. Now, Mr. Tilton, you prepared for publica. tio, or put in type, the Bowen letter, with com. ments, you rememver? Yes, sir; the date of its preparation was toward tre end ol Maren, 1872; 1aon’t know that I showed it to anyvudy alter it Was in type; I discussed it with Oliver Johnson; it was Mr. eecher; { tnink I was present atthe time; I I think [ snowed it to mr. Ward, but do not remember if | showed It to Jadge Reynolds; aiterward a number of people saw it; | my impression is that nobody saw it until alter the Woodnul! puolication in November, and | was joing with Mr. Mouiton making devices; it was @ purt of the tripartite agreement—an article. Q. How early in the progress of the tripartite agreement did you stow it to Mr. Wilkeson, A. I don’t rememoer. Q. Dia you show it to bim before it came to bea part of the tripartite agreement, before the text uti slip form: Mr. Moulton showed it to | goon aiter tue publication of the Bacon etter did } been made a part of the agreement? there was tt, not my intention to sign it; I took a pen in my | belore; it was ended by the award. hand ana said, “Bring me that Paper and li sir. | Bowen will sign it L will sign it;’ ber any one saying, “Don’t sign first, or pei taps | Mr. Bowen wou’t be as willing to sign a ter you;” | 1 don’t recollect anytning o1 that sorr, thougn Mr, | Mouiton expressed a doubt; my impression is that | Mr. Moulton saia that he did not beueve Mr. Bowen | would sign 1t; 1 remember Mr. Ciaflin saying, “Mr. Q. Had you then any suit pending, or bad any | sir. Ido not remem. | beéM commenced against Mr. Bowen? A. Yes, | Q. In wnat court? A. Weil, I don’t know; one | ne; Mr. Ward com- | of these courts; perhaps th: menced w suit in my absence. Q Weil, there was a sult pending whicn had been commenced during your absence? A. I don’t { Bowen has got to sign it; 1do not remember Mr. | kuow whether it was @ sult or whether you call tt | C.afin saying, “Better not sign it beiore Mr. | Bowen does, or perhaps he will not be wiliing co | sign alter you have signed. | qQ. Now, sir, do you not think that the whole of | that paper was read by you, or to you that even. | Matter is there was asuit pending? A, There was | ing at that interview? A. LI have already sata, | posed to have been destroyed by Mrs, Tilton. The reading was interspersed with Gebates between | the lawyers as to the manner in which the witness should answer. On his behalf it was in- sisted that he should not be compelled to give a | mere “yes” or ‘no’ to the question whether he | remembered writing this sentence and that. The Judge instructed hun in the way he should reply, | and thenceforth the proceedings moved on with greater calm and regularity. “Did you say to Jackson S. Schultz you would blow the roof off of Plymouth church if the hypocrites who composed the congregation did not come to your terms 7’ Was one of the remarkable questions put to the witness. It caused a decided flutter in the meigh- bornood of Mr. Beecher, where @ number of the faithiui sheep of his Jold were gath-red together in a spirit of meek resignation, The witness | ¥aid nothing of the kind, and this to the Phiils- | tines was a great disappointment. There was something so valorous and heroic in the resolve that 1t was thought the witness, for the sake of the barmontes demanded by poetic justice, should Dave said it. But no; it was the gentle Oliver Johnson, according to Mr, Tiiton, who gave utter- ance to this terrivle determination. That Olver Johnson, should be the tareatened Nemesis of Plymouth church puzzled many and gave rise to varied speculations. PART OF THE DRAMA. The ladies attracted little notice, They have become so identified with the proceedings that | their presence provokes no more ooservation than | that of the policeman at the door. To | strangers, however, Mrs. Tilton 18 still | an object of anxious inquiry. Not conspicuous by | ber hulk or beauty, sbe is easily detected o/ late. days by the red shawl she wears about her shoul- ders, During the reading of the “true state- ment’—a paper hardly Ot to introduce in female circles—a young lady of attractive appearance ‘Was noticed perched upon a table at a side en- trance, straining her beautiful, swan-like neck to catch the matter of the story. THE WUODHULL AGAIN, The counsel once more reverted to the Wood- bull, What was the latest nour of the might | witness spent in her company? The answer was tleven o'clock. Then foliowed from the witness in account of the house in whicn Mrs, Wooduull | lived, It was bare of furniture from top to bot | tom, except one apartment, in which the lady lived. Lhe prosecution of this line of inquiry soon | ceased. It was said im court that Keady, bi Beecher’a counsel, was nbsent two days. Ready is the Newman Noges | of the trial, and when he withdraws bis presence for so jong a period Imporiant things | are expected, It was whispered that he was | seeking jor the Woodiuil, that she was in town | and eager to cestily for the defence; that she telt | grievously mortified with Tilton for saying he was | in “hot water’ with her and never in any other, and that ifher desire to give evidence was disap- pointed sue would publish her side of the story at | once, MRS. BERCHER appeared to take more than ordinary interest in | dorse. sir, that | don’t remember whether it was or was | not; thislremember, that ll the whole was read the remaining paragraphs were glossed over, | because 1 remember when reading it the next | day 1 was struck by the extraordinary words put In‘o My Mouth; the part taae 1 was LO assume in that agreement had already been spoken ol; L think Mr. Ciafiin came to Mr. Moulton’s nouse; { Temember having a conversation with bim im Mr. Moulton’s house, and i think there were two or three interviews with nim before this agreement culminated; 1 think We had a discussion about the subject. | type by itsel.; mow, you cuink you showed it to | WHAT BECAME OF IT, Q. Now, who took away (uat paper—the draft? Did you take it away? A. I dou’t remember whether I took it away; 1 saw it next at Wilke- son’s office, & day or two alter; lsuw it again, when I was asked to sign It, aud declined to do so, A STIFF GREEZE here sprung up between counsel, in which the | Judge took @ part. Jt blew @ burricane jor ten minutes. Morris, Beach, Evarts, Fullerton and the Judge got mixed up in inextricable coniusion, | Evarts stood rigid as a crowbar, and held his ground bravely through the storm. Beach, Fullerton apd Morris popped up in rapid successivn, and broadside from the Judge failed the courage of the Intrepid counsel for the de- fence. The volume of iair judgment was against Evarts. The witness was clearly entitied 10 ex- plain why, aiter expressing his willingness to siga the tripartite agreement, he demurred on finding that there was something in it he could not in- The passages between Evarts and the Judge and between Lvarts and the counsel for the plaintiff were sharp and exciting, and kept the audience on the “ragged edge” of apprevension. The limits of courtesy were hardly transgressed, but there was a very close approach to {ll temper on all sides, Was it the draft that was before you aud Wilkeson at the interview ac the Norta Pacific Railroad office; there Was some paper beiore you, Wats it the drait ? A. Ldoa’t know whether it was Mr. Wilkeson’s draft t@at he propused for me to sign or wheter it was iny drait of what | pro- posed to sign; 1b may have been noth. q, Can you or not teil me whether or not Mr. Wilkeson’s draft which vad been before you at the | interview between Ciifin, Moulton and himself | was oe@.ore you and him at this interview at tue railroad ofice? A. That may have been; ti so thea it was tnere in order that my proposed change should be put into it. Q. When, ti at all, was that draft taken into your possession aud made the suoject of amend- tent or change by you? A. I don’t rememoer the exact date, BOWEN’S CHECK, Q. Now, have you a copy of that award that was made? A, Yes; it consisted of Mr, Bowen’s co. ck lor $7,000; I believe I have it; that’s tne only | copy. ¢. You have the check? A, I don’t know whether Ihave it; | have Bowen's money; you asked me if Thad a copy of the award; [told you the award was Bowen's cl there Was no otuer paper; that is ali | care tor; my impres-ion is that ali the arbitrators Were presentand Mr. Bowen also when Lreceived the check; Mr. Moulton was also there; 1 think I took che caeck home to show to my wile and that I handed tt to Franklin Woodruff the next day or the day after. Q Now, have you any draft or record of any chaoge you made im this ortginal dratt?y A. No, sir; but Mr. Wikeson las; fe has the paragrapa | Which | proposed; tt Was in my handwritiag; | displaced Nis paragraph and substituted one o1 my own, Q. He did have it at the time? A, Yes, sir; and though aided by a heavy | to shake | supplementary proceedings; 18 that a suit to take testimony? Q Weil, Lhave heara of a young lawyer begin- ning a suit by issuing a fl. fa, Dut your view ot the a Suit or some proceedings. Q. Sone proceedings at law for the collection of the amount; thatis your notion? Yes, sir. Now, who did you show tat letter to in De- cember—this article faciuding the Bowen letter or | slip? A. L aou’t remember that I showed it to | anybody merely as an article by itsel!, but only in conuection With Wuat was calied | Story; perhaps I did show it to Mr. Beicner; [ | thjuk 1 did, to Mr. Samuei Belcner, | WHAT BECAME OF THE SLIPS? | Q Now, 1 am not inquiring about anything at | preseat except tms article, as put in some iorm of Mr. Beleber? | Q. And in this sume ume in December? A. I dou’s remember; 1t may have been earlier tnan that. Q. Do you know how many slips were printed A. Toree, 1 taink; 1 atterwara learned that the | printer had one; 1 alterward learned that a copy | haa been dropped, a8 I was told, om my pocket in the printing oulce; whether that wa: true I can’t 8: a prinved Rey. Dr, Field, the editer of the New York Hvan- gelist, Whose printing Office was on the next fuor Above mine. | 4 Very well; now what became of the three | slips? A. One went to Mr. Wiikeson and is em- budied In the tripartite covenant and is here in ) court, and one fs 10 our posses-1ou, with Mr, John- | son’s amendments; 1 tuink there was only ove | completed slip; one co.y Was picked up by the | printer. I think that was an incomplete copy, without Mr. Johuson’s amendments; Juage Morris and 1 have tae incomplete copy, except so | tar as Mr. Jonnson’s handwriting; 1 think the one In the tripartite covenaut ts the only cumplete one | in type. a) Now, Mr. Tilton, did you loan one of those slips to Mr. John W. Harmon? A, Yes, sir, 1 did, alter the Woodnull scandal; Mr. Harmon 1s a very inumate trend of mine, and I consulted with him irequeatiy; 1 showed him a slip and committed it to nis discretion; I did notsay to him | didn’t cure what he did with it; I cared a good deal | What ne did with it; Mr.Harmon bad it two or three times, and on one occasion & gentieman from the newspaper ofMfees called upon me and | wanted very much to see that prooi; I did not | snow it to him; alter that ne told ine Mr. Harmon | haa spoken of it; 1 went to Mr. Harmon’s house wito tue prool; Mr. Harmon wasn't there. and [ leit it with him; I leit it at nis house encased ina | note; 1 don’. Know what that note said; that | paper was subsequently published; there nad been repeated threats made to publisn it. (. Who made these treats of puolication? A, | Ldon’t remember, sir; 1 think it was simply tne floa ing gossip of the town that the Lagle nad pos- session of the scandal, whicn it migit publish; [ do not know thas any threats were made; I would | not call them threats, it was gossip; | know a Mr. | McDermott, connected wita the Brooklyn press, THE DAY OF JUDGMENT. Q, Do you remember nis saying to youin | Of the publication of it in the Sunday Pre: Eagle that te was going to publish it? A. Yes, sir. Are you quite sure that Mr. McDermott did pot tell you in | aqvance that the publication was going to be | made? A. Yes, ascertain as the Judgment Day will come. Q. That is @ future event. You should say you | are sure. A, That 18 one Of those things which we all are certain ol—tue day of the Almigity— Q. Stil itisim toe iacare. A. The Great I Am, q You mean by that you are entirely certain | that he atd not tell sou? “A. I did not kuow Mr, McDermott; did not know bim until ve came into my office, presenting his Card, alter the puolica- tio; | asked him if he was the man that publisned that article; he said he was, and I oraerea bim out of the office; 1 never could comprehend until | a few days ago how that slip came to be published; | I saw Mr, Kinsella’s correspondence pub- | when lished he said In that that Mr, Beecher had shown lo lim a tripartite covenant, or, at all events, | tion of how, possibly, the Aagle mignt bave got hola of tne article. “You are certain that McDermott did not call “The true | had been shown to the | Mr. Bowen aenied it, and | saw there an explana. | | by lokiny ar'that last clause? A. Y: great! am ts always pregea:.” ‘Was produced by this styie of address, delivered ina deep, sepulchral tone, as if to trighten the court room 1n10 propriety, TILTON’S CHURCHGOING. Mr. Evarts (10 the Court)—We will have the “true story” here at two o’clock, and until that tne | will occupy the space with some tnings ad- mitied, Q. Do youremember, Mr. Tilton, whether or no you left of going to J’iymouth church—had leit o A curious effect Judge Netlson—! think, {n View of the circam- | Stanuces that the paper was iu the hands of Mrs. | Tilton, and unaerstood to bave becn destroyed, and there is a smail portion finally ound, anu only @ portion, and this Witness is ignorant o/ any more, he may take tbig course whether le has got | the correct copy or not. Mr. Fullerton—They are not reading trom the | Iragments: they are showing something elge, 1t | may be someting else in the shape of copy. That | is the diliculty about it The Juege—I think we will go on, gentlemen. or did cave off then going to Plymouth cuurch—ags | Take an exception. early a8 the year 1860? A. No, sir: 1 weut occa. sionally ali tie way down to the spring of 1870, Q. Now, bow oiten did you go in 1866? A, I doa’t remember, Q. Did you go more than twice in that whole | year? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you go more than two or three times? A, Oh, yes, I did, down to the spring of 1870, & You did g occasionally in 1866 A. Yes, sir, and in 1867, 1865 and 1569, Q. Now, dic 7eu.go more than two or three times | in that fi % A. Well, I aou’t remember; 1 would Say per! Muy have been ten, Q. Now, in the year 1867 did you go atall, and if at A. ‘all, did you go more than two or three times t 1 canuot say how many times. Q. And in the yeur 1868 what was your habit of attending that caurou? a, 1 wink I went to | church avout as other people do, Q There is a great aifference as to the trequency | Wiia whica people 40 to churen; | would rather have your personal recollection ? A, My recoliec- Mon is that 1 went to Plymouth churcn with more | or less trequency when 1 was in town in all the years up to 1870; you wust remember that I was in the habit of lecturing five months in the year; then Plymouth chureno was closed during’ two other months of the year. . We needn’t argue avoutit; the fact 1 want to know iy whether you wentio 1868 more than twoor three times’ to Plymouth church? A. I wont witu more or less frequency up to the year Q. Will you tell me how many times you went? A. Ido not know how many times, Q. And sv in the year 1809 did you then go more than two or toree times? A. 1 tuinkI shall have to make the same answer to that; 1 don’t know bow many times. THE WOODHULL'S MENAGE. Q. You have said, Mr. ‘Tilton, in regard to your visits at Mrs. Woodbull’s house, that you dever passed but one nignt there; now bow late in the night have you been there on other occasions ? A. Lshould say eleven o'clock perhaps: | went all over the house once, in order that it ‘3. ; hull might show that every room was empty and | aps | went eight or mine times; perhaps it | | Mr. Evaris—Now, 1 must begin again the sen- | tence that was incomplete :— . Aga further statement still more unwillingly opened, yet necessary to an explanation of the subsequent com: Dlication of crrcun.stances. Witness (interrupting)—Still more unwil- Ungly,” what, sir, “opened? Mr. xvarts—“Opened.” ment, sill more unwillingly o; Witness—I don’t understan Fd Evart's (gonsaushe) — et necessary an ex, tion of summer of 1370, a sanperet Jew months atter I had undertaken, in Brooklyn U ned,’ It, to me & communieation concermin wecher, whick, to use her own words, lest 1 should wrong him by using d Noted down In a memoranauim ‘Mr. H. W, Beecher, my triend and pi stor, soicited me to be a wife to him, together with aii that this luoplies,"” handwriting, and forbid myself f point ‘itherto blacken it orlighten ite tera we ~The witne: his; but i copied from the original there were two | words incorrectly copied, pias at are those words? A. The words “open” | nD; | , Q. What should the word “open” be? A, I don’t know; but it seems to me to be Q. And the word ‘“auy” comes in what connec- tion? A. Reaa the last, please, Mr, Evarta—“'I vorrowed the above fact from my Whe’s handwriting, and forbid elf referring to this open, either to biacken it with any epithet.’ any explanation ;" that ts what it ought to be. | |The Judge—In other words, that is what you | think you woutd have written ? | Mr. Thton—I don’t think he read tt as I wrote it. Q. “ihe subject of my wile’s recital was commu- nicated a tew wSeks alterward by me to 0. J. and | ¥. U. M., and my wife to her mother ana some ais- | tant relatives, Mr. Beecher was absent from the | City at the time, being on his vacation."’ Q. Do you remember thac? A. I did nos write Wood. | the initials; I wrote the names in full iff wrote it at all; Tdtd not doit in that blind way; I cannot barren of turniture; there Was only one room oc. | Wear posttively. cupied in it, and that was her room, her husbana’s study aad a room occupied by Mr. Anure ws. When was that? A. I aon’t remember the gate; inthe euriy part of my acquaintance with her; she wauted me to go there to the houay and see that there was nothing in it; 1t was as bure as &@ DEW nouse; tere was only one room furnished; that was the parior. Q. Did it continue to be 1n this condiuon during eriod Of your visiting there? A. I 3 Mever went upstairs but that Q. And that isall that you know about it. I | the whole don't remem! once, | Mr. Evarts fpeding) —\ During the summer of | the year 1870 1 spoke ot the case to @ tew iriends | aud expressed more Anker rather than charity to- | | ward Mr. Beecher; though toward Mr. Bowen, whose two papers I being unwilling to add any more fuel to his anzer agatust the man he was willing to destroy ;” now, | 40 you remember tbat? | Mr. Evarts (reading) -- | My wife's mother now began to | i lay an ¢ artin my relations to Mr. Bowen. ang Me Reece and in relation to these persons to each other. This lady was for years in a chronic state of apprehension and ner- Youshess, and one of our physiciana, the late Dr. Barker, understand you? A. That is ail I know about it, | % Brookiyn, recommended, several veurs ago, that she yes sir; she told me that uer house had been | % Called a house of ill-repute, and she wanted me to | See thatit was totally unoccupied, and there was Do article of furniture in it irom the top tobottom, | trequently, to take the only the room which she ana her husband occu- there was one which, 1 think, her mother and her sister Occupied; however, 16 Wasa great. empty, barren house; that was one of the circamstauces that impressed me with the idea thas she was @ traducea woman, Q. Weil, did you understand whether it had been stripped by au execution or auytning o1 that kind? A. No, sir; | simply understoou that it was an un- occupled house—that is to say, an unfurnished house. Q, And had always been so? A. 1 never asked any question avour it; never thought on the sub- Ject irom that day to this, Do you mean to say toat you don’t know thas it was ever refurnished? A.J don’t know a@ny- thing about it; never neard auything avout it; I don’t KNOW Whether it was or not: I never knew, never understood anything about it. THE PAPERS IN TUE Case. Q. Now. how early after the puolication of the Bacon letter by you—your letter to Dr. Bacon— how eary aifer that aid any more papers or | copies of papers which had beea im Mr, Moulton’s | hands conuected with the matter come into your hands? A My present impression 1s that none of them came into my hands; tuat is to say, when | made my swora statement, which was a monti | alter the Bacon letter, | then nad no access to the papers; then they were puulished in Mr. Beecber’s statement; they never came into my possession; L have scea the papers Siace tis suit bus gue on, Q. Well, the quesiion, mr, Tilcon, is this:—How eltuer te payers themselves that Dad been iu Mr. Moultun’s possession, Or copies of them, which Were hut already in your possession, come in o your hands? now, do you say they never did? A. {don’t uude:stand your question, Mr. Evarts. Ce how soon atter you published the Bacon letter uid any papers that were not befvre that tie in your hands, or uny copies of papers that Were not beiure ihat time in your banda, did the papels that were in Mr. Moulton’s hands come into pur possession ? HOW TILTON MADE HIS STATEMENT. Wivess—[uou’t remember that any papers or copie Of papers came inio my possession irom Mr, Moulon’s nuads at ail; Mr. Moulton publisued in ls Ofu statement tue documents whicn he had. Q. 40 copies came trom Moulton? A, [ recol- lect ery distinctly going Lo Mr. Moulton’s beiore the syorn stalemeut Was prepared, and he de- cline to iet ne have them. Q. ‘hat you remember distinctly ? A, Yes, sir; T badto make my statement upon the meagre Ma- tering 1 bad in my sate, Q. {ow, sir, if you will refresh your recollection 98, Sit. OK at that, will you, aad tell me and Copies Of papers that you me into your Nands? A. Will you low, sit, Wherthe pu therereier to | ailowme to read this sentence % | | { Q, lertainiy. Witess (reading)—I had with the original do-uleats uere, tor the most part in my posses- s10D. Q. ow, before the papers you there refer to, how dng had they been in possession? A. Why, | evertuce they nad been written, Q. jad you hot, When you were preparing your | stateent icy tae comuiittee, received irom Mr. | Moudn any pavers or copies of papers wach up to tht time you had vot ju your pussession? A, No, &; Mr. Mou.ton— % fery weil, that is all. yigess (continuing)--Mr, Moulton would not let m have them, tuat ts— 4 Veti, the tact is taat between the time of the pubifation of the Bacon letter and tne time you Madyour sworn statement that you did not re- ceilvany of the docuwents? “A, Moudn was very angry about it, and retused. ‘Thc usual recess unt two o'clock was then | takei AFTER RECESS. Theritness was on exhibition in the chatr for a quar of an hour betore the proceedings were re- sume Mr. Evarte was the cause of the delay, Ho | was stting bis ammunition togetner and it finally appeted in the shape of “the i'rue Statement,” whic was read piecemeal to a profoundly at- vente audience, TILTON’S TRUE STORY. ‘Thwitness said, in reply to Mr. Evarts—I have prodeed papers in relerence to tue “True Story; theyre bot parts of the drait; they are part of tne py; there are some blanks in them, Ddlanks not fed up in Wuatl have cailed the “complete copy’ the “compiete’ copy nad never been aosotely completed; beenble to flag, ail that I know of being now in exisbce; every scrap; there 18 nO copy oF avy Of tufest that i know ol, Q. readou, and say whether you r comuncement of Luis “rue Story.’” (Reading) — mati last month, when IT was in vorthern New Hamaire, # scanualous puviication burst lik: a cloud over f home {n Brookiyn, and shed a sudden shadow on myile’s good nam Mrjvarts—Do you remember that as the tirst seutee in your “True Story?” A. 1 don’t re- menwr that precise phrseology, but something of to kind; I cau’t positively swear to these exacwords, Mrivarts then read the statement sentence by | sentice, the witness assenting to neurly all of the atement, Q.Avout ten or eleven years ago Meury C. Bom, for whom | was then working as sub- ordiite in the Independent ofice, toid me one eveug, whea crossing the Fulton terry, that Hew Ward Beecher was guiliy of aduitery, and thigegan in Indianapolis und ‘was continued in Brdlyu.” Do you remember that? A. | don't renmber that as a part of the statement; I ree meber Mr. Bowen telling me that. 4 Evaris (continuing to read) :— Ling a part of this time Mr. Beecher was the editor in targe of the Judependent’ and | was Heutenant. Afwards he retired aud 1 succeeded ‘to the chair, Bo before Mr. Beecher's retirement and atterward Md, Was inthe habit of saving, “Ibe pastor of Tye mth church was a dar igerous visitor among the fexles of his congregation * Do you remember that as a part of your state- mt? A. [don't remember that as a@ part or my stement; I remember it distinctly as @ part of | Bieu’s siatemeut, sading:— Js statement I always heard with unwilling car: hmg no more taste tor scandal then than now, ani wid not nove ot here uniess it was one of tne pivots on wih the ensuing aistory turns. Do you recognize that sentence? A. No, sir; Ion’ remember that sentence accurately eugh to swear to it, svarts then read ;— ther statement still more unwilngly open, FY to ie explanation ot the subsequent cour bite reumstanices, Finust $.y that tithe suminer oW¥, & few Mouths aiter | hod undertaken, ting the Judepenient, the editing also of the B. Mes. Elizabeth R. rilton, my Wites made tome e emunication concerning Mr.’ Beecher, wuich, to use No, sir, Mr, | these are all that have | . Tilton, please listen to wnat shall now | coguize it as the | iM addinon | e tiken and sent to stitution for the insane, | Among her eccentricities—which are alluded to hut to | reproach their author. whom disease should largely ex- | onerate trom censure—was un attempt about thar tine, @ of her husband, Hon. Nathan | B. Morss, by clutching his throat and strangling bint | with such powertut clutch that her grasp wis loosened | with dimticulty by the inmates of the house and her tury | extinguished with chlorororm. reswiting tu a final sepa. | ration between her husband and berselt, | | Mr. Tilton (interrupting) —1 stuted “cutting” nis throat, sir, Mr. Evarts—No, ‘clutching.’ | Q. Aud Was that statement included in your | | Statement? A. 1 think there was a very sharp | | Statement of Mrs, Morse and her troubles and our | troubies with ter, but Ido not know whether that | 48 the one or not, | |. Q “In @ less degree she had ased violence | toward other persons, and hud frequently written | letters Lo me tureatening my lite”—do you recog. | nize that? A. 1don’t remember tuat Statement; | | lrememboer the tact of ber threatening my lite. | | Q. “Her ingenuity of starement agains: her re- lations during these spasms was cunning and ma- | cious in the exireme.” At the same time in | saying this:—“I bear testimony to the kinaness of | ber nature. By ‘those who know her weil her | peculiarities are understood, and an acquaintance | Allegivie) or the mos* neaceabie ana lascinating person.” Do you remember that as a park ol your | siatement? A. No, sir; but if that blank were filled I think it would bea correct statement of | the es ’s character and habits. | | Q. “fhe unbappiness she nas occasioned to | every member of my own jamily nas tmcroased | Jrom year toyear, until at last Mrs. Tilton and L | have toroid her to enter our house.” Do you re- member that? A. 1don't remember it asa part | | of the statement (to the Court); i! your Honor | Will Instruct me in regard to these matters; I am | constanuy recalling to myself that { am unuer | oath, and J wish wy answers may be consistent; | here 1s aseries of sentence: id to me, and lam asked whether or not I wrote several years ago | sucb and sucn sentences; 1 am unable to state positively that I did; 1t wouid be very easy to put | un incorrect sentence before me and make me | Prove that it was what | wrove at the time; L don’t wish to swear to what is no: true; lnow again request the writing to be ut be.ore me and | Into my hands, so I can read it irom the beginning | to the end, and have an opportunity ot identilying jab on the document alluded to, if it be tue doca- | ment. Toe Judge—If you recognize it as @ portion of | what you wrote, 80 answer. [1 you do not you will | answer youdo not. If you remember it in sub- | stanve and not in words, you may aaswer that | way. ur. Evarts then questioned the witness. reading | from tue paper, as to whether jor ten years he hud ; Dot been on Me atts 4 terms with Mrs. Beecher, | and that the caase of her vosulity was an act of | kindness he (Litton) had performed jor one of her | cnildren, “Soe mever since spoke to me as a |dTleod,” The witness repiied that ne recognized 4s like something Ne had written. Q. “sr. Beecher advised me to support Mr. E. D. Webster for Congress.” Do you recognize that? | | Av ido not | _Q “I declined to support Mr. Webster, Mr. | | Bowen said that one way to support Mr. Webster | Was to dismiss its editor (editor of Brooklyn | Union). Mr. Webster blames me jor pis deleat, | | and maligns me to tis day.” Do you recognize | ; that? Lhe witness was unGcerstood to answer tuat ; he did not remember aay ot that. ° Referring to some statement which, according to the paper, Mr. Bowen had made concerning the position O1 his chiidven, Mr. Evarts read took | of my crown, laid it at his leet, and said ‘God sive | Sue King.’?’ Do you recognize that statement ? | | Witness—That scands like me. (Greac laughter | | 1m court.) Counsel referred, in the paper, to certain ar- | Tabgements between the withess and Bowen re- garding the management ot Bowen's newspapers, | and read, “I notified approval to Oliver Jonnson, and gave him my goid waich in proof ot the love [ | cherished ior the man.” Do you, asked vounsel, | recognize taat? | . Witness—I remember making an allusion of that | kind to Mr. Johnson; to answer to unis token ; there came a letier, irom Mr. Johuson, which iet- ter I have in my possession, | | Q “In addition to tuts letter, which I cherish much, | received a gilt Of a goid watch from Mr. | Bowen to repigce the one | had given away.” 1s that in your suatement? A. Yes, i | Under date o1 December 22, 1872, the Independ- | eng (said Mr. Evarts) contained a vaiedictory and | response which is not bere. “Mr. Johnson men- tioned to me that some strange tales had been ; tuld to Mr, Bowen; that Mr. Bowen, without speciiying them, was annoyed with them.” Dia | you say that in tue statement? A. 1 do not re- | Inember that. r Mr. Evarts (again reading from the paper} al- | luded to some of Mrs. Morse’s statements, and to the aliegatiou therein tuat Bowen said as he (Tilton) was to be eartor uf the Brooklyn Union jor five years he should devote more attention to the affairs of Plymouth churca. Did you make | that statement? Wituess—I think that ts part of the statement, | | Mr. Evarts (reaatug)—‘*'lo be a witness there And io note Lhe proceeaings of the church, [ said I bad not been in Piymouth ciuurch for mouths past, and provably that! would not be there, My opigions i stated to himiu a jew words | iu the presence of Mr. Jonnson, my wile’s commu- | Dication concerning Mr. Keecuer 7? Witness—t du vot tuink toere was any such bungling sentence in it as that. Mr. Evarts (reading) —"Alr. Bowen's indignation against Mr. Beecier was extreme, He rose irom his chair, and said Mr. Beecher must be made to quit his pulpit. He reiterated the charges and said Mr. Beecher had confessed his adultery, and ime plored iorgiveness with a tear,” Wituess—I du not remember that, Mr. Evarts then read to witness that portion of the sracemens io which he refers to tae conversa- tion waici he had bad with Mr. Heury C. Bowen, when the latter asked him to wrive to Mr. Beeecher (and brougat him pen and ink to do so) | wnd demand that he should at once retire irom | Plymouih church puipit and aigu from tne editor. | | snip of the Christian Union. Counsel asked wit- | hess whether he remembered writing that, and | Mr, Tilton replied that be did not recall it, | ‘The next point to which the attention o1 witness Was called was to that in waich the ‘rue Story” says:—“Mr. Bowen said, Mr. Beecher can’t aeny, | and he dare not deny it.” Witness could not re- all it to memory, ‘The next section reaa was tne letter of December 26, 1970, to Mr. Beecher, catl- jog upon him, ‘for reasons whica you expiicitly upderstand, you leave Piymuuth church,” &c., | signoa “1. T,7 | 4. Did you sign that letter? A. No, sir; lnever | Wie letter “T. 1.3 1 signed it “Theodore | " | Mr. Evarts then read:—«I put the letter in Mr. | Bowen's hand, to be delivered by tim to Mr. | Keecher; and Mr. Moulton calied on me paring | the afternoon and J told him or the letter which bad written, and fe said, ‘You ought never to bave written it at all, or When you did write it you ougnt vo have made Mr. Bowen sign it.’ The | counsel wont on to read that Mr. Moulton then | ade & meMorandum o/ the fact that Toeodore “As a further state- | iting the Judependent, to edit also the | ion, Mrs. Elizabeth Ry Ayo, my wile, made } 2 Mr. | vorrow the abeve tact from my wife's | Said that the substance of that was | we no sense there. | A. “Blacken it with any epithet or lighten tt with | | was editing, 1 was silent, | Q. Do you recognize that as a part of your state- | ment? A. I don’t remember the exact statement. | | him ‘on that occasion, bat L | language to him, | Dis inquiry as to whether | to the French Colonial ! ‘Tilton had that dav, December 26, 1! him of bis demand on Mr. Beecuer. steal ona sna Witness did remember putting toat memorandum in the “True Story.” The next extract went on to recite that a day or two afterward, p ompted by bis wile (Mrs. Tilton), he resolved tu send to Mr, Beecher to meet him, and he despateued word to Mr, Bowen tnforming him of his intention, and Mr. Bowen came into the apartment where he (Tilton) seated, the day iollowing, in @ towerin | rage, ois bearing being more vi aD ingane than of @ rational kind; “be threatened me that if I should divuige to air, Beecher wnat he had said against him, or taat he had any partin the letter ¢ On Mr. Beecher to vacate the pulpit, ne suspend me trom the management of t and he would summon a policeman and wi Passed Out ino the streets.” Q Was that what you wrote tn Story 1 meinver ail I wrote, | Q ‘He sat like ‘no a dream.”’ the “True A. det Was the eubstance; I can’t re- Did you write | that? A. f think Laid, Q. “It is but a few squares from here to my house; go and ask Mrs, Tilton whether she wrote tue letter; go and ask lor yoursell,”” Witness—! don't rememosr that phraseology. Q “When he returned Mr. Moulton asked Dim What he had said, and he said he ‘vad seen that lady ;’ he then ieit; this was about eieven o'clock at night.” Do you remember that part of the story 1 A. 1 think I remember tuar, | “phe paragraph referring’ to the crowning mis. | fortunes of that last week of Decemver, 1870—the | dismissal of Mr. Tilton by Mr. Bowen from the | Independent and the Brooklyn Union—was tnen read. Witness did not remember the exact phraseology. ‘The next point was that in which the story treats Of his preparition of a New Year's gift for Mr, Bowed in the form of the letter publisned—tne jetter of January 1, 1871; and then f.llowea the report of the conversation which Moulton nad with Beecher, and which he repeated to Moulton, Who tovk phonograpnic poles of it, from which he Sudsequently Uanscribed that portion for the “rue Story”? at the end of two years, | _ Counsel then next nliuded to sire. Davis’ letter to the springfeid Kepudlioan, repudiating tne | Story in circulation which counected her with hav; ing a knowledge of the libelous story againe® Mr: Beecher and Mrs. Tilton; Mrs. Davis was Dot 1p- timately acquainted with Mrs, Tultou; uad met her | but twice, and tacn Mrs, Tilton, tt she spoke of Mr. | Beecner at all, spoke of bim asa man of honor and her pastor. | _ Mrs, Stanton, in a letter tocluded in the quoted Story, alluded to tne Woodhull story as like unto the old adage, “False in one particular, false im all,” She wrote that she Would stand by Mrs. Til- ton iu the nour of need. Mrs. Tilton was alse quoted as “denying the story of Mrs. Davis’ in- timacy with her family; she nad not met that lad: tor several years, anu had never held apy conv sation with her on the Woodauil scandal.” Mr. Evarts thea read tue letter of Airs, Tilton to Mr. Beecher (which has beeu bi deed 4 pub imeoy | lished) denying the story of suy impure int with Mr. Beecher, und then tollowed the reading of Mr, Beechec’s explicit denial of the charge of eriminality. Q. Do you know Mr, Jackson S, Schultz, of New York? A. Yex, sri very well, Q. How long have you kaown Mr. Schultz? A. T can’t exictly teli how long 1 have known him; J have known him tor a number of y Q. He was a subscriber of your Paper was he not? A. Yes, sir; he subscribed 3750 to the Golden Age, BLOWING TUB ROOF OFF PLYMOUTH CHURCH. Q. Now, Mr. Tilton, do you rememoer in @ com Versation with Jackson S. Schultz, in the spring of i871, or in the winter of 1872, or later, Saying to him Mr. Beecher was responstole for your quarrel with Henry C, Bowen, and that the whole Plymoutn church crowd were fAypocrites; and that you | would expose thew, all, and could anu would biow | thetr root of uuless they came to your terms and | Settled with you? A. No; butI did not say thas; | the man who threatened to biow the roof ef Rete church was Olver Johuson, (Sensa- ton, Mr, Evarts—Weil, I did not ask you for any | planation, I simply asked rey tae question bir | you say it. Did you say to Mr, Schultz on another occasion, either in suostance or in tact, what I have now read? A. No, sir: I did not; my inter. view with Mr. Schu.tZ was neld in the presence of Mr. Franklin Woodrodt, Q. Had you any conversation with Mr. Schults? A. I bad soine conversation with tum, Mr. Kvarts—Then you do remember having had a conversavion wito him. Where was that convere sation held? A. It was at bis own house in New York, where I had gone with Mr, Frauxlin Wood- ruif to see him. Q When wag it? A, I don’t recollect exactly; it was either early (n January or possibly ia Feo ruary, 1:6l; 1 remember exactly what 1 said to didn’t use any such Mr. Evarts—Well, I am not asking you thats I only want to know about this, Did you in the course 01 that conversation witn Schultz tuen or at any time in 1971 or 1372, say to him, in answer to r. Beecner had spoken to you of having imp.oper relations with your Wile, ‘My wile 1s WHITE AS THE DRIVEN 8NOW AND PURE AS AM ANGEL +”? Witness (with great emphasis and leaning for- | ward in bis coair) repliea—“Yes, air; Ido.” (sem: Sutton.) Q. Do you kuow Mr. Southwick? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you remember meeting Mr. Southwick om the ferryboat svon after you published the “Life ol Victoria Woodhull” und hts asking you if you Were not out o: your mind; and do you remembet replying to him, ‘You refer to my ‘Lise of Victoria Woodnuil,’ in which 1 giory,” or words to that effect ? A, Ido not remember any such conversa- tion on the teiryooat, or uny feature of tt with him; I met Mr. Southwick several times. Q. Did you proceed to say on one of thove occa- Stous Wien you met Mr. Southwick, “I took a sol- emn oath be ore Goa on my oended knee, when pressed by Henry C. Bowen, that tae iret os creature | met who needed assistance | would ald him or her, and that poor creature came 10 in Victoria Wooauuil, and I koow her to be | natural lady and as pure as an anger?” A, | re member thit [bad used @ great deal of satiti talk with Mr. soutawick, in Sjocutur way. ix Q. Do you recollect wnat? A. 1 don’t recolieet saying that. Y. Evarts, at this juncture, closed the cross- | examinatiog for the day, and sala that he did not expect to be very long iu concluding bis examina- tion of this wituess. Judge Neilson said:—I will remain here ae i @s you Wish, sbouid you desire to terminate your cross-examination 10-day. Mr, Evarts—Lf Your Honor requires tt we will remain as loug as you wish, but the preparation of jour hours’ examination 13 a8 much as I tank I can possibly do. ‘The Judge said he bad no desire to protract the Session ih that case, and tne Court was then ad journed until eleven o'clock this morning. JERSEY CITY WATER SUPPLY. ANOTHER EFFORT TO HAVE THE NEW RESERVOIR COMPLETED, No municipality inthe Union’ has suffered se much in the matter of a'water supply during the past siX years as Jersey City, The impurity of the water during the summer season was plainiy demonstrated by chemists of the highest repute lon, Including Professor Wurtz, uf the Sievens Institute, at Hoboken. ‘Phe distributing reserve! on Bergen Hill is ia filthy condition. ‘The ia creasing demand 1s likely to exceed the supply withiu three years. The erection of the new reservoir’ Was commenced five years ago, but through biundering in the orignal! pl. and estimates te Work had to be flaally stopped. The depieted condition of the treasury ot J reey City, cousequent upon the astounding frauds of the ring, all of whom were indicted, added to the Gificulty.. So far as the work has progressed 1 Was satisiactorily performed, aud When come | pleted it wiil be not only @ substanital and perma- nent improvement, but an ornament to the city. Work has been suspended for several months. A remedy :sto be applied atiast. Mr. Saeeran has introduced a bill providing for toe completiun of tie new reservoir, ‘in tne preamole necessity for the passage of the bill is poin' out it states that 1b was found necessary to Vary the pianos, as stated in Mitcnell and Bridge. ford’s contract, and to contorm to the plang made by the Chet Engineer, nuw on file. It ts that a great saving Of money will be effect the hew pian, tu validate wnicn tue present eet is to be passed. It empowers the city tu com. Plete tne southern section of the reservoir, ac cording to the Engineer's plans, and pay tor the work In the manner and at tue prices fixed in tke origiual contract, such contract to be cancelled ou the cowpietiou o1 the section of the work named, with the consent of the contractor, where upon all retained percentages and arr shall be paid, as specitied in the agreement, SfEAMER ASHORE. a | PROBABLE TOTAL WRECK OF THE ¥RENOH STEAMER MONTEZUMA. The steamship Acapulco, of the Pacific Steam. ship Conpany, which arrived at this port yester day, reports that after leaving Port Maysi she steered north, bal! west, ior Castile Isiand, and that wheo abreast of that island tue lighthouse Keeper came out to her and reported that the French steamer Montezama, laden with bound irom Port au Prince to St. Nazaire, ‘cpt Oi France, Was asuore ou the Great Inagua Island, and that the greater jart of tee cargo nad been lost, but no account had heen received of (he lore otany lives, hor was tt Knowt that the steamer hud on board any passengers, he Montezuma beloags whe that ru St Nazaire to Aspinwall, out toes "ot the eniire trip, being used more as a braucn mer toconnect With the through line, ste was not a Jarge Vessel, Out consiiered @ good Beas going cratt, and, as the coast is uot a dangerous one, the onicers of the Acapuico are at a loss to know how site should be ashore upon that island, and are 91 the opimion that, as tue weather was five, she must have gone further to ine borthward aud struck upon the Littie Inagua Island, a ra ther dangerous spot, and one upon which ‘a nume ber of vessels have been lost. Further particulars the officers of the Acapulco coula nut learn, but it ts thought that jul! particulars will reach ‘this port to-day or Lo-morcow by One or tue otner ot ta Vesscis DoW nearly due, ‘The general tiunpress: prevails that the entire freight of tne Montezuma consisied Of about 10,000 pro at 10,000 bags Oi coffee, imily te