The New York Herald Newspaper, February 27, 1875, Page 5

THE GREAT TRIAL Third Day of General Traey’s Address, “SOMBRE RICHNESS AND FULNESS.” The Question of Oral Confes- sions Reviewed. BESSIE TURNER'S LETTERS. How Tilton Worked Upon | His Scheme. THAT $7,000 ONCE MORE. | | Yesterday was the driest of all days in court. Mrs. Beecher went to sleep. Mrs. Tilton and her | party did not come at all. Mr. Beecher listened with his sensitive face. Mr. Tracy was very much out of sorts, and apparently unacquatyted with | dis manuscript. He read his chirograpby with a aoubtiul countenance and accent, and very soon | amptied a large part of the court room by not | arousing anything. It is said on Brooklyn authority that Mr. Tracy bad anticipated the kind and quality of evidence to be introduced by the plaintin, and had prepared Speech to annihilate each and every one of the Plaintiff's adherents. Judge Fullerton, with his fine anticipations of what bis opponents might do, stopped the case prematurely, and threw Mr. Tracy into a condition which compelled him to alter his statement and Incidentally abuse some persons who had never been summoned, ‘Tracy denounced Bowen and Carpenter, botn of them unhappy accidents of this assize. Bowen responded yesterday in a strong card, antagoniz- | ing Tracy and showing Bowen’sown hand. Frank Carpenter has aot opened his mouth, but will probably be used for the rebuttal, as Tracy has de- nounced him in advance, Mr. Bowen awoke from bis stupor yesterday and discharged a public card at General Tracy, the confidential iriend and chtef counsel for Mr. Beecher, Bowen says he was never to better spirits in his life, that he was one of tne founders of Plymouth church, that Beecher is an interloper and not himself, that he ts tired of the age of lymg and will speak if the law com- pela or commands him, but will not be interviewed nor put into an absurd position for the advantage of either Tilton or Beecher. He regards both those persons as irre- sponsible Bohemians, who are now embroiled with each other, seeking to biuff him trom testi- | fying. Tue general tone of his conversation is that neither principal will get much advantage rom what he testifies to; but that, as an old Pioneer and founder of Plymouth church, he is ready to blow them both up for their arrogance, egotism and selfishness. Every day this trial goes on BROOKLYN SOCIETY | is more and more seggregated. The apparent attempt o! the wealthy men of Brooklyn to fatner Mr. Beecher, whether guilty or innocent, commits the whole city to the personal tame ot its great orator, But many changes in opinion have come | about since this trial was instituted. The social | despotism on the side of Plymouth church nas | been abated. Mr. Beecher’s iriends now welcome allies irom reutrais and enemies. GENEBAL TRACY'S SPEECH on behalf of his client is defective, as we have id before, in making too much of the plaintiff, Tracy began by accusing Theodore Tilton of being an egotist. Whea be makes mankind enter 1ntoa conspiracy to pull down his client and that client listens with a delighted countenance, it ap- pears that the egolist is in the defence gs well as im the prosecution. It will take & high degree of character in each juryman to sum up this case, Neither defendant tor plaintiff nave employed that class of lawyers who can put a vein of comedy through the case and laugh away the insinuations of the other side. Indeed, the utter egotism of principal and de. | fendant is very hable to be exhibited. The cause of religion will not sufler one particular in the bumiliation of either principal. Tne cause of egotism will suffer extremely in the non-suit- ing of tne one or the conviction of the other. ‘Ihe sound, strong lawyers on elther side are in- sensibly reduced in public estimation by their connection with such clients. Mr. Beach, Mr. Ful- Jerton and Mr. Pryor rather like their retainer, Tilton, and yet are unable to give any philosophic account of him to the vast public, which searches | for a reasonable interpretation of bis many mean- | ferings. Judge Porter, Mr. Abbott, and, perhaps, | others, would like to construct for Mr. Beecher a thoughtless, careless, effervescent, irresponsible | genius, for whom they might makea plea. But | the course of this trial rubs out all the good- natared interpretations and compels plaintiff and de/endant to approach each other like murderers rather than like litiganis, | It is supposed that General Tracy will get througn | in time to summon several minor witnesses be- | fore he puts Mr. Beecber on the stand. Mr. Bowen | must now testily for one side or the other, or the | Public wili continue to despise one or the other of | tne litigants. It is expected that witnesses will be callea on | the stand on Monday afternoon or Tuesday morning. THE DEFENCE. As soon as the jury had answered to their names | ‘nd the counsel were comiortably ensconced in toeir seats General Tracy continued :— SOMBRE RICHNESS AND FULNESS. How emb.rrassed by the very coptousness of the resources thus cusuing forth before him must have deen this cool hand who, there with hard, cold ayes, Sut watching this curious development. | ‘something to commit Beecher’? had been his | quest, and here was Beecher bimself iurnishing | serms 1D torrents intense enough, compreheusive gpough to cover all sius iorbidden iu the Decalogue! Ob, to get a thousandta part of tunis rich material on paper, lor here it is running all to waste, and tvery sentence 18 gvld, and “tnere’s millions \n it.” But tue copions talker is iu uo mood jor writing, and our shrewd operator in vivisection, Watching then bis opportuuity, sees the supreme moment arrive tor dropping ihe scalpel and tak- ing up the pen. And now, gentieweu, naving drougné you up to the Sivuation as ti eXists im our conception, let us ieave it thus tor a moment— Mr. Beecher pouring jortu an unceasing torrent Of Morbid seli-accusation and sorrow, and Moul- | ton, with ubpracticed pen, 1 the gatiering dark- sympathy jor tts: man, ness, at Bis Wit’s end, Co Make rapid selection and | arrangement irom the multitude of siguthcant expressions such as should best answee tie end in view—namely, to get Mr. Beecher on paper ia the attitude of a penitent cruuimal., Let ua, 1 say, turn irom tais iuleresting situation and tnstitnia asomewhat careiul inquiry into the genesis and the nature of the remarkable paper which tne | product of that rapid imeubation. Here Mr. ‘Vracy adverted to the interview of January 1, and quoted, the evidence given on the @irect examination, He also dwelt on the letter | Bi contrition, aud vr 1 the wea ot Mr. Beecher | vaving dictatea any suc absurd d THE ORAL, CONFESSION how, gentlemen of tue jury, | come to another branch oO: this case, and that 1s the brauca wich \s now matcly relied upon, to wit—the pretended eral confessions whicu this detendant is al- eged to Have made to Franets D. Moulton tnd fo his Wile and to the plainuii, Theodore Li. ‘ou, In the beginning, gentlemen, We shall snow you that inese parties reied expr Writing that Liey bad and nothiug as July 10, I8i4, witer the appoint the church committee irom wir. Tilton’s first ap- veuriog belore that committee, we shall show you, 1 appredend, oy evidence whieh rou Will bot douui, Laat Mr, Pilton there said — ‘bis case agains: Henry Ward Beecier was Nwriting—Ne satu tiat be knew that his repu- ation was iupaired in this ¢ mmunily. aud Lous the qwilt Or innocence o1 the Rev, uenry Ward Beecher did not at ail depend upou mis word. He had thin writing, [think the evidence will show you that atter Mr. Citon epeated Liat once or twice over ie was inierrupted by one who Wousht, at least at that time, that he tad seen the writings avatust Henry Ward Beecher, wo paid bo hin,*Mr. Tiiton, i your case agaist Henry Ward Beecher is in writing, then tt 1s only 4 que ‘yom Of Waoat those writings prove, ‘gat is @ | Ward Beecher. | Who took partin tt aod he Yr same his visit circumstance beire L | Some time, We will tal | adaress to the jury on sim Su Stand could not be NEW YORK HERALD, SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 1875.-TRIPLE SHEET. matter whieh other people can judge of as well as | that you can; tt is a construction ol the paper;” and it | suppress tne scandal he did a! then and there, | think, said by one who sup- d be bad seen these papers ano studied them carefully, that they did uot Warrant the insinus tions that Theodore Tilton was shen making, and they woulf not prove the case that he was in- | sinuating. I think it will entiemen, that up to that time neither frouiton nor Tilton had ever taiked about the oral confessions of Henry Ward Beecher, | tnink It Will transpire tnat this part of their case has arisen Since thatdate. At least I lave no doubt Vbat it Wiki appear to you that on that occasion Mr. ‘Tilton did not pretend that he had any oral con- fessions of Mr. Beecher tending to establish his guilt, but said distinctly bis case against him was @ case in writing, locked up in his safe or in Moulton's sale. In Moulton’s statement, pub- lished August 21, some time after this conversa- tion had gone on, Moulton alleges then, im general language, that Mr. Beecher had confessed orally to nim. But his language was enurely general; he gave no specific words, he made no statement which was legal evidence of thatiact. His pave were challensed on that account, and tt was aia tohim, “If Henry Ward Beecher ever conlessed to sou, why haven't you stated the con- fession so other people can see whether his amounts to a@ confession of guilt or Not, and it Was not until he made bis se: ond statement that he descends at all or under- takes to give the words in which Mr. Beecier con- fessed. But on the triai here he clotiies Mr. Beecner’s coniession in entirely different lan- guage from what he did in tis second statement, and you will not forget the remarkable language Which he so coniinuously putin the mouth of Henry Ward Beecher. *“SeXuai relations;” “sexual Intercourse ;’ “sexual expression;” “adultery.’? Not once, not once, geniiemen, | peg you to ob- serve, but continuously, at every interview, and he never puts it as Mr. Beecher reierred to their relations, but he @ ways precedes it with the word “sexual.’”? Do you believe that, geatiemen? Upon the basis of the theory that Heary Ward Beecuer had intended to convey to Fraucis,D, Moulton the idea that he had had criminal relations witn tne wie o: tie plainut—dare you believe that in every interview that occurred between them afterward Mr, Beecher expressly reterred to the conlession, oUt it Was in the precise language that he used on the first occasion, Having used it once, would not the mere reierence toit afterward have been sutticient? Was it necessary for him to repeatalways the word: Moulton onthe siand s probable, I say. [i Mr. Bi ing he never could hay ness and display -uch love of nasty expressions as to be contimuaiy roiling these phrases over nis lips, a8 Moulton says he did. Lt is impossible to believe it. Ittsincredivie, They are words that are manufactured and put into tie mouth of henry Ward Beecher on the occasion, He never made any such expression; he Pever made any such con- Jession, and you will remember, gentiemen, if you have read his statement—— ‘ Mr. Beach (interrupting) —Whose ? Mr. Tracy— \ouiton’s Mr. Tracy (resuming)—Or tf you recall his ex- Pression upon the witness stand, when he first at- tempted to repext this plraseology, the remark- able slip he made, not once, but twice, when he undertook to say that Mr, Beecber said his rela- tious, his * wal relations,’? not once, but twice, he did im repeaing, aud that is in the precise manner he reports it in his statement. BESSIE TU . They got Bessie er to retract the stories which she had told to Mr. Beecher concerning Mr, Tuton; and now, gentiemen, there 1s more signill- cance to the retraction of Besste Turner than to most of the retractions in this case, because there is another fact connected with if. Bessie ‘turner had circulated the story; had told Mr. Bsecner abd had told other peopie tuat Mr. Tilton had twice attempted her virtue, once by taking her irom her own bed to his, on the other occasion, I believe, came to her bed- room and attempted to lay ta ved with her, and these stories were told, aud the evidence of Moui+ ton and Tilton shows you that they knew she had circulated these stories, and takea with the flood lide that was coming against Mr, Tilton, they were extremely damaging; very damaging; but they say she Was a giri giveo to talk, and sue was somewhat under the influence of the moiner- in-law, and that, if we believe Mr, Tilton, the mother-in-law was sometiines given to talk; and it Was important not only, ther » to get Bessie Turner to retract chis statement but to get ber Out Of the Way, to get her out of Brooklyn, where she would noftulk, Lo get her in a distant country, where no Brooklyn peopie would bear her, ana where she would not attempt to retail these scan- dals concerning Mr. Tilton, Now, gentiemen, they teil you Bessie Turner was sent Wesc because sne had heard a quarrel between Mr. ‘Titton and ius wile ia which Mr. Beecher’s nawe had been mentioned, and that was the reason Why she was sent away, avi not. because O1 these stories, aud they attempted to put the responsibility of ner absence upon Mr. Beecher, and upon the rumors concerning Mr. Beecher aid Mrs. i; but they were caretul to get from Besste Tur r writtea retraction of these stories against treasured them up. What for’ For tue very use that they are pucung them to now. They bring them in court to coniront this young girl and tu say, “Here are statements that your stories against Mr. Tilton are juise.”” ‘They were got tor that purpose, anu they were put into the general archives of Moulton, With papers relating to this Scandai, and Lave been care.ully preserved ever since. Ss? Why. 1b 1s most im- her had been couless- BESSIE’S LETTERS. Here Mr. Tracy read several letters of Bessie Turner's, Wherein she disclaims having bad any dis- honorabie proposais made to her by Mr. ‘Tilton. ‘These letters, Mr. Tracy imsisted, were obtained by Mr. Tilton irom this girl, ready to be produced in court if she should ever appear and give evi- dence against him. He continued :— We have the fact that these two letters were obtained, and she was sent away, aud we snail show you, gentlemen, that she was sent away as an inducement to her to give these retiactions. But more! We have tne testimony of Francis D, Moulton himself when he says that he told Beecuer—miud, he (fF. D, Mouiton) toid, he made the suggestion, tu send her (Miss Turner) away; yet he makes the suggestion to Henry Ward Beecher to send her away, but says that Tilton cannot afford to pay the expenses! Ab! Indeeual If it was Beecher'’s business to send her away why should Tilton be calied in to pay Mr. Beecher’s bills? Do you suy “you are not able to pay your neighbor's back bill’? Does any expense ever occur to you? Dida you ever use any such lan- guage as that about paying your neighbor's back billy If this was Beecher’s bul; if she was to go away uuder Ms protection, why was the remark maue py Moulton “that sie siouid be got out of the way, but Tilton couldn't afford to pay the ex penses.”’ You can have the more explicit knowl eage that tt was understvod py all tue parties that it was a bill Tilton was to pay but an expense that he couldn’t afford to incur, because of bis re- uuced condition financially. ‘Theretore, Beecher says, “i it Will be an aid or a favor to Tilton L will pay the expens ‘Tiiton was ta reduced cir- cumstances, bis income had been cut ou, ana if it Was necessary that this giri should be got where she could not talk, why, Send ber to school and I will pay the expenses. THE BEECH&R LETTER OF INVITATION. Then there are other correspondenze passing along irom that 7tn of February, during that win- ter, to which shail not call your attention, except one, gentlemen. They ave introduced a igiter here from Mr. Beecher, Waich they say was al in- vitation to Mrs. Tilton to visit him at bis nouse during the absence of ols wile and whiie bis sister kept house jor him. Now, we shal! end all that, gentlemen, by siuwing that there never was such an invitation, or what was understood to be such an inviiatic nd that Mrs, tilton 4s @ matter Ol tact, did Visit Henry Ward erat tis house. Istull not stop to discuss it is not my piace to discuss the effect o. the | Construction to be putupon tuat letter; but 1 stinply announce to you the fact that no such visit ever did take place. Sue did not cuil upon Henry Ward Beecuer at mis house during that wiuter his sister Was keeping house Jor uim, aod the sister will be introduced upon ihe stand and will teil you So, So witn all the otoer letters upon which | Lcannot dweli at present; | mean the litte letters that passed tiat winter, Nor will | stop to con- sluer the mons‘rous story whieh the plainuft nas told you cuucerning the remarkable imerview which he says occurred between him and Mr. Beecher when tuey tield) an over tue paternity of tue last child of Mr. Tilton, The monstrosity o1 such a story 1s sufti+ ‘sexual relarious,” as Mr.’ | been guilty of such weak- | and | ilton, and they | transpire to you, | inquest | cient to shock the moral sense of any man wav 18, compeiles te listen to it. You witi not geuliewen, that any such story—any such inter: view ever occurred. occur there by a witvess who was present and Mat was a trieadiy inter view and it Wes one in Which Me. Tilton expressed @ Wisi ihai (he past de buried and that relauions of Mr. Beecver to | at is quite ta- ;bUL lor reasous woicn Mr. Beecher bad the deepest nd while he had the of course under the onsistent wich the scory re obvious, wile Mignest regard tor her, 3, Would not family and never did. The next important tact in tis History to which Tdestre to cal your atten- tion now ts toe acquaintanee oF this piatotil his relations with dirs. Woodhull. | Honor, that tts five minuies to one ove ter upon that sudject, waica a recess, ere the court took the Usual recess til two choc! will take o'clOUK. AFTER RECE: Shortly after wo o'clock M Tracy resumed bis vevaitor the deendaut. He referred to the publication of tae Weothud biography, written by Tiiton, as suowing tue re- lations between Tiiton and Mrs, Woodaull. ‘The Diatatil Wanted to make Out tat his acquaint nee With » Woodbull Was Jor the benent of ud to prevent her from publishing scandal Jiton said ne beieved nun, aud that he had nate Her acquamtance on account ot the 1 (Mr. irvcy) could show that that rus, fiton’s evidence on the redited by muy persou im tae fe » ond nov dwelt ol the detaus of h OL the matter at preseat. Thou went ply ndal communally, this bran ty Coney Isliud with Mrs, Woo hull and bathed there with her, tuough fe donied viat lact on tne Siend. He Would suow thei taut tiey deposiied their Waccies With fhe Couchman; (hat Mr. Tilton Came irom Wwe seashore Wilh his poiden locks Wel, periaps With the mists of the ocean, oF, It Wight oe, irom the agony ve leit im regard to Hen-y Ward Beecher. (suppressed lauguter.) He would suowW them that filton and Mrs, Woodbult returned to New Yorks tuat they the coachman at dirs, Wooubull’s house, e@ preeumed he spent the wiere whoie night, all, ne believe, | We shall Show you what did | the old | hat laipily be restored | | were lett by | jury. | does not seem to ve | counsel nad been personally Woodhull to he could to get er to publish it; that brought Mra, Woodhull on three or four occasions to Mr. Moulton’s house, and that when be jound what a storm had been Taised against bim for publishing that Woodhull biography le and Mr. Moulton entered into the desperate sche! of gettipg = Mr. Beecher to the Woodhuil lec- ture Beecner in place of getting Mrs. ] iy e at in Steinway Hall, woich Mr. declined to do, Tilton himseli:presiaed at (nat Mheeting and introduced Mrs. Woodhull to the Meeting. But if he had been able to get Mr. Beecher to preside he could have said:—See, Mr. Beecher, the great preacher of the country, tn- dorses this woman. Bur Mr, Beecher did nothing of the kind. It was only when troubies of vari- ous kinds came on Tilton that he came to think of uttering this scandal at all. And Mr. Beecner told nim that if he wished to reins/ate himself in his good Wishes and opiuions he must utterly ive up aud repudiate all his associations with yictoria Woodhull, Counsel referred to the oem, “Sir Marmaduke’s Musings.” But Mr. eecuer not moving, Mr. Tilton must give bim a meuace, must come and find something to alarm him, to make him come torward and ald him out O! the aiMcuity he had fallen into; so, on the 1st of November he published “Sir Marmaduxe’s Musings,” the first verse of whicn is, Twona noble fame, But, with a sudden frown, The people snatched my crown, And in the mire trod down My lotty name. What had happened to have the people with | “a sudden irown” snatch the crown o: Theodore Tilton on the ist of November, 1871? What but his Telations with Victoria Woodhull and his doctrines ol tree love which he had belore published in the Independent and the Golden Age? nothing with the pubite that could have satisfied that first verse in this poem, except his known Telations with that Woman, It was that and that only to which he alluded. But the poem was an excuse merely (0 puolisn the following verse :— T clasped a woman’s bre As il her heart I knew Or tancied would be trie, Who proved—alas, she too!— False ike the rest. And he tells you, gentlemen, that although the story of the scandal had been circulated among a large uumber o! people, altiough it was known to | the Woodhulls, as he says, the May previous, who had threatened to pubitsh tt and who had publisied acard which calle) attention to the tact that some prominent minister in Brooklyn was living a life of aduitery with the wite of another prom. inent teacher in Brooklyn; although be had cir- cniated it among his nand{ul of friends, and how far it had gone he did not show, yet be tells you that when he published that verse he had no idea that anybody would believe it. for nearly ayear. How extensive it was he could not know, but he did Know that rumors of & dv. mestic intelicitly in his own family had been given a considerable circulation in tbis community, Could he be so dull as not to understand thut the pubdtication of that poem, over his own signature, would be a confimation to every person who had neard of the rumor that the riamor was true, in what- ever form they nay have heard 1 —whether it Was 0! adultery, or of Improper proposals, or as undue affeetion—no matter, { repeat, in what form they had heard the iumors, every person who tad heard the rumor oj domestic ditticuity in the family of Jnesdore Tilton wonid have taken that poem as a confirmation of tts truth, Did not he Know it would be so received’? Can it be pos- sible that he did not know it? And yet he tells you from the witness stand that i he supposed any person could have imagined that that relerred tohisown domestic trowvles he would have sui- fered hig right hand to have been cut off before he would have published it. I say that that was a menace. It was to send alarm to Mr. Beecher. It wastosay to him, “Sir, you must come un to my rescue and my relief or you will pe scandalized by this report.’ ‘1iton wanted, by threats, to get Mr. Beecher to preside at tne Steinway Hall meeting. He, at that time, was out of money, aud the importance of that point wouid be made apparent at another stage of the case. Mr. Tiiton’s a!tempt to get Mr. Beecher to preside at the meeting in question was an effort to relieve ‘Titton from the load of obloquy under which he labored, and Beecner’s retusal to do so brought down on him trom that time torward all the bit- terness and hostility of Tilton and Moulton. which bad never since ceased. Mr. Beecher nad declared that he could not, for the sake of bil? Tilton, indorse the principies of Vic- toria Woodbuil. Tilton went West on a lecturing tour; the Golaen Age was Lot prospering; Tilton Was Out ol money. Something must be done, and Tilton wrote that letter to Mr. Beecher, stating the acousations that Bowen had made against Beecher. ‘Inis intimation was made to Beecher that il be took sides with Bowen be must make up is mind to encounter the hostility of theodore | ‘Liiton, who hoped that Boweu would patch up & peace and take back Tilton into nis employment. Moulton told them that letter was to be used Ina negotiation with Bowen. Tilton always bad an eye to bus.uess; no ‘watter whether tue question invoived his wile’s bouor or nig own relations with Boweo, he subjected them to a certain standard of value. He vook a press copy oi the letter he intended to publish auainst Beecher and showed it to Samuel Wilkeson, a member of the firm of Ford & Co., Mr. Beecher’s publishers, and Tilton said he would publish that letier it Geury Ward Beecher did not do him justice, Mr, Wilkeson saw at a glance that il the Scandal was published it would ast. uod Christendom and ruin the work, tue “Lile | oO: Christ,” ‘on which Mr. Beecher Ww; then engaged. ‘Tiiton did not go to Mr. Bowen to show him the letter. He said to Mr. Wiikeson that when Bowen uid him injustice Beecher did not take bis part; that he passed over on the other side, But why did he show that letter to Mr. Wilkesou, a friend of Mr. Beecber’s ? Counsel contended that this was done for the purpose of blackmatl, especially as Tilton only got a lew copies of the letter struck of and theu had tie type distributed, He showed the letter tn type to some friends; but Tilton never intended to pub- | lish the letter—he went ubvout saying he would publish iu. The $7,000 which Bowen owed Tiiton had not been paid tor ifiteen months; but he (counsel) knew that in a tew days alter Tilton haa been showing the threatened letter to Bowen's and Beeche:’s iriends that $7,000 came into | ton’s hangs. ‘then, adverting to the tripartite agreement, counsel said that there Was a breach ol taith in this case, ana that was that ail the | erg relating to this. scandal should be de- Stroyed. But they never were destroyed, question was, did the plaintifin this case actin good fain? He (Mr. ‘Tracy) said he haa not, but that ‘Tiiton and Moulton were acting a8 conspirators to use Henry Ward Beecher, and, when they nv longer could do that, to destroy him ii they could. Tne first step in tne nego.stion was the tripartite agreement, and then came the award. After the tripartite agree- ment had been fixed upon, Bowen, Tilton and Moulton withdrew toa room, where the award was agreed to. Mr. Tilloa got his $7,000, and aiter this those Who had agreed to give subscriptions to tie Golden Age managed to get out of the whole busines Tilton went into the campaign in favor of Mr. Greeley, and, therefore, he nad uo induce- ment to indulge in scandal then, as it might not be javoraole to his politica: prospects. Tilton then, lor ouce, gave up nis love of women to his political ambition. He says that about this time he gave up tie Woodhulls, the alleged sources from which the Woodhull scandal originated, counsel said that M.s, Stanton denied all Knowledge of it. [1 Ttiton nad dented it there would have beeo an end ot the scandal. MR, TRACY EXPLAINS HIS CONNECTION WITH THE CASE. Mr. Tracy continued, saying:—Now, gentlemen | of the jury, we have reached the stage of this case where my name hus been dragged into it in such | @ way that jeads me to Make tu you @ personal statement of my relations to it. | will explain what transpired, as far a8 1am connected with this scandal, [rom veginning to end. Mr. Beac! Should question the right of the counsel to Ufake @ personal explanation, He divn't understand that the counsel was going to prove what be would set iorth in ths explanation, anu it Was not mate- Tial to the Caoe unless proois are to be offered. Judge Netison said that it would not ve admis- sibie unless they entertained the expectation of giviug proof of it of some sort. Mr. Beacon said that ue was unwilling to deprive ny professional gentleman of the privilege to thake a personal explanation when his chare acier had been assailed, but he did not think that it Was within the province of an open- ing counsel tn a case to enter upon a personal explanation of anything that may have been brought out in the course of the examination On the other side, Judge Neilson said it would only be proper in the uuderstanding that he introduced proof in some form «l What he states in lits explanation. Mr. Beach said that he uaderstvod the counsel to make the announcement tnat he does not to- tend to proveit. If te merely facts, without qualifying and characterizing in the manner ne did, he (Mr. Beach) would not have objected. His protest is, because his name has been Lrouglt tuto toils case he had a rigit to make @ personal explanation. Judge Netis Which the counsel expects to prove it is proper to near trom ain on. bXx-dudge Porter, In a weak and tremulous toue of vulce, said that they claimed that as th: arraigned he should be neard by the Court in his own delence, They proposed (0 prove Whatever they will produce on tue trial. W that evidence may be precisely will depend chiely upon subsequent develop. ments. General Tracy nad beea arraigned tor hits personal conuection With this case by the oppos- Ing counsel, and they propose to elect in what manner they shal refute it. They dia not pro- pose woat counsel Henry Ward Beecher shall de- fend himsei! wiih on this trial, ‘There could bave been no question but that he may state how tie arraignment had been made against him, in order that tue jury may juage be n the parties con- cerned 1a 80 makiug the coarge. Luis rignt of the counsel Was wu die ala UNnquestionuble and could not be restricted even by tis Honor, Mr. Beach replhed that they baa por pre to dictate to Heary Ward Beccher what counsel he should engage to deiend nim, bat we Insisied tat whatever counsel Was called ne should ve re~ stricted by the rules iu the case, ine counsel here has grievousiy and grossly exceeded the tg of the Counsel in opening this case, When this gentleman Geparied Irom vhe Ordinary course he fad no right to a personal expanation to the It Was an assumption ot a right separated Irom the character of the counsel, “il they avow that be Will prove what they state then my voice upposed, for the beneilt of Mrs. ‘Liiton or Henry | ia stient.’” (L@ugnter.) &e would show Judge Neilson said it was the duty of the coun- There was | According to his | own showing the stories had been in circulation | Haviug adverted to | dressing the Court, sald that be | mentioned his | n said that a personal explanation | lied ior, but avy statements | amed | | sel, 10 stating the opening, to limit Mimneets | b Sr Prevent, in such suits, collusion between husband | me grag lrg Pye By oe rae cts and circumstances which he inten and wife, That would be a good.reason were she P @, 18 Christe ve; but if th a Janation 18 not sus- ware? like person and says, “1 velong to Aim who Beovei _ pion e cos wate ath to be examined for her husband. No reason at all | nad not where to lay his head, What 1s It tO bear Ex-Judge Porter then arose and exp! ined that if tobe examined, here, against bim. Mrs, woe fit ee Pletal Ey oad of beta: he misunderstood what Mr. Beach had said, 4 and need, a) thought that be had denied the right to make an Moulton was examined for her husoand, aud he ts | yj win’ my courage with souue; and If { dle, the expianation. He would aMrm now that the facts 1 Certain sense as much a party as Tilton, And | God hath redeemed me, Vil sing on.” And itis which General Tracy woula specify they would prov General Tracy (nen said to the jury that h would endeavor to state no ficts which will not | be made plain to them by evidence which they will present. As to the facts to which he was about to refer, or any subject that was muterial to this case, they would prove them all by witnesses. I the plaintiff has dragged in matter which 18 not material fo tims case, he took it as a rignt to make anation where he was concerned. le would speak first to wuat tronspired between Lhe wife of the platntuf and himself, What transpired ve- tween himself and urs, Tilton belore sie went before the Committee of Investigation 18 a matter not matertal to this case, and yet this 1s brought up as if to show ti the — counsel had controlled Mrs. Tilton’s action before the committee. If I understand the plaintit’s evi- dence, he says that | told him that I proposed every | question and answer for his wile. I saw her to speak to her for the rst timetn my ife about thirty or Jorty minutes belore she appeared before the com. | mittee. We never spoke a word about what she | should say, and I never so told plaintid. 1 waa in- troduced to Mrs, Tliton by her stepiather, ex-Jnage Morse, who 1s one Of the most respected citizens of Brookiyn. Knowledge came to we on that day in July that the plainttf’s wie was in the house ofa friend in Henry street, and that she expressed a desire to communicate with some of the authorities of Plymouth c.urch. I called at the house and found that she nad gove out. When she did revurn with her stepfather I asked her if ste wanted | to go beiore the committee. Sie sald yes, | Tgot the committee together to hear her. | only words Were to tell her that tf she was asked questions wich m gnt at other times seem indeli- | cate, she must not feeLannoyed. She rephed that | she woule not und (hen went belore the commit- | tee. 1 was not absent from tne parlor two minutes altogether. | never told Mr. ‘Tilton that | had pre. pared tue answers to the questions for this com- | mittee. It was another unneces reflection that he cast upon bis wile. About the time of the Victoria Woodhull publication Mr, Franklyn Wood- | rot’ asked me to calland see what answer could | be nude to that publication, [had been very out- spoken ion my opinions 1 regard to that publica- non. It was distinctiv understood that the matter | between Mr. Woodruff and mysell was not a pro- | fessional one. { was to receive no compensation, | He tola me that. ME. MOULTON HAD SOME PAPERS ‘ which it would be necessary to sce before any answer could be made, ‘Ihe ‘object of that incer- view was to introduce Moulton to myself, that | I might see tnose papers, The interview was ap- pointed and it took place between Moulton, ‘Til- | ton aud myself. Two interviews have been spoken of, but Lremember but one. that Tilton was with us when tt commenced, The | frst letter siown me by Moulton was the letter of apology, as it was then called, Dow known as the letter ol contrition. The Woodhuil publica thon was there, o: which T had only a yeneral | knowledge, ‘The retraction was aiso shown me and anovner letter of very little importance. The object ol this interview was an answer to this | Scandalous publication of Woodhull. We took | it up and discussed it, paragraph by paragraph. wasin regard to the pistol sceue spokenof. I | asked him if he did that, and he replied that there | was no trath init, [then asked him im regard to | Mr. Tilton’s urging Mr. Beecher to ;reside at the Steinway Hall meeting, He said tnat was not true. He said he had not given Mrs. Woodhull the information or any partofit. 1 then asked him what Tilton sald of it, and as to whether | there was any loundation for the «tory. He said he wanted ine to find that out from Tilton him- self, Tilton came into the room after this. Ho might have been there belore. 1 did not know he was coming, and | was surprised to see him. He brought with bim a manuscript, and, sitting down, he turned to me and sald, ‘Ll dowt Know what the etiquette of your profession is, Would it in the event o a contest permit you to be Beecher’s counsel ?” He read a draft which was greatiy interpolated | and underiined and showed much labor. Tne only | tact Ll had Was what now turned vut to be the letter to Dr. | Storrs, though then it did not purport to be such. It contained also the letser of apology. It is true that I did examine this letier carefully with reference to the Woodhull scandal. When ‘Tulon made the charge of improper proposals 1 did again take up the letter (o examine its bear- | ing in Unat view Ol the case alter Tiiton entered | the room. lam very contdent that that paper, as | snown here, 1 have never s en in the world, I | mean the letters of Mrs. I1lton and Mr. Beecher, ot January 29, 1872. 50 I know thar the “true Story,’ as @ paper, Was Dever stown to me dt all. y that to the best of my recoilection ; there was but one conversation between us. I am certain tnat the first time | siw Tilton on this subject was as I have stated. Til- ton denied the truth of the Woodhuil statement in. every particular, and denied being tne auchor of any Oi the stories. Moulton said he could deny it. Why could not Tilton also deny it? Tilton said he could not deny it, because while tuat story was lalse there Was @ true oue, and he said | he could not deny the alse story without telling | the true one. 1 argued against that view. The | question of lying came up by our arguing whetner | @ man could deny @ story which was substantiaily untrue, toougn there might be a true story con- nected with it. advised silence, because Tilton refused to deny tue Woodhull story witiious teiling the other story, and I undoubtediy did say that, as between that course, and silence. sieuce was the course to purst As iar as Moulton was concerned, I argued to omit to deny it wasalie, We hada warm discussion on the subject. I stepped down and out of the case atter December, 1872. [ saw Mr. Beecher once on the subject, anc had u casual | Conversation with Dim on this subject once in | January, 1872. I was not of the case until alter | the publication of the Bacon letter, when Moulton | brougnt me to his house, where I jonnd Tilton and | Frank Carpenter. Mouiton read that letter and said he wanted me to come back again in the case. dle was very muca excited and outraged at tue | pavlication of the Bacon letter. He said that the | dtticulty Was Dot yet beyond settlement. He (Mr Tracy) came into the case in June, 1874, at the solicitude of Mr. Moulton, believing him to be Mr. Beecher’s friend. That was his history of bis con- | hection with this case. view in the Brooklyn Union as to his understaud- ing of the case, AS seon as he saw that Mr. Tilton changed mis charge from one of improper propo- | salto one of an entirely different character he | gave Mr. Tilton notice taat he could not be neld to | the promise he had made bim. There was no difference between himself and Mr. ‘Tilton except in so far as he tola him tnat be could not be his | counsel 1 ne brought a diferent charge irom the | one he had originally stated. Belore he nad ap- peared in this case he nad submitted the question to eminent counsel in New York and also to his as- sociates In this case, Mr. Evarts and Mr. Porter,and they had expressed tne opivion that there was | Notuing in the matter to prevent him trom ap- | pearing in this case as the counsel tor Mr. Beecher. | He thought ne was entirely free, according to the opinions of eminent lawyers, to appear as Mr. Beecher’s counsel in this suit. Mr. Tracy stopped talking at seventeen minutes Past lour o'cloc! | | ‘The Judge—Have you conciuded your opening, Mr, Tracy? Mr. Tracy—I have not, sir. ‘The Judge, addressing the jury, said:—Gentle- men, you will ve good enough to call at rhe Comp- troliei’s oflice on Mouday morning, veiore you come into court, and you will receive your cum- | pensation tor your services, so lar as they have | been rendered. | Hon tor the ouerous duties that have been thrown upon you, that question can be better determined | woen we know the extent to which your lavors in this case may be projouged. You Wiil please at- | tend here on Monday morning, at eleven o’ciock. | . The Court was accordingly adjourned to that | hour on Monday morning. A CABD FROM MR. BOWEN. The following card has been published by Mr. Henry C. Bowen in relation to General Tracy’s ad- dress :— | The statements made by Mr. B. F. Tracy in his opening address to the Court and jury in the Brooklyn scandal ca: SO far As said statements Teier (O Me aS Naving been engaxet in any “con- spiracy” whatever, are malignant fabrications | from beginning to end—destitute of even one van learn if ve will n woien event he | will tind out that 1 do not believe in tne doctrine, | Said to be taught by him, tar | under certain circumstances.” HENRY ©. BOWEN. New York, Feb. 26, 1875. : ANOTHER ANSWER TO GENERAL TRACY. | To THE EpitoR oF THE HERALD:— Beecher controversy, made yesterday, render it | proper that we should say that Mr. Mouiton has | been a partner of the firm o Wooarufl & Rob- | tnson for more than ten years; that at no | time has he had any duties to perform which involved any need of secrecy or which were, 10 jact, Kept secrec irom fis partners, nor any whicn differed from those of vther memvers of tne firm; that bis conduct as a partner vas always been irank and just, and that the dissoiution o1 the firm has Kot been influenced by the avove contro. | Versy, but was resolved on a year ago, | JEREMIAH P. ROBINSON, FRANKLIN WOODRUFF, . U. ROBINSON, ( New Yor, Feb. 26, 187 THE BEBCHER CASE, | To rae Eprror or 1H8 HeKaLn:— | A laudator temporis acti, a euiogist of old-time things and processes, has a pour chance of a tar hearing nowadays, Yet I am tempted by your admirable article in Thursday's ‘leraLp, on tne crucity of excluding Mrs. Tilton, as a witness, to say a fow words in the direction of the past and the modes of judicial procedure which once were in vogue but which the besom of, in my opinion, Pseulo reform Nas AWept away, 1am by no means sure that tie reason you give for the exclusion of Mrs, Tilton is the true one=io and | My | 1 do not remember | The first thing I asked him about | bot previously learned from Moulton | Jheid taat it could ana ought. [| He had stated in an inter- | With reguta to extra compensa. | lying 1s justifiable | Some remarks of General Tracy in the Tiiton- | here let me remark that tt seems to me that Mrs. Moulton’s testimony adds not a feather’s weight to the anti-Beecher case. If Beecher is innocent, and that is the issue to be tried, then is Moulton | co-conspirator in perjury with Tilton; and if Mrs. | Tilton be excluded on the technical grouna that | she isone with her husband, then are Moulton and his wife one, and her testimony is not even cumulative, The root of the whole dimenity in this case—and this 13 the point of what I have to say—is:—First, that parties are examined as witnesses at al), and, second, ‘as you have suggested, that, i! any, ail should have achance. I sball not dwell on tois last consideration further. At common law and in most of the States of the OUnton parties cou:d not be examined. They, if they brought suits, had | to maintain them by witnesses, and if they were | sued, to defend themselves in the same way. The | dead Jeremy Bentham, and, if I mistake not, the | living David Dudley Field, thought diferentiy, | and now parties—not their wives, however—have | full swing at each other, with what fruit let Tiiton | vs. Beecher show. How would this case, scania- | | lous in all tts aspects, and getting more and more so every day, as it drags its slow and fetid course along—how would it have stood if the old rule had prevatied? In the first place, it seems to me | 1t would neve have been brought, and no one | doubts this would have been a public benefit, If | Tilton had had nothing to support him but the Mouiton testimony, husband and wife, and the other scraps he had produced and the letters—not his and his wtie’s, but Beecher’s—he never would have ventured into court, reckless as he may be. | But he knew the new rule of law perfectiy well, | and that he, the plaintif, would have ample room | for rhetoric and declamation and vituperation | and misrepresentation, dignified as evidence, and bis vanity told bim that though Beecher would | be examined too, he (fiiton) would be more than amatch jor him, Whether he will be is another | | Guestion, But be this as it may, can any sane | man pretend to say that the antagonistic rhetoric of two such adversaries will conduce to the evolu- | tion of truth? It seems to me it will depend on | who talks the best or spouts the most, Yet this is the logical result of tue system—as shown in a | case whicn I admit to be extreme, but still is illus- | trative. Even cross-examination, that alleged | sure test, is a failure when applied to parties or to | those who stand tn the place of parties, ‘This has been abundantly proven here. The comment ts | | not how truthiul these foiks are, but how well | they stood cross-examination. But there ts a | graver consideration still. How about perjury and | the inducement to it? Take this very case. There | | can be no question that either Tilton bas perjured | himsel‘, or that Beecher, if he contradicts him, | as he must or perish, will have done so. There is | noroom for apy alternarive. Can any system be | good which permits—nay, encourages this? Wit- nesses, | admit, may be bribed to /oreswear them- | selves, That is subornation, and bad enough; but itis not as bad as perjury; and here we have a | case in which, In one event or the other, we have both perjury and subornation, 1f Tilton lies, then be has got Moulton ana his wiie to lie for him. It Beecher means to lie, he will suborn bis friends | too, As to Mr. Beecher’s exumination, voluntary though it may be and conclusive of his innocence, as I sincerely trust it will prove, the view is | | equally clear. It is inevitapie, Tacmit. The in- | quisitors of old had a plausible sort of logicin | favor of the rack, ana I am by no means certain | that something like it has not now come to Iife in the present system. Mr. Beccher may be a volun- | tary witness, but he is not a voluntary party to | the litigation. The law says he must be stretched | | on the rack, and, knowing it to be inevitable, he | submits. Al) this could be obviated by going back to the old testimony, and let parties prove their cases, not make them. AN OLD LAWYER. New York, Feb, 25. | “GIVE THE WOMAN 4 CHANCE.” To THE EDITOR OF THE HERALD:— Your excellent editorial under the above head in your columns of this morning is apt and well- | timed, expressing asit undoubtedly does the views of all trutb-loving people. While few if any of our laws are fauitiess, there 1s none more delective than that woich allows @ man to swear away his wite’s honor and at the same time leaves her | powerless to utter a word in her own vindication. | During the progress of the great ‘‘soclal strite” | one." known in her boarding house though not a word bas been said. She has not taken a bundle o1 tracts and <istributed them in the rooms; but you cannot hide the — light, and some rude man goes out and meets a deacon and says, with ap oath, “Why didn’t you take care Ol your poor’ There is & woman ip our heuse dying, and she is au angel if there ever was And so she is jound out. This man would damn a minister as far as he could see him. He Would not go near @ church; he don’t believe in religion, but be believes in that woman, You see in the picture galleries pictures with all sorts of satiq dresses beauufully painted, with satin women inside them, beauttiully painted also, but you seidom see the most toaching incidents “of lite” portrayed. [ remember the — picture of the ‘Linen Weavers of Silesia.” I never saw such angudso cepicted as was in the faces of those poor ants, who broughs their rol.s of linen and received their miserable pittance; and in contrast to that Was the prosperous mercvant, who beat them down to the lowest possible price. Weil, you say all this 18 very weil, but 1t don’s touch us; we are living m comiortabie houses and have everything we want, But what is it that distinguishes you? A bountitul table, @ well filled wardrobe. What makes every- body think you. are a Christian? Because they see you going to prayer meeting, with a prayerbook in band? A Pharisee can do that. Suppose you take the testimony of those who work lor you, are you proud’? do they care for you’ Suppose the girl im the kitchen says, ‘1 pray every day for my mistress; she ts out of the true Church and I can’t bear that she should be lost,’? 1am sure that she ts a Christian. Let your light shine tn trouble—let it shine to Prosnerity. { have, for almost thirty years, been preaching to you. I have attempted to expiate on tbe nermost life of Christians. It has pleased God my old age to bring me into a . LONG AND SEVERE TRIAL, Tam not halt so anxious avout the result as te how [shall live while it ts going on and after it te ended, I know one thing—notning can separate me fro the love of God, which 1s_ in Christ Jesus, Task only that I shali ve able vo set belore my people, with no ostentation, an example oj trust in God that my peopie shall feel thjs is the Gospel ot God. This is my desire. Isay to you, one and all, let your leut so shine before the world that men may know you. Lask, also, that In abswer to your muitiplicity of prayers that) may let my light shine before men that they may know [am simply @ Coristian, ,I desire to tee, like a Christian and act itke a Christian, THE TRANSIT OF VENUS. Sear ceaerconecere JAPANESE OBSERVATIONS OF THE PHENOMENON. Lieutenant Murray 8. Day, United States Navy, Low engaged in hydrographic duty for the Japa- nese goveroment, made successful observations ol the transit in the palace grounds of the Mikado, | Tokei (Jeddo), at the request of the imperial house- hold, He was assisted in these by his associate, Mr. Avrais Ikunoski, which latter gentleman, in signing his report, adds his title, “Kaitakushi Gotochisni.”” Two sets of independent observations were made at their station in the palace grounds, latt- tude 35 deg. 40 min. 42 sec. north, longitade 139 deg. 44 min, 22 sec. east from Greenwich. Lieu. tenant Day’s were taken with a portable astro- nomical transit instrument (Wttrdeman, No. 35), and his time noted with a sidereal chronometer ‘Negus, New York, No, 1,549). He reports the first externul contact to nave taken place at 6h. 56m, 51s.; the first internal contact at 7h. 23m. 388.3 the second internal at 11h. 14m. 55s., and the gece ovd external, or last contact, at lin, 42m. 058, His second and third observations were reported “very guod;’’ the time was noted for the second at the breaking of the ligament, and for the third at the making o/ the ligament. The observations of the Japanese assistant, Mr. Ikunoski, were taken with a ten-Inch theodolite (Wurdeman, No. 164). The time was noted by a mean time chronometer (Negus, No. 1.550). ‘The first internal contact was not noted; the second was at 2h. 10m. 88; the third atéh, Om. 30s,, and the fourth at 6h. 27m. 16s. ‘There is no real discrepancy here in the tim since Lieutenant Day’s was noted by a jereal chronometer. ‘@ne sky was very clear for these observers. It is worth our note that we have thus 2 good Japanese astronomical observation of some points tn the transit. SUCCESS AT RODRIGUEZ ISLANDS, The English party here are reported to have had complete success. Both ingress ana egress were well observed. Janssen’s revolving appara- tus worked ao ot sapere ance Were 86. cured, each containing sixty small photograp! taken’ at intervais of a second. Firty-eigte para nary plates were also made. As regards the British expeditions it is satisfac. tory to learn tuat as they have obtained good observations of the ingress at the Saudwich Isiands avd at Rodriguez, and of the egress in | Austraila and in Egypt, they nave thus made sure Of two pairs of ovservauo! i COMparison by Delisie’s method. These are vaiuavle parts o! the world’s work on this great phenomenon. RETURN OF PROFESSOR WATSON’S PARTY, Professor C. A. Young, oi Dartmouth College, is daily expected in Washington, bringing the om. | which 1s now engrossing to @ large degree the | attention of all mankind, but little has been heard | by “statement” or otherwise irom one to whom | the result brings Weal or woe, happiness or misery, honor or dishonor. Not | only. has) she maintained her silence thos far, but now, when her testimony | | wouia be of so much import im determining tue | | truth or talsity of the terrible charges with which | | ber fair name bas beeo assailed, her lips are | | Sealed, and from necessity she must await tne | | issue undeard. Is there no remedy for this mis- | | Jortune? tor certainly sucd it must be consid- ered, Special legislation has already been invoked, successiully, too, in this memorable Case, and is it | | not possible to secure an amendment to our laws | | SO as not only to give “this woman a chance” to | | testify in her own behalf (a right accorded to the | | vilest of criminals), but for the benetit of all pos. | | terity in similar causes ? Justice and reason alike demand that this | Woman should huve a hearing; the tnterests o1 a | | Christian public demand it. Shall she not be | heard? NEUIRAL, | PLYMOUTH PRAYER MEETING. | | LET YOUR LIGHT SHINE—MR. BEECHER’S SOLE DESIRE WITH REFERENCE TO HIMSELF. Every succeeding Friday evening finds Plymouth | Clal reports of the Pekin party. | _ This early returao of the parcy is in co) juence | 01 their baving succeeded 1n petmng down from Pekin by leaving there on cember 19, in one | of the Russell Company’s vessels, Shanghai on December 30 and being brought over theuce to Yokohama by the United States ship Monocacy, upder orders of Admiral Pennock, United States Navy. Protessor Watson thue avoided tne ong land journey which he would have had to the Yangtse River. ‘The Alaska, irom Yokohama, r+ cisco on the 16th inst,, and doubtle: but Watson, who goes to the East. Wuile the party were detained at Chefoo they learned the success of the Germans there. They had hdd clear sky. ‘ Ine discrepancies reported by our observers be. tween the observed times of the contact and those computed by the English astronomers were not unexpected by our American astronomer, G. W. Hul, of Nyack - Turnpike, Y. Mr. Hill pre. pared the four beautiiul charts of Part 2 of the American Transit Commission, and predicted dis. crepancies in the times given by our Engiish cousios. When ali the results are reduced—say within tweive to eighteen months—we will see who wins. THE HERALD AND BISMAROK. {From the London Globe.) The bitterness displayed by Prince Bismarct lecture room more crowded, if that were possible. Last evening the room was filled a tull , half hour before time for the meeting | to begin, and camp chairs’ were called | | into requisition, and the crowd only ceascd | | Pouring in when the room could contain no more. | Mr. Beecher entered just at haliepast seven and | took his seat, looking calm and untroubled as | usual. He was very earnest in his remarks, ana | at the last, when he spoke of his present trial, the | congregation—attentive before—were suddenly hushed, and in ail that vast assemblage there was not a sound or a movement. Brother Edward Beecher opened the services by | prayer. He prayed that the pestor might be vindicated, and all that 1s taking place might be | for the jurtherance of the glory of God. After the | | customary exercises Mr. Beecher said:—Paul says it is God which worketh in you, both to wiil and to do, &c, You read in the Sermon on the Mount the command of our Saviour to shine. It is not a command of exhibiting piety, not a command of ostentation, not, indeed, a command to shine; no | man lighteth acandie to put it under a bustel, | but he putteth it in @ candlestick, that tts ligut | may shine forth. So when you are living a truly | CHRIST-LIKE DISPOSITION | ao not hide it, let it be seen. As if there were cir- | cumstances in which men would be likely not to | let their light shine, so He commanded not to | shine; but, when tt did shine, to let it be seen. | There is nothiag less influential to the sense of | | honor than the attempt to make goodness appar- | ent; fora person to say a wise thing and look | round and say, ‘‘Um-m!’’ and smack bis lips and | Did you see that *"? for a person to be placed | in & situation Where, seeiug everyoody looking, | they do right—you cannot ‘conceive anything more HATEFUL AND REPULSIVE than that. And we find amoug very good people and people WhO are Lot so good, 9 great deal of that. People Who have so mucn to do lor the cause of | God and nave so much to say about it; no time | | jor anything; everybody must hear tt—1 don't | | Mean to say how iar that is religion imsteau of | j dog good. Wb is very distast | may be sure that the Saviour never commanded that they should shine ior ovservation, but that they should live so that the dtference between them and those who live without faith shoula show and the peauty and sweetness of religion attract others. Men snould ve moved to Teigion by its beautiiuiness, not by its arguments, not by ruetorical piety, put that the Cu ike traits might be seen, (hat It should seem as comely to sisht flowers. We Might have a lecture on botany, watch would tne terest extremely ; but when you go out on a sum mer day and see the meadows vine with violets, or whte with daisies, you !eei inciined toward the | Spot, Not because it 1s a study im botany, oUt be- cause the flowers are beautiu ‘The command to sutne 1s simply to all your | conduct to'carry yoursell so Christike taat whea men benvld how rational, how desirable. Let us take stances. Suppose a seamstress, Who in good times flour- | eral 4, and we | ou they Will see Low beantiiut it Is— | towards the New YoRK HERALD has caused some amazement, not to say amusement, in the United States. Most people thought the fun was at an end when the Chancellor’s private secretary s9l- emoly informed the HERALD’s correspondent that an audience could not be granted to the repre sentative of a paper so much opposed to the policy. of the German government. On Wednesday, however, the North German Gazette, the Prince’s organ, revurned to the charge. ‘the American journal, it appears, recently declared that it really Was not so very hostile to Prince Bismarck: Much as tt disliked iis violence, it dishked taat ot the ultramontanes stili more. The off Berlin paper denounces tnis a8 mere hypocrisy, and points to what it calls “the Jact” that the Romish clergy everywhere recouy mend and as tar as possible disseminate the HERALD. It is astonishing thata man in Prince Bismarck’s position does not feel that a quarrel of such a kind is somewhat undignified. ihe most powerful statesman on the European Continent ought surely to be above bandying words with a New York ediwr. In this, however, as in mach else, he truly represents the existing feeling of bis countrymen, At one time Germans did not resent joreign criticism. They were remarkable tor their largeness of view and tolerant spirit, and could even be grateiul for an impartial pression of opinion on the tendenc: in the Fatherland, All this has now Since Sadowa and Sedan re admired themseives and their own aenteve- ments so protoundly that they consider foreign ~ criticisin an impertinence. Hence their ine dignation at all the great European States in turn—and at éngiand more than most others—de- cause observers bave dared occasionaiiy to hint ex: rents | that toe new Empire ts not, perhaps, absoiutely periect. Yet Germany never stood so much in | heed o! what aid may be derived trom the judg- Inents of toreigners. She ts surrounded by perils. ‘The contest between Church and State has as sumed proportions of Which no one dreamed two year: 0; the socialist democrats are loud in compuints, and the goverument prepares r possivie War vy Lot, every man a soldier and the country acamp, In these circumstances | 16 Would be well if Prince Bismarck and his ad- mirers would sometimes give need to critics whose | Views have atleast the advantage of not being influenced by strong party passions. THE PRODUCE EXCHANGE, The interminable question of the grading ef grain seems as far off from a settlement as ever, Yesterday morning the Board of Managers of the Exchange listened to the arguments of Mesers, | Wiliam J. Preston and Wiliam H. Haines in favor of the propositions for grading submitted to the Exchange and already published tn extengo tt these co.umns, After the arguments were heard the whole matter was referred to Ww Com: mittee to report. Two add tional members were added to the latter committee, Messrs, J, H, Her rick and L. Bazelune. Five new members were declared elected to the Exchange yesterday, Their names are as fo} lows :—Moessrs. '. 8. Andrews, A, Christophersen: Jotia Gibson, William stake and &. @. Hatzield. ‘Tae report of the aneay Commissioners on exchange, which Te | was received by the noticed more fully he: