Indiana State Sentinel, Volume 24, Number 27, Indianapolis, Marion County, 16 February 1875 — Page 2

TJIE JNDIANA STATS SENTIN L TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 1G 1875,

BROOKLYN VARIETIES.

THEODORE AND ELIXADKiU. THEIR RELATIONS TO EACH CTH ER LETTERS WHICH PASSED BETWEE TH KM TILTON'" POSSESIONS BOWMEN'S PART IN THE TROUBLE. f Net' York, Feb. S. The bitter cold weather of this morning, like tbe heavy rain . storm of last week, had no effect whatever upon tbe attendance at the suit of T. Tilton ' eaiMS the Rev. II. W. Beecher. ' The TCmoklvn C'itv Court room contaiuoJ the usual throng, while outside in the cold cor- . ridoM another crowd danced to keep warn : and cUuiored for admittance. - Mrs. Tilton, m VicM at-1 two other ladies sat in thtir nna niacs. Mr. Beecher aod his -wife were immediately behind tbe counsel lor the defendant and in front I- the Plymouth gathering. When the court wa9 opened- M-. Tilton re3umed the witness stand. Mr. Evarts stated that ih mir.sni ort the other tide bad ' nrnduped a.11 the letters tbev called ibr ex Vnt nne. which would be read from the hook. The counsel then read a letter writ tn hv Mr. Tilton to hi wife on the 14tb ot February, 1SGS, and another written January 15, 186:), referring to a letter sent by ner a few davsairo. in which ehe said that she could not live on the salary allowed nor. He stated that the intelligence made hiia sick, ami confessed that no money had cone into the bank, and that the extravagance oj tbe children must be curbed and the reMdenoe in Brooklvn sold or the expenses ot carry inrriSon ho checked. A letter from J.ltB. Tilton lev her husband of January 31, 1ST3, was read, declaring Low sorry she wä that nor harnnness nan anvcu mux w iuo . dezree it h?d,and styling herself "the child . of sinners." She bad not K-?ea BiOcher since he (Tiitoj) left, and she did not care about Kfeinir him until ha (Brecher) had a better opinion of him. Another letter from Tilton to bU wife of Dec. 22, lS'W, declared that lately ho had been endeavoring to ascertain what were ht3 earthly ambitious to strudle with and overcome, .and that now he bad been able to lay them" aside. lie liked , Beecher as well as ever he did, but he ba 1 ceased to be his soul's prop, and was not o dear a friend as he formerly had been. A letter from Mrs. Tilton. dated March 6'-h, "1869, petitioned her, husband not to make any more engagements away from home, a they could live quietly at home on the salary he could make In this city. The next letter was da'ed August 28, 18(19, from Tilton to his wife, and confessed that the last summer he had passed had been the inr.st wretched of hid life. He declared mat in saarchinz the depths ot his soul he found tha: he loved her more dearly than other . women, and wished he were more worthy of HER KINDNESS AND SELF-DENIAL. t I The witness then continued his cross-examination:' I did not make an arrangement with any New York paper to publish those papers, but the Tribune made such' an ap plication to me. I refused. The . editor 'of the Herald made an application for my sworn statement, to be published in Its columns, which ! also refused. Oli yct Johnston is an old gentleman living in New "iork, who use! 'to be associated with me on the Independent, and afterwards assisted Mr. Beecher in the publication of the Christian Union. My in timacy with him becan when I wai 21 or 22 jears old, and continued until I placed him on the Christian union, i no not ir.inK would recognize him now. When I first became acquainted with him be was the editor of the Anti-slavery standard, lnisew xorn. I think he was associated with me in the editorship of the Independent about seven years. He came there when I became edi tor-in-chief of the paper. Our business re lations out ot the office were very great He came occasionally to visit at my house, but was not liked by JIr3. Tilton on account ot his religious tenets. Alter leav ing the Independent he edited the Weekly Tribune under Horace Greeley. 'Ihe aggre gate receipts in the rough from my lecturing tour in one saason averaged $9,000, from which the expense s of ray family bad tc be deducted. I can't now ca'd to my mind 'what the circulation of the Independent was while I waa there, but it had largely in creased after I took charsre. I do not know what its circulation was when I left, but Mr, Kowen stated that it was sent to 10,500 post offices throushout the country. When went into the Independent office Mr. Bowen told me that its circulation was about 17,000, Mv salary at various times in the Indepen dent office varied from ?700 a year to 7,000 a jear and was advanced by successive steps to tbe latter sum from inj'j. it was nxea at 17,000. Before that it was $5,000 and seven per cent, ot the profits. In December, 1S70, I abandoned lecturing and took charge of the Brooklyn Union, at which time I was also for a few months editor of the Indepen dent. Ms salary on the Union w.'S ?100 a week, I think, iu January, 1871. I do. not believe any of the property brought mo ANY EMOLUMENT, except some money I had out at deposit. My bouse af that time was worth abont 517,500, and there was a mortgage of $7,500. I was offered for my share in the Tribifoo ? 10,500. My property in Do ellya ,Park was valued at 10,000, and there was not any mortgage on it. I endeavored to get Mf. Moulton to purchase it, but he preferred to lend me money. I never rcmarriber being effdred $2,500 for it. There is also a lot of mine in Procpect Park, unless somebody has run off with it. Laughter. I understand Mr. Shearman was making inquiries about it the other day. Increased laughter. Mr. Bowen, on or about November, 1870, told me that for various rtasons te wanted to become editor in chief ot the Independent. I resolved that I would be no longeron the paper. Bowen gave me notice in December that he wanted to condnct his own paper six months hence. I signed a contract with Mr, Bowen to become editor of the Brooklyn Union for five years, and also signed another contract with him to be a special contributor to the Independent at a salary of $5,200 a year. My salary on tbe Union was the same with an additional ten per cent ol the profits. Tnese contracts were'estlmatei with the arbitration. My valedictory was published in tbe Independent on tbe 22d bt December,1870..Tbese contracts remained unbroken until the31st of December. -1 bad au interview with Bowen on December 26th, but it did not relate to my continuance of these contracts. This I think was the first interview I had with him after tbe signing of tbe contracts. Mr. Johnson came over to see me shortly after this and told me stories that some person was circulating. We went over to communicate with Bowen on the subject. Mr. Johnson was there during the greater part of the interview but not during the most important part. I do not rememler what I said to Mr. Bowen at the outset, nor can I tell what I said. Bowen said that . STORIES WE RS CIRCULATING ' about me and threatening to sweep me away like an avalanche, stories of my immorality, he said, which came to him from all parts of the world. Tie said that if they were true I should not lire a day longer, and I agreed with him. I never heard these torlos rvnit mv connections with errien r.ftii B.utn IjVI nie. I was threat ne1 with an avalanche. There was a small newspaper published In New York which came out at this time with a story about my going to elopo with a lady in Europe. There had been beforo this' a story published about my living with a woman wh.pa not my wife duicg a political campaign out

West. The relation cfthf;ef etoiies to me

by Bowen was quite a surprl-o and astonishment to idc. ; r.At . this point the court took. the 'usual recess. CROSS-EXAMINaTION CONTINUED. THE BOWEN LETTF.R MOULTON 9 FAITHFUL AID NEWÜPAPSR CONTRACTS MRS. WO0DHCXL AGAIN TILTON IN A COMMUNIST PROCESSION. ew Ycf.k, Feb. 9 The suit of Theodore Tilton against the Itev.' Henry Ward Beecher was resumed to-day promptly at 11 o'clock, all the parlies concerned beirg pres ent. The cro4 examination of tbe plaintiff was contioued. He said: I bought .the Lewellyn I'rk lots by piecomeal, and paid for tbem oy advertising in me independent. I cau not remember how long my contract was with tbe Independent. When I cave Moulton my wiftTa letter on the. 30th of December, it was not to be used uniests for the purpose of fetching Brecher, should he refuse to grant me the . interview. The letter was not written for tbe rnrpose cf being mod in this way Theobiectof that interview was to protect Elizabeth from any publicity growlngoutof the controversy between Bowen and Beecher. I was not afraid that Bsecher would eive publicity to their relations, I received two notes from Bowen, on from him as publisher, of the Independent and the ether as pfesidcnt of the Brooklyn Union Association, notifying me of mv en cashments beiajr annulled. I weut dowu to see Moulton about these letters. Moulton waa not there and I Eat down to write an answer to Bowen. Moulton came in and wq bad an interview which continued until we went out into the street. When Ifir3tnut Moulton I did not invite him out of doors. I do not think I walked the street for many hours that night. bean to prepre the' letter of Jan. 1 to Mr. B"wen on the previous night and it Was finished tha next day. Ihore was nothing in thai letter about Beecher's re lations to Mrs. Tilton or myself. All that was deincdlv left out. Mr. K'jbison ad vised me to sav nothing about it, and lol lowing his advice I took out of the letter certain fiery pharses. I showed the letter to Mr. Ford tsanday morning wnen l was writl'git. The letter was not then in a complete state, but the essence of it waa the same as it is now. He did not adviso me to Btrlke out any portion of it. I did not krow that Ford stood in the relation of trustteo to one ot the ladies referred to in my letter to Bowen. There was no word of disparagement of my wife in the original draft of this letter, and I never for one moment thought ot introducing her in it. One of the first days in January I handed this Bowen paper to Moulton, as soon as copy was made of it. . When I gave this letter to Moulton I didnot express any DESIRE TO HAVE A SETTLE MERT ' with B jwen. Betöre thi3 I gave Moulton a note and told him I wanted my affairs with Bowen settled as soon as possible. I asked him at this time to be on of three arbitra to to settle. I do not remember then baying chosen the other arbitrators. He desired me to commit thewhola case to his care and I gave him power in concequence!of this requess. me witness tbs nannei a letier. . This is In Mculton's handwriting ana is a copy or trie power cf attorney which I gave to Moulton. I put threo papers in Moulton s b inds on the 1st of January, namely: My letter of authorization to him, my contract with the Independent and my contract with the Brooklyn Union. I d' riot remember the date of Moultcn'a first interview with Bowen, but it was about the 1st ol January. Moulton reported to me that Bowen wanted an arbitration. 1 was also in favor of arbi tration but Moulton prohibited it. The actual arbitration was held on the 20th of April, 1872, I think. I do not remember speaking to Bowen from the time I left him In the ioffica of the Union in 1870 until some time in 1872. Mrs. Tilton was informed of my interview with Bowen on the 26ih of December, but she only knew of them in the light of business relations. Mrs. Tilton knew that if Bowen and I drove Beecher out of his pulpit that all the world would know the cause. It was on account of Mrs. Tilton's anxiety and solicitude that I had an interview with Beecher. Mr. Moulton went to Florida after his serious illness. Its culmination was about the 1st of January, and his recovery was very slow. He carried on bis business, howover, on his sick bed like a general in his tent. Tbe de signs ot Moulton and his labors were for the purpose of keeping ine t matter or me scandal secret. I never suspected Beecher of giving Mrs. Woodhull any of th6ir secrets, nor did I suspect Moulton, as he was above suspicion. When I went to Bee Mrs. Woodhull in May, lSii, sne mentioned to me nearly an me EXrRAVAOANT STORIES which she published in November, 1872. At tnat time she did not civeme any of her authorities, I bad not any thought that the wordä "eminent teacher," mentioned in her statement, would be understood to mean the Rev. H. W. Beecher. The card Itself did not convey that impression to my mind, but her threat to publish the names terrified meH Perhaps a small, marrow circle in Brooklyn might have known, but not the general body of the public. I presume that a small circle enlarges and increases by degrees. I think the information was obtained by Mrs. Woodhull indirectly from the lips of Mrs Nathan B. Morse. The stories went from her lips alone, and not from mine, Mr. Moulton's or Mr. Beecher's. When I spoke of the story I cevsr spoke to Mrs. Tilton's disparagement, but I did to Beecher's, and if it had not been for Mrs. Tilton's protec tion l would nave allowed mm to go to destruction four years ago. I never had a con fidence with Henry Ward Brecher in my life. I was under no obligation to keep a secret witn reference to tbe Itev. lienry Ward Beecher. I selected whom I would speak to on the subject, ana told them what 1 saw fit. It was from Mrs. Morse's leakage that the story came to Mrs. Woodhull, and I told Mrs. Morse the story. At the same time when 1 told her I knew she would tell tbe whole world. The laughter which this an swer provoked irritated Judge Neilson, and he said that if tbe laughter was continued he would adjourn the court, as it caused a serious interruption of tbe proceedings. Tbe witness then continued: Up to this time I don't know that Moulton made any effort toward a settlement of my affairs with Bowen. I never took any advice as to tbe collection of my claim against Bowen. But I did take legal advice as to the legality of my, contracts with Bowen and whether they were worth 17,000. The penalty of breaking the contract was half the salaries and half tbe percentages whleh went to make up the 17,000. I did not take any advice as to Bawen's defense against the payment ot this money, for he had no delense. Bowen was anxious tor arbitration on account of THE STORM which had been raised by the stories against Beecher. I never saw Bowen from tbe pe riod when I left his service In 1870 until he paid me in the settlement of' my claims in 187.J. I got Bowen's note for $4,500, which was not for mv salaries but for my shares of the Brooklyn Union which he took from me ni other business dealings in August or September. I had a difference with Bowen about supporting a certain political candidate which I refused to do, and he said that there was on 3 way in which he could become the master of that paper, and I replied that there was only one. I refused to submit to his wishes

and io support this mandate, and told hiia that under the contract I was master of the panr. This was the only difference I had

with Boweu for about nucen years, izn last time I saw Mrs. Woodlmll was in April, 1S72, at which time she designed b viilify and blacken tee names of several la Jies ex pected with the woman's suffrage move ment. This article was the "Tit for Tat" oae. I -knew ail tha ladie.i, more Oriels, whom she deigned to attack. I saw Mrs. Woodhull when I was acquainted with her often, sometimes at her hou?e and olten at her office- I saw Ler also at my house, I think three time3, and also at Moul ton's. I remember going to Coney Island with her, but did not pathe wiih ner. I remember Mrs. Wood hull's and her husland'a coming to my house on a Saturday evening, where she stopped all night and part of Sunday. I never remember being in the water with her, though she always kept mo in hot water in this aflair. I never remember showing hor any documents relating to Beecher. I do not know whf re Mrs. Woodhull got her reference to the Catherine Gaunt letter sent me by my wife. I never tafked with her about it, ahd never ehowed her the letter. She never got this informa tion from me, but must have got it from other persons, as I never stated it to her. I remember being in A COMMUNIST PROCESSION in New York. I was not there with Mrs. Woodhull, but m&3 there with my friend, Jphn S. Winton, with whom I walked arm inarm. I did nut know until the rroc seion was over that Mrs. Woodhull and her party were there. That procession, was in honor of vounsr R..ssel. who was put to death by the French government. I d-j no, know that he was executed fr th9 murders of the chiel justice of France and thear. hbisdiop ot Paris. I considered that h wm a pure young man and a martyr, and I honor him. I did not carry a banner on that occa sion, but if I had I would nave considered it an honor that no man need b'? asbamed of. I may have gone once or tie with Mrs. Woodhull to Coney Island, and I went once rowing with her "and her husband on the Harlem Tiver. I do not know if this was on Snnday. Mr. Evarts hers intima ted that the hour for recess had arrived Judge Neilson said that he had just re ceived a note telling him that yesterdHj' par ties standing behind the jury wero making observations about the case in their hearing The judge admonished the parties and di rected the court officers to let him know if if such a thing occurred again Mr. Evarts suggested that the space be hind tbe jury box should be kept free from spectators and the court gave an order to that effect. A recess was then taken THE STORIES ABOUT HIM. HE EXPLAINS THE WINSTED BUSINESS niS RELATIONS WITH MRS. WOODHULL TnE DE PARTURE OF MRS. T. FROM HIS HOUSE HIS PHONOGRAPHIC ABILITIES. New York, Feb. 10. The Tilton-Beechcr trial attracted this morning the usual crowd. Mrs. Tilton was seated between Mrs. Field and a lady new to the oourt room. Tracy was present, and during the greater portion of the morning he kept up an animated con versation with ex-Judge Porter. Mrs Beecher, accompanied by her son, was seated behind tho counsel for her husband. who was absent. Tbe crohs-examination of Mr. Tilton was continued by Mr. Evarts. who showed him the lettor of January 9. 1869. Tbe witness, on referrinc to his mem orandum book, stated that tbe year was an error. It should be 1S.0. Mr. EvarU mad the letter, which was written by Tilton to a friend in Connecticut, explaining the charge of stopping at a hotel in Wicsted with a lady. TV- . I 1 li ue saiu iu explanation on mis occurrence, that the lady was a protege of his wile's who bad attended a lecture of his there, and was staying at thesama hotel, but there being no fire in her room and a stove in his she had come into bis room to share the beat, and at by the fire read'ng to him while he lay on the bed. The witness continued: This letter was written to a Mr. Hastings. I do not now remember who be is. It was written in answer to an inquiry. I never heard anything about tbe slins of Mrs. Woodhull's publication ol November being exhibited in anv of the New York newspaper offices. I went to Mrs. Woodhull's office when occasion required, but with .no great regularity. I always went when I was sent for, and sometimes I went spontaneously. I went to her house poihaps ten or a dozen times. I only passed one night under her roof, In September. The precise day I do not remember. I do not remember where I spent the time from the 3d to the 5th of July, 1871, and can not Bay whether any portion of it was spent at the home of Mrs. Woodbull. I did not epfnd either of those nights at her house, though I am unable to say whether I was at her residence on those days. I can not remember anything noteworthy occurring on either of those days. I never passed three days in her company, though lean not say whether 1 passod a portion ot any ot those in her house. I do not remember whether Mrs. Tilton wa3 in thq country, but I could tell by looking at her correspondence. I would "be able to tell by the Catherine Gaunt letter. Itbinkshe was at Schoharie. I do not remember being in the company of Mrs. Woodhnll when she told a lawyer named Hussey, of Lowell, of tbe story which she published, but I recollect being with her on an occasion of meeting Gen. Butler. I heard her speak of the publication in the presenceof Mr. Moulton, but never in that of any other person. He was shown a paper. There is an allusion in this to the Catherine Gaunt letter. The paper shown to the witness was a cony of Woodhull A Clafllnla Weekly, of May 17, 1873. I had been accused by Beecher's friends of FORGING SOME OF THE LETTERS and documents, and I adopted tue lorm of fac similes in their publication so as to let the public judge of tbe matter. I do not remember ever furnishing titles to the letters which I published and do not remember if it ever was done. Mr. Underhill, my stenograpner, naa tne preparation ot my letters for the press and I can not say whether he may have done so. After Mrs. Tilton's return from the west on the 1st of December, 1870, she came to my house and then went to her mother's. I had among my personal acquaintances at that time thoEev. Gilbert Haven, bishop of their. E. Church, lie has been at my house perhaps about a hundred times, but I can not recall his being there at any particular date, but before and after he became a bishop he has made many visits to my house. On the morning of Mrs. Tilton's return she came to my house. She went to see her mother afterward and came back to my house. When she had told me of the conversation she had with her mdiher, in which the latter urged her to go there and live. About week or ten days after she left and went to her mother's, where she remained about week. I sent forber one time from the office of the Brooklyn Union, and Bhe came to me. She had our Infant child with her when she left the house. I do not remember sending for the child during her absence. The child was brought to mv bouse, however, but who brought it there I do not know, nor do I know that, the child was taken in her absence. She then reinrned to ray house, but I do not know whether she considered it her home. A letter was shown to the witness. I judge this to be tbo letter I sent to her mother's home. The letter was read by Mr. Evarts as follows: Ellen Wrap the baby carefully, and bring him to my house immediately. 6:15 p. m. Theo. Tilton. The witness resumed: The Ellen to whom

Le letter is addressed, is M..ss Ellen Donnfs, mv housekeeper. I tfo no; remember

whether I was at home when the child was brou)Jat there, ihecnild was born in June, lSo;,au d was tl3n nearly 13 month old. The wUne.Ti "a iücn reaa . ije questions askeJ him and t.he answers fiven by him betöre the iovestVHting committee of Plymouth Church, and asked If he remembered them. Ho replied t.tk t ne aianoT, but re recollected some ol tba answers and tbat others were incarrec.'ly given in the volume of testimony. Tb witness continued: I STUDIED niONOattji THY WHEN A BOY, but have not followed it - professionally " m Mr. Evarts insisted cu knowing whether the witness was an expert pbonosrranher. and the following cvlloquy eusned: Mr. Evarts I a.k you, sir, if vou ara an expert phonrgrapber? Witness bulomon fays let another mm praise thee and nvt thin own bps. Liigbter. Mr. Evarts What cn earth has Solomon got to do with your ,case. . Increased laughter. The court rebuked the audience and the witness resumed: I made brief notes of the paperaii Mr. Moulton's possession. I inad a copy of Beecher'. letter of contrition of January 1, 1871. I also made a copy ol the letter of February from Beecner to Mrs. Tilton, and tbe letter to Moulton on the 17th of February, which I showed to Mrs. Tilton. I made copies ol parts of the letters of Jone 1, 1873, and February 5, 1S72, the ragged ed.ed letters, both from Beecher. I am quite sure I did not copy all "of these latlpr lcUer?, but only took a couple of fragu'ents. out of them. There was multitudinous correspondents of four years, of which I copied very lutle becanse I saw only a portion of it. I learned Pittman's phonoiraphy when I was a'.loyot school. I never destroyed r.ny of Beecher's letters iVora December 26, 1S70, to the present time, nor any of Moulton's during the same period, nor yet have I destroyed any cfmyown. I have not destroyed any of the papers relating to the subject. Bewie Turner was absent from my bou?e iu 18Ö8-C9 at an institution, and in 1870 she was away witn Mrs. Tilton in the Wes Here the eourt took the nsual rec!-?. Aferthe recess Tilton's cross-examinatiou was resumed by Evarts. The witness said: I do cot remember any charges being made against me in an interview between Bowen and myself, when Oliver Johnston was present, about what occurred at North Point, Minn. I was then lecturing, about six or Beveu years ago, and I never remember any charges ever being made about my conduct while there. I remember when Mr. Beecher met me at the house of Mr. Moulton when he (Moulton) was sick. Beecher saluted me with A KISS ON THE FOREHEAD. After any period of estrangement Mr. Beecher and I occasionally saluted one another with a kiss, and it was a noticeable event when it happened. I do r.ot know when the name of the "letter of contrition" wa.t given to the letter of January 1,1871. Mr. Beecher always characterized it as my letter to Mr. Mouiton, and in rry Jc(t?r to Dr. Bacon I ... 1 1 swl 4tl..M'l.r-... 1. . . inuo iwerui apiuofrv. I oo not iemember even making any oetailcd description of it except iu the Bicou letter, and then it was called the apok-Kv. When a Iortiou of the letter was pubiiod in tbe Bacon documents, t)lo newsp3pers qenemlly characterized it as the letter of contrition. The witness was shown a letter. This is in the hacdwritiDg of Mr. Bacher. I remember receiving this and showing It to ray wife I got it from Mr. Moulton. Tha only recollection 1 have about the time of its being writ ton was that it was some time ia the spring of 1S73. Mr. Evarts read the letter written to Mrs. Tilton by Brecher, telling her that he was glad that Theodore had seen tbe dangerous pit which was opened before them. Mr. Bcchor expressed his sorrow in the Interior tbo great wrong done her. The witness resumed: This letter referred to the publication of the Woodhull scandal. Alter tbe Woodhull publication, Mr. Haliiday, Mr. Bell and myself .had au interview. My acquaintance with Haliiday before this was very slight. I do not remember sayirg to Haliiday when I came in that I came to see him, or that I was sent by Moulton in relation to the woodhull publication. I do not remember addressing Mr. Bell as George, and saying'-do not go." I don't remember saying that there was not a particle of truth in um ooauuu story, tboueh I may hv said it. I don't reme-nber disclaiming- its publication, or saying that I was away in the West campaigning when the story wbi published. I do not remember saying that my wife was as pure as the light, but I said: "You would not believe me. but ask Mr. Beecher, and he will tell you 6he is as pure as gold." In December, 1872, there, was in existence a paper called "The true story" written by me about the end ol that month. The tripartite convenant.was not published ia THE TRUE STORY, but any person, reading it, could understand it all from what wa3 there. It was never made complete by inserting! in it the tilpartite agreement. The story was never in manuscript in the complete form In which it was published. It would fill two or three columns of a newspaper, and would, in pamphlet form, be about the thickness of your hand. No copy of this was never made by me, or with my knowledge. This paper, to tbe best cl my belief, was destroyed, I think by Mrs. Tilton, but not byjme, or by my desire. It is a long time ago since I last saw this paper in existence. I think about the spring of 1S73 I took this paper to several persons, and left it with them for perusal. I showed it to Mr. George A. Bell, Wm. C. Dewitt and I think to Mr. Dunkley. I think Mr. Dewitt had it a day or two. I don't reinemWer the Dames of any other persons now, but I showed it to several otfcer parties. I did not show it to Mr. Good ridge or Dr. Storrs. I showed the sum and substance of this paper, in its preparation, to Dr. Storrs. Mr. Evarts objected to thi3 last answer, and asked the court to strike it out. Mr. Beach argued that it should be allowed to remain on the minutesdnasmucb as it was given by the witness as an explanation, t he last answer was ordered to be struck out by the court. The witness, continued: I did not show this paper to Mr. Page, the artist, buf showed it to B. F. Tracy and Mr. Woodruff. I do not remember whether I showed it to Mr. Moulton, but it was lelt in his possession. I did not show it to James B. Mix, Cut think I showed to F. B. Carpenter the original manuscript. I did not show it to Mr. Redpath. I neither ehowed it to or left it with Thomas Kinsella, nor do I remember showing it to Thomas C. Clarke. 1 did not show it to Alderman Whitney, but I did let him see Beecher's letter of contrition. I showed the previous or earlier draft of the paper, the matter of wkich was the same as that contained in the pamphlet to Dr. Storrs, and read him the whole of it. This was about the 30th of December, 1872, 1 thick. I do not remember showing the drnft to. Mr. Page, the artist, or to Mr. Charles Storrs. I showed some loose sheets of the draft to James B. Mix, but I did not leave any of them with him. As soon as I made a complete copy of the draft, it went into, the waste basket. I do not know of any copy of that paper now in existence. I read the completed paper to Mr. Tracy in Moulton's study, I think, between Christmas and New Years, or a little later. I did not show him anything but THE COMPLETED PAPER, When We bad an interview together in No

vember I did not show him the dra!t of the pa; or, fur it wa, not then in cxi-tfnee, tut Moulton ahowvi M-n fh, in. 'er r.f rtri'

ot pechor. Mr. Moulton was preset when J Noved r" ,V- T' -V . - In I showed ttepsper of the true story to b-f .re" (& tripartite 11 XVilkHoa Tracy. It was tsro r thrs wee'n V - tripartite nrerment was preafter the 13 h oj Dembr when I fo'Td I art of that iv- j showed thla paper to Trarr As f-öh'ii II mT "-r I stowed ltst. as I copied the sheets o"S drflt ,n , TV, th9 "Oration was .greed , in; of the draft was fiuishedon liter day Eer ceeding It ' L w if toTc'S ThT Christmas. I bo TSn f ?lfX 1Anri t y aJ fT" L .- V . . f J 'U VJJV " Cull I

mna v-t r f her psri'ju, cut i can not remember the dales. I re3d to him tha paper which was afterwards irTflrd. copisa in a more ereneral wav and published in a pamphlet. Beiore the iirst of January. f?Pf!?- Ln A -oreneral way and publisbed 1871, I returned from tbe West, whers I had leen on "a lect urine tour, during which I heard stories which 1 thought miuired me to put forth a state ment. Mrs. Tilton accompanied me on a

poruon of tbat tour. I heard th? story out oe oi these slips. Beiore the Woodhull tbere that I was a drunkard, had become publication he was an intimate friend of divorced, and others of a like nature; and, i ml, Än(1 T n , TV 7 on my return. I thought of publishing th4 ' L nd 1 often cnulted with bim about Bowen letter. I nrt began the preparation j m? fflJrs- I donot remember saying to Harof this letter la March, 1872. I conferred rnorr that I did not care what be did with It. with Oliver Johnsen and Moulton about the ' r oonmit it t k.. s iT publUbing of this letter. When the article I fjl h . h ? might was put in type, I do not remember show- ffT, ; , JV? h5s dl8cre:ion. I said ing ic to any person other than those con- j r 21 ft '.lt to hlf iSnt and

cerned. It was shown by Mr. Monlton to Mr.Beocber.and by Mr.Clanin to Mr.Bowen. tuv l was not present then. The v . - . .. ' . tripartite Anril igreement was drawn up on dui mere wss a previous prenarat uy.ir. Wilkivin containing a clause which T .lpHnnjl tri ctirn T u .u.i uuw u emu, i liji n iivii. is tu ity ui inf. l paper containing the clause referred to. The crianites were m.vfo in Mi. Bo wen's clause No. 1, and in mine, which was numbered 2. I do not know whether the original draft U in existence. Here the court adjourned. The object cf the defense in introducing the letter written by Tilton, directing that his child ba brough from Mr. Mort'g to his housr, was to show that Mrs. Tilton had left her home and gone to reside with her in -the r, and that Tiiton, daring the absence of Iiis wife from the house of Mm. Morse, seutforand procured tbe child to Induce Mr?. Tilton to return to her horn-;. IT DRAWS TO A CLOSE. K5T0RT OF THE TRIPARTITE AGREEMENT A LACK OF FAITH IN BOWEN DISCLOSED BOWEN 'a EPISTOLERY EFFORT IN TYPE AND THE BLIPS DISTRIBUTED ABOUT TOWN MORE ABOUT THE TRUE STORY THE CROSS EXAMINATION TO BE FINISHED TODAY. New York, Feb. 11. Notwithstanding the anow and rain and icy sidewalks this morning, the Tilton-Beecher trial in the Brooklyn City Court room had as crowded an attendance as on any previous day. Mrs. Tilton and Mrs. Field were present early, but Mr. Beecher and wile did not arrive until a short time after the proceedings began. A few preliminaries having been settled by the counsel, Mr. Evarts continued the gro.HS-examinatin cf Tilton. The witness said: I have nocopy of the draft ot tbe tripartite! agreement. He ws Landed a pamphlet. I do not know whether this is a copy of the original draft of the agreement, though it purports to be. I could not Bwear that this is the exact phraseology of the original dra t. I think that the tripartite covenant as put into my hands for signature W3s in the handwriting cf Samuel Wilkinson, and I have an impression that the draft was written by him too.. I think the original draft was read to me in Moulton's study in the presence f Mr. Claflin, Mr. Wilkinson, Mr. Moulton and myself. I cculd not s ty whether this was at a chance meeting nor can I say whether it was in the morning or evening that it took place. I can not tay wbetber the paper shown me then was prepared for my signature. My recollection is that Clafiin asked me a day or so alter that if Brown withdrew bis charge in writing against Beecher, that I would not spioad them any more. I said if Bowen signed the agreement I would sign it twenty times over. I expressed my belief then that Bowen would not sign the covenant. I picked up a pen and made a motion with my hand as if signing the paper, and then stated that if Bwen would attach his name to it I would sign it as of len as they desired. The witness went on to explain that in a more extended examination of the agreement be saw the paragraph he was asked to sign, and as it was not in the terms he desired, he related to attach his name to it unless it was modified in some degree. I do not remember reading all the document, but I read the paragraph relating to Bowen when I uttered this exclamation.- The witness continued: What prevented my signing it then was because BOWEN 'S NAME WAS NOT ATTACHED to the clause prepared for him. I expressed my willingness to sign it, but did not signify my intention. I do not remember any person's saying, "Don't sign it first as Mr, Bovren may sign it." Moulton may have said this, but I don't remember whether he did. My impression is that Moulton said he thought Bawen would not sign it.and Claflip, shaking uis head, said "Bowen has got to sign it." I do not know who took away the paper from Moulton. I saw. the paper again when I was expected to sign, but I don't remember the day or the hour. I think I saw it in Wilkinson's office, in what was then the North Pacific railroad office, and it then lay between us. I do not remember whether I called for it. I can not say whether I then perused or considered tbe document. I do not know whether it was Wilkinson's office on that occasion. I do not remember the date when tbe draft came into my possession and was made the subject of my change. The award given me waa Bowen's check for $7,000. Moulton was tbere then, but I do not think I handed over the check to him, but perhaps I gave tbe check a day or two after for deposit to Frank Woodruff. I have no dralt of this proposed change in my possession, but Wilkinson has. It was left in his possession. I I do not think I composed tbe paragraph, but took a portion from that of Wilkison'a, and it reads as I inserted it. I do not remember that I signed it at this interview, but I remember tne parties were not together when tbey signed. I think, however, Bowen signed it first, I did second and Mr. Beecher last, signing over my name. This paper was not executed in duplicate, but only one cupy was signed. Wilkison had several copies prepared for publication. This signed copy was given to Horace B. Claflin. . I do not know whether any person was present when I signed it. I can not say whether Wilkison, Stowe, Claflin or Freeland were then present. Possibly Moulton may have been present, but I do not remember the place or time at which THIS PAPER WAS SIGNED. I can not now remember who got tbe paper after it was signed. 1 think I got the check from Bowen on the night of the signing ot the arbitration. I didn't sign tbe arbitration without getting the check, but obtained it half an hour after my name was written to it, though Wilkison sail to the contrary before the investigation committee. Evarts asked the counsel on tJae other side for the production of the "True Story " but the prosecution had not brought it" into court, and promised to do so after the recess. The witness continued: I put in type'the Bowen letter, with comments, about the end of March, 1872. I discussed it with Oliver Johnson beiore it was put in type. 1 showed the slips at this time to Moulton, Mr. Beecher and my counsel, but do not remem-

br showing tn lmprelS.,t?'her r80a- MT, t,. f.-1 T'1 J at no otaer p. rson saw it

with Mr. Jocnson's amtnr!mfr,.a i tu:. f UHU iriUHlIlH in W1V -w nr,i I h,-l a i.r..nlA. .t: . . . . . , ...... HJ'UH 4. one I sho'w K"?5! j. Ulms tnose si:p wer" Hrccv eft" atvtTu di.ir,?n'Ct times. I do not ktcw whether the type composing the article were preserved. I loaned 1 John daemon AC. A """J -:i.LU d. lt. UQ was I ?'l.DTre a 1 len 11 foT -with r-te CQv-eving Lis reqne-t, cf which 'I d , not I E0 'v kn0;v the P-slosyP Mr McKelvcv. Harman. So I put i: into the Utter c' rtTeman's hand to be given to MfKcIvey. Harmon judged it rl-ht This lir was ; nbiished Rt-ent five or six 3nonts ai er this, and 1 saw it in the Ea;lo. It was threa.euf i to be published in the E2le beiore this, and I went down to th onice to have it suppressed. I know Mr. McDermott. He used to be on the Sunday Pres. 1 am certain that Mr. McDerrr.vtt did pot tell naa of this bsfore it xvas publish eC He called to see me in the Goidi-n Ago r fdee after I said be was the man that pab.Mied it, and I ordered him out of the ctHce. I do not understand that the cepy given to Harmon was the means of this publicities. I heard that Beecher showed the tripartite agreement to Kinaella. This w as the reason of Its publication in the E ale. I do not know where Harmon's slip is now, but I t hink it was returned w ith Harmon's itiurs. There are only four copies, either complete or incomplete, of this slip that I know of. I think I attended Plymouth Church all the way down to the spring of 1670. 1 do not remember how many time3 I went there ia I860, probably eight or nine. Nor can I recollect how often in 18t7. I never patted but ONE NIGHT AT 2IR8. WOODHULL bouse, but generally left there about 11 at night. I never stayed there until the small hours of the morning. I went through the house on one occasion with her, and found that all the rooms were bare except the room she occupied with her husband. This was ahorth after my acquaintance with her. On the lower floor only the parlor was furnished. She told ne tha? her house had been called a honse of ill re- ate, and Bhe took me through it to show it vs a bare, empty house. That was one of tbo circumstances that led me to believe she wüs a traduced woman. I never beard it was ever furnished duriug the period of my acquaintance with her. 1 do not remeüVoer that any letters or papers came into ray hands from Moulton after the Bac-ou pakiication. I went to him before my sworn statement was prepared, and ake i timlo see some of the papers in his pos.ssi n. I never copied or received copies cf enyof these documents which were in ilouiton's possession, for he was very nrgry wnen I asked him and he refused me. The court here took the customary rfccss. After the recess Evarts continued Tilton's cross-examination. Tbewitnws had a tew papers In his hand which he hrded to Evarts. and said: This is tbe first draft of the "True story," and is all that I have besn abletofiod. Evarts then read portious of the "true story," and asked the witness if he remembered the parts real. The reply was generally that he did not remember the phraseology, as it was so long ago, but he was of the opinion that the substance of his statement wss the same as read by the counsel. Fullerton objected to the reading of this paper and getting it into evidence. He argued that it could not be read and placed in evidence until it was shown that tbe criminal was not in their possession. B'.-ecli contended that it must be shown that the other side lost the original document and made a search for it U-'ore they eould introduce this secondary evidence. Judge Itiloa ruled that Evarts could continue his reacting, and it wa resumed at the point wh?re the interruption occurred. At a certain point in tbis reading, tbe witness whelinfj around in his chair, faced the court, and re-Que&ted Judge Neilson to instruct him what answers be should make to tho questions if be had written so and so a coupla cf vears ago. HIS MEMPRY of what he had written so lone ago-was not very clear, and he did not wish unwillingly to swear falsely. Tho witness was r t his own request allowed tc say whether what was read to him was like or similar in any degree to what be had written in his' statement at that time, and Evarts continued his quotations, to nearly all of which he got tbe answer that the witness did not remember any such phraseology, or that it was something like that. Mr. Evarts read tbe account of the interview in the statement between Bowen and the witness, in which tbe former staled that the latter should demand Beecter'a retirement irom Plymouth pulpit and the editorshipof tae Christian Union. Tbe witness ret lied, that be remembered something like this. and he alo recollected incorporating nis aemana lor Beecher's re tirement in his "true story." One portion of the statement read contained a letter from Mrs. Elizabeth Cady St&nton to a friend, after the Woodhull rublicaiion, declaring that the words put into her mouth by Mrs. Woodhull were all false. Th witness continued: I have known Mr. J.n kson, S. Schultz, ot New York, for soma time, lie was a subscriber lor .the Golden Age. I don't remember saying: that Beecher was responsible for "any quarrel with. Bowen, or that tbe whole Plymouth Church people were hypocrits, and that if I wished I conld blow their roofoff But I remember Oliver Johnson making the latter statement. I had an interview with Schultz in the latter part of 1S7L In. company with Woodruff, but I never used any suci expressions. In a conversation with Schmitz I said that my wire was as pure as the driven snow and as an aBgeL I know Mr. Southwick. lie was one of my contributors to the Golden Age.. I do not remembw saying to him that I knew Mrs. Woodhull to be as püre as an angel. If I did say so I muht have been chafiiDg. The court here adjourned for the day, Mr. Evarta announcing that he would close the crosa examination to-morrow morning. Much depends upon the way ln which things are stated. For example, in one of our Western exchanges an account of steamer accident is given, in which the reporter says: "The only nassen eer were T. fi. Nathan, who owned thrce-iourths of th cargo and the captain s wife.

t V -