Indiana State Sentinel, Volume 24, Number 28, Indianapolis, Marion County, 23 February 1875 — Page 2

THE INDIANA STATE SENTINEL TUESDAY. FEBRUARY 23 1875

THE LUCKY ONES.

THE OFFICERS ELECTED YESTERDAY. WHO THET ARE, WHAT THEY TTTETK COUNTRY. AD HAVB DONK ALL ABOUT The event in legislative circles yesterday was the joint convention of both branches of the general assembly for the purpose of electing oficicers for the institutions of the state. But little else was done In either body during the forenoon and the session was protracted long ftei 12 M. The occasion attracted large nnmberof ladies, who were asBiRned seats of honor on the floor of the House, where the joint session ww held. The lobbies were. tilled with interested Potators during: tbe entire proceedings. There were in attendance representatives of thefollowing newspapers: Chicago Times, CourierJournal, Cincinnati Commercial, Gazette, Enquirer and Times, Chicago Tribune md Inter-Ocean, New York Times, Terre Haute Express and Gazette, and pe-haps oth,e"; seated on the right or the chair. Tbe president of the Senate. Lieut. Gov. Sexton, presided over the deliberations with dignity and DISPATCHED THE BCMSESS in hand with alacrity. The Hominaiion on the part of the deraoc racy were made in cancus Bometime since, as his been reported ia these columns. Every possible effort was made to defeat the consummation of those caucus nominations, but the power1 of the republicans and the independents'proved inadequate to the herculean task. Their frequent eaucusea and conferences came to naught. As will be seen by reference to the detailed report of tho proceedings on the seventh pageol the Sentinel, the republican and their allies acted in concert to a degree greater than at any time heretofore. There was not much variance in the votes for the various candidates. Mr. Sandford seemed to bo the strongest with the republicans of any of the democratic caucus- nominees as two or . three cf them voted for him. Two democrats voted for Mrs. Oren, not that they loved Mr. Dalton less, but that they loved that lady more. Fr reasons best known to those immediately concerned no change was made in tbe management of the asylum lor the blind, possibly on the ground that the aspirant to that position is big enough to take care of himself without any office. When the election was over Sentinel representatives proceeded to ascertain tho antecodants of tbe elect for the information of the public, and here is the reult of tt6ir labors in that line: LTCURQCS DALTON, hate librarian jsct, was born in Owen county, Ky., April 17, 1S43. He removed to Lawrence county, Ind., October 31, 1S60, and was deputy clerk of Lawrence county undar Davis Harrison from 18(33 to 1S67; was for a number of years thereafter engaged in mercantile pursuits, served as an engrossing clerk of the Senate in the winter ot 1SG3, and as one of the journal clerks in the Senate in 1S;5, was the democratic candidate for clerk of Lawrence county in 1872, receiving tbe largest vote ever given a democratic candidate in that county. He was beaten by a majority of 52 by tbe Rev. J. M. Stalker, one ot tbe most popular republicans of the county.' Mr. Daltoa has always been a reliable and consistent democrat. DIRECTORS OF THE NORTHERN PRISON. William T. Pratt, first director, is a citizen of Fort Wayne, and formerly sheriff of Allen county. He is, of course, a sound party man and is unquestionably in the best repute at home. Henry E. Wadsworth, of Laporte, is the editor of the Argus in that beautiful city. Mr. Wadsworth began his work as a democrat upon the Argus under the mest discouraging circumstances, under the shadow of tbe Herald, one of the oldest and handsomest weeklies of Indiana, and against a republican majority ot 800 in the election of 1872. To his persistent and effective work is greatly due the change of the vote in that county to a democratic majority of 800 at the last election. His paper has won a generous support and wide influence, and is one of tho best in tho sta'e. Mr. WaJsw.- rth is near the scene of bis duties, may be regarded as the resident director, and the recognition is deserving which he has received from the party. Dr. Theodore Davenport, the third director elected, came from tbe state of New York to Warsaw, Kosciuseko county, soma twenty years ago, and has -lived at the latter place ever since. He is a strong democrat and diligent Bupporter of his party, and a practicing physiciar of good repute in his profession. DR. WILLIAM P. HAMMOND, elected director of the Southern Prison is a druggist at Shoals, in Martin county. He was born near Coluinbus, O., Nov. 5, 1S32, and was engaged in farming previously to coming to Indiana in 1S63. He was educated in tbe schools at or near Columbus, O., and since becoming a citizen of this state has ac quired a popular Influence founded upon his worth as a citizen and ability as a leading man. Politically, his first vote was cast for Gen. Scott for president, but the next vote was tor Stephen A. Douglass, since which he has acted steadily with the democratic party. COL. JAMES KEIQWIN, director of the Southern Prison elect, is a native of Indiana. He was born at Jef fersonville in 1829, and has lived there all his life. His father was ene of the pioneers of Clarke county and reared laree family endeavoring to educate all bis sons as Presbyterian ministers and did succeed to a certain extent, t two of them are now dispensing salvation, lne son made the subject of this sketch was not susceptible to that kind of training, however, so he learned brick' laving, but soon enlarged his sphere and be rame a contractor and manufacturer ot brick. During the war he bora the commis sion of colonel, and erjoyed tbe distinction of heading his regiment during every eugaeement in which thy participated. He served Jeflersonville as major, treasurer, and councilman, and the state as senator tor iloyd, and also as warden of the prison south. He is familiar with the working of the institution In its multifarious departments. His public services heretofore have all been satisfactory to his constituents which augurs well for the Uure. DR. JOHN T. RICHARDSON, trustee elect of the Insane asylum, is a lead ing practicing physician of J)elphi, Carrol county. He was a mem Der oi me legisia tnre ot 1S72-3. and of one or two former lfxrinlatures. He ia a strong and effective member of tbe democratic party, and man n f commandine influence in hi com munltj. DR. MILTON JAMES, trustee elect of the asylum fr tb9 and dumb, is a first class practicing physician And sermon of Miincie, Delaware county, lid ciilo some yc-irs so from tie hile of Ohio to Muncie, an3 is the son-in-law of ths lion. Andrew Kennedy, ex-member of congress. He is represented as well qualified both by personal character and professional ability for thepo?-itlon to which he has been elected. In politics be is a thorough demo erat and a worker when the fight is on, do-

serving the honor of hU party and a patriot worthy of his country. MR. OEOROEW, 8ANF0RD, trustee elect of the Soldiers' Orphan Home, is a prominent merchant nf Crown Point, a I M At

Lake county. He was cnairman oi me county democratic central committee and an honorable leader in the politics of that part of tbe state on tbe democratic eia. ah testimony is united upon the tact that Mr. Santord is one of the very w-ssmen in VLe state of Indiana, lie was noi in me city yesterday to look alter his election to the responsible position named above. AN APPORTIONMENT BILL. REPORTED TO THE HOUSE YESTERDAY. AN ACT APPORTIONING THE STATE FOB LEGISLATIVE PURPOSES PREPARED BT THS JUDICIARY COMMITTEE OPTHB HOUSE. Tbe question of apportioning the state was one that entered largely into the last campaign as an issue. At the previous session the republicans took advantage of their numerical power to foist upon the people of Indiana a very narttsan aPDortionment measure. The tmnrrti denounced tbe bill Id unstinted terms, while all fair-minded republicans ad mitted the unfairness oi ice pruceeuiug ThA trlt and true adage that time sets all things even, ia now In a fair way to be confirmed in this case, as in bo many others. That, and manv other offenses ot omUsion and commission of the republican party, re sulted in a democratic house, wnicn now proposes to UNDO THE DIRTY WORK. Early in the session the question came up nrt wa discussed, and finally referred to thA mmmlttee on iudiciary. with instructions to. investigate and de termine upon the constitutionality of tbe proposed reapportionment. The committee labored and brought forth amaioritvand minority report. (Both of which were published in the Sentinel.) The majority report, it will be remembered, was favorable to a new apportionment this ses sion and was adopted. The committee was then instructed to prepare a bill and report it to the House. A sub committee, consisting of Messrs. Mai tin and Glasgow, was appointed by that committee and they proceeded to prepare the bill contemplated. Last evening they reported to tbe committee, and agreed to report the following to the House this forenoon: An act to amend the second and third sections of an act entitled: "An act to fix the senators and representatives to the general assembly of the state ol Indiana, and to ap portion the same among tbe several counties of the state, and declaring an emergency," which "became a law, by lapse or lime, December 27, 1872." Sec. 1. Beit enacted by the general as sembly of the state of Indiana, that section 2 Of the above entitled act be and hereby amended to read as follows, to-wit: Sec. 2. That the said SENATORS shall be apportioned among the several counties as follows, to-wit: The counties of Tosey and Gibson shall elect 1: Vanderbnrg, 1; Warrick and Spen cer, 1; Knox and Tike, 1; Sullivan and Clay, 1; Greene and Daviess, 1; Martin, Lawrence and Orange, 1; Dubois, Perry and Crawford, 1; Harrison and Floyd, 1; Sullivan aud Clay, 1; Clarke and Scott, 1; Washington and Jackson, 1: Bartholomew and Johnson, I; Browu, Monroe and Owen, Jefferson. 1: Jennings and Decatur, 1; iiplevand Switzerland, 1; Ohio and Dear born, 1; Franklin and Fayette, 1; Wayne and Union, 1; Rush and Shelby,!; Henry, Madison and Hancock, l; Delaware and Grant. 1; Howard and Tipton, 1; Wabash and Miami 1: Randolph and Jay. l; JUiacKiora. wens ana Adams, I; Huntington and Allen, 1; Whitley and Kosciusko, 1; Noble and DeKalb, 1; Steuben and Lagrange, 1; Elkhart, 1; St. Joseph and Starke, 1; Laporte, 1; Lake, Por ter and Newton, i: iuarsnau ana uiion, i; Cass and Carroll, 1 ; Boone and Clinton,!; Hamilton, Boone ana Clinton, l; Tippecanoe, 1; Jasper, Pulaski, White and Benton, 1; Warren and Fountain, 1; Park and Vermillion, 1: Montgomery, 1; Hendricks and Moriran, 1: Marlon, 2; Vigo, 1; Putnam, Clay and Owen, 1. Sec. z. lie it runner enacted, mat section 3 of the above entitled act be, and the same hereby is amended to read as follows, to wit: Sec. 3. That said REPRESENTATIVES shall be apportioned among tbe several coun ties of the state in the following manner, to wit: The county of Posey sbüll elect 1; Van derburgh, 2; Warrick, 1; Spencer, 1; Perry, 1; Knox, 1; Sullivan,!; Greene, 1; Daviess, I; Pike, 1; Dubois and Crawford, 1; Orange and Martin, I; Dubois, Crawford, Orange and Perry, 1; Harrison, 1; Washington, 1; .rioycl, l; Clarke, 1; Floyd, Clarke and Scott, 1; Jefferson, 1; Jackson, 1; Bartholomew; Jennings, l ; Kipiey, i ; De catur, 1 ; Rush. 1 ; Dearborn, 1 ; Switzerland and Ohio, 1; Dearborn, Ripley and Franklin, 1; Franklin, l: wayne, Randolph, 1; Fayette and Union, 1; John son, l; Shelby, l; uancocK, i; ueary, i; Delaware, 1; Madison, 1; Grant, 1, Madison. Grant. Delaware ana rtanaoipn, i; Putnaja, 1; Morgan. 1; Hendricks, 1; Marion, 4; Shelby and Rush, 1 ; Lawrence, 1 ; Brown and Monroe, l; Owen, l; uay.i; Vigo, 2; Parke, 1; Vigo, Clay, Greene, 8ullivan and Knox, 1; Boone, Clinton and Montgomery, 1 ; Boone, 1 ; Clinton, I ; Montgomery, l ; uppecanoe, z; fountain, i; Benton and Warren, 1; Hendricks and Marion, 1; Carroll, I; St. Joseph, 1; Laporte, 1; Porter, 1; Lake and Newton,!; St. Joseph and Marshall. 1; Kosciusko, 1: Laporte, Starke and Pulaski, I; Pulaski and Fulton, 1; Jasper and White, 1; Hamilton, 1; Howard, 1; Cass, I; Miami, 1; Cass and Miami, 1: Wabash. 1; Tipton and Hamilton. 1; Huntington, Wabash and Kos ciusko, 1; Allen, 2; Huntington, 1; Jay, 1; Whitley, 1; Allen and Adams, 1; Wellsand Blacklord, 1; DeKalb, 1; La Grange, 1; Steuben, 1; Noble, 1; Elkhart, 1; Noble and Klkbart, 1; Benton and Warren, 1. Prof. Tyndall has invented a filter which enables firemen to draw breath in the midst ot smoke and stifling gases. It has been submitted to trial by Capt. Shaw, of the London fire brigade, and promises to be of considerable utility. A hood is drawn on over the head, into which the filter is fitted opposite tbe mouth. The filter is composed of layers of dry cotton, cotton wet with glycerine, dry wool and pounded charcoal. The cotton and wool arrest the soot and lloatinz substances, the glycerine and char coal arrest tbe hydro-carbon and other irri tating gases. Some people imagine that Mark Twain is exceedingly smart. We knew him wh6n he was grinding platitudes ?or the Virginia Enterprise, and he was a notoriously lazy zrizdor. Ud would sit at bis editorial table for hours drumming on a cracked guitar, while the compositors were waiting for copy, and when reminded of his duty by tbe fore man, would eay: "This working between meals is killing me!" And he was the healthiest man in tbe territory. Oakland Trib une.

A NEW WITNESS INTRODUCED. CONTINUATION OFTILTON's REDIRECT EXAM

INATION WRANG LINO OK THE LAWYERS FIGHT OVER THE PLAINTIFF'S FIRST STATEMENT TESTIMONY OF KATE CARY SUE SjAW ELIZABETH. ON BEECHEK's K.NEK. New York, Feb. 10. Tbe Brooklyn city court room was densely packed this morning when the proceedings in the great scandal trial opened. All ths counsel were present when the court opened and also Mrs. Beecber. The defenant came in a little later. Mrs. Tilton was accompanied by her lady friends. Mr. Tllton resumed the stand and continued: Durinz tbe early part of tbe summer, when this story began to bo noised abroad in the papers,;the Impression was going around that I waa a drunken and brutal man,and on consultation with Judge Morris, he advised the publication of a statement by me. My object in snowing the true story to a select party was to obtain from them the judgment which I thought the public world give. My object in this prepartion was thi: Mrs. Wood hull's publication was proving disastrous to my family, and silence could no longer be safely maintained. I intended to put forth a true statement in order that the people who thought there was some foundation for her story might say. "Well, here we have the true ttateinent, which explains everything." Tha witness stated that he showed this pater to Dr. Storrs among others. Mr. Fullerton asked what took place when it was shown to Dr. Storrs, to wbich Evarts objected, and a long argument et8ued. Fullerton contended that this question arose out ol what had been elicited from the witness by tho other side. Judge Ntllswn finally decided to allow tbe qnestioo, and the witness continued: As soon as I had read tho paper to him, there was a sudden pause. Dr. Storrs said to me, "Mr. Tilton, before I can consult with you or give you any advice, I want to ask you one question. Is this narrative the whole truth?" I told him it was not the whole truth, only a part of it that I was going to give to the public, and he advised me not to publish iU I showed this story to perhaps twenty or twentyfive persons, and Mr. Beecber was among those to whom it was exhibited. I remember A CONVERSATION WITH MR. HALLIDAY, In which he denied the truth of the Woodhull story, and vindicated my wife, though I said Eome words to Halliday about Beecber which were objectlonabla to Halliday. My object in speaking to Halliday on the matter was because he was the second power in Plymouth Cfcurcb, and I wanted to disabuse his mind ot tbe idea that the Woodhull story was trne. The witness was asked as to what took place before the investigating committee after the relation of his wilo's confession. Evarts objected, and another long argument took place. The court ruled tbat an answer might ba given, and the witness replied: I made a statement of my ciarge against Beecber and his criminal connection with Mrs. Til ton. I had stated to the committee that I had in writing a confession made to me by Mrs. Tilton in July, 1870, and by Beecher in the December and January following. I had laid before them a sworn statement ot the criminal intimacy between Honry Ward Beecher and Mrs. Tilton from the fall of 1863 to tbe spring of 1870. This, said the witness, is a copy of the paper I produced Derore tnem. Mr. Evarts objected to this sworn statement being put in evidence. Mr. Fullerton contended that this paper was 6worn to by the witness before the committee, and therefore, it was admissible under tbe rules of evidence. Erarts argued that this bill was composed of accusations against bis (Tilton's) wife, and could not, therefore, be given In eviaenco. Jndge Neil son said that the wife was not on trial then, nor was she here, and therefore this was not a bill of accusations against her. Beach sid that they were only seeking to throw light upon a part ot the examination before the investigating committee, a pari ot which had been extracted by tbe other side. If only a portion of his testimony was elicited, be would be liable to conviction ior inconsis tency, and be would be done a great injustice. He submitted that under the ruling of the court of appeals, the whole testimony of Tilton's examination could be given. Was be to be shown to tbe Jury as having allowed his wife to commit adultery and not prevent it. In this document AN EXPLANATION ' of Tilton's statement when he said that his wife had always insisted to him that she had not violated her marriage vow, and this was the document which explained his views on tbe matter when he stated this to the committee. Evarts replied that his friend had wandered greatly from the subject matter of the argument. The question was if he, Tilton, made a qualifying statement of his views of what his wife meant when she said this, and for that purpose the other side had introduced this paper which they offered in evidence. The other side did not intend to show whether tbe wife qualified her statement when she made it to him. Tbe paper, the counsel argued, could be no evidence of itself, as it was only his (Tilton's) accusations against his wire. Evarts cited some cases in support ot his nosition. Jndee Neilson held that tbe rjener could not be read, nor any portion of it, but if the couneel desired they might offer the specific points in it for the purpose of basing their Objections to its oeing ruieu out. A recess was then tauen. After the recess Fullerton rose to read a uarasraDh from Tilton's statement be fore the committee, and Evarts rose to his feet and interposed an objection. Tilton, who bad been sitting among his counsel, here took his seat on the witness stand. Beach argued that the court permitted the reading of the Woodhull scandal, section by as evidence, and that therefore tne reading of this paper should be permitted, though it was ruled out from tbe evidence. Evarts submitted that there was no rule of evidence allowing the reading of this statement after it had been ruled out from tne testimony. The arzument was continued at length, but Judge Neilson said he had decided to rule it out, Beach taking an exception, lieacn contended that he only offered portions of the statement to be read, and asked to make AN OFFER OF PROOF. Judge Neilson decided that the offer could be given, and Evart's excepted. Beach then read the following portion of the statement, which the court ruled out: "That about nine years ago tbe Rev. H. W. Beecher began and thereafter continued a friendship with Mrs. E. It. Tilton, for whose nature, delicacy and extreme religious sensibility he often expressed to her husband a high admiration, visiting her from time to time for years, until the year 1870, when, for reasons hereinafter stated, he ceased such visits, during which period, by many tokens and attentions, be won the affectionate love of her, whereby, after a long moral resistance by her, and after repeated assaults by him upon her mind with over-mastering arguments, he accomplished the possession of ber person, maintaining with her thenceforward during the period hereinalter stated relations called criminal interccuse, this relation being regarded by ber during that period as not rrim'nal or morally wrong, such has been the power of hia arguments as a clergyman to satisfy her scruples against such violation of virtue and honor." At this point Evarts objected to any further reading from the statement, and a long argument ensued. The court decided that the offer of proof could go on, and Beach then read as follows: "That on the

evening of October 10, 1833, or thereabouts.

.Urs. tj. iv. iiuon neia an mterviow with the Kev. If. W. Ilftfwhpr at ht T-cdanwi eho V ing then lna tender state of mind owing to AI A J a m .... iae recent oeatn oi a young child, and daring this interview an act of criminal intercourse took place between this pastor and parishioner, tbe motive on her part being as heretofore stated, not regarded by her at the time as criminal or wrong, which act was followed by a sitrilar act or criminalitv Vtween these same persons at Mrs, Tilton's i renounce uunng a pastoral visit, paid by Mr. Beecher to her on a subsequent Saturday evening, lollowed also by other similar acts on various occasions from the autumn of 1S63 to the spring of 1870, the places be ing at tbe two residences of the aforesaid, and occasionally at the places to which her pastor would invite or accompany her, or at wbich he would meet ber by previous appointment, these acts of wrong being on her part from first to last, not wantcn or consciously wicked, but arising through a blinding of her moral perceptions occasioned by the powerful influences exerted on her mind at that time by the Rev. 11. W. Beecher as her trusted religious preceptor and guide." Judge Neilson ruled this out, and Beach took an exception. Mr. Fullerton stated that he wished to produce a witness, who wished to go to New York early thU afternoon, where she wa3 under medical care. The court agreed, and a lady ascended the stand, who gave hr name as KATE CARY, and paid she came from Bollevue Hospital, where she had been for 11 weeks. The witness continued: I was lntheser?icoof Mrs. Tilton about six years ago. When I was there Mrs Tilton went to Monticcllo. I went with her, and returned to the city with her. I saw Mr. Beecher go into Mrs. Tilton's bed room eeveral times, and she shut the door after him. When he went in I was in the next room, which as separated by lolding doors from it. This was before she went to Montlcello. I saw her In tbe back part of the parlor, after her return, sitting on Mr. Beecher's knee. It was then iu the evening, but I saw them. Tbe folding doors were open. I saw her hand cn bis shoulder, and he said, "How do you feel, Elizabeth?" And she said, "Dear Father, I feel so so." I did not see anything else. This was about three weeks after her return from Montlcello. Mr. Beecher called three or four times before she went away. The reason I left was because of borne words I had with Bessie Turner. I leit in the cold weather, but do not recollect whether it was before or alter the election. Being cross-examined by Evarts, the witness gave the names of various parties she had lived with after leaving Mrs. Tilton, and continued : I have been in ill health ten weeks. Mr. Hanson, on Fifth ntreet, obtained for me a situation at Mrs. Tilton's. I came there about two weeks after the birth of hercbild, I think sometime in J une. The family then consisted of four children and Mr. and Mrs. Tilton and six servants, including Bessie Turner. Mr. Til ton was there usually until 4 o'clock in the afternoon. I never saw Mr. Biecher before, but was told it was him. I bad often heard of him, however. Folding doors separated Mrs. Twton'a room from mine, hut I seldom went into her room, although the doors were usually open. When Mrs. Tilton went led she closed the doors. About two we.-k3 after I went toservice; tberel firstsaw ilr.Beecher. I was iu tbe other room and saw hi m coinein. Jesse Burke showed him up to Mr?. Tilton's room. She told me alterward that sbe opened the door to him. Jesse came up first to see ir Mrs. Iilton was rend v to receive Mr. Beecher, and Mrs. Tilton replied that she would be ready in a low minutes. She was In bed when tbe message came, but she closed tbe folding doors. I never eaw Mr. Beecber there again, excepting when I occupied the folding door room. This was, I tbink, about four weeks alter her connnement. The family went to Monticello in July, but Mr. Tilton did not go , there at all. They were living in a private boarding house there. 1 was four months altogether in their employ. I saw Mr. Beecher and Mrs. Tilton together down stairs about three weeks after her return from Montlcello. I was up stairs and so was Mrs. T. when word came up of his arrival. She went down, and I had to go down for a drink of ico water. These rooms below are separated by folding doors, and X went on tnat occasion to tbe side board in the dining room for my drink of water; can't fix the date ot this, but it was about three weeks after tbe return from Monticeilo. Tuey were sitting on a large arm chair in the corner facing tbe window; there are two windows in tbe back parlor and one in the other room; the chair was in the corner of the room next tbe dining room; tbe chair was near the wall separating the dining room and parlor; I saw Mr. Beecher in tbe chair and MR3. TILTON ON HIS KNEE. I saw this without putting my head into the parlor, as both doors were open; I am a widow ; after I saw this I went np stairs to tbe nursery; Mrs. T. then had her hand on Mr. Beecher's shoulder; the door of the dining-room was open when I went in and is always left open ; Mr. Beecher paid Mrs. Tilton three or four visits before we went to the country, and sent her baskets of elegant flowers to keep around her bed. Mr. Tilton saw these flowers, and all the servants knew where they came from. Last Friday I first told of seeing these things to Mrs. Lawrence, a benevolent lady, who visits the sick in Bellevue Hospital, and it was through her that I became a witness. I never had any trouble with Mrs. Tilton or any person in tbe bouse except Besrfe Turner. Mr. Evarts announced that thia was all he bad to ask the witness, and sbe was allowed to withdraw. Mr. Tilton then resumed tbe witness chair. He waa asked what he meant by stating before tbe investigating committee that to her mother Mrs. Tilton always maintained her Innocence. Evaits objected to this, and another wrangle between the counsel ensued. Evarts, in support of his objections, quoted from a Massachusetts case. Baach replied that this case only applied to a witness who was sought to be impeached for contradictory statements made out of court. Judge rteilson decided to allow the question, and the witness replied: She always said that sba loved God and he would not have permitted her to enter into these relations if they were sinful. Sbe Bald neither her mother nor myself understood what was right or wrong, and teat Mr. Baecher had told her over and over that it was not sinful; tbat it was only an expression ot love; that love sometimes conveyed its meaning in a shaking of tbe hand, a kiss of the lips or sexual intercourse. Mr. Evarts asked that all this be etriken out, but the court ad journed for tbe day without the judge giving a decision on tne matter. CLOSE OF IILTON'S EXAMINATION. REDIRECT AND RCR0S3. QUESTIONS MUCH LEGAL LORE TILTON'S VIE. WS ON THE COMMUNE THE WINBTED SCHOOL. ÖIRL THE BLOOMINQTON LECTURE RERCHER's PHOTOGRAPHS THE END OSE JURYMAN SUCCUMBS. New York, Feb. 17. Theodore Tilton resumed his place in the witness chair this mornirg when court was opened, and his redirect examination was continued by ExJudze Fullerton. The court admonished the audience to preserve perfect order here after, and to neither express approbation or disapproval. All the parties to the suit were in court. The witness continued: I can not fix the precise date of the chance

interview between Mrs. Tilton and myself, when Bessie Turner was present and heard the whole storv. but I tbink it was after the return from Marietta. Mr. Evarts objected to thh answer on the ground that nothing about thi3 matter had been called forth by any question to the witness in tbe cross-examination. Fullerton contended that this matter had been brought out by the other Bide, and Evarts replied that It was not elicited by a direct ouestion. but

WaS Volunteered hv iha vUneaa t. hieb, the counsel entered a disclaimer. lr. Beach argued tbat Mr. Evarts had put question in relation to the persons to horn the witness had tnM tha ,v.io ,in.v Tbe court decided tbat the question was in order. The witness than rii . i tKi.,ir was on the afternoon of thAdav that Mr Tilton returned from Marietta, Ohio, that mm uuuver.ion iook place. Tbe witness was asked what the whole story was. Mr. evarts oojeciea ana Judge Neilson said he WOnld rill A it mit .TnmPnllarlnn a w.nw. mK uou n . lentrth strain t ita ixino mlml nut. tint t V. judge adhered to bis decision. The witness men lesuneo: Tbe suggestion ot Mr. Beecher's visit to Mrs. TiUon after the writing ot tbe letter of confession came from Beecher. An argument then ensued between the counsel as to the right ot the witness to explain the teeming inconsistency between this latter answer and the answer given in his cress examination, when he sid,"you can go to tbe house and see Elizabeth, a it is only a few steps." The witness was allowed to explain that he made the latter remark after Boechpr's proposition to visit Mrs. Tilton. The witness continuod: My wife told Mrs. Morse, aLd she was almost wild about it. Mr. Evarts objected to this answer, but the court ruled that it might stand on record. The witness said: I considered the $7,000 I received from Mr. Bowen for my contract to be my juit due. Mrs. Woodhull was a broker in Wall street, and kept an office like otber brokers. I know that the contents of tbe Catherine Gaunt letter were communicated by another person than myself. I understand by THE COMMUNE IN FRANCE, after France was disturbed and tbe fall of tho government, parties were endeavoring to establish a local self government which was communism. But if the French system of republicanism were transplanted here, it would be called despotism. I know tbat Rossel was not concerned in tbe death of the archbishops of Paris, and that he used every means to prevent It. Tbe ob ject of this procession in New York was to appropriately testiry to the regard In which f'oung Rossel was held by all lovers of civil iberty. It was my wife's suggestion that the little school girl should be taken to Winsted, Conn. She was a member of my family and a protege of my wife. She had come to our house in ill health, but had recovered when my wife proposed that I should take her with me. I should say that her age was about 16 or 17. I never indulged in riotous living, but lived in a style which a man of my means could assume. Before the founding of tho Golden Age I went with Mr. WoodrufltoseoMr. Jackson Schultz 'and Mr. Woodruff told him about the proposed establishment of the Golden Age. A long conversation took place between them. Mr. Shultz asKed it Beecher was going to taue part in the project and I siid I thought he was, but I gave Shultz to understand that I would be under no compliment to Beecher. When I made all my visits to Mrs. Woodhull her husband was always present. My object in going through her house was at her request, as she stated tbat parties had set a story afloat with regard to the ill repute of her house and she wanted me to tee that it was not so. Mrs. VVoodhull's demeanor on lne occasion of my visits to ber was that of a lady, and her husband acted like a perfect gentleman. I refused to sign the tripartite agreement when I had rearl it and became acquainted with its contents. My wife went to Monticello in 18C9, after the birth ot her child. I ro mem Der CATHERINE CART, who was on tbe stand yesterday, and recognized her as a former servant ot Mrs. Tilton's. I do not know whether she went with Mrs. Tilton to Monticeilo or not. Mr. Fullerton offered two letters in evidence, written by Mrs. Tilton from Monticeilo to her busband in 1SC&. to fix the date of her sojourn there. Mr. Evarts objected to the introduction of these letters, and argument ensued, which was interrupted by the usual recess. After the recess the proceedings did not open until 20 minutes after the hour of assembling, and the argument, which was interrupted by recess, was continued by Beach. He contended that tbe other side having given evidence first oi the same natuse, he and his associates could adduce other proofs of this evidence. In support of his argument Beach quoted numerous authorities. He said tbat the other side opende this question, and that they should, therefore, abide by the consequences. He submitted, tbat as a matter of right, this evidence was admissable, and it was the duty ot the court to permit the offering of this evidence. Evarts replied, saying that the only letter they had put in evidence since the suspicion or disclosure, was the Catherine Gaunt letter. After some further argument Judge Neilson asked it tbe prosecution found any other letter which had been put in later than tbe Catherine Gaunt letter. Fullerton replied tbat he found one, but that &ince the event there bad been several. He replied that the letter referred to by them.and offered in evidence, was written from the same place as the Catherine Gaunt letter, and three davs after the other letter. He said it had -no date, but they bud posed it waa written In December, 1872. Judge Neilson decided - on admitting the letters on a collateral branch as showing the state of tbe household. Fullerton read one of the letters dated July 4, 1S71, written by Mrs. Tilton to her husband. Tbe witness was shown another letter wbich he identified as being sent to him by Mrs. Tilton. It was dated December 28, 1872. The court ruled out this letter on the ground that it did not disclose the condition of the household. This concluded tbe redirect examination of tbe witness. His recross-examinatlon was then begun by Evarts. The witness testified: I never wrote and delivered a lecture on a lecturing tour In the West on divorce and mar riage. I made out notes od the subject, and delivered a lecture on it where I was asked to do so. I delivered this lecture to the students in Cornell University by request, and also before a seminary AT BLOOMINQTON, IND. I never told my hearers in that lecture to follow the laws of nature, or denounced the interference of the church. I never said in that lecture that if I had my way I would crush tbe church and the state, or that it would be the duty of the state to regulate Frostituticn. At an early part of my education was taught strict principles of morality. The signs and tokens ot my old vices have been always with me, and I have never been able to tbrow them off. Every one of those letters written by me show bow far 1 fell below tbe standard of conduct fixed for a man by God. The payment of the ?7,000 had nothing to do with tbe signing of tbe tripartite agreement. It was paid two days before the signing oi that document (showing a check). This Is the one I received. It is dated April 4. Mr. Evarts read tbe check and offered it in evidence. The witness resumed: Mr. Bowen owed me tbe $7,000 and paid it to me because he owed it and lor no otber reason.

Mr. Bowen had no justifiable cause for dismissing me from his employment. Jt was on my own prompting that I saw Mr. Owen with relation to the stories against me on ;Dccemter 26. The commune came to an end after a very short time. It was finished a long time before thi procesS.On in Which I took nart. Thfl tonn larW

, who went to Wlnstf d with rre was a mere . schoolgirl about 16 or 17 years of age. .she a mcuuBDu companion o' my daughter Florence. Sbe was a fair sized girl, neither large nor small. Wben I said I visited Mrs. Woodhull and her husband was present; by her husband, I meant Col. Blood. In tbe closet where Mr. Beecher's photographs were found there were no portraits cf any other person. I never sent any portraits to my wife after sbe left that belonged to her. I never saw any photographs of the Rev. Dr. Taylor, tbe Rev. Dr. Storrs or Mr. Greeley in her possession. I never gave these photographs or Mr. Beecher to Mrs. Tilton. I never uad any considerable number ot PHOTOGRAPHS OP MR. BEECHER which I delivered to other persons. I do not ktow how long the things were in the closet, which I found there. I do not know iir. ueecner's giving Mr Dooks, except "Life Thought iir. ueecner'S dvintr Mr Tllmn any s" and vrood.'' The rile rf vobq I fonni mere were inscribed by Mr. Beecher, and were copies ol Lis publicaVr0n . 1 W8a Eot aware tfcat Mr. Beecher was in the habit of distributing his docks among tbe parishioners. Ism njt aware that he showed Mich them, as he seldom visited them or attended their funerals. I am not aware that thfso books ley on he table until ibey were put into the closet when my wife was making arrangements to take boarders. I never received the key ot thi closet from my wife nor had it sent to me at the time of my illness. I w.is usual? v around the house. We bad always flowers in tbe bouse, sometimes ordered' by me or "rs. Tilton. I knew of Mr. Beecher'a bringing some flowers there. I do not recall any gentlemen's calling on my wi?e while she was ill and being in her room. I never heard of Mr. Beecber's being in my wife's bed room when she was ill until I heard it testified to yesterday. I have no recollection of Mr. Bales 's being in my wife's room on the 27th of June, wben she was recovering xrom her confinement, or of his being there on the following Sunday, and of going with him to Coney Island in the evening. Mr. Shearman here read two letters from Mrs. Tilton to her husband, dated Aug. 15tb, 1S60, and Sept. 4th, 1S70, respectively. The witness continued I do r.ot remember how soon after writing this letter Mrs. Tilton returned to Brooklyn. Mr. Evarts stated that his re-cross-examination would close here. One of the jurors was observed to be faint and sick at this pQint. The windows ot the court were thrown open, aod he was given a glass of water. The hour of adjournment havin; arrived, he was sent home in charge of twj court officers, and the proceedings for the day were brought to a close. SUMMARY OP THE DAY'S WORK. The lawyers that mainly filled the public eye to-day were Messrs. Fullerton and Evarts. Mr. Fullerton tried to put questions to Mr. Tilton, and the latter lawyer fought every question step by step. Tfce lawvers call Mr. Evarts's present duty fielding. As a fielder, Mr. Evarts is one of the most agile and accomplished lawyers on record. He does not ak the chief justice to exclude all of Mr. Tilton's testimony in bulk, but he is expected to do so at the close ot tbe witness's testimony, because be is certainly objecting to every question as it is put in. At 25 minutes to 12 Tilton had hardly answered a question. Fullerton and Evarts had been, up to that time, contesting tbe admissibility of the questions. Fullerton wanted to leara from Tilton what Bessie Turner overheard between Mr. Tilton and Mrs. Tilton. Evarts objected because the matter which Bessie Turner overheard was not uttered for her ear but was meant to be private between husband and wile and was excluded under the confidential restriction oi the court. The way in which the matter originally came out was thu: Mr. Evarts, on tbe cross-examination, asked Upon reassembling, Mr. Howe resumed. Tilton to what persons he told tho story on tbe basis of improper proposals, and to what persons he told the story of adultery beiDg the offense. Mr. Tilton recited to what persons he bad told the improper proposals, and to what persons be bad told the adultery story. After he bad said tbat he had told the adultery story to about three or four persons, Mr. Tilton said: "Perhaps I ou?ht to add that Bessie Turner overheard the whole story in a conversation between my wife and in j self." Fullerton to day asked: "What was the story which Bessie Turner overheard?" This question was fought inch by inch. The following was one of tbe letters read to-day: July 4, 1S71. Mi Drar Theodore: I had expected you all day yesterday, but now your letter is put in my hand instead. I feel the bitterest dieappoinment, but we are both in Gcd's hands, and while now here, I may sav of ruv heart's Intense yearning, return to ibe love of thy youth. Oh, my dear husband, may you not need the further discipline of being misled by a good woman as I have been by a good man. I rejoice in your happy face and peaceful mind, though I am not in any wise tbe cause. It will be God'a gift alone if your face illumines or heart throbs with thoughts of me. As for me I will wait on tbe Lord. I thank you for tbe sufferings of the past year. You have been my deliverer. Destroy my letters, nor show them to our mutual friend. I fear this will prevent me from writing you from my inmost self. I am, very truly, Elizabeth. A New York correspondent thus speaks of the dramatic doings and sayings Ot Beecher, In his last Sunday sermon: "A man who has been cured of a broken leg, when walking perfectly upright, would be justified in praising tbe physician who at tended him; but who would blame tbe man who limped painfully along, and said, 'It's ' all quackery, I've got the nnly surgeon that's good for anything.' " Here Mr. Beecber illustrated his remark by bending his right leg outward and limping across tbe platform, in a manner so ludicrous as to excite loud lnugbter and applause. Iben Mr. Beecber took'a seat upon the arm of the chair, cushioned by his clcak aud overcoat, and, with his right hand iu his trow era pocket, spoke of tbe arrogance of men w bo prided themselves upon their science, and of ths ton fold more intolerable concert cf "The little monkey disciples" who ecdeavorrd to follow in their footsteps, trotiiDg about, talking very much, and knowing very little; dipping their pipe into tbe tonp-suds cf science, and blowing a bubble In which they eee a face, and say, "Tbat is God;" but it is only the face of the blower, distorted. A Paris letter says: For evening wesr pearls and precious stones are alone in vogue. Coral, Roman gold and other less costly ornaments are no longer worn. The emeralds clthe Duchess d'Arco, which she wore at the ball of the Elysee the other evening (she is the individual who was pointed out to me a3 a Russian princess, and whoso je welrv I described in roy last letter), are valuod at $500,000. Tho Duchess of Medina-Cceli possesses a pearl necklace.which is a family heirloom. It is composed ot twelve or fourteen strings of large and beautiful pearls, and is valued at f 400,000. When she wears it tbe upper string fits around her thront, while the lowest tails below her wait,

1 w

iL I

1