Rensselaer Union, Volume 6, Number 50, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 3 September 1874 — THE GREAT SCANDAL. [ARTICLE]

THE GREAT SCANDAL.

Report of Plymouth Church Investigating Committee. Plymouth Church was densely packed on the evening of the 28th to listen to the report of the Beecher Investigating Committee, which was read, in substance as follows: In conducting the investigation the committee state that they had faithfully endeavored to make it thorough and impartial, and to obtain such facts as were relevant to the inquiry from all at tainable sources of evidence. For this purpose they requested the attendance of a large number of witnesses, most of whom had testified before the committee, one notable exception being Mr. Francis B. Carpenter. Mr. Moulton had promised to testify fully, but had failed to do so. He had submitted three short statements in writing to the committee, consisting chiefly of the reasons why he declined to testify at the call of the committee. In addition to the evidence of the persons who had testified, they had examined a number of letters and other documentary evidence which were supposed to relate to the subject matter of the inquiry. - The committee state that the offense as alleged by Mr. Tilton during some four years, and until recently, to numerous persons, in writing and otherwise, was an Improper suggestion or solicitation by Mr. Beecher to Mrs. Tilton, but as time passed and purposes matured this charge was enlarged to tfiat of adultery. The committee state that, after having given the evidence the most careful consideration, they find'therefrom that in 1861 Mr. Beecher became editor and Mr. Tilton assistant editor of the Independent, and during this relation were warm and intimate friends, Mr. Tilton urging Mr. Beecher to visit his house. A very friendly relation sprang up between the wife and family of Mr. Tilton and Mr. Beecher, continuing down to December, 1870. These friendly relations were understood and cordially approved of by Mr. Tilton. Some years before any open trouble appeared between Messrs. Beecher and Tilton, the latter’s doctrines as sot forth in the Independent, of which he had become editor, aroused so much indignation and opposition in the West as to lead to the starting of the Advance newspaper in Chicago. He (Tilton) had 'Conic to deny rhe inspiration of the Scriptures, and the divinity of Christ, and his social views had changed in the direction of frgo love, these religious and social changes on the part of her husband being sources of great grief and sorrow to Mrs. Tilton. Mrs. Tilton voluntarily sought her pastor for counsel and sympathy. and set forth iu strong terms the suffering her husband’s course was causing her. It appears that during these years Mrs. T. hadbeeonie strongly attached to Mr. Beecher, and in July, 1870, confessed to her husband an over-shadow-ing affection fur her pastor. On or about the 10th of December, 1870, Mrs. Tilton separated from her husband, going with her children to her mother’s house. .She sent lor Mr. Beecher, and made to him a statement of her sufferings, and the abuse which she had received at the hands of her husband, which greatly shocked Mr. Beecher. He asked and received permission to send to Mrs. Tilton his wife, whose judgment in such matters he considered better than his own. Subsequently he agreed in advising with his wife that it was desirable that Mrs. Tilton should separate from her husband. Mr. Tilton, however, subsequently forced his wife to return to his house hy sending for, and obtaining possession of, t heir youngest child, who was sick with'the cronp, during Mrs. Tilton's temporary absence from her mother’s house. The next day after her return, on the 24th, she suffered a miscarriage, which resulted in a serious illness, continuing until after the Ist of January, her physician being in daily attendance on her from the 24th to the 30th of December inclusive. Early in December, this year, owing to the marked change in Mr. Tilton's religious and social views, Mr. Bowen felt constrained to give him notice that his services as editor of the Independent would terminate at a day named in the notice. Subsequently to this notice, and on or about the 20th of December, Mr. Bowen entered into a contract w ith Mr. Tilton, by which he was to be the editor of the Brooklyn Daily Union and-chief contributor of the Independent for live years; but within a few days after making this contract Mr. Bowen received such information of Tilton’s immorality as alarmed him and led to an interview between himself, Tilton and Oliver Johnson, at the house of Mr. Bowen, <>n the 26th day of December, 1870. At this interview Mr. Tilton sought to retain hie place and Mr. Bowen's confidence by offering to join Bowen in an attack on Mr. Beecher. This interview resulted in the letter written and signed by Mr. Tilton demanding that Mr. Beecher leave Plymouth pulpit and Brooklyn. On reading this letter, which was delivered by Mr. Bowen, Mr. Beecher expressed his astonishment at the receipt of such a letter, and denounced the writer. Mr. Bowen then derided the letter, and gave him some account of the reasons why he had reduced Tilton from the edltorship of the Independent to the subordinate position of contributor, saying that Mr. Tilton’s religious and social views Were ruining the paper, and that he was now considering whether he could consistently retain him as editor of the Brooklyn Union, or chief contributor of the Independent. They conversed for some time, Mr. Bowen wishing Mr. Beecher’s opinion, which was freely given. Mr. Beecher said he did not see how Mr. Bowen could retain his relations with Mr. Tilton. Mr. Beecher spoke strongly of the threatening letter and-the revelation ±c had just had concorning Mr. Tilton's domestic allure. Mr. Bowen read the threatening letter and said he would stand by Mr. Beecher, and he told Mr. Tilton the next day of the conversation he had had with Mr. Beceher and of his (Bowen's) intention to stand by Mr. Beecher. Mr. Beecher, though he had no doubt that Tilton would have lostliis place, saw that Ins influence was decisive and anticipated Tilton's overthrow.

It now appears that on tne 29tn of December, 1870, Mr. Tilton having learned the advice Mr. Beecher gave Mr. Bowen, and which was likely to bring him face to face with loss of place and position, extorted from his wife, then lying ill of miscarriage, a document implicating Mr. Beecher —a document evincing her love for her pastorand accusing. him of having made an improper solicitation. Ou the following day he sent Moulton to Beecher, requesting an interview with Mr. Beecher at Mr. Moulton's house that evening. Mr. Beecher accordingly met Tilton at Moulton s house. Tilton received him with a memorandum in his hand and proceeded to charge Mr. Beecher with being unfriendly to' him, with seeking his downfall, spreading injurious rumors about hint, undermining him, and advising Bowen to dismiss him; injuring him in his family relations, joining his (Tiiton's) mother-in-law in producing discord in the house, advising a separation, alienating his wife’s affection from him, with gaining her love more than any living being, with corrupting her moral virtue, witli teaching her to be insincere, lying and hypocritical, and ending by charging that he had made wicked proposals to her. Tilton then produced a written paper purporting to be a -memorandum of a confession .made in July Srevious to him by his wife of her love for Mr. eecher, and that he had made proposals to her of an Impure nature. — - - The committee sav His clear that on the 29th day of December, when the so-called memorandum of confession was procured from Mrs. Tilton, the chief inciting cause of that step on Tilton's Cart, was his belief that Mr. Beecher ad caused him the loss of place, business and repute. Mr. Beecher 1 says this charge of Impure proposals fell upon him like a thunderbolt. At Mr. Tilton’s request Mr. Beecher repaired with him to his bouse, where Elizabeth was waiting for him, and learned from her lips the truth of the stories so far as they epneerned her. This interview resulted in a written retraction of the chargee by Mrs. Tilton, who. in a sort of a Sostscript to the retraction, denied explicitly that tr. Beecher had ever offered anv improper solicitations to her. The next evening Mr. Moulton called at Mr. Beecher’s house and expostulated with him for having obtained the retraction, saying ■it was an unfriendly act, and that Mrs. T. had already recanted the retraction, and that Mr. T. had destroyed his wife's first paper of confession. Mr. Monlton claimed that all difficulties could bo settled without such papers, and that Mr. Beecher ought to give-up the one he had. He (Mention) made no threats, but displayed a pistol and laid It on the bureau near which be stood. The paper was given up. Mr. Beecher saw the peril of being even falsely accused. While in a morbid state of mind produced by these distressing difficulties Moulton again called on him. and, though his manner was kind*and conciliatory, professed to believe that Mr. Beecher had been seeklngMr. Tilton's downfall; bad leagued with Mr. Bowen against him. Mr. Beecher expressed many regrets at the misfortunes of Mr: Tifton’s family, and Mr. Moulton caught up some of these expressions and wrote them down, saying that if Tilton could see them there would be no trouble in procuring a reconciliation. This paper, which is dated Jau. 1, 1871. was intrusted bv Mr. Blecher to Monlton s keeping without reading it, nor was it read to him. Thin paper. HOinetimeH railed •* the apology a'iid sometime* eonfeshfon**’ 1* in no proper sense Mr. BeCrher’s production or a correct report of what he said No man will believe, for instance, that Beecher said: "I humble mvself before him (Tilton) as I do before rov God. , Another sentence: “Her forgiveness I have " Mr. Beecher states it was not it, nor the semblance of it. - . » . • . The committee now proceed to show from the evidence before them that the,original charge -was improper advances, aud that as time passed

and the conspiracy deepened it was enlarged into adultery. Tne statement that the charge in the first instance was adultery, and that Mrs. Tilton's original confession was to that effect, is denied by Mr. Beecher and Mrs. Tilton. The statement that Mr. Beecher confessed the fact of adultery is also denied, and such alleged confession is inconsistent with Mrs. Tilton’s written retraction given to Mr. Beecher. If ■ Mr. Beecher had already confessed to the charge of adultery, what service could the retraction do him, and why procure one at all ? The retraction procured referred to improper advances and' nothing else. Is it likely, if the main offense had been charged, Mr. Beecher would have been satisfied with anything .short of a retraction of that? The committee say further on this point that Mr. Tilton In the last four years has many times said, verbally and in writing, that the charge was the lesser offense. This is important under the rule that where a complainant has made different and inconsistent statements of an offense which he alleges, his credibility is damaged, and in. most cases destroyed. -In a manuscript prepared by Mr. Tilton, which he called the “true story,” and which he was in the habit of reading to newspaper men, personal friends, and to others, without, it would seem, much discrimination,' considering how anxious he professed himself to be not to make known his secret, the ofl'ense was stated to be improper advances. The further fact that Tilton treated the matter during four years as an ofl’ense which could be properly apologized for and forgiven is wholly inconsistent with the charge in its present form. Mr. Tilton, in his written statement, complains that Mr. Beecher abused his (Tilton’s) forgiveness. It is believed that no case of adultery on record can be produced where an injured husband, upon learning of his wife’s infidelity, kept the fact to himself for six months and then, after private complaint to the offending party, received and accepted an apology for the offense and declared it forgiven, and this followed by a restoration of courtesies and of friendship. That the so-called apology was not for the main offense of adultery the committee say Tilton clearlv proves in his cross-examination when he states that the day after the apology was procured, when he met Mr. Beecher at Mr. Moulton’s room, he (Beecher) “burst out in an expression of great sorrow to inc and said he hoped the communication which he had sent me by Mr. Moulton was satisfactory to me. He then and there told Mr. Moulton he had done wrong, hut not so much as some others had—referring to his wife, who had made statements to Mr. Bowen that ought to be unmade—and he there volunteered to write a letter to Mr, Bowen correcting the facts which he had misstated.” Here, say the committee, is clear light as fit what the apology docs not refer to. It disposes of the apology forever as a paper referring to adultery. It refers to nothing of the-kind. If the wrong done to which Mr. Beecher refers was adultery, how could these words be usedin reference to it: “He had done wrong, not so much as some others ?” Those words and the apology are susceptible of but one construction—they refer, as Mr, Beecher says, to his deep regret for statements which he and his wife Jiad, under certain information, a few days before made to Mr. Bowen which led him toexecute a purpose already entertained of removing Tilton from the Brooklyn Union and the Independent. It appears also that the next day Mr. Beceher did write a letter to Mr. Bowen, which Tilton says he volunteered to write, and which is referred to in Tilton’s business troubles with Bowen. NextconsiderMoulton’s course with a view of still further testing what was iu his mind, as well as in Tilton’s, as to the character of the ofl'ense. If Monlton understood the charge to be adultery, then he is enti--tled to the credit of invention or discovery that this crime could be flic subject of an apology and a ready forgiveness or conciliation on the part of the offender. and the injured husband. That Monlton did not believe or understand that the offense was adultery is shown by the same class of evidence that has been stated in reference to Tilton. In reply to Mr. Beecher's letter of June 1, 1873. in which he says his mind was clear, and that he should write for the public a statement that woftld bear the light ot the judgment day, Mr. Moulton firstovrotethese words: “If the truth must be spoken, let it be. I know you can stand if the whole case was published to-morrow.” Apparently fearing this might rather tend to determine Mr. Beecher to publish the whole case than otherwise, he crossed out these and other lines with a pencil and commenced anew. In this new effort on the same paper these words occur: “ You can stand if the whole case were published to-morrow.” The committee say Moulton was right in this statement, and that the pity is that Mr. Beecher did not publish such statement at once. The committee here state their conclusion that, in view of the facts and circumstances before them, the original charge of impure advances was false, though it had been dropped by the accttsers,and adultery had been substituted as an afterthought. The committee brand this performance as a fraud that ougiit to end all controversy as to the innocence of Mr. Beecher. Mr. Beecher believed that for reasons of malice and revenge Mr. Tilton was preparing to make a deadly assault upon him, and it was his supreme duty to prevent it by all possible honorable means. Moulton professed to deprecate Tilton's purpose, and declared if Mr. Beecher would trust him he could and would prevent it, and so now began a scries of letters and steps, under the direction and advice of the diplomatic and mutual friend, having for their object, as Mr. Beecher believc'd, the suppression or the scandal and the restoration in some measure, if practicable, of Tilton to aposUiwi? bf employment.

Speaking of Mr. Beecher's letters thq,coinmlttee say much has becq, Kfcl. and not without some justieei of their extraordinary words and tenor, but in interpA-ting th’e tetters it must be remembered that Mr. Bcecbet. under the excitement of deep feeling, uses strong words and emotional expressions, and that, in this sore trouble, he was dealing with Mr. Tilton, who had shown himself at times flcklb, malicious, revengeful and mercenary. In the light of these facts there is not a tetter from Mr. Beecher nor an act of his, however ilhjudged, through these four years of anxiety and grief that cannot be accounted for upon the plain theory that he was fighting to suppress an outrageous scandal, which consisted of a false accusation against him, made by a reputable woman; and further, that he was endeavoring to help a man whom he felt he had unduly injured in business matters npou representations which he was made to believe, chiefly by Moulton, were not well founded. The committee 'here alluded, to r the fact that Mrs. Tilton, as her domestic troubles came on, began to look more Ilian ever to her pastor for sympathy and advice, and consider it not unlikely that her feelings toward Mr. Beecher became so strong as to diminish the proper influence that belongs to every good husband. The commljjee express regret at two errors frito which it is apparent Mr. Beecher fell. They feel that in his threatened troubles the pastor should have sought counsel from Christiap men of his own brotherhood rather than rely upon the counsel of a man of whom be knew so little, and whose character, as the sequel proved, he so sadly misjudged. They, .also think that in view of the surrounding circumstances, Mr. Beecher erred in not guarding so closely his relations with the family of Mr. Tilton that there could be no possibility for fear in his own mind even of an undue affection by Mrs. Tilton for him through any heedless friendship or agency of his. The committee allude to Mr. Tiltop’s statement before them that bls home was one of unusual harmony, and say that on his cross-examination it clearly appears that It ■ was anything but a happy or harmonious home. They then cite Mrs. Tilton's evidence on this point, and say her account of the domestic misery in the Tilton family is corroborated by the testimony of several witnesses. and very fully by Miss Elizabeth A. Turner. who is now twenty : three years of age and was an inmate of the family eight years. The committee then ask: Will innocent men, and especially clergymen, fight as for their lives to suppress an injurious scandal, even though it be born of extortion, falsehood and revenge? This question had been too often answered by historv in the aftirtnatiye. It was easy to wonder that Mr. Beecher should trust such men as ’niton and Moulton, now that their characters are . known, and the committee felt like visiting the severest censure upon Mr. Beecher for imperiling the pracious Interests confided tohlm through the confidence reposed In them. The charge made by the accuser la easily pre ferrod and not easily disproved. Itts not enough for the accuser Jo say: "I make this charge: now let It be disproved or’be taken as confessed.” All tribunals have required, in determining the truth or falsitv of such charges, such proof of factsand circumetauces as point unmistakably to the guilt of the accused as are not consistent with any theory of innocence. The committee then ' cite “ Greenleaf on Evidence” to substantiate the proposition, and then go on to sav that there is nothing whatever disclosed by the evidence that proves that the ac‘cused parties have ever been found together under suspicious circumstances, such as in some unusual house or place, or consulting together In some secret way, to avoid exposure and observation. There was no proof (if Caerexpoudencc. Mr. Boocher's wife testified that she openon. arranged and read all letters that came to her husband, except those that came to the ('hristlan Union office and the church, and those were opened by others, and hence cone hide that the usual facts and circumstances- indicative or wrong-doing are utterly wauling in this case. The case then rests upon mere words and assertions .supported bv no circumstances ,w hatever that are the usual indications of adultery. . - Tilton savs he knows the tact from his wife's _ confession and from her subsequent confession to Moulton and htr mother, jfiut Mrs. Tilton s*X», this confession 0 whs extorted from her hy_.an.tin* perions. maljcious Im'ebanjl. and by. fraudulenX

means, the pretense being that she must say something in order to extricate him from his business perplexities. She was made to believe that there was some conspiracy hatching against her husband. The fact that she withdrew the charge when Mr. Beecher first confronted her, on the evening of Dec. 30, together with the further fact that she has ever since denied the truth of the charge when free from the dominating influence of her husband, was referred to and specially commented upon by the committee. The source of the scandal was the alleged words of Mrs. Tilton, which she explains in such a manner as to deprive the allegation of all force and credit. Then comes Mr. Beecher, who solemnly declares that whatever words, by w hatever means, had been drawn from Mrs. Tilton by her husband, he is innocent of any and all impropriety toward her, w hether relating to improper advances or adultery. The committee did not propose to defend the course of Mrs. Tilton. On any theory of human responsibility it was indefensible. The testimony showed that, under the influence of a designing husband,when in a condition of mental aberration, she had at least made charges of improper advances by Mr. Beecher, but when her attention had been called to the great wroji# she had done she quickly retracted them in sorrow and penitence. Eminent physicians appearing before the committee had testified that such conduct on the part of Mrs. Tilton, being subjected to the influence referred to, was not inconsistent with an honest mind. As illustrative of this latter proposition the committee refer to.the letter published by Mr. Moulton, purporting to have been written by Mrs. Tilton, in which she says she is a perfect coward in Tilton's presence, and that “it is a physical impossibility to tell the truth;" and also to a subsequent letter in which she says: “With all my womans soul 1 am innocent of tjje crime <rf impure conduct alleged against me. In the statement, also, which was prepared under the direction of Mr. Tilton and Mr. Carpenter, and taken to Dr. Storrs in 1872, Mrs. Tilton shows that she was made to believe that a conspiracy had been formed against her husband. Subsequently, in a letter, she is found asking the for giveness of Mr. Beecher for the sufferings she had caused him. The committee had heard much from Tilton of confessions made by his wife to him, but they were obliged to receive his statements on this point without corroboration. On one occasion, according to the testimony of Miss Turner, she told her husband that it was a lie ttiHi she had confessed to him her intimacy with Mr. Beecher. This witness was the same persofiT who, it was said by Tilton and Moulton, was sent to a boarding-school to get rid of~her, because she had heard Tilton make charges against her. Miss Turner and Mrs. Tilton both agree in saying that it was Tilton’s plan to have her go away, because she had stated to her friends that Tilton had twice attempted intimate relations with her during the absence of Mrs. Tilton in the country. Tilton was fast losing place and position because of his social views and practices, and feared the publicity of this girl’s statement. The sum of $2,000 was invested to pay her expenses while at school, bnt the committee say the absurdity of supposing that Mr. Beecher would invest that sum to get persons to leave town, to whom Mr. Tilton had been peddling his scandal, was transparent. Persons to whom Tilton had talked in some form of the scandal were too numerous to Justify an investment of $2,000 on each of them by anybody whose wealth could not be counted by millions, just as Miss Turner was leaving for school Mr. Tilton procured from her, with the aid of his wife, a letter denying the reports of Improper liberties. Here Mr. Tilton shone conspicuously as a manufacturer of evidence. Mr. Tilton, when before the committee, when reference was made to the “ Griffith Gaunt’’ letter, seemed to think that the offense of Griffith Gaunt was adultery, and accordingly relied upon the letter as incontrovertible evidence of his charge. In this he was mistaken. It was a principle of common law that a married woman cannot commit or be held to commit a crime perpetrated in the presence of her husband, and this upon the idea that the presence and influence amount to duress, and that she is, therefore, not responsible, w het her or not it was necessary to invoke this rule of law to excuse Mrs. Tilton, it could be seen in what Mr. Tilton was able to extort from her without her volition or real assent something of the reasons which moved the early expounder of the English common law to assert the doctrine referred to. The committee having reviewed the evidence, proceed to contrast the characters of Mr. Tilton and Mr. Beecher. In respeCt tcr (he former, the committee ask: Who is this accuser that he makes so bold a facet He had lately become a very different man from what he was formerly reported to be. Signs of degeneracy have set in which make him a discredited man in the community. After his espousal of the pew marital philosophy his downfall was rapid and complete. In sketching his career an able writer says: “In process of time he comes before the world as the. indorser of Victoria C. Woodhull, and lends his name to a biography of her which have sunk any man's reputation anywhere for common sense. Such a book is a tomb from which no author rises again." Such is the accuser.

The accnoed is Henrv Ward Beecher, the pastor of Plymouth Church, who has been a clergyman .with‘harness on for forty years. He has been living tn the clear light of noonday, before his people and ail men, a life of great Christian usefulness and incessant work. 'Those who have been most intimate with him, at home and abroad, report nothing of his life or conversation but. what comes of parity of soul. We are asked by Tilton and Moulton to believe that Mr. Beecher, with ills long and useful life and liigh character to sustain him; de unworthy of confidence, regard or respect. Christian character and great services, which are usually considered a tower of atrength and defense, when one is availed. are to go for naught, according to Mr. Tilton. We are invited to give np this man and send him and his good name and family to the vortex of moral destruction. We are to do this upon what? Upon some wild, abHurd and contradictory assertions of Mr. Tilton, who in all th Ik work does not succeed in disguising his malicious and revengeful designs. No tribunal administering justice ever held a charge Of adultery proved by mere alleged words, written or spoken, that are denied and not connected with circumstances and appearances pointing unmistakably to the guilt of the accused. Upon a review of all the evidence relied on by the accuser the committee conclude that he utterly fails to sustain Uie charges made, aud make the following statement of conclusions: 1. We find from tlie evidence that Rev. Henry Ward Beecher did not commit adultery with Mrs. Elizabeth R. Til ton,'cither at, the time or limes, or at the place or places, set forth in the third and fourth subdivislcms of Mr. Tilton's statement. nor at any other time or place whatever. 2. We find from the evidence that Mr. Beecher has never committed any unchaste or improper , act with Mrs. Tilton, nor made anv unchaste or improper remark, proffer, or solicitation to her, of any kind or description whatever. 3. If this were a ouestion of error of judgment on the part of Mr. Beecher, it would be easy to criticise, especially in the light of recent events. In such criticism, even in the extent of regret and censure, we are sure no man would join more sincerely than Mr. Beecher himself, * 4. We find nothing whatever in the evidence that should impair, the perfect-<mnM<ai£fioL Plymouth Church or the world in the Christian character and integrity of Henry Ward Beecher. And now let the peace of God, that passeth all understanding, rest and abide with Plymouth Church and its beloved and eminent pastor, so much and so long afflicted. Henry W. Sack, AcevsTL’S STonua, HeXKY M- CLEVELAND, Hoback B. Claflin, John Winslow, * 8. V. White, Committee of Investigation. Brooklyn, Aug. 27,1874. SUBSEQUENT CHLRCII rBOCBEDIXOS. q The foregoing report upon being read was accepted with shouts of acclamation. The following resolutions were then offered: “ llesolved, That the evidence laid before the Examining Committee hot only does not afford any foundation for putting the pastor of. this church. Rev. Henrv Ward Beecher, upon trial, bnt. onthe contrary, establishes to the perfect satisfaction of this church his entire innocence and absolute personal parity with respect to all charge, now or hereafter made against bun by Theodore Til,O''That our Confidence and love for otif pastor, so far from being diminished, are heightened and deepened by the unmerited sufferings which he baa so long borne, and that we welcome him, with a'svmpathy more tender and a trust more unbounded than we ever felt Before, to W» public labors among us, to our church, our famiiies.pur houwa and our hearts." At this juncture Mr. Moulton entered the church, pulled out his note-book and pencil and S repared to take notes of the proceedings. Adresses were made bv several gentlemen, among others Mr. Rossiter W. Kaymofid, who recapitulated some portions of the evidence, and in referring to Moulton's part in the affair said: "Mr. Francis D. Moulton has tried to poison the minds iff men against Mr. Beecher." This seemed to raise Mr. Moulton's ire, aud, standing erect, he glared at the speaker and exclaimed twice, tn a loud voice: "You're'a liar, sir I you're a liar, sir!" Instantly all was confusion. Men and women rose to- their feet, the latter mounting on seats and joining iu the cry, with a hearty good will, * of -Put him out!” - Shame, .ir,' etc., mingled •.with loud and'prolonged hissitiz. in the midst of ' which Mr. Hallfdav came forward, and, making himself heard, above the din. partially restored

order, saying: “ Gentlemen, let him sit still and heartbetruth.” But Moulton still remained on his feet, saying; “I dare you .to put me ont.” A couple of police officcnjfpiit in an appearance behind Mr. Moulton, and he resumed his seat. Order being partially restored, Mr. Baymond continued: ‘•Well, now I want to say something to you about blackmailing.” [Cries of "Yes, go forthe blackmailer."! He claimed that Mr. Tilton did not know where the money came from, but it was evident that Mr. Moulton paid him money out of his pocket. Was it upon his insinuations, garbled language and letters? Was it upon this, he wanted to know, they were to wait and doubt? With regard to the pistol, it was not pretended by Mr. Beecher or advanced by Mr. Moulton that, under the influence of the pistol, he was hurried or intimidated into any action. The story of the pistol was just this : It went to show the character of a man who went to call upon a minister with his pistol. He concluded his address by stating that, come what might, they would all standby tbe man who stood up so nobly for them. The Chairman then put the question on receiving the report of the committee and adopting the resolutions offered. On motion, it was passed by a standing vote, with the waving of hats and handkerchiefs when the ayes were called for; but when the noes were railed Frank Moulton only arose, and was greeted with a perfect storm of hisses, aud another uproar succeeded, bnt was calmed in a slight degree when Mr. Gilbert arose and offered resolutions tendering thanks to the members of the committee for the faithful and impartial manner in which they had performed their duties, and also to the counsel of the committee for their valuable services. Thia was also adopted. " A motion was made to adjourn, bnt Mr. Halliday announced that the proceedings would terminate with the singing of the doxology. Mr. Moulton here arose from his seat and pushed his way toward the door through the surging crowd which blocked the passage. During his route he was hustled on every side, and when he reached the hallway many hands were outstretched as if to wreak vengeance upon him; bnt the crowd was kept off ny police officers who hurried him down the alleyway to where a carriage was in waiting, into which he was pushed rather than helped, and, with a police officer standing on each steti of the vehicle, it was drawn rapidly away. The audience then quietly dispersed.