The true Democrat., 1857-04-28

The Boston Journal thus comments on the Isoch adultery case. The conclusion at
 ach the Journal arrives is the one we were fyen to, long ago, and we cannot see how the lry could fail to convict. Boston iuries may gooi in a Webster murder case, but they ertauly are not of much account in a KalIoch tultery case, when the culprit is Main law drocale and political preacher:
 For our own part, we de rot hesitate to say hat while the previous high character of Mir. Alioch has left in our mind doubt which we 2 ruld gladly cherish, the evidence of guilt is P Welshty to be tlippantly set aside or lightly hGTded. Against any other man in the com 2 unity than minister of the gospel, or one hose social position and purity of character s uId almost preclude the belief that he could guilty of such a crime, the evidence would RTe been considered conclusive.
 The fact that Mr kaIoch went to the Lech- fFc house ln the first instauce some time be- fre the lecture was to commence to read lee a which he had before delivered; his declin- as an invitation to take tea with the Rev. MT. f Hand, and ordering a fire built in a private m, when he must have known that with the FnIerature below Zero out of doors, the room lll not be warmed before the time to leave \ the lecture room; the fact that after being \ "n into bedroom with lady not his wife, 2 lmpr pucty of occupying such room did F force Itself upon his mind, and at least pre- N-t nm from returning to it after the lecture; t further fact that he did return to that bed l, notwithstanding he had told Mr. Holland sai he was in a hurry 10 get home, and when was within twenty minutes drive of his own \ ! .se, coupled with the acknowledgme that h prominent advocate of temperance, viola | als professions by drinking at a public bar
 i al these facts, which are not denied, form a 1S cham Of clrcumstautial evidence to sus- the direct and positive proof of guilt
 Ne must add to these circumstances another en cannot but have great weight and that q nat no affidavit was offered from the lady slo was implicated with Mr. Kalloch and who @~ ~ al others was the most important witness.
 ilsse are some of the prominent points in the P@lmpuve evidence. We need not review 'ni ne direct and positive testimony. It was in ne main clear and consistent with itself and 'N NA the circumstances of the visit of Mt. kal- 0a to the Lechmere house. It was not shak- l ! n any essential particular. The reputation '. 'he witnesses for truth and veracity was not npeached.
 n the face of this evidence, we would gladly \ eve Nlr. kalloch to be innocent, although to T 50 would be to ignore circumstantial evl \, Ce, the main points of which are admitted, ' ,le strongest possible character. We are
 \ ss'4Oe to arrive at such a conclusion. The be- .a lA his guilt, we may safely say. is more
 ' -sfai since the trial than before, for few knew al the evidence was or could believe him
 t ny Nothing but evidence of innocence of I. .f'HuVe character can now remove from the |s Us Of many whose opinions are worthy of N ecr the unfavorable impression which has sI4 T. made by the testimony.
 aueFSuc circumstances Mr. kalloch ought
 '1ndfaw entirely from the ministry. Per
 al Trends may rall y around him, and very s portion, perhaps a majority of the public, a 'Vlll regard him d, innocent. But his in,
 , 1ge as a minister Is gone, and cannot be re- 1 unless ths dark cloud Is scattered. His @7lce m the pull pit would be continued re- .I'A to the cause of religion. The interests .Is church and the good of society impera- s demand his withdrawal, while such a E "ould be no concession of guilt. We trust |e 10 lIJudcious couusels will be suffered to u the dictates of propriety and sound