The Portland daily press., 1871-02-13
THE MILLER DIVORCE SUIT.
Argument for the Libeilant, Concluded.

At 925 o'clock Saturday morning Mr. Strout
resumed his closing argument for the libellant
Mr. Foreman, Gentlemen Of the Jury. At tbe
close of my remarks last evening had calIad
YOUR attention 10 the grave charge which NO,
made against this plaintiff. You are To TAX
this charge in its whole length and breadth. II
does not do for the respondent, having spread
such charge upon the records cf th;s CONT r.
say 1T was mera misdemeanor Altar ,be
opinion OF the coutt expressed in such decided
language as to tue propriety of spreading upon
the records charge of this nature against a
party VINO cannot appear to defend, they still
support it.
Now, gentlemen, men do not act wlthouG q
motive. What is tue reason of making TINS
charge! 10 my mind it is obvious, and nave
right TO argue from the evidence why tnis
uniounded charge has been MADE ana urged
with such persistency by counsel palu 10 SPEAK
with disrespect OF every party connected Win
this cause. Who made the charge OF adultery?
MIR. Miller has testified that he has not ex-
pressed his opinion OF the guilt or innocence oil
this woman to any living being, not even TO
his counsel. The learned counsel who closed
this cause informed you that he was re-
Gently employed and since the answer was
made, and L acquit him OF all responsible
ity tor IFS original making LIZ was made
by a lawyer legal subtlety and who was in
ting here who appears both in the character
of counsel and of an interested party and
a member OF respondents family. He has been
witness upon the stand and acknowledges
that he has taken large part in the prepara-
ton OF this cause; and he is the man who is re-
sponsible for it, Why was this charge inserted
by this man? Why was this third party, occu-
plying this high position, dragged in here where
he could not defend himself. and charged with
this crime which is SO well calculated to de.
fame his character? I will tell YOU,
The answer in this cause was drawn at the
October Term, 1870, but was not filed until the
commencement OF this trial. A copy of it was
served upon us when made and the deposition
OF Gen. Shepley was taken. He was thus in
formed that such a charge would be made, and
1t was expected that by making this charge
SO vile and outrageouS-the very making OF
which, however untounded, would operate as
vital injury, would induce him, in order to
prevent public trial, to use his influence to
induce the parties to yield up their claim for
alimony, and thus wrong this woman and her
children out OF the means of their future sup
port. But he was innocent of ,he charge and
he knew it, and they mistook their man when
they believed that he would be influenced by
this consideration. GrieyouS and outrageous
though it Was that his name should thus be
unscrupulously connected with this unfounded
charge, he did not yield to this intimidation.
I honor the chlvalric courage of the man
who thus dared to stand up against such
charge as this and says, yield nothing; as
Sert my innocence; DEFY my accusers.
honor the lofty fortitude of this man who re-
fuses to compromise toe rights of others even
to save wound to his character which is dear
err to him than lie. Had this unfounded
charge been true he would not have allowed
this public investigation to have been made
Guilty men are towards. Had he had any
consciousness of guilt he would probably have
endeavored to suppress this investigation. The
heroes of this world are those who dare stand
up and do right let the consequences be what
they may. l am borne out in this conclusion
as to the instga.or of this foul charge by the
testimony of this respondent. In talking with
MIR. Jos. w. Dyer he expressed his conviction
OF the innocence of his wife, and said that he
should abandon his defence, but that his .fdnai
IN pressed him to resist. 1t was the alimony
asked for in this suit that touched the Miller
property and enlisted the biased opposition OF
the Miller family. The witnesses upon the
stand therefore all fall within the influence OF
the same powerful motive to color and pervert
the simplest and most innocent circumstance
into the evidence of improper intimacy. The
responsibility of making this charge rests not
in the first instance with the respondent, but
upon his advisers. His guilt lies in that he al
lowed himself to be made an instrument to
forward their sordid purposes, that he should
consent that this outrage should be perpetrated.
Now who are they outside of this Miller fam-
ly that testify in relation to this charge? Only
three witnesses whose testimony bears in the
slightest degree upon it. You will pardon me
if L detain you a moment while L show you
how frivolous, how unsubstantial, how light as
air is the evidence upon which they rely to
prove this great crime charged against these
innocent parties. First, the testimony upon
which my brother most relies outside of the
family evidence is that of William p. Jordan.
You saw him on the stand; how willing he
was to recollect the slightest circumstance at
ending the occurrence; how ready he was to
.orget the time and occasion or anything
which would enable us to meet and disprove
it. confess was little puzzled to see how
it could be that Jordan was walking up the
right hand side Of the street, passing the house,
that Gen. Shepley passed by him on the oppO-
site side and came up behind him, and that
while Gen. Shepley was behind him and Jor-
dan had passed by the house he should still see
the blind open and Gen, Shepley pass in with
out turning his head. And still more remark
able is it, that whilst he remembers all these
tritling Incidents, even to the remarkable fact
that Gen. Shepley did not speak to him, he
cannot testify to you the season of the year in
which it took place within three months. Yet
supposing that all that he testlties to is true,
are you going to convict any man or woman of
adultery upon such testimony Why, without
any explanation, it does not raise even sus
picion of anything wrong on the part of Mrs.
Miller. The purpose OF his going into the
house is presumed to be innocent. Because
man enters a house, unless it is a house of i'll
fame, you are not to presume that be does so
for the purpose of committing adultery or do
ing any improper act. 1t is a well settled rule
that if all the circumstances when considered
together admit of an innocent Interpretation
or exclamation they do not raise any inference
Of guilt.
Inc reputation of men is too sacred to be ru-
ined upon mere suspicion and unfounded in
ference The best interests of society forbid
it. The commonest dictates of humanity pro-
test against this trifling with the characters of
public or private citizens, unless the charges
made against them are supported by evidence
and rests upon other foundation. than pervert-
ed differences drawn from facts, innocent in
themselves and the sophistical reasoning and
appeals to pred udice by ingenious and I'M
scrupulous counsel. But let us for moment
examine this testimony farther. l say it is not
connected with Mrs. Miller in any way. 1t is
IN testimony that Miss Phebe Peters did it for
purposes she has explained TO you.
BARKER intrrupting-No such testimony.
STRoUr-Yes, sir, Phebe A. Peters does tes-
tify that she did at different times and for diff
ferent purposes call Gen. Shepley into tae
house, and some times that she did so when
Miller has been violent, tor protection and safe
ty Now there is not one word OF testimony tC
show that Mrs. Miller had any hand in touch
ing those blinds if they were ever opened. She
Says she never did, Gen. Shepley says no sig
nal was ever used between them. But sup
posing it was all true that Mrs. Miller did cal
him iD You find that often Miller came home
at night intoxicated and violent; and you fino
that others beside Gen. Shepley have stood upo1
the sidewalk and listened to the insane rawlings
of his drunken delirium, and waited to see
whether or not they should go in to interfere
to prevent his violence. Gen. Shepley has ties
titled thai such an occurrence has taken plac
when he has passed up and down by this hous
listening to his drunken ravlng, and that hnd
ing him violent he would enter and the mo-
ueut that Miller saw him he would become
quiet and passive before him. and that he ha:
repe atedly seen others of the Deighbors do tn
same thing. No man ever laid violent hands
upon woman-po man ever laid violent hand
upon the weaker in presence of Georg
F. Shepey. Can the man who instigated this
foul and false charge say as much?
Now, gentlemen, was there anything criml
nal in that; anything that tends even to prov
the infamous charge of adultery. Suppos
that Tor the purpose of this atrocious defence l
had not been necessary to take man holdip
high official position against whom to max
the gentlemen who stood upon the sidewalk OF
the night testified to by John A. Emery, whel
he heard the rawlings of Miller, IN his owl
house, that outraged the silence of the Sabbath
midnight, suppose thatsore of these gentle
men had deemed it his duty to interfere, anC
he had entered that house at twelve o'clock a
night Could not this respondent have sum
moned John A. Emery, and proving the fact c
watching and entering the house alone and un
explained, charged this act of common human
ity, rendered necessary from his own wrong
as crime against this innocent woman, az
from it made deductions as favorable, and il
sinuations as untayOra6!e as they have tror
the like act of humanity on the part or Ger
Shepley? Are you to take testimony ike thi
with the unfriendly and Unauthorized biot
and defamation OF counsel as proof OF GRIM
abhorreut to the morality OF New England?
But who else is there outside of this tamil.
giving unbiased testimony? Only two. MI
Putnam, who testifes that he saw Gen. Shep