New-York tribune., 1874-09-19
WHY TILTON WAS KEPT FROM TRIAL.

Mr. Vests charge and specifications, I may well
append in this place my proper comment on Mr. Beech
ers extraordinary claim that him gratitude for
having kept me, he says. from "pubc trial by the
church." Why did Mr. Beecher keep me from public
trial by the church, 1t was TO save not me- but him
SELF 1t not but he, who feared to be tried, and
who put forth the abors OF Hercules to prevent trial.
And with good reason for, unless Mr.. Beecher's case
in that perous had been conducted by the present
Committee OF SIX their novel plan OF acquitng at all
hazards the trial would have proven him guilty. With
sagacy therefore, Mr. Beecher sought to keep me
from that trial In order to save himself from THAI ruin
I well remember how, at that time, he spoke OF his
anxious and eepess nights full of fear and appehen-
sion at the possible failure Of his cunning attempt to
prevent the coming on Of trial which, at the same
time, he had TO pretend to invite Furthermore, MI
Beecher evidently sharing the conviction Of the Com
mittee that possessed official copy OF Mr. Vests
charges and specifications ventured to speak OF Mr.
Vests fearful indictment follows, namely, that it
Presented no square issues upon which his tAr.
Beecher's) guilt or innocence could be tried
And yet what issues could be more pointed and di-
rectf II q clergymen is openly accused OF adultery,
and the indictment gives specifications, names, dates.
aud witnesses does not the case present @ square
issueP know whereof affirm when say that Mr..
Beecher feared dreaded the prospect OF that trial.
because the tissues we're not square,, but on the
contrary the issues were 80 sharp aud clear
cut that he dared not cast himself their trough and
ragged edge"
Let me In this connection notice another point The
Committee have a singular way Of arguing that the
original charge could not have been adultery" be-
cause (as they say Mrs Ttons written retractOn ndl
Gated only improper proposals. With an exraordi-
nary Inconsistency Of reasoning the verdict has the fol-
lowing remarks:
It's said further that Mr. Beecher confessed the act
adultery. Such alleged confession Is not consistent
with the reraction he received that evening from Mrs
Tlton Is likely. If the main ofnse had been charged
Mr.. Beecner would have been satisfied Win anything
| short Of "a retraction OF thatt
The logic of the above is most pitiable clergyman
ia charged with adultery He goes TO the guilty woman
and demands that she shall give him written retrao
ton He carries to her bedside paper pen and INK and
compels her to phrase this retracon to suit him ex
actly What does he make he sayi Merely that there
was no aduery No; he makes her say still more than
this-that there had attempt at such.
Having appealed TO her fears-haying las be admits)
used strong language her." IN other words, having
iutimdated her do his bidding he cOmpes her to de-
clare not only that there was no adultery but that
there was even "impure proposal" Is not this
the most comprehensive retracon possible Of the orig
inal chargei Suppose I-Mr. Beecher's accuser-had
given to him certificate that he had made to my
wife an "impure proposal - Would he not plead such
a certificate as abundanty-aye superabundantly-ac-
quitting him OF the charge OF aduteryP Inc COM
mttee know we'll enough that the etraction OF charge
of impure proposals covers-and more than covers
the charge Of adultery" The logic Of the verdict is
IN worthy OF the name OF reasoning
The same may be said Of another paragraph IN this
sapent verdica statement of theirs which am loath
10 charge upon these gentlemen wful msrepre-
senaton aud yet 1t seems II they had here misrepre
sented purposely and not by accident Tue CON-
mttee quote their garoled report OF my exam
inaton q mention made by me OF the fact that Mr..
Beecher, on the day after sending me his apology
through Mr. Moulton, visited me at Mr. Moultons house.
TIN nft
the following words:
He Beecher burst out in an expression OF great sor-
row me- ana said ne hoped the communication which
me. He then and there told Mr. MoutOn he had done
wrong not SO much as some others had Geferring to
his wife who had made statements 10 Mr. Bowen that
ought to unmade) aud he there volunteered 70 write
Mr. Bowen concerning the facts which he had
msstated.
Now notice the captous use which the Committee
make of the above quotation. They cay:
III the wrong to which Mr. Beecher refers was adul
terry how could these word. be used 10 reference 70
"He had done wrong not 80 much as some otAers."
The absurdity OF such claim Is clear.
The above comment which the Committee made on
my words as everybody will BY looking carefully at
the words themselves has application whatever TO
my words When Mr. Beecher said that he had done
me wrong but not much as some others had done,"
he was referring as the report itself shows not 10 his
crime Of adultery, but "to bis wife, who had made
statements to Mr.. Bowen which ought to be unmade."
The Committee de vote aboIious paragraph to show
that IL Mr. Beecher had done less wrong than Others
this wrong" could not have been " adultery" The
Committee themselves they had carefully read their
own quotation from their own report Of my examina
tIop would have seen that Mr.. Beecher in the above
named interview with me- spoke first OF the ortme for
which he had written me the apology Of the night be-
fore aud that he then made totally distinct and
separate reference additional wrong which he had
come that morning undo-namey, the wrong OF hav
ing gtyen sanderous reports to Mr. Bowen concerning
myself; wrong which, Mr.. Beeoher said to
me, he had nos committed to 80 great ex-
tend as his wife and Mrs. Morse had
DONE Promptly the publication Of the Commit
tees report OF my examination, published card say
ing that this report had been gsbed and was incorrect
at many points. Among the points which designated
TO several members Of the press who called upon me at
the time was the bungliDg manner In which the above
interview between Mr.. Beecher and myself was de-
scribed Nevertheless this bungling report whoh
the Committees lawyers compressed into shape TO
please them best, shows even as stands that the mae
ter oonoerning which Mr. Beeeher said he had dooe less
wrong than his wife not adultery since that would
have been an imputaion by Mr. Beecher OF erimnaliv
on the part OF his wife, bad sole reference, a. the
mort it.ef states TO which Mr. Beecher
and his wife had Jointly made TO MT Bowen Asanst me,
but n which Mr. Beecher bad taken less share than
his WIFE And yet the imy basis OF the above mis-
reuresentatiou Of my words tho Committee have bsed
their function Judicial indulrers by fouod'ng ao argu
ment TO accuse me Of conspiracy against man who
himself copspirator against aud whose oonsprtnx
had already accomplished the ruin OF ny we and the
breaking up Of my home.
The Committee say further:
In the written statement OF the onsnse shown DE-.
storrs by Tlton aud Carpenter, which was made m
who he dictated the tpreclse words ceAs