Fayette County herald. [volume] (Washington [Washington Court House], Fayette County, O. [Ohio]) 1860-1???, 1874-08-27
Beecher-TiItOn.

The Cincinnati Enquirer of Satur-
day has this to say of Moulton's state
ment of the above case, published in
the dailies of Friday.
We can not hope that the evidence
in this case, which has dragged it's
length along ad aaWseana, is all in;
but in summing up all the testimony
of the principal witnesses, four in
number, two or three important facts
are obvious. The motive of witnes-
ses is an important element. Beecher
and Mrs. Tilton have the strongest
motive for denying gilt. Moulton
can have no such motive for falsifying
and Tilton can have no such motive
for running his own reputation, the
name of his wife and the mother of
his children. and the future of those
children who are dear to him, as Beech
er has for defending his own name and
that of his wife and children. Besides,
the preponderance of evidence is over
whelmingly against Beecher. He has
no essential witnesses in his favor
save Mrs. Tilton, and she confesses
herself a liar and has confessed her
self an adultOress. Motives consid-
cred, her last confession, if any, must
be accepted. There are large num-
ber of documents and letters in evi-
dence, but not one of them points
plainly towards Beecher's innocence,
while all of them are consistent with
his guilt, and the most of them are
consistent with nothing else. Beech
er's story was captivating. The flames
of humor, the exquisite rhetoric, the
unsurpassed felicity of style, made his
narration bewitchingly plausible. But
for speaking straight on" Moulton,
the sinner, has the advantage of the
Plymouth parson. Tilton, his wife,
and MoultOn, said Henry's brother, are
the only witnesses, and the testimony
from MOulton has come in the shape
generally anticipated. He distictlv
says that the definite confession Of
adultery was made to him by the par
ties to the crime, and shows by cor
respondence that the fact of such guilt
was known and discussed inside the
Beecher family and outside of it. Even
Wilkeson, Beecher's witness, writes
about ''improper advances" 1t is
shown that the adultery has been an
acknowledged fact for years, if ordi,
nary human testimony may be be-
heved
1t may not be proper to mention in
this connection, that from the time
this slander was made public through
the sensational journals of the coun.
try, the Enquirer has, with remarkable
aptness, been ready to condemn Mr.
Beecher as being guilty of unchristian
intimacy with Mrs. Tilton. The En-.
quirer, and all that class of papers,
call upon Mr.. Beecher to prove his in
nocence; they ask him to prove a neg.
ative, and because of the impossibili-
ty to do that they assume he is guilty
of the chargeEof adultery.
Suppose any one of these men were
to be charged with a similar offense
could they prove their innocence an d
would public sentiment be justiiable
in cOndeming them because they could
not do itp
The enemies of Mr.. Beecher will not
believe any statement made by Mrs
Tilton; and it cannot be denied tha
Moulton, who professed to be the mu.
tual friend of Beecher and Tilton, has
proved himself to be treacherous to
Beecher by permitting Tilton to make
garbled extracts from certain letters
Strange, but true, it seems that some
people would rather Beecher would be
proven guilty, though it would be up.
on false or circumstantial testimony,
than that public sentiment should &C
quit him of criminalty for want OF
positive proof of guilt.