The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1874-10-31
THE PACIFIC
Commercial A0bertistr.
SATURDAY, OCTOBER 81.
The Legal Aspects of the Beecher Scandal.

port, 70 remark upon the trial and its lessons In
a purely legal light, and without expressing any
definite opinion as to the guilt or innocence OF ths
great preacher. 1t may, however, be difficult &c
disguise our views on this point in the progres:
OF our remarks, and we therefore wish 10 dIsclaiu
beforehand any intention TO obtrude those views,
for that is outside the province Of a legal Journal
But we are not ashamed Of our opinion. and dc
not propose TO apologize for il, but only to explain
its possible utterance.
In the first place, we deem it extremely unfor-
tunate that one Of the most important legal
Investigations that ever took place in this country
should have been conducted without any of the
powers, sanctions or responsibilities Of a court oil
justice-unfOrtunate for the parties to the inves-
tigatiOn, unfortunate for the public, unfortunate
for the cause of decency, morality and religion.
We have heretofore taken pains to express our
uniavorable opinion Of ecclesiastical councils.
The conduct of the Brooklyn council does not
tend TO change our views. We regret that Mr.
Beeeher, instead Of demanding q trial by Plymouth
Church, did not seek one before a jury OF Kings
county. The result is inconclusiye and ~unsatis-
factory, although we do not say that it NAV not
be right. As the opinion of committee of very
excellent gentlemen, it is entitled to respect, but
it carries no authoritative weight. 1t may satisfy
Plymouth Church, but it will not satisfy the
public. Tie object Of such an inquiry should be
the calculation Of truth. For such a purpose an
ecclesiastical tribunal is practically powerless.
Lawyers do not need that we should enlarge on
the reasons of this patent fact. 1t is enough that
we merely suggest them. The principal reasons
are three First, such a tribunal possesses no
power to compel witnesses TO attend second, it
possesses no power to extract evidence from such
witnesses as choose to come before it and third,
there is no penalty for perjury, if such witnesses
shall disregard the truth. The whole machinery
is extra-judicial, and as impotent as a women's
sewing society, or q moot-court Of school-boys.
There is only one fitting place for such an inves-
tigation, and that is a court of justice, and until
a court OF justice passes upon this matter, Mr..
Beecher's friends will find that the snake of
scandal is scotched, not killed, and Mr.. Tilton's
friends, If he has any, will find that he has con-
WINGED no one but his friends. We do not know
that there is any law against the holding of such
ecclesiastical trials, but the law Of common sense
ought TO prohibit them, and we sincerely hope
that this is the last one that will ever take place
in this country, at least in respect to a man whose
name and reputation have been so dear and so
useful to the cause of Christianity as those of
Henry Ward Beecher. If deacon is accused of
having lost his temper and INDUCED in audible
profanity, or if q sister is charged with having
played 81 old maid - with cards, or worn earrings,
or kept time with her carnal limbs to the music
Of the secular violin, VIC do not object to an
court sitting in judgment on these
ltenses. But when the greatest preacher since
Peter the Hermit is accused of the most loathsome
md detestable crime made against any Christian
within our recollection, and which, If
'ubstantiated, would prove the greatest blow that
he cause of religion has ever suffered in this
'ountry, we think 1t but fair that some other
than n m of the preachers own
and nomination should be charged with
he investigation. This is a national affair, and
lot merely an affair of Plymouth Church. That
'hurch had a right to have this investigation, to
it as they have done, and to be satisfied
With the judgment arrived at, but they must not,
lor must Mr.. Beecher expect a unanimous accept
nee by the public.
Thus far we have considered this matter only
nth respect to the power of the tribunal to
lucidate the truth, and we conclude that in this
aspect it is a futile inquiry. There is another
eason why such Investigations before such tri-
unals should not be encouraged, even If tolerated,
nd that is the debasing effect of the discussion
D the newspapers of the merits of the controversy,
Independently with its progress. For a pc
iod of two months every newspaper in the United
tates has daily or weekly taken sides in this
after, and brought all the powers Of trained
ltellect and experienced writers to bear in sup
of their respective favorites. Such q state of
lings was never known in respect to n trial in a
of justice, and cannot fail to exercise a
effect, if not on the judges themselves,
1T on the public mind. There is, of course, no
for this. III a murder trial were going on,
Id the daily newspapers in the city of New York
lould during its progress advocate the one side
the other, and throw their editorials into the
ry room, the court would see to it very quickly. I
ut in respect to the Brooklyn inquiry, thanks to
BACCGf OfNL1 uuA dHu hOLuuD III Tic Idnu udu y
ade up their mind before the ommitt reported, +
I'd their opinion was not in the least influenced :
the report when it was promulgated. In q
her words, here was a trial by newspaper. The :
port Of the committee was a small Consequence. q
e dare say comparatively few have read the 4
port, but everybody has read some newspaper :
the subject. Public opinion in regard to this =
air is OF prime Importance. Indeed, it is only 8
Difference to public opinion that the investiga- :,
IN was had. But public opinion is formed not a
the adjudication of the tribunal, but by the
of q number of individuals who write 6
newspapers. This is unfair to the accuser y
d to the accused. 1t is a defeat of the very h
of judicial inquiry. 1t is in itself a suff- -
mt reason why ecclesiastical trials at this day r.
4 never have any weight beyond the particular a
1rch by which they are conducted. ~
So much for ecclesiastical trials in general. q,
in regard to this trial in particular. In a f.
view, how contemplate it is! The highly q,
pectable committee come together and announce m
t they are ready to hear from anybody who ~
ows or has heard anything on the subject of
Now commences a shower of sl
The accuser comes forward and -
DIS a long and carefully prepared statement, -,
Ich he has gone through the idle form of in
caring to before a notary or commissioner of a.
dis beforehand. In it he states every thing he i,
ows or dosn't know every thing he has heard. ~
AIMED, suspected, feared, inferred, told, read or NJ
tten, with one or two things he claims to have 10
n. Rhetorical, elusive, sentimental, vague, IN
lent, irrelevant, in nine parts out of ten. The a,
st pointed thing in it was that Mrs. Tilton ba
once made n " statement " in writing 30 him al
t she and Mr.. Beecher were guilty, but be did no
happen to have that statement about him. 70
gives copious extracts from letters, but de- -:
es to produce the originals Then the witness n,
. cross-examined. As naturally might be faI
eeted, when the witness was pinched, he rvt
irmed, became indignant and refused to mn
"'o ny 'uIie u NY hat
committee, and promised that if they did not be,
d what they were about, it should go all the rio
Sc with Mr.. Beecher. This accusatory state oro
t was Instantly published broadcast all over chi
country, owing to the " peridy +" of an editor bis
HON the misguided Tilton chose to lend it for o.
lsal. Then Mrs. Tilton made a statement in -;
ing. Again, nine-tenths Of rhetoric, efusion, r.,
iment, vagueness, violence and irreleyance. -