The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1874-09-01

which is doubly deplored. Mr. Beecher's dis
peril of being even falsely accused He blamed
himself for much that had occurred. He could
could be attributed % v to Mrs TiItoPe undue Sec
duty to have repressed. @My. earnest
accusation and the evils which much hneces-
sarily grow from it, and which have now re-
tives that must explain my rortion during these
four years in this matter. While in T
MORBID CONDITION
of mind produced by the distressing difficulties,
Mouiton again called on him. His manner was
kind and conciliatory. He professed however,
to believe thas Mr.. Beecher had been
seeking Tllton's downfall, had leagued with Mr..
Bowen againt him and by his advice had come
near destroying Tilton's family. Mr. Beecher
expressed many and strong regrets at the misfor-
tunes OF that family. Moulton caught up some
Of these expressions and wrote them
down, saying that If Tilton could see
them there would be trouble in
procuring a reconciliation. This paper, which
is dated January |. 1871, was entrusted by Mr..
Beecher to MOulton's keeping without reading
times called the apology and sometimes the U9 eon-
Mr.. Beechers production, nor RTpf is it f'"Ta a
believe that Mr.. Beecher said, az humble myself
before him (Tilton) as l do before my God.''
haTe Mr. Bseceer states wss sSrsneaeSs nea said
nor the semblance Of it. Pausing
here, a very important question arises in this
At declares Mrs Tilton guiltless, and yet Tilton
refers TO adultery, which Mr.. Beecher denies.
Without now considering the weight of credit 10
there Is conflict between them. believe,
sRS Sa the saG onna cSange nas ss
improper advances. and that as time passed.
and the conspiracy deepened, it was en-
apparent, because il the charge has been so
changed then both Tilton and Moulton are con-
necessarily ends their influence in this contro-
veTsy. What is the proof that the charge in The
first instance was adultery? IL is said that IL
was, and that the memorandum in the hands of
Tilton, in his wife's handwriting, was to such
an effect And this is denied by both Mr.. Beech
er and Mrs. TiltOn. and the written paper is not
produced. 1t is said, further, that Mr.. Beecher
confessed The fact of adultery. But this is again
denied by him. and such an alleged confession is
inconsistent with the retraction that he received
that evening from Mrs Tlton. II he had con-
fessed what service could the retraction render?
had that evening confessed adultery to TiIton
and Moulton, or to eitherg What, then, was the
charge preferred on the evening of December 80?
We answer that it improper adv ances,
which, of course, Mr.. Bee cher denied, What oc-
Cured IN the matter OF rearaction that evening.
and letters OF the various persons
directly concerned in dealing with the scandal
are consistent with this view and no other. The
retraction procured referred to
IMPROPER ADVANCES
and to nothing else. 1t is likely ifthe main Of
Iens> had been charged, Mr.. BeecheT
would have been satisfied with any
thing short of a retraction of that.
There is a scrt of postscript 10 the retraction
in WHEN the charge OF improper advances Is ex-
this wasthe charge that was m the mind of both
Mrs. Tilton and Mr.. Beecher and no other offense.
But look farther: Nh. I1lton fn the last four
years has many times said, verbally and in writ
ing, that the charge was a lesser Of
fense. This is important under the rule
hat xybf
AID inconsistent Statements, of the Of
Ienses, his alleged credibilhy IS damaged
and in most cases destroyed in the written
statement of the offeDse as shown to Dr. Storrs
by T1lton and Carpenter, which was made in
Mrs. Tilton'S handwriting, under the demand of
her husband, whoN she says, dictated the precise
words charaoter1ztng the o1ense The charge
Tilton retra tied, and says she protested against
it ~ false when she signed ii. andaftefward saw
DR.. Storrs and told him so. Dr. Storrs. in
in the manuscript preferred by Tilton, which he
called the 'true story" The offense was stated
to be improper advances. This "true story" he
was in the habit of reading 10 newspaper men,
personal friends ana 20 others, without, IT could
seem, much discrimination, con sidering how
anxious he professed to be not to make known
his secret. Asr. Beeeher testifieS- that he met
TIlton on the feIryboat about two weeks
and they talked the matter over. He says
that Tilton was at first mysterious and nom
Tilt9n invited him into his ho1scf where the
sstrus story" was-sxhibite to Mr.. Beecher, and q
n Mas h por on one Mord
was said and iAntsd by T1ltoa that he be-
leved
EEECHER HAD COMMITTED ADULTERY.
On the contrary he asserted his -nnshaken con-
fdeace in his wife's purity, and complained of
only an improper solicitation. Ex-Supervisor
Harmon, who. like Mr.. Beecher, is
one of our well-known and reputable
citizens. testified.to substantially the same ex-
xt-lfl tn no at r1ra
anSs testites, not only that Mr.. Tilton read to
hirAthe ''true story in which there was no al
LEGATION of adultery, but that Titon described TO
him his first interview with Mr.. Beecher on the
evening of Dsce mber 30, and then informed Mr..
Harmon that he at that time charged Mr. Beech
er with the offense of improper advances Mr..
Harmon explicitly states that in all his
eos%ersatons, Wnich Were namerous, win III I1i
all eyed adultery as the offense of which he COM
planned. The testimony before the committee
farther fact that Tiltd& treated the Tnafterdur-
eriy G ' apoiogizsd ior and fSrgiven IS Wholly IN
eoasistent with the charge in rs present
Complains that Beecher abused his forgiveness
1t is believed that no case of adultery on record
can be prodaced wheie an injured husband, on
learning of his wifes inddeliy, kept that fact TO
hims elf for six months, ana then, after private
complaint 10 the Offending party received and
1t forgiven and this followed by 3 restoration of
the courtssies of friendship. All these, and
other considerations, to be heseafter referrl
10 show that in no event could the offense have
been the crime of adultery. 1t might have
been charge of the lesser ofiense, but Il is not
conceivable that Tilton, in vieE OF his conduct,
believed even that. Still further, that the so
called apology was not for the main offense, Til
ton himself in his cross examination clearly
proves Mark his words: He says that the
day after IL was procured he was in Moulton s
room, and there met Mr.. Beecher when the fol-
towing scene occurred: He (Beecher burst out
into
EXPRESSION OF GREAT SORROW
TO me, and said that he hoped that the eommu-
nieation which he had sent to me by Mr.. Moul-
ton was satifactory to me-" He then and there
told AIR. Moulton that he had done wrong, but
not so much as some others had
done, referring TO his wife, who had made state
ments to Mr.. Bowen that ought to be unnade,
and he there volunteered to write a letter to Mr.