, 1874-12-29

paid, aud it would DO NATIONAL vil1ainy to
demand nnother dollar on this nccount be-
You'd what existing patents require.
-
TnT0N's REPLY TO pEE0nER.
Those who object to revival Of tho
BEEo11IR- TuEoN controversy in tho newspa-
pers, must blame Dir. DEEo1rEn for it. With
tho exception Of n few sensational prints
which allow no scandal to be exhausted rs
long as thoy can help it, the press very go,l-
orally had given the mntter over to the courts,
whcro it now properly belongs. But b1r.
BEEcnER, desiring to mako answer to tho
criticisms TINT had been passed on his demand
for bill of particulars printed recently MI
official statement Of his side Of tho caso in his
own papor, the Christian Onion. This article
has naturally elected reply from Mr. TIL
TON. Since we gavo our renders MI BEEonEn's
article and commented thereon, it is only fair
tint AIr. Ttt1oNs reply should receive si,ni-
lar attention. This disposition for fair-doal-
ing seems to bo painfully lacking among the
majority of tho New York newspapers. But
ono Of tho Loading morning newspapers in
thnt city gives publicity to Mr.. Tn1oNs card;
tho others make no reference to it. We note
tho circumstance as in keeping with the gen.
ernl one-sidolncss with which most Of tho
Now York newspapers have Segasdea this un-
fortunate controversy.
II tho caso Ind to bp tcsted Oh tho two
articles which have recently been printed by
h[essg. DEEcaln and Tn.roN respectively,
tho verdict would bo in favor of tho Int
ter. Ho meets A1r. DEEoHIn's explanation
with oil tho oarncstness which lo hos
displayed throughout this unequal fight, aud
with tho sharpness and pointedncas Of naan
who understands his case fully. He makes
four points, to wit: u That Mr. BEEcHER
aud his counsel still insist upon n Limitation
to certain dates within single month,
though the charge is that the acts Of adultery
extended over moro than two years; (2) that
while hc Cr11rox) is not willing to practically
ebandou his caso by coming to trial under
| such q limitation, Mr.. BEEcuER falls to call
up tho criminal indictment against him for
| SANDER, notwithstanding Mr.. BEEouEE has
this opportunity for convicting him and send
ing him to the Ponitentia1y, il ho Q}EEcnEn)
! is innocent; (9) that ho believes a1r. BEECH
Ems policy to be arst to crowd him Of court
aud then clnim magnaninaity by abandoning
tho criminal suit against him; and ~ tlat
he renevs his charges, and is ready to provo,
| if permitted, TINT tho acts Of adultery were
committed in tho fall Of 1868, throughout
1900, and in tho spring Of 1870, aud that con
tensions thereof woro made at various times
| by buth 1Iy. BEEcnEn and Mrs. TmToH te
himself, to Hrs. MARTHA B. BRADSHAW, Mr.
FnAso1s D. SIouLros, Mrs. EsiMA r. MouL'
TON, and others. These points arc mode with
the sharpness that have distinguished ever,
document which haa nppcare5 in this cas'
over Mr. T11roN'a signature.
We have no desire to discuss the merits o
this controversy any further it it is to b
taken into tho courts, either in A1r. T1lroS'
civil suit against Mr.. DEEoHER, or in A1z
BEEouEn's criminal indictment against Mr
Turox, and there fairly tried. Butwo are full
justified in protesting against special plead
ing or pottifogging III caso in which til
interests of public morality are at issue. Afr
T111os should DO permitted to nuke out Iii
casa aa ho has statcd it, if ho has the noce:
sary evidence to do it, If lie can prove, as Ii
! claims, that sovoral persons had confession
f.om tho lips Of both Mr.. BEEoHER and Afrs
: Triton, this evidence should certainly NJ
L bo excluded simply because they did NJ
specify in these confessions tlat tho adulte1
ous acts were committed on Oct. 10 aud 1
n 1868. If AIr. T1LroN las other evidence Of
Ii strong cirou,nstantia! character, such as letto
@ {and it il unuBnnl to provo nets Of adultery l
q witnessed OF the aots), this evidence shoul
IL not bo excluded because it doos nj
>, actually cover two specified days out
o. two years Of alleged csin,inality. And
ID tlou, the tcchnioalites Of tho law permit n
0, DEEorEn 10 conhno AIr. YnTos in tho mann
H. proposed, and thus exclude lis evidence, N
% BEEouEn ought not to avail himself Of the
Il existence. But il he docs 20 stoop to m u
1t worthy and unjust policy, then Mr.. T1nTt
,f should be granted an early and impartial trl
IS under tho indictment for libel that has bo
Is found against him. HeroMr. BEEouEss will
I'd tic prosecutor and will havo NIL Tho aiyantag
10 Of attack. If, in spite Of tloaa advantage
ry Afr. T11roN can justify by tho Introduction
10 mnterial evidence III hia solf.defense viii
10 would bo excluded In tho civil suit, then
ho certainly ought to hayo the opportunity
ot do 80 Mt tho very earliest day, and 1t will
10 ap Outrage upon him andupou public Just
IT, Il MIR, BEEouEns relations with the pub
prosecutors secure delay.
bv Tho faot aoouas to be TINT Mr.. DEEonz
ID. counsel 10 not fulAA tho promises made
nut Mr.. DEEonEn himself In his 0h1ist'a'1 u"
10. artlolo. Wo rcgrot that 1t Is 30, antl "o
w! Of ontniou TINT nobody will suder moro II
.os such q policy than Mr.. bEEonaR ht'ns
.ho Thoro Ia only ono escape for such a man
,ea Of such an i.nputation aa this, md TINT u