Wilmington daily commercial., 1874-09-01
MIR. REEcHER AFTER THE TRIAL.

Two very sad consequences certainly result
from the Brooklyn scandal. The first is its evil
effect ON Society the second is the cloud, light
or heavy, with which it obscures the position Of
MI. Beecher. So deep, SO wide, and go pro-
longed stream of demoralizing scandal conld
not pour into the community, and .permeate
every rank in Society without doing harm, un-
less it should prove, by benefcent oyer-ruling
OF eviNfor good that the public eagerness with
which the story was first seized upon has turned
to entire disgust. For it is impossible, now, to pu
rify entirely the name and fame of Mr.. Beecher.
Whether it be to-day, in our ideas of him, or in
the future when to-days history shall be written,
something of the mud with which his enemies
have assailed him will cling to his garments, and
suspicion, whether vague or strong, will haunt
the echo of his name.
But still the apparent close of the case-the
delivery of the judgm5nt Of those who inquired
into it-makes general expression of the pop
ular opinion proper, and it is but fair and just,
no matter whetherit be possible or not to for
ever silence the tongue of scandal to declare
our conclusions upon the testimony. Common
justice demands that if there has been no con-
yiction We should 50 pronounce Posterity may
or may not clear the assailed character, but we
are bound to speak the Judgment Of to-day.
What, then is proved against Mr.. Beecher?
Is he convicted 1t is the well-known principle
of our law that man ia considered innocent,
until he is proven guilty. Especially Is this the
case where his character, before the bringing Of
specific charge against him, stood high and pure
Still more is this the rule ,when man off good
character is charged with an enormous and
heinous offence Both these are circumstances
Of the present case; no man stood higher than
Mr. Beecher, and no one could suffer q more
shocking charge. Putting ourselves upon this
platform, what have we against him Is it any
thing conclusive Is it sufficient to convict him
Is it something inconsistent with a theory of IN
nocence, and which leaves us unable to form
such theory?
Let us say then, for ourselves, in answer to
these questions 1t il not enough. 1t does not
convince Us. The high character OF the accused
and the magnitude Of the offence charged forbid
Tia; We should yield our opinion to 80 shabby
Ani szgged showing Of evidence. The assail-
ants are discEeditsd. n various wsys. Tiltons
A-ii9ns. As well A. his words. hsve no. been cou-
s-=teni witA the possibility Of his charges being
irue. Anl 3 for Moultoa. the more lie shows
Z Of himself. the more he appears as a
ye.der Of sc-nd4l and faisehood Not
merely LIZ apparent efforts a; black
nal, t1t his whole course in the business haz
iiseredited hin s. witness. We forbear 10
speak q him a. We believe lie deseryes-a more
eonlampable and more disgraceful figure has
never been made before the american public
70 blast the reputation OF a great and useful
man by the contributions Moul-on has made to
this seandalous case would be a Judicial pro-
ceeding unparalleled. Such testimony would
not hang dog. far less destroy pure reputa-
ton. In all the pages of history. its great fig.
ures and great characters are beset by little as.
ssilsnts. but never amongst them all. has there
been an instance such a. this would be if the
tissue Of inconsistent unreasonable. and trans
parent presumptions and inunendoes raked to
sethcr by Titon and Moulton, could be per
mitted by just public to destroy Mr.. Beecher
The proceeding would be simply monstrous i
would be wonder to ali time that any people
should so seem to desire the destruction of on,
Of their greatest characters as to condemn hin
Oh such showing