New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1874-08-20
A REVIEW OF THE CASE.

tiOnS of the Committee has now been printed
and our readers are in position to form judg
ment on the evidence to be considered in the
final report. Mr.. Moulton may have some
thing more to say in answer to the charge OF
Matchmaking Mr.. TiltOn may have further
supplementary charges to add to the disgust
ing mass of scandal which has grown so stead
lily under his care during the past four years.
Perhaps vulgar curiosity will still be RECALLED
with the exhibition of domestic interiors and
the display of fond wife's foolish letters to
her husband. But upon the main issue of Mr..
Beechers guilt or innocence we have all the
evidence of value that we are likely ever to
get. Incomplete as it is, we do not know that
there was any reason to suspect that it would
be more satisfactory. Charges of secret i'm
morality are easy to make and almost imDoS-
sible to refute. They must be weighed in
connection with the characters of the accused
and the accuser, and with all manner OF at
tendant circumstances their consistency must
be carefully tested; and after all it will be
found in most cases that verdict can only
be reached by balancing probabilities. Exam
ined in this way, it seems to us that Mr. Til
tons charge has broken down, and unless
some new and unexpected testimony should
be brought to light, the judgment ought to
be an honorable acquittal.
First let us look at the charge itself Mr.
Tilton asserts that in July, 1870, his wife con-
fessed to him that she had committed adul-
terry repeatedly with Mr.. Beecher; that in the
following December she repeated this confes-
sion in writing; and that the confession was
shown to Mr. Beecher, who acknowledged his
sin both to TiltOn and MoultOn, and signed an
apology taken down by Moulton from his lips.
To this Mrs. Tilton and Mr. Beecher both in
terpose an emphatic denial. The alleged writ
ten confession is not in existence, and since
Mr. Moulton refuses to testify, its character
rests upon the unsupported word of Mr.. Til
ton. The sO-called apology is admitted to be
genuine. but it does not expressly refer to
adultery, and Mr.. Beecher declares that it re-
fers to something else. There is no direct
testimony in support of the charge therefore.
We have only the statement of the prose-
cutOr that the defendants confessed it, and
they both say they did not. Are there
any circumstances which shake the force of
their deniali None except Mr.. Bcecher's I'M
fortunate letters, and every one OF those Is
susceptible of an innocent Interpretation. They
are explained as referring either to the Offense
of an unfriendly interference in Mr.. TiltOn's
business and family affairs, for which Mr..
Beecher took upon himself severe and need
less blame, or to the natural anxiety of
minister and father of family to prevent
the publication of a story affecting his moral
character. And that the apology was not for
adultery Mr.. TiltOn himself furnishes indubit-
in, inc for hp
tells us that the day after it was written he
met Mr.. Beecher in MOuton's room, and the
following scene occurred "He burst out in
can expression of great sorrow to me and said
"he hoped the communication which he had
"sent to me by Mr.. MOultOn was satisfactory
"to me. He then and there told Mr.. MoultOn
"he had done wrong; not so much as some
"others had (rcferring to his wJe, who had
"made statements to Mr.. BOwen that ought to
abe unmade y and he there volunteered to urite
ga letter to Mr.. BO,Cen concerning the facts
",rhch he had msstated." That we think dis
poses of the apology forever. 1t proves it to
be exactly what Mr.. Beecher says it was-an
expression of poignant regret for statements
which he and his wife had made to Mr.. Bowen
few days before, and in consequence of
which Mr.. Bowen executed his half formed
purpose of dismissing TiltOn from The indie
pendent and The Brooklyn Union.
While every letter and circums lance thus
far cited as indicative of Mr.. Beechers guilt
can readily be reconciled with his innocence,
there is bit of testimony on the other side
with which Mr.. Tilton will find it impossible to
explain away. We have shown that the charge
with which Mr.. TiltOn winds up hispursuit of Mr.
Beecher in 1874 is not the same with which
the pursuit began in 1870. 1t is not the same
which he forced his wife to put in writing in
December of the latter year, and which she
withdrew in her letter to Mr.. Beecher i'm
mediately afterwards 1t is not the same
which he mentioned to Mr.. Bowen, to Dr.
Storrs, to fifty other persons, 80 late as last
year. 1t is not the same which he embodied
in the "True Story" that he drew up in
1872. 1t is not the same even which he indi-
Gated in his recent letter to DR.. Bacon. 1t
was never brought forward until Mrs. Tilton
refused to sustain her husband any longer in
the warfare which that letter brought to
crisis Then, in order to ruin Mr. Beecher's
most valuable witness, Tilton abandoned the
original Indictment for improper solicitation,
and substituted the graver accusation of long
continued adultery. But the testimony which he
had prepared to support the first accusation
be forgot to change so as to fit the second
OF the manner in which Mr.. Tilton has con-
Quoted this prosecution and the sordid spirit
which seems to have animated every stage of
it. we shall speak hereafter. We have only
to add to our present argument a few words
as to character. The man at whose door the
shameful sin is laid is clergyman whose
name has been honored wherever the English