The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1874-08-29

Without now considering the weight of
credit TO which the respective parties
are entitled, where there is conflict
between them, We believe, and propose
TO show from the evidence. that original
charge was improper advances, and that
as time passed andHthe eonspi iracy deep
ed, il was enlarged into adultery. The
Importance ofthis is apparent, because II
the charge has been so changed, then both
Tilton and Moulton are conspirators and
convicted Of vile fraud, which necessarily
ends their influence in this controversy.
What is proof that the charge in the
first instance was adultery? 1t Is said
that it was and that the memorandum in
the hands OfTiltOn in his wife'S hand
writing, WAS TO such effect, but this is
denied BY both Mr. Beecher and Mrs.
Tilton, and the written paper is not pro-
duced. 1t Is said further, that Mr..
Beecher confessed the fact Of adultery,
but this is again denied by him, and such
alleged confession is inconsistent with
the rctraction that he received that cv-
ening from Mrs. Tilton. If he had con-
fessed. what service could
the rctraction render? Why procure
one at all If, aS alleged, Beccher had that
evening confessed adultery to Tilton and
MOultOn, or to either? What then was
the charge preferred on the evening Of
December 50th? We answer, il WAS i'm
proper advances, which, of course, Mr..
Bcechcr denied. What occurred in the
matter of retractionS that evening, and
all the subsequent conversations, acts and
letters Of the various persons directly
concerned in dealing with the scandal.
are consistent with this view and with no
other. The retraction procured referred
to improper advances, and To nothing
else. Is il likely if the main offense had
been charged Mr. Bcecher would have
been satisfied with anything short Of a
retrsction of that?
There is sort of postscript tn the
retraction, in which charges Of improper
advances are strictly denied. Thus show
ing, we submit, that this was the charge
that was in the mind of Mrs. Tilton and
Mr.. Beccher, and no other oflcnSrS.
Hut Look Farther.
Mr.. Tiltun in the last four wears has
many times said verbal and in writing
that the charges was the lesser offence
This is important under the rule that
where a complainant has made different
and inconsistent statements of ofiense he
alleges his crcdbility is damaged, and
in most cases destroyed In the written
statementiof otfenc, shown DIR. Storrs by
Tilton and Carpenter, which was made
in Mrs. Tilton's handwriting under the
demand of her husband, who says he
dictated the precise words character
izing the offence. The charges was an
impure proposal of this statement. Mr..
Tiltun retraCted and says that she pro
tested against il HS false when .igned, and
afterwards saw DR.. Storrs and told him
80. DR.. Storrs in letter TO the commit
tee confirm, the rctraCtion in manu-
script prepared by Tilton, which h"
called
THE True story"
The otfrnse was stated to be improper
advances. This true story TiltOn was
in the habit of reading to oncwSpapcr men,
personal friends and Others. Withoutit
would seem, much discrimination, con-
sidcring how anxious h. profcsscd to be
not 10 make known his secret. Mr..
Bccchcr tc,tifcs that he met Tilton on
the ferrvbuat about two weeks after the
publication Of the Woodruff scandal, aud
they talked the matter over. He say
that TiltOn was az first mysterious aud
on-cUmmittal. but on their way home ia
BROOKLYN, Tilton invited him into his
house where tho true story was exhibited
to Mr.. Becchcr, and prolonged c"nv"r-
sation was had which lasted until mid
night, and during all thi, not one word
Wa, snid or limited by Tilt"n that
he believed Bccchcr had committed
adultery. On the contrary h" asserted
his unshakcn confidence in hi. wife
purity and complained onl ' of th" I'M
proper solicitation. EX-lup"rvl."r
HArman. who like Mr. Bowen, Is one of
our well-known and reputable citizens,
testifes To substantially the sam" expert
ence with TiltUn q, 10 the natur" Of the
charge. Mr.. Harmun zoe, further and
tcstities not only that Tiltnn read 4" him
the true story in which there was no al
legation Of adultery, but that, Tilton de-
scribed him hi, first interview with Mr.
Beecher on the evening of December ~,
and then informed Mr.. Harman
that he, at that time had Chprg-
ed Mr.. Beechcr with the often"
Of improper advance. Mr. Hartman
explicitly -tatcs that in all hi Convcrsa-
tions. which were numerous. with TIItun
for more than two wears he at II" time
alleged adultery =, the ofT"nse Of which
ne complained. Tlr testimony before
the committee shows similar -tnt"ments
bv Tilton to various other p"r-"u. up to
within recent period. Tn" further fact
that Tilton treated the matter during
four vear- ~
An Offence which Could he Properly
tpoIogized for
and forgiven, j. wholly inconsistent With
the charge in It's present form. Tilton,
in hi. written statement. complains that
Mr.. B.echer abused MS Tilton..I for
givenc--. Iii. believed n" case Of adultery
on record can be produced wher" an in
iured husband. upon learning Of his v lfe
;,ad,I;., Ion, tho fac. :, himself for -iX