Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1874-09-04


produced. 1t is said further that
Mr.. BEEcRER CONFESSED
the fact of adultery. But this again is de-
MED BY him, and such alleged confession
is inconsistent with the retraetIon he re-
ceived that evening from Mrs. TIton. II
he had confessed what service could the re-
traction render? Why procure one at all
if. as alleged, Beeeher had that evening
confessed adultery to Tilton and Mogiton,
or to Tilton? What then was the charge
preferred on the evening of December ~!
We answer it was improper advances,
which of course Mr. Beecher denied. NAT
occurred in the matter of retraeiIon that
evening, and all the subsequent CONVERSE
tons, acts and letters of the various persons
directly concerned in dealing with me
scandal, are consistent with this we" ana
with no other.
THE RETRACTIoN
procured referred to improper advances and
to nothing else. l. it likely II the main OF,
fence had been charged Mr.. Beecher would
have been satisfied with anything short OF
retraction of that? There is a sort OF post
script to the retractiOn in which the charge
of improper advances is explicitly denieI.
Thus showing we submit that this was the
charge thar rose in the mind OF both MIS-
Triton and Mr. Beecher, and no other
offence.
Bnt look further Mr.. TiltOn, in former
wears, has many times said verbally ana in
writing that the charge was the lesser
offence. This is important under the rule
that where complainant has made diher-
ent and Inconsistent statements oi INC
offence he alleges, his credibility Is damaged
and in most cases destroyed.
TIE WRITTEN STATEMENT
of the offence shown to DR.. StorrS by Triton
and Carpenter, which was made in Mrs.
Tilton's handwriting under the demand oil
of her husband, who says he dictated the
precise words characterizing the offence,
saws the charge was an impure proposal
This statement Mrs. Tilton retracted, and
says she protested against IL, a false when
signed, and afterwards saw DR.. Storrs, ana
told him So DR.. StOrrs, in a letter to the
committee. confirms the retractIOn- In the
manuscript prepared by Tilton. which he
called - the true story the offence was
stated to be improper advances.
The committee here quote evidence 10
show tn at Tilton was in the habit OF re-
peating to numerous friends the true
story. " but that he never charged Beecher
with anything more than improper ad-
vances. The committee continue as ioI-
lows:
All this and other considerations to De
I hereafter referred to, show that IN no
even. could the offence have been the crime
of adultery. 1t might nave been the charge
of this lesser offence, but it l. not conceivable
( that Iiiton, in view of his conduct. believed
even that. Still further, that the so-ealled
APOLOGY WAS not FOR THE MAIN Offence,
( Tilton himself, in his eross-examiEation,
1 clearly proves. Mark his words. lie says
/ that the day after il was produced, be was
/ in MOultOn's room. and there met Mr.
| Beecher, when the following scene occurred:
"Beecher burst out in an expression
I of great sorrow to me, and sad ne
| hoped the communication which he
/ had sent t. Mr. M0ulJ0n was salts
factory 10 me. lie then and there
| told Nr. Moulton he had done wrong,
/ not 81 much a. some others had ,reierringt0
| his wife. who had made statements 10 Mr..
/ Bowen that ought 70 be unmade, and be
| there volunteered to write letter 70 Mr.
| Bowen concerning the facts. which he had
| mi~>tated.
Here, Is clear evidence as to what the
apology does not refer to.
IT DIsrusEs or TIE APOLOGY FOREVER
a. a paper referring to adultery. 1t refers
To nothing of the kind if the wrong done to
which Mr.. Beecher refers was adultery
how could these words be used IN reference
to it ? &c lie hai done wrong, NOT - much
as some Others" The ab-urdjy Of such q
claim Is clear. These words and the apollo
" are susceptible of but one construction.
They refer a, Mr. Beecher says - hi- deep
regret for statements which he and his wife
had, under certain information a few days
before made 10 Mr.. Bowen. which led him /.
to execute purpose already stated, of re-
moving T.ton from the BROOKLYN and the I
Independent. IL appears also that the next I
day,
MR. BEECuEE DID WRITE TIE LETTER
to Mr. Bowen which Tilton says he yolun- /
toered To write, and which referred to Ill /
tons business transactions with Bowen /
That Moulton did not believe or understand I
that the oifeuce was adultery Is shown by
the same class Of evidence tnat has been
cited in reference to Iilton. He repeatedly
declared to many persons there was no
adultery. Fortunately We have a state
ment in writing, setting forth Nlult0n's
estimate Of the offence. Nr. Beeeher
wrote letter dated June lst. u -NJulton,
in which, among other things, he
COMPLAINS or TILToN's THREATENING And
INCONSISTENT CONDUCT.
and declares his purpose to waste no more
energy in trying 70 satisfy Tiltou. who at
this time, was complaining Of the
publication Of the tripartite document.
50 called. In his letter Mr.. Beecher
says My mind is clear. ! am not in haste.
| shall write for the public a statement
that will bear the light of the Judgment
day. God will take care Of me and mine"
These are not the words Of a guilty man.
NovLToN REPLIES
on the same day that publicity was no part
of his personal policy. and he hastens 70 oh
ject. At first he writes these words. Iii
the truth must be spoken let i, be. know
You can stand ii the whole case was pub
ii>hed tomorrow" Apparently fearing
this might rather tend TO determine Mr..
Beecher to publish the whole case than
otherwise he scratched cut these and other
parts with a pencil and commenced anew.
In this ncw effort, on the sane paper. these
words occur:
lOU CAN STAND It TIE WHOLE CASE WE'RE
rUBLlSHED TOMORROW.
MOulton was right The pity is that lir.
Beecher did not publish forthwith. and -
become once mo-e free. and end the machi-
nations OF Hilton and the mutual friend
These two. whatever else they wanted or
designed, did not belieye their purposes
would be then Subseryed By publicity.
rilton soon became gracious and kindly:
but what shall be said Of Moulton. who now
asserts for the first time that adultery was
the offence? Is it possible tuis man i. -
low IN his moral perceptions a. % believe
thatu
MINISTER OF TIE GOSPEL,
and that, too. Of Plymouth Church. could
stand up before his church and the word
against the crime of adultery Tilton saws
his wife was possessed of the idea that
al In fnr -txra-h =
no sin; that she did not discover his mis-.
take from reading Saint Paul, but Griffith
Gaunt. But We have no evidence that
this halluclnatiOn had reached the diplo-
matte mind OF MOultOn. 1t is right that
We should say here that we do not
believe the sinless character OF adultery
was believed by Mrs. Tiiton as a notion Of
the
Woodruff SCHOOL,
of which her husband had become discip!c /
and shining light. and with which she had !
no sympathy There is but one fair con !
clusion to be drawn in Mouton's letter of
June LIST. to Mr.. Beechcr lie knew that :
MIR. Beecher had been falsely accused of i'm
pure advances. and that he desired {, sup p
press the scandal yet If the simple tFath :
were published he could stand. He said 81. =
" hateyer Moulton may say now, since his
nai4ct Has nech SHOWN Df certain expires {
-ions OF little conseq he openly stands ,
With Tilton where he had secretly been from ,
The beginning. We conclude therefore IN a
REV of these circumstances that i
CHARGE OF IMPURE ADVANCES ARE F-IsE, :
though it was. and has been dropoed by !.
hese accusers, and adultery at thislate day :.
ias been substituted as an after thouqht :,
We brand this performance a. = fraud that "
'ught to end. Concerning the innocence of =
llr. Beecher, the committee refer to Alr. :.
6eecher anxiety TO prevent publicity to the =
tory, IN order 10 prevent a great calamity. :,
Is time passed along it VS. evident that "
-ilton was most Troublesome when he was y
inprosperOus in business Affairs. The refer :,
nee in his statement to