New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1874-08-29


burst out in an expression of great sorrow to me,
and said he hoped the communication which he had
sent 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 referring
to his wife, who had made statements to Mr.. Bowen
that ought to be unmadel; and he there vOlun-
teered to write letter to Mr.. Bowen concerning the
facts which he had misstatedn Here is clear light
as to what the apology does not refer to. 1t dis
poses of the apology forever as paper re-
ferring to adultery. 1t refers to nothing
of the kind. If the wrong done to which MIR.
Beecher refers was adultery, how could these words
be used in reference to it, He had done wrong not
80 much as some othersp The absurdity of such q
claim is clear Those words and the apology are
susceptible of but one construction. They refer, as
Mr. Beecher says, to his deep regret for statements
which he and his wife had, under certain informa-
ton few days before, made to Mr. Bowen, which
led him to execute purpose already entertained of
removing Mr.. Tilton from The Brooklyn Union and
The Independent 1t appears also that the next day
Mr.. Beecher did write the letter to Mlr. Bowen which
Mr.. Tilton says he volunteered to write, and which
referred to Mr. Tiltons business troubles with Mr..
Bowen.
Next consider Mr.. Moultons course with view Of
still further testing what in his mind as well as
II.
Mr. Moulton understood the charge to be adultery,
then he entitled to the credit of the invention
discovery that this crime could be the subject of
apology, and ready forgiveness and reconciliation
on the part of the offender and the injured husband
That Mr. Moulton did not believe understand that
the offense was adultery is shown by the same class
of evidence that has been cited in reference to Mr.
Tilton. He repeatedly declared to many persons
there was no adultery. Fortunately we have a state
ment in writing setting forth Mr.. Moutons estimate
of the nature of the Offense.
MIR. MoULToNs ADMISSION II WRITING.
Mr.. Beecher wrote a letter dated June i, 1873, to
Mr.. Moulton, in which, among other things, he
complains of Mr. Tilton's threatening and inconsist-
ent conduct and declares his purpose to waste no
more energy in trying TO satisfy Mr. Titon, who at
this time, was complaining of the publication of the
trpartlte agreement. so-called In this letter Mr..
Beecher says "My mind is clear; am not in haste
shall write for the public statement that will bear
the light of the Judgment Day. God will take care
of me and mine" These are not the words of q
guilty mind. Mr.. Mouton replies on the same day.
Publicity was no part of his profound policy, and
he hastens to object At first he writes these words,
If the truth must be spoken, let it be. know you
can stand if the whole case was published to-mor-
row. Apparently fearing this might rather tend to
than otherwise, he crossed out these and other lines
with pencil and commenced anew. In this new
effort on the same paper these words occur: You
can stand if the whole case published to-mOr-
row. Mr. Moulton was right. The pity is that Slr.
Beecher did not publish forthwith, and so become
once more free and end the Vaccinations of Mr. Ill
ton and the mutual friend" These two, whatever
else they wanted or designed did not be-
lieye their purposes would be then subseryed
by publicity. Mr.. Tilton soon became gra-
cous and kindly. But what shall be said OF
Mr.. Moulton, who now asserts for the first time
adultery was the ofensei Is it possible this man IS
30 low in his moral perceptions as to believe that
minister of the Gospel, and that too of Plymouth
Church, could stand up before his church and the
world against the crime of adultery No. MIR. Til
ton says his wife was possessed of the idea that
adultery with her pastor all right and no sin.
That she did not discover her mistake from reading
Saint Paul, but Griffith Gaunt." But we have no
evidence that this hallucination had reached and
tainted the diplomatic mind of Mr.. Moulton. 1t is
right that we should say here that do not believe
the snless character of adultery was a dogma be-
Ieyed in or even known to Mrs. TIltOn, except per-
haps as a notion of the Woodruff school, of which
her husband had become q disciple and shining
light and with which she had no sympathy
There is but one fair conclusion to be drawn from
Mr. Moultons letter of June to MIR. Beecher. He
knew that Mr.. Beecher had been falsely accused of
impure advances, and that he desired in his Utmost
soul to suppress the scandal. Yet if the simple
truth were published he could stand. Knowing
this, he said so. Whatever Mr.. Moulton may say
now since his malice has been excited by certain
exposures is of little consequence. He now openly
stands with Mr.. Tilton where he has secretly been
from the beginning. We conclude therefore, in view
20 and oil ha
charge of impure advances false though it was has
been dropped bythese accusers and adultery at this
late day has been substituted an er-thought.
We brand this performance as fraud that ought to
end all controversy as to the innocence of Mr. Beecher
Pursuing the narrative o little further, we find
Mr. Mouton who first appeared as Mr.. Tiltons friend
after procuring the so-called apology. quietly be-
coming the friend of both the parties-the =" mutual
friendD Mr.. Moulton. he discloses his character
in these proceedings, appears to be very plausible
man, with moro vigor of will than conscience. One
thing is unfortunately clear that from this time on
he contrived to obtain and hold the confidence of
Mr.. Beecher, both in his ability and purpose to keep
the peace in good faith. There was certainly room
for an honest peacemaker. Mr.. Beecher knew he
had been falsely accused of impure Offense, and
that a reputable woman by some means had been
induced to make the accusation. 1t is true the
charge had been withdrawn, and its force was in
sense broken. Still the fact remained he had been
accused.
Mr.. BEECHER's DELICATE POSITION.
Mr. Beecher naturally felt that the situation was
critical. For him, clergyman of worldwide fame,
to be even falsely accused was calamity. To pre-
vent publicity would save still greater calamity
He felt-and in the light of results may not say
he was right THAT public charge of such an
ofense would as he expressed it in his letter TO Mr..
Moulton of Feb. s. make conhagration." For
reasons of malice and revenge it became apparent
that Mr.. T1lton was preparing to make q deadly
assault upon him. This. Mr. Beecher believed, it
Int,r 20 h,r oil