The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1874-08-24
THE T.aUNDERBOLT ONLY
SMALL TORPEDO.


'EilE T.aUNDERBOLT ONLY A
SMALL TORPEDO.
Moultol has at last broken silence, but
ON his ow n account-so far as it will affect
the public--save as the last speaker always
prod ices IN IRE or less cifect-and as aiding
10 decide Inc TitOn-Deechcr matter, he
has been threatening, or his friends have
for him, to launch a thunderbolt, but
when it strikes it proves 10 he no more
than Il child's torpedo. He has stated,
heretofore, that he should publish no
statement unless his character as a
Imam Of honor was impugned or he was
charged with matchmaking Both of
these charges were distinctly made by Mr..
Beechcr, and it is therefore to be expected
that this statement contains all the defense
he has to make of his honor and all that
he has to say in repeling the charge of
being blackmailer" Taking the state
ment as entirely true, for a moment, how
does lie meet these charges. If he tells the
truth he has, for four years, been guilty of
compromising a felony" of lying and of
deception. Is this consistent with the
character of a man of honor? Moreover,
he publishes private family letters,
having no bearing on this contro-
versy, from Mr.. Beechers sister,
brother and brother-in-law. Is this
consistent with the character of nan of
honor? We hardly think they will be
SO considered either by men of honor or
those who, not being possessed of any hon
orable seruples. are constantly boas,ing of
their honor. He refutes the charge of
Matchmaking" about in the same way
that he sustains his honor What was the
charge made? Was Henry G. Bowens
character being investigated /, or was it that
Of Henry Ward Beecher? The scandal
was in reference to Mr.. Beecher and that
was being investigated. The charge was
that Mr.. Beecher had been blackmailed,
not that Bowen had. But Moulton says
that Bo,oen was not backmailed, he only
paid the sum of seven thousand dollars
which was justly due to him from Bowen.
The investigation so far as the public is
concerned, was not in reference TO Bowen
but to Beecher, and it was the latter that
made the charge and claimed to be ''black-
mailed" In reference to this it would
seem that Moulton, Familiarity known as
"our mutual FRIEND" was justly entitled to
that name, but it was as the "mutual
friend" of Tilton and himself, Beecher
having no part or lot in the matter save IN
furnishing the money tor the "mutuals.
This comes out when Moulton incidentally
refers to the payment of money by Beechel
and shows that perhaps it was Moulton
who was the "blackmailer, y and that Tilton
was innocent in this respect. 1t will
be remembered that Mr.. Beecher stated
that he had paid seven thousand dollars
TO Moulton for Tilton, and when demand
was made for FIVE thousand more lie re-
fused to pay it, and then for the first time
believed he was being "blackmailed. II
will be remembered, too, that the demand
for the money was urgent, and accom-
panied by the statement that 1t was wanted
for immediate use. MOulton attempts to
account for the money so received iron
Beecher, and accounts for only four thou
sand five hundred and fifty dollars, leav
ing, according to his own statement
nearly twenty-five hundred dollars il
Moulton's pocket. The last live Thousand
dollars was paid, according to the sam,
authority, May 2, 1873 while the last pay
ment was not made to Tilton until Ma,
25th, 1874, when some five hundred dol
lars of the money was still in Moulton'
pocket. This is Moulton's own story, an,
does not leave much doubt in reference l.
his character as a imam of honor" or
''blackmailer. lie seems, to say til
least, to have received good pay for actin
the role of a pretended "mutual friend"
We have referred 10 this matter at som
length because the character of the witnes
is OF some Importance in determining tn
weight of the testimony that he gives
But what testimony does he give? Iii
statement is long and contains larg
number OF documents, with nearly all q
which the public are already familiar. Tn
new documents added are OF no impoi
lance in the case and throw no new llgl
IN the subject. We do not think that til
effect OF the whole statement will hav
one iota's weight in the determination @
the case, no matter whether tho tribuni
be Plymouth church investigating con
mittee, the public to whom it is addresse
or court and jury The only new fact
connected with the case, If they can b
called new facts, contained therein is th
statement that Mrs. Tilton admitted to hir
and another person. whose name he dc
clines to give-tlie fact of adultery wit
Mr.. Beecher, and that when the famou
"apology" was signed that Beecher made
similar confession. This u all there is O
it. The case is not so strong, as made on
by the "mutual friend" whose honor ba
been assailed and who is defending himse
as well as Tilton, as IL was left by Tiltor