, 1874-08-26
TIE QUESTION OF vERAcITY,

Tho inability OF tho generality Of mon accu"
ratoly to weigh evidence, to Bift it, or oyon to
distinguish what is evidence from What is not,
has received striking illustration in the COM
ments Of tho press and oi tho public on tho
Deecher-Tilton case. This inability is obsorva~
bio not on1y in the illitorato and undiseiphnod,
but In those who have had all the advantages of
a liberal education. Some OF tho ableat and
most respectable Journalistic III tho country have
hid themselves open to this criticism.
Thus the New York Tribune, commenting
on Moulton's statement, saya: Tho is-
suo, theu, Is between tho word Of Mr.
Boecher on the ouo hand, aud tho
word Of Mr.. Moulton on tho other" says tho
Springfield {A1aAs.) Republican,: "Looking at
tue testimony as Il who'o, it is not difficult to
300 that tho entire case turnB upon question Of
yeractty between Boeoher and Moulton." Now,
the entiro case doos not, by my means, turn on
question OF voracity between Moulton and
Deccher. It turns Oh the Interpretation Of the
written documents in the oyldenco--on tho 1pcan-
ing TO be put on Decchor'a own lottors. Deccher
and Moulton may bo dropped out entirely, or, il
retained in tha case at all, greater weight should
be artacllcd 10 Moulton's word than to Deechors,
according to tho best rulos Of evidence. Dy
falsohood Beeoher has everything to gain, Moal-
ton nothing. By nsHertiug hia innocence, Besch-
CT saves, or enteayors to aave, his honor bis
! good name, his influence, his position. bis
posthumoua famo. by oonfoasirg him
self guilty, ho would loso evorythlug
worth preserving, reputation, position, wealth.
| Tho inlucemont to swear away his guilt IA, in
Beecher'a case, so gseat, tho motives prompting
| him thereto 30 strong, that, to OVERCOME them,
ho would hayo to be endowed with moral
strength almost auperhuman, and Which, If guilty,
ho could scarcely posaess. Moulton's induce
mont to bear faHo Witness ia, Oh tho other hand,
absolutely nothing OF oil. lie bore no in-fooliug
[ toward Dccchor. uo lad, to tho lust.
boen friendly to him. Ho refused to epeak
about his connection with the scandal until
Dcooier told him to toll all ho knew.
Had ho se1vad Deecher by siding with him
against Triton, ho would havo beon tho partner
Of Docchcr's influence. Beocher would hayo said
! thousand tlmcs over, ns ho Ind Rald onco be-
fore, that Moulton was tho bost friend God hatl
over sont him. Ho would Aayo told him tllat to
Moulton ho owed his all; hia reputation whom it
waa imperled +; lis position when Lo was hang
ing on the .rink Of ruin. So far, therefore, as
the question Of yeraelty goes, Doocher'a word ia,
| in this lna.ance, where he has 80 much at atako
opon TO doubt rather thnn Mr. Moulton'H, But
leaving the word Of these two gentlemen on
tiroly out Of tho question, thoro roman tht
written documents. What do thoy all po4n
to? Buppoeipg that noithor Deeonor, no.
Moulton, nor any othoe party, bud uttered sla.
gle word concerning them, suppoaing thoy haG
boon discovered in a portfolio or found on til,
| atreot, without one word Of comment to explall
their origin. what impression would they NAL,
, on tho mind OF tho reader7 Tho Andoc wou
, dlacoyer In thom Tie expression OF rcmora
, terrible, aoep-soatol, hoart-ronding despaisinp
, And what would he ipfor7 That tho writer la
! been guilty OF some aot Involving the greatoe
, | moral turpltudo, since oaly suoa ono could at
| count for tho torslblo despair and rem orae o,
, pressed In the lettoss. Flo would find. fartho
tbat Mr, Desoher was In the greatest anxiety lat
r tho net which was the cause Of his romorse ahou
como to the knowledge Of tho public. Fror
ttiu 10 would infer that tho act wRs one ths vel
I thought Of which WAS shameful, and that 1t vi
: not g nero mistake Of judgmont,-for no NOR
!, wrong attaches to mistake OF Judgment. III
d no doYpair ID felt on sccount OF It, That Il
i, WRONG was counocted In aomo wsy With Ms
Q Triton IL also evident, for Boccher 10 bis letto