Litchfield enquirer., 1874-08-20

vailed upon by her husband at any time to certify to the most abominable false hoods against him that he felt insecure Now all this is, to say the least, very difficult of belief. Is it conceivable that MT. Beecher, innocent, could have been sincere in all these expressions of grati- tude, affection and confidence? We car easily imagine how thunderstruck he might have been at a false accusation from Mrs. Hilton, how terrified at the probable consequences, and that he might have yielded much to hush so grave g scandal; but these letters, gushing with confidence in Moulton and with love and affection for Hilton, are simply abject cow ardice or confessions of guilt. Suppos- ing it cowardice, and Moulton black mailer, where are his threats? So far from trying to scare Beecher he is con- stantly encouraging him. He pretends that the apology is destroyed; he even assures Mir. Beecher that he could stand ii the whole case came out.
 On the theory of guilt, however, how entirely all these inconsistencies disap- pear. No forced constructions are necess- ary; no extraordinary moral or physical coward1ce is disclosed; the conditions, if strange, are no longer unnatural. Hilton is the heady, implusive egotist, with per verted moral notions, and false standards of duty. When prosperous and amiable he is theatrically generous and forgiving; when unsuccessful and unamiable, he is theatrically volcanic and vindictive. The explosion would evidently have come years ago but for Moulton's influence and de vices. Indeed, Tilton's position was one that worsened with time and partial dis closures. People began to see that there was great crime somewhere between him and Beecher, and the weaker man got all the blame. Moulton's motives are also obvious. He neither wanted Plymouth church ruined, nor did he want Triton to kill himself in killing Beecher. His was a very difficult position: on one side was Hilton, without patience, prudence or self control, constantly threatening explosion; on the other was Beecher, full of the eowardice of guilty conscience, threaten ing public confession and suicide. How much more natural on this theory, is the course of Mrs. Hilton! Her confessions and retractions are the weak work of a woman who has sinned, and confessed, and repented-who is now striving to tell the truth, and now striving to save her re, putation. On the theory of innocence her weakness is inconceivable; on the the- ory of guilt, it is pitiable, but most nat ural. Nothing but the theory of guilt, too, can explain MT. Beecher's conduct and letters. His naughty confidence till he hears of Mrs. Tilton's confession; his self-degradation, immediately after. be- fore Hilton; his extraordinary and implicit confidence in Moulton, and the admission that he had had throughout no other con- fidant,- fact that is utterly unexplica- ble on the theory of innocence; his tender ness towards Mrs. Hilton; his early grati- tude to Hilton, his efforts in his behalf, and his subsequent despair at his perver- sity; his constant coupling disclosure with immediate degradation and death,-all point too clearly to guilt as the only sat. isfactory explanation. Let all who desire fairly to compare the two theories read over MT. Beecher's letters, with the two explanations-that of Hilton and that of Beecher. Let them pay espec ial attention 10 the letter of January l, '73, bearing in mind the Hilton theory that the proposed statement "that would bear the light of the judgment day" was a corJession, such as would have ruined Beecher's earthly reputation and that of the wife of Hilton and which would indeed ''leave his children to a blight" but which would have left the great preache, honest and repentant in the sight of God. Viewing the facts and documents ot this lamentable case first through the medium of one theory, then through that of the other, we find that the theory oi guilt presents various human beings, sin. ming and repenting, forgiving and recon. cling, without any material distortion oi act and motive. while the theory of inno. cence presents us with three incon. ceivable monsters, and one inconceivable | coward. Can we doubt which medium if the true one? There only stands in op position the powerful statement of tn, powerful preacher. Judged as other men
 he IS condemned; but his friends and the,
 are the American peopls-will not iudg,
 him as they judge other men, and W,
 have the infinitely more terrible spectacle
 of an unjust acquittal!
 We cannot close this long article with
 out saying that it is with more than re
 gret, it is with positive horror that W, contemplate MT. Beecher's solemn denial
 and detailed statement, believing them tt be false. It is with weakened faith il human rectitude that we give up our be
 lief in a goodness and manliness tha
 have always seemed to us so admirable
 We do not forget the mountain of evi
 dence against Hilton, nor the seemingly inconsistent declarations of Moulton, con
 eeiying that the vital evidence in this casf