New-York tribune., 1874-09-12
NOULTON'S DEFENSE.

In the insufferably prolix communication to
which we reluctantly surrender nearly three
pages of THE TRIBUNE this morning, MIR.
Francis d. Moulton presents not one fragment
of fresh evidence in support of his former
charges and advances hardly one new state
ment. He is by turns defiant and apologetic,
lachrymose and malicious. Nearly half his
address is an earnest effort to convince the
public that he acted toward Mr.. Beecher
the part of loyal friend, and
half the remainder is a trivial examination
of certain minor discrepancies in Mr.. Beecher's
testimony which in no material way affect the
main issue. Towards Mr.. RosSiter Raymond,
and some other defenders of Mr.. Beecher, he
betrays q childish animosty, and he labors
apparently under the delusiOn that the world
at large is concerned about the judg-
ments which he and they have formed
of each other. Throwing aside all this
miserable rubbish, we can reduce what Mr..
Moulton really has to say about the scandal
to very few points. 1. He gives from
memory the words in which, as he avers Mr..
Beecher confessed to him his improper rela-
tions with Mrs. TiltOn. 2. He asserts that the
confession has been made in the hearing of
another person, whose name he does not give,
but 1t is not TiltOn. 3. He reproduces
the letters which passed between MIR.
Beecher and Mrs. TiltOn, after the alleged
confession-the same letters which were
given to the correspondent of The Chicago
Tribune and copied into this paper. d. And
finally he declares that Mr.. Beecher confessed
to him that he had committed adultery with
another woman, mentioned though not by
IN Mr
Bowen. The first and second allegations rest
upon Mr.. Moulton's unsupported word, and
we have no hesitation in saying that the
language which he puts into Mr. Beechers
mouth is impossible. He represents this Chris
tian preacher as not only acknowledging his
adultery but declaring that "GOd would not
blame him for it.n That overtaxes credulity.
The third point refers to the so-called clandes-
tine letters. They are not evidences OF guilt.
Far from it. We challenge any unprejudiced
person to read them without being impressed
by their deep religious spirit; and II we are
to take them for letters of assignatiOn
we must suppose that this man and
woman were in the habit of say
ing grace over their sinful indulgences
and mingling all their crimes with prayer
not in hypocritical pretense before the world
but in the secrecy of their own guilty inter-
course. In the malignant earnestness with
which MoultOn tries to twist an evil signif-
cance out of these Innocent, albeit gushing
sentences, there is something of the devils
own temper.
The fourth point also depends principally
upon Mr.. Moulton's credibility But here he
brings forward solitary scrap of what he
considers documentary corroboration. In the
letter from Tilton to Bowen there was a
reference to an alleged crime of ravishment.
From the lady concerned in this story
a letter is printed which Mr.. Moul-
ton would have us believe refers to
Mr.. Beechers crime. Now we know the par
ticulars. of this case. We know the incidents
of the trivial quarrel to which the letter does
relate. We know Mr.. Moulton's charge to be
an atrocious calumny without shadow of
justification; and at the proper day the truth
will be established by indisputable evidence.
But we shall not waste time and temper in
anayzing a statement which will damn Francis
ID. MoultOn deeper than any revelation of
baseness and treachery that has been made
by Mr.. Beecher or his friends, 1t Ia about