The Portland daily press., 1875-06-16
THE SCANDAL.
Continuation of Beach's Argument

Jury of Deacon VESTS pefSlsIanCo III uigiuS
fhe charge of Islander against Tilton, which
agitation was 40 wise chargeable to Tilton any
more than the church council which followed
neither Of which could he set down as the
means brought to bear on Beecher By the pam
tiff or Moultou; but there was in existence q
very remarkable letter dated March 9th; 1874
IN which Beecher writes to Moulton CONDEMNS
ing in the strongest language Rev. DR.. Storrs
speech before the church council and appea,,ng
to Tiltop, who has borne so much, cot 10 arrow
himself to be used by Storrs against beecneI.
Why did Beecher deprecate Illton appea,-
ance before the council? What was tnere IN
ali his connection with this affair which led
him to dread manly defence and revelation
which Titon might have made to the charge OF
the scandal? Why was he SO apxious all along
to suppress all agitation about his connection
with Tilton's family? For his part Tilton was
silent, and submitted to imputatlons on MS
manliness and reputation made by Dr. Storrs
before the council. Tilton's evidence as to how
the Bacon letter originated was read MI
Beach said vile attack was made on Triton oy
DR.. Bacon, who called him knave and dog,
and furnished texts for this defense. Hilton
could NOT suffer under the attack of so eminent
a gentleman and he wrote to him proving that
instead of being the offender he was o1fendeo
against, and was magnanlmeus 10 6eecner.
Wasn't that reasonable? Could not beecher'
if there had been any manly courage ABOUT nlll
and any of the remorse of which he has spoken
so yolubly and feelingly on the stand, nave re-
yealed his relations to Tilton, at least III tne
modified form which he afterward submitted 10
the committee. If he had then there WouiG
have been no Bacon letter, no committee ana
no trial But he thought things were cuimin-
atipg to point where by the influence OF MS
numerous friends he could vindicate hilhseil
and crush Titon.
In June. 1874. Beecher called the iDvestIgat-
ing committee soon after Tilton's letter 10 ";
Racon. Tilton and Moulton labored in partial
Rapphpr 10 control tlaU COM
mittee and prevent such an Investigation as
would expose the scandal, an arrangement pc
ing made that the report should exonera'e an
parties on the strength OF the apology gwen oy
Beecher. All this showed no vlndlctVeness on
the mart of Moulton or Tilton. Reverung TO
January. 1871, counsel read Tilton's letter TO
Bowen in reply to the note breaking MS con-
tracts. In the letter Tilton reminds Bowen or
his infamous charges against Beecher, Oh tne
sense of the injury from Beecher ne appeared
to labor under, of his WOODSTOCK iettet Hin.inS
at the revelation he could make, OF his feeiing
declaration in the presence of Oliver johnson
that Beecher was an unsafe VISITOR IN iahi-
lies and of his declaration on the same occaS-
ion that there was widow In Deecner cou
pregaton whose husbands death he peheved
was FASTENED by his knowledge that Beecher
had improper Intimacy with hi, wife. Inc let
ter also reminds Bowen that 1t was ne VINO III
stioated Tilton to write the letter calling on
Beecher to quit the pulpit. Counsei REMARKED
that if these statements were untrue IL was
very easy for the defence to have proved " Dy
the mouths of Bowen aud johnson, and yet
with that letter on record and knowing B0W-
ems hostility to him, Triton called Bowen 10
the witness chair, submitted him 10 crossex-
animation in which the defense might II tney
dared, have asked, was 1T true that ne insl
gated that letter and made those accusations!
Nav more This letter containing these dis
graceful charges was incorporated IN the Trip
artite agreement and there was no disclaimer
by Beecher in this tripartite agreement. Bow
ems declaration is guardeGly worded. He does
not declare his declarations untrue, put unoer
influence brought to bear he signed the agree
ment and withdrew the imputations. AS TO
Tjlton his agreement only refers to charges
originating with Bowen,
With regard to the ''letter to complaining
friend" and other such letters, counsel dis-
missed them with the remark thag lucy MeIe
all necessitated in self defence and to prevent
agitation The letter to Bowen was never
made public 1t was Beecher's investigating
committee and nothing else that brought about
this controversy, which committee was APP
pointed from chosen members OF MS nock
without the knowledge of Moulton or Tllton.
Defense spoke of that as bold proceeding:
The iury would remember the numerous and
anxious consultations Beecher had with Tracy
and Shearman about the suitableneSs OF PACK
ing the committee and placing men on IL VINO
had expressed openly hostility to Itlton. IL
of boldpess while calling for decision from MS
six chosen and devoted adherents.
In reality, while pretending to be an examn-
alton of the charge against Beecher, 1t was an
accusation against Tilton a star chamber IN
yestiqatiop aud Tiltons wife, entlced away
from home and a witness there without his
knowledge and making charges against MIN,
which if true, would render him INFAMOUS.
Was that a tribunal by which the character OF
a citizen should be maintained and defended
= - ITn N
second statement declaring that he was now
ready to tell all he knew, and this honorable
tribunal declined on the remarkable ground that
that ''their report was nearly II not quite COM
plete' No wonder that this committee receiv-
ed the scorn and contempt OF the world: An0th-
er remarkable fact was this: When Mrs. I'll
ten first appeared before the committee she ex-
allied and glorified her husband SO that his re-
sentiment was somewhat appeased. FIVE DAYS
after, without any new cause, she deserted mel
home under influences in many ways lnlmlca
BILE to her husband, and on the sixth day, while
stayingywith the Ovingtons, she gave fresh ties
timony reversing all she had SAID IN faVor OF
Titor. and making accusations against MIN
What were the influences which brought about
that change. Under these circumstances, ac-
cused before packed tribunal, his wire fusl-
tive from his bed and home, public dlshopor
resting on him from that circumstance, was
Tilton to sit silent through it? Should it be
said he sought his vindication at the expense OF
family honor and pride? He knew as every
man on the jury knows, that his wife mad left
his side forever, for the cause OF Beecher could
not triumph even before his chosen tribunal
without that weak woman. Her first state
ment would not do, hence the Intervention OF
the Ovingtons and the sudden and secret flight
of Mrs. Tilton, and her accusations before the
committee the next day. Everything was sac
rificed to the safety of Beecher. The report
was made condemning TiltoL and dishonorlng
his wife, His family was beyond redemption.
The verdict of the jury can only vlndlcate MIN
but can never restore him what he has been de-
prived OF through his wrongs. He may never
again have a happy home or wife to cheer MIN
be will certainly redeem himself yet in the eyes
of the world by his energy and his genius, and
prove that he is the honorable man upon whom
dishonor was cast by Henry Ward Beecher.
The counsel discussed the proposition that a
verdict could not be rendered on the confession
| of Beecher He claimed that it fully justified
a verdict without any other eliminating CIR
cumstances and referred to decision IN the
consistory courts on the subject of confession to
this court He also cited cases in our courts
where divorce q Uincul0 was granted on comics
sion alone all suspicion of collision being alb
sent.
| Recess taken at 1 p. m.
The defendant was in court after recess. On
Beach rising to resume his address Judge Nell
| son interrupted by suggesting that there was
another divorce decision bearing on the ques'
sent for the volume.
Beach continued: He would cite only the
| case Day VS.. Day in Greenleaf to show that
| Evarts' proposition that the circumstances
must be incom patbe with any other hypothe
sis than guilt is not the doctrine of the courts
| Now all these decisions are in divorce cases
| aud this is civil action between parties which
| does not even affect the family relations, and
the determination of this action in no way pre-
vents any action to maintain their rights here
| after. The court it was expected would in
struct the jury that this action was not what
| the defence represented it to be, an attack by
| Tlton on his wife. Counsel continued: 1t was
simply an action by an injured husband to
punish the defendant and secure his OWL
| rights. 1t was alleged that it was mercanary
action, but that was long ago abandoned
Counsel on the other side knew that again anG
| again plaintiffs counsel have waived all de-
mand for damages and as he (Beachl once
more distinctly announced Theodore Tllton
| dlsdaned to touch the money OF Henry WARD
| Beecher. Tilton wants 20 money except nom
| inally and ne never brought this suit until al
| the damage was wrought and his family scat
| tered.
The charge is seduction. What is the an
swer? Cons acknowledging to build up Tilton'
asked to believe that Elizabeth r. Tiiton low
| ing Beecher as he swore he believes she did
adhering to him when the final struggle be
tween tue lover and husband came and with
scandalous impotence coming into court to
give him countenance is one of the principal
| figures in conspiracy, bringing false accu