The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1875-06-09

Professor Remand Of Heidelberg University, re-
,sr7-s fbe cqse

Professor Remand IF Heidelberg University, re-
uislrs The case.
Professor A. Remand, ofthe Heidelberg University,
and one ofthe most eminent jursis Of Germany pub
fishes in the Ar6ligcs Of Modern JitrirudeRoe, the
leading law journal Of Germany, an exhaustive re-
view OF the Beecher-Tilton case. From this paper
was translated for the Brooklyn Eagle the following
passages;
Having carefully examined the opening address
ofihe plaintiffs counsel the evidence OF the plain
s's witnesses, and the opening address Of the de-
fsnaant's counsel, cannot but arrive at one con-
clusion, and from conversation with many OF my
professional brethren, who take an equal interest
with myself in this great trial. herewith deliberate
ly contend that is the conviction OF the legal minds
q Germany Austria and France, that the plaintiff
Tlton has no case whatever; aud to us it is matter
ofsurTrise that under the laws ofAmerca he should
not have been non-suiied after his evidence was in
in actions Of this kind character should always
weigh than anything else. The plaintiff from
lis words stands convicted Of having told different
stories on the subject. His charges against the de-
PENDANT grew more serious as his animosity against
Lin, from causes disconnected with the case, in
creased First Il was alternating his Eifes affections
that be accused the defendant Of Then impro-
NilNiHi1-Ait AlNA AAAAANl.- anu OANAN
while be prefers this terrible charge against the
defendant, he speaks with maudliu tenderness of
1be, Il this story be true, infamous wife.
From this tEaddle about the whiteness of the soul
q this alleged adulteress alone, impartial minds
would justly infer that the plaintiffs mind IS singu
larry unbalanced. His moral perception, from the
way be judges her, would seem 10 be diseased. And
this is proved by the disgusting letters, which
and Il appears at his insigation-an avalanche
abOundlug in the most preposterous sentimentalism
such as would be inexcusable 10 loyesiek boy, aud
which render full grown man-moreover, one who
lays claim TO refinement and iutelligence-unft to
mingle In decent society.
The defendant's conduct may have been indsereet.
But be IS coufding, warm-hearted man, fond of or
given 10 exirayagant lauguage-a defect into which
Eied persons, especially those who write and speak
in public great deal, readily fall. Consequently
Il would be extremely unjust to interpret with lite
r vgor those letters Of bis, which the plaintiff uses
70 strengthen bis against him. To be sure, the
unfortunate position in which the defendant found
himself in consequence Of the affection for him
arising in enthusiastic woman without his fault,
while be helped to deprive, we think very justly
and sensiby, her husband of lucrative journalistic
potion, was hassslng 70 hiui ana, hencei nc wrote
thoseletters, undoubtedly the spur the moment,
without reelection. and while strong influences were
brought 10 bear upon his heart which II seems, was
only too easily softened ana touched. But the
principal letter. the socalled letter of contriton,"
addressed TO the witness MOulton, who says the de-
fendEui dictated it TO him, cannot possibly have
been 50 dictated by Mr.. Beecher. The latter is
man Of genius, master of concise language and, as
bis writings superabundantly prove, accustomed
70 express his thoughts coherently, sensibly and
logically. But this letter, as piece decomposition,
l. rot even respectable. The defendant could not
have written or dictated il in that shape even while
prey 70 The most intense agitation.-ISlaRder.