The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1875-07-05
Public Opinion and the BeeCheT
case.

view, while the clergy regard it from a
moral and religious standpoint, This
difference in the way Of looking at it ac-
counts for the fact that out OF III law
yers north, south, east and vest inter-
viewed, 90 believe Mr.. Beecher guilty
in the full sense OF that word, 80 not
guilty, 8 in doubt, and guilty Of indis-
cretiOn; while out Of 81 clergymen inter-
viewed only believe him guilty, 90 not
guilty, 10 in doubt, and II guilty OF in
discretion.
Among the lawyers interviewed was
james Necson, Esq, of Richmond, form
erly Of FairmOnt, who said that "his I'M
preston was that BeCcher was guilty,
and that Mr., Evars recognized the fact
judging from his argument, which was
nothing more than to belOg the jury"
Robt. ould, Brady johnson, Attorney.
General Daniel, also believed in Mr.,
BeeCher's guilt,
Mr., Robert Ward, Supreme Court re-
porter, said ~ am Of the opinion that
he his guilty, and the majority Of the Bar
Eof this city and State, that have heard
talking about It, think that he Is guilty"
On the other hand Mr.. Harrison Rob.
ertson, leading lawyer of Southwest
Virginia, residing at Danville, said; II
have read attentiyely tho rtrbatim reports
OF the trial almost from the beginning
The result Is, that II l were ono Of the
jury, sworn In the case, should not hest.
tate moment in finding a verdict Of not
guilty, and III the rulesor practice Of the
New York courts would allow it) l should
feel impClled to recommend, in addition to
that verdict, that Mr.. Tilton and
Mr., MOullOn aud some other witnesses be
prosecuted for artful and deliberate per
jury.
Mr.. A. II. Brown, the leading admiral.
ty lawyer Of the South Carolina bar thinks
that ithe was on the jury lie would bring
in verdict Of one cent damages for the
plaintiif-a verdict which would fix
IIeecher's guilt without indorsing Tilton,
Rev, II. W. Thomas, y. D., pastor Of
the First Methodist Church at Chicago,
said! al disbelieved the charges when
first made; but since they came up again
| have been doubling somewhat. Five
hundred years from now the world will
read Beecher's sermons and take no no.
tice Of the sensation which ia now agi.
tating the world, any moro than we now
think Of David's devilments with Uriah's
wife.
At Cincinnati, ex.Judge NJ. B. lIOgans
(well known here in Wheeling) said that
he was believer in Mr.. Beecher's limo.
cencc. Hesuys he thinks Beecher inno-
cent "because there Is nothing In the tes-
timony to sustain the charge ofguilt, alb.
solutGly nothing, and there is everything
in tho life Of the manto give 1t the lie.'
At Chicago, the Hon. J. W. Doolittle,
OK. United States Senator, expressed him.
self rs follows :-"It Is impossible to be-.
licve that Tilton, Moulton and Mrs. Moul.
ton have joined in conspiracy against
Beecher, and woven into II all these let
ters and other documentary evidence
against him."
| At indianapolis, the Hon. J. L. McDon-
aid, United States Senator from Indiana,
said that he considered the written evi-
dence was proof Of the existence Of a
guilty love between Bcecler and Mrs.
Tilton. lie thought there was no proof
Of an overt criminal act, as no witness
had seen the accused In hdgrdnte deIieta.
At Milwaukee Judge Dixon, late Chief
Justice OF the Supreme Court Of Wiscon-
sin, considered without a superior as
lawyer In the Northwest, said the evidence
will justify a verdict Of not guilty, and
secs nothing 10 prove Beecher's guilt, but
much TO prove the existence Of q conspi.
racy on tho part Of tile prosecution.
Az Philadelphia, an eminent lawyer,
who has taken great interest in tho case,
but who, for reasons Of his own, did not
wish his name made public, said he be.
llsved Beecher guilty. A lawycrin New
York, who was one Of Mr.. Beecher's
counsel but who has been out Of the case
for some time, saw Mr.. Beechet's state.
ment written In answer 10 Tilton's aCcu.
sation. This was Beechers own work,
and was shown 10 this lawyer as his
connSel. This gentleman told the Her.
aid reporter that ifthat statement had
been allowed TO go before court or the
public rs II came from Beechers hand I,
without amendments and omissions by
his lawyer, II wonld have convicted him
beyond redemption, by the admissions
which II made.
AtNew Haven, c., Rev. Judah Wech.
Sler, Rabbi Of the Jewish Synagogue, said
that he had not made up his mind as yet
whether Mr.. Beecher was guilty or mott
that his people we're divided oil the sub.
jcct. lie also said that he had read The
evidence, and that II he sat on the jury he
should "agtee to disagree" He thought
Mr.. Beechets relations with Mrs. Tilton
suspicious, to say the least, and such as
no clergyman ought to assume.
In the same city, Mr.. Samuel A. York,
Of the law firm Of Case 4 York, says that
he has read good share Of the evidence,
and added "It / was Judge and II Mr..
Beccher was being tried on the criminal
charge Of adultery, I should render the
Scotch verdict Of Not proven"
WE are in receipt Of an interesting lii.
| Ntn H. - - -