New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-06-22
Mr RFECHER,S ALIBI.

MR. BEECHERS ALlBI.
Mr.. Beach-But, gentlemen, the whole crcdl-
biy of this lady placed upon one ISSUE ana nave no
hesitation in meeting that issue. She puts TINS interview
on the ID Of June Mr. Beecher swears he was not
At the house Of Mr.. Moulton upon that occasion Mr.
Tracy in his opening thus speaks Of it:
But gentlemen there remains cravcr fact than any
which have Vet referred You VIII ooSelsc tl'' ~
Aotoa a>,d te principal ntervew with Mr BeeGheT
mat "a, With sr.t; partcuarity and left no room for
n,sar,r,er ion rs 10 date. She has also fixed the
n|t If iu1 I'M. view al four hours, by reference to
circumstances which cannot now be explained away,
The Iroyo Tor naming this day is obvious There We're
hrt Two days ~ wh, crdng 10 the plantifs
t'1r., o., liza of suicide could possibly have been
talked about. namely. May 81 and June = $50 Ana
story oi RIr Becchcrs .ematcd suicide on May 81
Ieft na Too o 5ar hears ntcrycN between his wife
ana Mr.. Tce-lrr. Tire next Monday was therefore
fed rope t. IN The utnos, Particularly. The subject
of this pr od conversation am tle % y. ti
undc which e had such as - make IL certain
that either took po on June = 1870 or never tooA
all s Tho inerPosS S of Divine tPet PT TsTI
dcnce is mos ,aly manifest for upon ,nHn Ney 3,
morning June p 1873, Mr. Beecher was detained az
his house IN consultation win gentleman wei
ing 10 Mrs Moulton She tuckng him MP her sofa
and encouraging him 10 confess he was seated 10y nne
side of his wife, and speeding his way to PeeAskiu!
Mr. Beeclcr sustained by his oath the theory OF the
opening and the question is, whether under this evil
dence they have sustained Mr.. Beechcr Mr. Tracy you
know. his opCng predicted that after this evidence
should would he so satisfactory
ing that Mrs. MotOn would at once come back upon the
stand and attribute another the conversation
place 1t upon another day. On the contrary, Mrs. Mou
ton came on the stand and adhered to her original state
ment think Imay as well, If your Honor please, ask
Vonr attention at this point authority two upon
The evidence requisite TO maintain aibi In one sense
perhaps not usual and ordinary one, this is a defense
OF albi.
Wharton on Homicide in the note at Section 652, quot
Ing Mr.. Wcbster's case, says: This is defense
oft
PERJURY The proof therefore, offered TO sustain il is to be
subjected ri,d scrutiny, because without attempting
TO control rcbut the evidence Of facts sustaining the
charge, it attempts 10 prove aifmatiyey ana IN part
wholly inconsistent with -and this defense Is equaI!
available If satisfactorily established to avoid the force
Of positive, of circumstantial evidence"
Judge NeilsOn-And mainly applies TO identity.
Mr. Beach-Yes, Sir. Not that exactly 1t is for the
purpose OF showing where oense is attributed TO an
Individual the possibility of his committing it, and the
fact that at the time he at another place The prnc
pie applies here.
Mr. Allison, in the second volume of his treatise on the
criminal law Of Scotland, says:
One OF the most ordinary pleas resOrted 10 by panel
that L. accuscds that OF albi and Doubtless when
reta Of any~hut il requires to be carefully scrunizcd
both as TO the sufccncy of the evidence and the infer
cause The plea is not conclusive unless the abb is crcum
sanced and qualified IN sqch manner as aSGs d y oe
done the deed as the time and place hDeed Inc PROOF
Vpacy of The Prosecutors witnesses which to be
admitted higher grounds, and because IL is pea oi
panels witnesses can easily contrye an uniform and
false story suc the prosecutor can or Will dlsproVe
as he can cite no new witnesses IN reply.
That must be under the law Of Scotland.
Indeed the circumstances may be true and the false
hood he only IN t acrns AZ occnred and Il is Sy
that cOntryanc that pleas Of aD are III general rendered
difficult TO dsprOve.
Now Sir with your permission Will adopt, as the
most concise and argument can present upon
the two branches OF this defense Of a6 an article which
observed Ncw-YoTk journal Of April 5, 1873, as
Is strict consideration of the two questions whether
there may not be variation to time and place and
yet the evidence assaed be true Notwithstanding an
aiiJi may proved OF the precise time and place
about which the conversation is often located, and then
a. TO the character OF the abb itself
All those who have read the examinations and cross
examnat Ons Of witnesses this trial, must have been
impressed with the apparently undue importance gwen
by both sides 81 the memory OF the exact date OF an event
which occurred between three and six years ago And
now readers ~ ere is said TO be expectation OF
great point OF Mr.. Beecher, by showing that as
he was eswhorc the "a day OF June, 1873, he could
not have been with Mrs Mouton on that day. when She
testified trai ht aic certain confessions to her. Ihat
oieonrse c.cat enough II MI Beeeher were q, tesks
TIE interview as alleged coad not A.'e t.Acn Iia.e'
But 10y TIE public judgment goes this lsa cohaa
the erasAeu o. thai evidence. not that the inter
view happculd GA tie "a Of June hut that MI Bee hr
made al. TIA. time. certain ad Missions 10 MIS-. MOM-
ton Now. We an know that mistake IN date r. the
Sass ro ~ ~ M iTise in he general ,ndera it
The testimony o. an Y.o'tWse tiliLiu seeming
s,I m VIZ, 49, u,'e,iHs 10 That we fclornbr
The ninuc.i particulars ~ w. would De- about the
date pfrhafs within "a w,s-k, n 10 happened sN
months 40 Nj Bccchcis ad si-,s may be- sure that
thew cannot I'D the public O. side such testimony
a. Mr.. M0ulfou's by fh.s plea 81 GlsAt
The plea abb l. a good yHse. t3e very best when
can b. thOrOu.Aiy wen sl-sa1e3 i& when ~ - Alll-
cable But iu very nature ~ tnng- u u applicable
only tie date Vf the occurrence OF when j. IN
nnistaklbo.
This portion Of this argument think very sagaciots
and sound
In cases Of murder, robbery. assault, arson. and the
ike the dats l. hNed IL i absolute factor IN the
problem We know that II such an hour or within very
be house rfd In such cases. 30 show satisfactorily TIL
charged with the In another place, dlC
man thai In which II committed, al the time within
which N must have been committed Is an alsuficient
defense But not apply IN common SENSE how
ever IN NAV Ia law, TO interview with woman winch
happened nearly years For the absolute factor
i'm lie problem is wanting; IL Is quite Impossible, Tor
inxtanee flat Mrs NOutOn could make any mistake as
IN the nature Of certain interview which sue alleges she
with Mr. Bcecher as 10 the substance OF what sue
seccs that he then said TO her-qute Impossible, WIN
ant deiilerate perjury Ler part But nothing Is more
shle than that mi g mistake the GATE OF tnht IN
tryis ~ Inv some days-nothing hardly more probable
~ that she should after such length vi tlne
zen with the best effort of recollection, and WIN
iii the means Of 30 doing accessible 10 her
Tis an reasonable and women well know ana tney
LII mot be ready 10 believe that Mrs houtOn invented
st interview whch she described 40 clearly
nd Vet with such modest reserve merely 9eosusf sue
.asv bavs been WRONG. althOngh pOsltlve, as 10
a dste Thy VIII be fsr readIer 10 Uoiie'e 'na'