Litchfield enquirer., 1875-04-22
Cross Examined!

| h0AnSo oui puD1Cdb1Ou O1 1dSt WGGA 1c-
 garding Mir, Beechsrs letters and con,
 duct and his explanation of them, several
 persons have demonstrated with ns fol
 what seemed to them our premature, dis.
 cussion of the merits of this great case.
 Had oRr paper been one that would or
 might have any influence upon those en-
 gagged in the trial of this remarkable suit, Iaor4had we recommended at length upon ques-
 stion liable to be varied by subsequent tes-
 timony, this objection would certainly 1 have been well taken. But the opinions
 of the Litchfield Enquirer are not likely
 to have much influence in Brooklyn, nor
 have we referred to any matters regarding which there is any conflict of testimony. We have all along held that the material point in this case is not whether Mir. Til ten IS moral man or reliable witness,
 nor whether the Moultons are to believed
 as against the solemn denials of Mir. Beecher; but whether those denials of the witness can be reconciled with the con-
 fessions of the letter-writer; whether any
 thing less than guilty conscience could
 have transformed hero of the most bril-
 liant period of American history into the
 coward of this loathsome scandal. We
 have waited, patiently, therefore, for the
 the explanations which MT. Beecher was
 to give in his own testimony. With us,
 his whole case has depended on the suc-
 cess of those explanations; and, when his
 own story was entirely through, we made
 such comment as seemed fitting, upon it.
 The friends of the plaintiff might, in-
 deed, claim that our criticism was nasty,
 in that we had not waited for the bright light thrown on thls vital point of the de- fsndant's case by the searching cross-ex- animation of Judge Fullerton We readily concede that our article. though the result of much reflection and of a careful peru sal of all the statements, arguments and evidence in this interminable matter, seems very weak and crude by the side of the shrewd. patient thoroughness of this wonderful eroSs-examinatiou. Still the time had come for comment unless We meant to shisk that disgreahle duty alto gether. and such has never been our inten- ton.
 Our chief reason far referring to the matter again this week, Is to urge all our readers who wish to form 8 candid ludg- nent in this case to read MT. Beecher's evidence entire. particularly his cross-ex- animation. At the time of our writing this has progressed but day and half, yet 1t Is by all odds the most exciting, if not the most important testimony Of the trial The great facts Of the case were before the public long ago. The plaintiff was vigorously cross-examined before the church committee in August last. Now, for the fr>t time, the great defendant Is In the hands of the hostile questioner. Hence 1t is an entirely novel as we'll as 6 most exciting feature of the great drama that IS now before us. The scholar will U ere see the Socratic ''elenchus" used with all the skill of its great master, in real, life and death contest. The mere seeker for excitement takes up his morn i ing paper with the same interest that the old Roman hurried to the amphitheater where gladiators slaughtered each other, for hisamusement. The lawyer confesses that as work of art there has been nothing finer in the history of his profession than Fullerton's terrible opening fire. But to the great thinking public of America there is something at stake of infinitely greater interest than the triumphs of professional skill, or the settlements of tho hand-to- hand fight. It. is the contest of the great theories of the prosecution and of the de- fense. It is the theory of Guilt sternly questioning; the theory of Innocence, cautiously answering. No rhetoric, no misrepresentation of facts, no coloring of motives, is here possible. It is the stern est legal work ever done in an American courthouse. Certainly no such audience was ever in daily attendance on a private suit. Hundreds of thousands follow, day by day, the questions and answers given in the Brooklyn court room the day be- fore. Distinguished as are the names we see in the daily lists of persons present at the trial, they are few in number and ln- significant in importance compared with the great assemblage in attendance out side. For once the fiction of our old law through which the defendant ''puts him. self on his country for trial" has become living fact.