New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1875-07-07

! made against Beecher. Believes that of al
the Protestant Episcopal ministers in tn
city, the Rev. Mr.. Lewis and himself ar.
the only ones of this opinion.
Rev. Mr.. Lewis thinks ''the effect OF til,
| trial. will be in the main good one upor
both ministers and their congregations.
Rev. Edward Fontaine is of the opinion
that Beecher may have been imprudsnt
| Judging from the evidence, but does not be
!ieve that he is crlminally guilty.
The following lawyers expressed thei'
| opinions freely:
| Thomas Alien Clarke said the plaintiff
I had not proved his case.
! William H. Hunt said he had not the
! slightest doubt but that Beecher was guilty
after studying the evidence carefully.
| James b. Eustis remarked that there can
| be no doubt as to Mr.. Beechers guilt. The
testimony showed that he was, clearly.
| Thomas J. Semmes thinks the testimony
had established Beecher's guilt.
Gus A. Breaux said Beecher's own state
! ments had convicted him, and that the
| burden of proof on the trial was decidedly
| against Beecher.
Charles E. Fenner said ne had no doub;
Beecher was guilty.
T. L. Bayne had formed an opinion ad.
verse to Mr.. Beecher's innocence.
Ex-Judge w. W. Howe was of the opinion
that Beecher had been far more indiscreet
| than criminal.
General Harry T. Hays said he could not
understand how any body could believe
Beecher Innocent from the evidence.
Fl. n. Ogden believes that Beecher il
guilty.
Mr.. Z. John Ellis says that, after reading
Beecher's testimony in full. he came to the
conclusion that he was guilty.
John H. Kennard believes that. while
Beecher was guilty Of all sorts of indiscre.
ti0ns, he bad not been criminally intimate
with Mrs. Tilton.
Joseph Potts Hornor said he did not think
Beecher guilty; thinks that the defendant
is victim of q revengeful conspiracy.
Julius Aroni says he believes Mr.. Beech.
er guilty; the evidence adduced on the trial
had established that fact, and that as q wit.
ness Mr.. Beecher was not entitled to credit.
w. w. King says Beecher has been proven
guilty: he regards all attempts made bv the
defense to cOntr0vert the effect of these let
ters as innovations to escape from bad
dilemma.
Major j. E. Austin believes the defendant
guilty: the testimony Of Richards alone was
sufficient to convince him Of Beecher's guilt;
the evidence against him given by the pros.
ecution had not been shaken.
George w. Race says that he has no moral
doubt as to Mr.. Beecher's guilt.
Percy Roberts is positively convinced of
Mr.. Beecher's guilt.
j. Davidson Hill thinks Beechef guilty;
says he had good cause to form an unfavor-
able opinion of Mr.. Beecher's emotional
twelve or fifteen years ago.
II. r. Steele. Assistant Attorney General
regards the charge made against Beecher as
conspiracytO ruin him. He can not even
believe him guilty of indiscretion, as he
thinks Tilton's word of no account.
Robert w. Ogden thinks the preponder.
ance OF evidence during the trial has been
adverse to Beecher. In his opinion Beecher
must be more than human being if limo.
cent.
Ex-Judge Henry C. Dibbie believes that
the theory that there was q conspiracy
against Beecher was overthrown during
the trial, and, although he had not formed
q positive opinion, inclined to the belief
that the bulk of the evidence was against
the idea OF Beechers innocence.
John NJ. Bonner says he has not par.
ticle of doubt as to Beecher's guilt.
Ex-Judge John Livingston has not made
up his mind as to Beecher's guilt. but his
Impressions thus tar were unfavorable to
the defendant.
Judge George Il. Braughn believes
Beecher guilty. He does not attach any
weight to Beecher's evidence, owing TO
the position in which he found himself |
placed. !
B. J. Sage has not the slightest doubt Of
MIR. Beecher's positive guilt. The evidence
against him was strong, while Beecher's de. |
tense was simply q remarkably ingenious
theory based upon his own statements.
Z. L. Walker is impressed with the belief
that Beecher is guilty. and is convinced !
hat study of the evidence of the case |
Will confirm this impression on any fair !
mans mind.
&c. Zacharie believes that strong chain !
Vt circumstantial evidence proves Beecher !
.uilty. No reasonable hypothesis of his
had been or could be offered.
Henry C. Miller thinks Beecher guilty. |
The letters produced on the trial fully
ettled it.
This. adopting the Herald classification.
would give no clergyman who believes
Seecher guilty, twenty-three lawyers who
10, two clergymen and three lawyers who
ont, two clergymen and one lawyer who
re in doubt or have no opinion to express
nd no cleraymen who think him guilty of
,discretion only, with two lawyers who
re that way of thinking. The total of
he Herald summary is III ballots, but as
hat is eight more than are contained in its |
st . more accurate statement of the con-
snts Of it's columns is offered. Twelve
tates and the Lieutenat Governor of Mis-
,uri. who believes Beecher innocent and
he case originated in Tltons excessive
yotism." are included. Of the twelve,
ght have no clergymen and three neither
'wyers nor ciergymen who think him
uilty. Two States have no cIergymep in
10 reporters reach who would express an
pinion. In Ohio the Methodists believe
i'm innocent, in Connecticut guilty and in
orth Carolina they are equally divided.
irginia distributes all her reported
ergy impartially. Though the representa-
We Of the Presbyterian Church in Louisi-
IA acquits. that Of Ohio convicts. The
'bbis are generally in favor Of his inno-
nee. Eight votes are cass for his guilt,
venty-one for his innocence, ten express
, opinion and ten express the belief he
As only indiscreet. These latter, in an
dinary case. would likely enough go for
Q defendant, which would give him
irty-one to eight, with ten to run with
o winner. |.
There being no fee in the case, the