Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1875-06-16

sions Of both parties, and Beach claimed
that the full capacity Of Beecber,s COMES.
sion warrants conviction from the Jury.
The counsel quoted the English cases OF
Harris as. Harris, and Mortimer as.
Mortimer, in support Of his argument.
Inc counsel cited the case Of Burgess
as Burgess in Second TaggeEt's Con-
sistory, and argued that Evarts was in
error when he represented that the force
OF the evidence was restricted by the
rules OF law governing criminal trials,
and the counsel stated tkat under this
view Of the matter he would proceed to
discuss the evidence. Mr.. Beach also
quoted from the cases of Billings as,
I Billings, aud Brommel as. BrOmmel, to
show that when attachment existed and
the opportunities occurred, there could
be little doubt but that the appetite had
been indulged. At this point a recess
was taken.
AFTER RECESS.
After recess Mr.. Beach resumed his
argument, and cited decision of Lord
! S,Owell in opposition to the position Of
/ Evarts that evidence of guilt in a case
Ike this must exclude reasonable
doubt ia order TO justify verdict against
the accused party. He then argued
that the court should instruct the Jury
that the theory of law advanced by
| Evarts was unsOund ard erroneous. Toe
! charge in this case was seduction and
! adultery, and the answer to it was con-
! spiracy and blackmail. At the first step
| that the jury took to investigate these
/ charges they were confronted by the
| figure OF Elizabeth r. Tilton. Could
! they believe that Mrs. TiIton, Loving
| Beecher as Beecher had said he believed
she did, and who, with scandalOus i'm
pudence, appeared in this court to give
him her support when the final struggle |
between lover and husband came, could |
they believe that she was the central |
figure in conspiracy against Beecher? |
Could they believe that this woman, a |
wife and mother, at the mere bidding |
OF her husband, had manufactured a |
false charge against her pastor which !
involved her own infamy? This was
one OF the propositions which the mind
st once rejected. Then, however low
any man might think Tilton's charac-
ter to be, could any man believe bis
degradation to be SO great that he would
deliberately enter into a conspiracy
which was founded upon the pretended
infamy OF his wife? Then what could
be the object OF such a conspiracy?
Money, he wanted none; he was
living in comparative luxury on the pro-
ducts Of his intellectual labor at the
time when he obtained his
wife's confession, in July, 1870.
Was it fame? He wanted none:
he had obtained a high literary
reputation throughout the country, and
held an enviable rank as editor, author
and orator. If this charge was true,
not only had Tilton and Moulton per
Jured themselves in this case, but Mrs.
Mouiton and Mrs. Bradshaw had done
the like for the sake of Theodore Tilton,
and Mrs. TiltOn had ruined her good
name for the same purpose. II this was ;
q conspiracy to eXtort money, why was (
Mr. Beecher's offer not accepted when {
he volunteered to aid in paying off the :
mortgage upon Mr.. TiltOn's house, as
testified by Mr.. Beecher himself? But
what had struck his mind most forcibly
as utterly destroying this idea Of black
mail, was BeecheT's own reluctant ad-
under crOss-examinatiOn, that
be believed IiltOn was sincere in his
accusation on the night of December
80, 1870. How could this be recOncIled
With any idea Of conspiracy which
was organized in that month! When
Mr. Beecher made that admission he
stamped the whole theory of
and bIackmail as r
IN absurdity. Imagine, gentlemen,
hese two men engaging in conspiracy
o extort money from Beecher, and be-
levlng him Beecher to be innocent.
How did the jury think he would treat
hese charges, knowing him as they did?
Would he have coWed before them or
'ieiGed to them? Oh, no, said the
peaker, he would have turned on the V
TGt Of hn /
lied the accuser in the dust in his right. v
Gus Indignation. Itwas perfectly amaz- t.
ng that Mr.. Beecher should 90 on har- r.
'Oring and fOndling the blackmailers, t,
nd day after Day uttering the noblest n
ributes to their characters. Counsel "
lluded 10 the endeavors made by Shear q
nan and Tracey to Undue Mr. Beecher 81
nth the idea that these men were black I
1allers, and of Beecher's struggles q
gaiust that thought. Counsel then re- 81
erted to the charge against defendant, o
nd said that if his evidence was to be 81
elieved, and he had never had a stain q
n his garments or conscience, then the n
ase was clear; but il there was not a ts
ear denial Of these charges down rs
q the record, then Mr.. Beecher n
as guilty man. The question el
'as whether II. w. Beecher could be hl
iVNeu W Guile on Ile sLaDQ anu over PC
I'm all this mass Of testimony against "
i'm by his own unsupported word. He th
lad to the jury the letter of retractiOn, al
I'D said that from the terms used it was sV
gident that in the letter of confession is
uch stronger terms were used. The VI
)dy OF the paper says: 81 gave paper TO
culpsting my friend, II. w. Beecher," OF
ld 1t was prepOsterOus from this to be- hl
eve that the letter of confession only M
larged improper solicitations. When CO
I'D this lady subjected herself to the 1t
Of her husband or been SUBJ to
ct to his will in opposition to the kr
ishes Of Beecher? Tell me that if you do
n, said the counsel. Why, this woman he
I'd dedicated her soul to Henry Ward he
5echer. Imagine Mr.. Beecher telling siG
is woman Of this letter of confession Nj
ing his deathblow, and talking about an
e council Of ministers in 1870, before ge
ere ever was a breath about it, Was tro
is statement to her husband all the inn OF
ination of TiltOn? Did he invent it, mf
how did he know of these arguments or
Beecher, or how did he know that CHI
eecher, in the prOstration Of the mo- thl
ent, had used such words to col
oultOn about his being q ruined th'
an? And yet the jury were asked to da
lieve that this paper was written by OF
is lady, acting under the control and 20
the dictation Of her husband. Sh
Court adjourned. the
-S an
Decoration Day at Paris, Kentucky. Pu