, 1875-07-03


BEECHER AND T1IT0N.
Tho greatest trial Of this age and country
Tr1ros Il. DEEcuza-has come to the lamc
and impotent conclusion TINT has boon an
ticipatcd ever since tile close of tue evidence. |
The jury las failed to agree on verdict. |
Nobody is responsible for this unsatisfactory |
termination except tho parties to tho Ruit, !
and tie relative measure Of their responsibility
cannot yet be determined. Never was there
abler or more persistent effort Oh all sides to
arrive at truth and Justice, In compliance with
the arbitrary technical requirements Of the
Inv, md to tho satisfaction of tho public.
Tho struggle has lasted six months lacking two
days. After some preliminary proceedings.
The case was called for t1ial on s1onday morn
ing, jan. 4, and the jury WINS discharged
yesterday morning, July 2. Ono hundred
and eleven witnesses were examined, the
testimony Of son1o Of them occupying
several days. The summing-up for
the defense consumed fourteen days,
aud AIr. BEACH addressed the Jury
on tho part OF the plaintiff seven days.
Judge NELSON'S charge Was brief, pointed, mud
Intelligent; and he has presided over tho
trial throughout, though beset by countless
complications, technicalitios, and obstacles,
with great fnirness, impartiality, and learning
that haye given him tho position Of model
Judge. Tho counsel on both sideB included
the very highest legal ability in tho country,
and they found fertile field in the intensity
Of the Issue, the Accomplishments and elo-
quence Of many Of tho Witnesses and the
freedom which the Court afforded each Of
them to tell his story in his own why. Tho
| Jury was composed Of men conceded on all
| sides to be persons Of more than ordinary H.
| telliuence, and nl1 Of tho jurors have taken
| tho most lively interest and erinced tho most
keen appreciation from first to lust. They
could not ngroe after m earnest consultation
Of eight days and nights. THUS nothing was
lacking which time, money, and ability could
command to bring the issue to final and
satisfactory termination. Yet there has been
failure, and the issue OF veracity between
TnroN and BEEoHER Btands just whero 1t did
whan tho trial began.
How is this disagreement to be construed
It does not mean that A1r. BEEcHEn Is un.
doubted1y guilty 1t does not moan that ho
Ia clearly innocent. It would he u distortion
Of Law and q strain upon common sanse to
cla;m vindication for Alr. BEscHEn because
the Jury failed to assess damages upon him
! for the benefit Of Mr. Triton. The jury is
reported to have stood . to 8; this docs not
mean that Mr. BEEouEn is ninep parts innocent
and three parts guilty. Had they been dis
charged three OF. four days ago they would
probably have been found sevon for BEEouEn
and hyo for T11ToN. Would he then hayo
been seven parts innocent and five parts
guilty Il was o question Of fact, md not
any question of Inv, whiah puzzled tho jury.
It was impossible to arrive at unanimous
conviction that Mr.. BEEonEn was innocent
Of the drimo Of adultery, or that he was
guilty o. charged by the plaintiff, and the
disacreomout Of the twolvs men ia o reflex Of
public sentiment, Of which they nro fair
division is purely fortuitous, and may or may
/ not typify tho public division on the question.
1t canuot bo denied. however,, ut thero
, were other considerations hesides the direct
! issue Of the innocence or guilt OF 8tr,
BxEouEn, and the twelve men asked to try
, that issue could no moro escape their influ.
ence than those outaids the courtroom. Al
3 Of those considerations were favorable to b1r'
! DEEcuEn. First and foremost WIS the exalt
= al position Of the defendant, which included
!, tbs service hc has rendered the cause OF 70
. ljeion the presu1uablo purity OF his forme
\ l;fc, his great power Of eloquenco and per
. sonal mnguetis,n, and the united and cnthu
y siastic craftsmanship OF his own powerful
:. WEALTHY church. Scarcely second 10 these in
- aueuccs in bis behalf was the contcmpsbl