The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1875-06-11

buted to him were not his. There was not
another speaker or writer Of the English
language who took more liberties with it
than Beccher did Counsel found several
other strange applications of terms, as "a
hailstone teaching" "unbrellical, "a peck
ct ocean," and one expression which Beech
er used was, sin May apple trees put on
their bloom and went counting" These
were unusual and extravagant expressions,
and were characteristic of the individuality
Of the man. Beecher has said OF Mrs.
Moulton that she seemed to be 10 him like
a section of the day Of judgment. Now
Porter says that Beecher was not the man
to split the day of judgment into sections.
The jury would remember Tilton wrote q
letter to his wife in which he dealt on pos
sble circumstances in the life of Christ if
he were married MN, and this was pre-
scented to them in the light of blasphemy
by the other side. Now, said the counsel, the
accounts which are given to US Of the life of
Christ were not very full or complete and
were a fit subject for religious considera-
ton and speculation, and these were not
thought to be either sacrilegious or bias
phemous. 1t was character which afford
ed the deepest scope for the investigation
of the studious and learned. Beecher says
in ono of his works "You may deal with
the life of Christ as an historical critic, and
may deal with His character by the light
,f ono,riot;op apI invn ,tiuafion ~ nd n
was in this way Tilton dwelt with the
character of Christ and from no sacriigi-
Gus motives. Now, said counsel, Beecher
breaches Christ as plagiarlst and that he
was not capable of delivering sermon or
debating prayer. He (Beecher) says of
the Lords prayer that it was not original
and its sentiments were not new when
given to the disciples on the mount. Mr..
Beach read from Beechers works and
sermons as showing his (Beccher's) familiar
modes of treating the life of Christ, and
urged that this letter of Tilton's should not
have been picked out as an example
of the light in which he regarded him.
Mr.. Beach said that Mr.. Moulton had
been called traitor and an infamous Ju-
das, but the counsel on the other side had
failed to show that before Moulton ceased
to be Beecher's friend he swerved in
his duty to him but it was when Beecher
charged him with blackmail, and storm
of indignation was raised against HIM
| throughout the land that their relations be-
came changed. The counsel next referred
to the question why Mr.. Carpenter had not
been called, and said it had never been pre-
tended by Mr.. Morris or anybody else that
Mr.. Beecher had confessed adultery to him
in express terms. Mr. Carpenter was held
to contradict Mr.. Beecher in rebuttal, If the
latter denied an interview held with him,
but the state of the evidence did not
render it necessary. The jury were
asked TO impute to Mr.. 'rilton baseness
and dishonor; if it we're true that Mr..
Beecher invaded Mr.. Titon's house and
dshonored his wife, was there no resource
for Mr.. Tillon and no punishment for the
seducer? None, says the gentleman (Mr.
| Evarts) you have no recourse in court
of justice. 1t WAS true that our law gave
no criminal punishment for seduction, the
seducer may roam through the land, the
rest, peace and tranquility of home broken
up and yet our laws afforded no relief.
When had there been II conviction of a
parent or husband who had taken
the law into his own hands and sent
a. Gttir md
they might applaud who did this but it
was not the spirit of the law. My client,
said Mr.. Beach, was to-day condemned in
the public estimation because he was bold
fearless, and, in chrstian-like spirit, for.
gave his wife's seducer. My learned friend
said this was a miraculous seduction, and
herein was the game of the defense. Coun-
sci found no fault with their glorfication
of Henry Ward Beecher, but, aside from
the merits OF this case, they had no more
respect or reverence for his abilities thar
he Beach himself had but when, OF
that, they erected the proposition that
was impossible for Mr.. Beecher Il
commit sin, he differed from them
Their argument was that he was
great and good man, who had the eyes o
the world on him, and it was impossibl
that he could have sinned in this way Blu
= when we've we to be told there was no by
pocrasy in the world, no sin among tn
y. pure and great, and that the livery O
: heaven had not been stolen to serve tn
devil in? In the rim of Adam did not a
men sin? What became of the atonemen
:, il this was not SO? What became of tn
u sufferings of God and the agonies OF
y Gethesmane? All this had yet to be wri
= ten, if this were SO, and goo
, and pure men could not sill
>, What became of the arguments of h
learned counsel if this were so This Ina
~ been the theme in which the highest or
- tory had been poured out before the jul
., for the past thirteen days by his adversar
~ but the counsel denied the proposition
., Great and good as Mr.. Beecher was, IN Il
~ eyes of God he was only sinner. 1.-The
AZ was none perfect, no not one." Couns
" had reverence for character, especial
- for christian character, which ador'
o. God as counsel revered and respected Hi
a. but when such character was fore
~ into a court of justice counsel wou
- examine it fearlessly and talk of it as Il
"a evidence justified.
N. The hour OF recess had now arrived al
he Mr.. Beach sat down amid loud applau'
he which had frequently occurred during
raj delivery. Judge Nelson rebuked the {
he Tenders against the court room prophet
I'M and instructed the officers to turn out a
Use persons misconducting themselves. I
of jury were then dismissed until 9 o'clock.
III. After recess, Mr.. Beach continued his {
| I=aaa .oa=at IL \