The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-05-21


unceasing endeavor on their part to make the
public institutions what they should have been
throughout their whole history.
------
Jadge Porter's Argument In Defence
OF Mr. Beecher.
/ DIR. Porter ranks in the estimation OF his
professional brethren rs one OF the most per-
suasive and impressive lawyers of the State in
addressing jury. He was retained in the
Beecher case solely in view of this talent in
which he so greatly excels. Although he has
been constantly present during this protracted
trial he has taken no active part in il previous
to the summing up, his four or five months
attendance having no other object than to
qualify him for the task which he is now dis
charging with his customary ability and elo-
quence. He has already spoken two days,
and those who have listened to him say that
the printed record does but scant JUS
tice to the effect of his powerful man
ner. But, after all, it is the substance
and not the manner of his address which
can have any Legitimate influence on the
Judgment of either the jury or the public. 1t
is not by the arts OF the orator, but by the
force and pertinence of his arguments. that
his client must be acquitted or condemned.
His speech, as it appears in print, stripped of
the advantages it derives from his manner Of
delivering it. is the only thing to be weighed
by cool men.
During these two interesting days Judge
Porter has been skirmishing with the outposts
of the case without coming into close quarters
with its real points. He hos occupied the at
tention of the jury almost exclusively with
what Tilton did in matters which had no i'm
mediate connection with the charges against
Mr.. Beecher He has dwelt at great length
and with much ingenuity on the gushing
correspondence between Tlton and his
wife for several years previous to the
alleged adultery. All healthy minds
must regard this correspondence on the part
of both husband and wife as simply nauseous
Nobody would think it safe to say what peo-
pie whose amorous susceptibilities are so alb
normally quick and outfowing might or might
not be capable of doing. But what have these
sickening illusions to do with the question of
Mr.. Beecher's guilt or innocence2 So far as
these prove anything they prove that both hus-
band and wife were habitually in q state of
amorous semi-insanity which would justify
almost every inference as to the possible con-
duct Of either under circumstances Of tempta-
ton. 1t is just rs supposable that this dis
gustipgly warm temperament disclosed by the
letters may have led to alterations on one side
rs on the other. This lovesick correspond
ence bet v cen husband and wife for years be-
fore the alleged offence proves nothing az to
the subsequent conduct of Mr.. Beecher, which
must be judged by its own proper evidence
and not by the antecedent billing and cooling
and mutual confessions and complaints of this
strange couple. The extensive comments of
Judge Porter on their preposterous love letters
have no proper bearing on the case.
Another Of Judge PoIters topics seems
equally irrelevant He dilates at great length
on the improbability of Mr.. Beecher getting
into such a scrape. The improbability is too
strong and too evident to require such an ex-
penditure Of argument. But this is a weapon
with double edge. The intrinsic improba-
bility, the protection which Mr.. Beecher de-
rived from bis character, the shield of his un-
/
friends and his great services, would naturally
have discouraged false accusations. The
great improbability OF such charges being be-
lieved should have prevented their being
made unless founded on evidence.
There is another argument that Judge
Porter worked up with striking rhetorical
force which the public viii accept with some
abatement 1t was tho improbability that
Mr.. Beecher's criminal intercourse with Mrs.
Tilton could have taken place in his own
house, where the presence OF his wife, his
children, his grandchildren and constant
stream Of calling parishioners precluded
secrecy. This is more plausible than con-
vincing. Ii has never been charged that any
act Of the kind beyond the first was com
mitted in Mr.. Beecher's house, and the alleged
date of that was October 10, when Mr..
Beachers family had not returned from their
summer soiourn in the country and the
stream of callers was interrupted by the sup-
posed absence Of the pastor. Judge Porter's
eloquence on this point is therefore founded
on on assumed state Of facts and surround
ings that did not exist at that date, and il was
imprudent for him 10 make an argument
which could be so easily refuted. We are not
discussing the question of Mr.. Beecher's guilt
or innocence, but only the speech of his advo-
cate so far as it has gone. The substance of
our criticism is that he has not yet grapped
with the main parts Of the evidence.