Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1875-06-11

reputation, his morality even, in Beech
eT's cause. Beecher was q great man
and his position, together with bis
age, rendered it uniustifisble fnl
any young man to say to his face that
be was liar and villain, but MoultOn
was an impulsive man, as he had shown
all along. and he was smarting under s
| sense Of q great wrong. Never till this
I chsrEe Of blackma;ling was brought
against him did he use q disrespectful
word to Beecher. Mr.. Beach then re.
ferTed 10 POrteT's charge OF cOwardice
/ against MOulton because he carried q
| pistol to Bsecher's house, and said that
| MOultOn, engaged as be was in busi-
| ness which took him about the docks
and warehouses and amoung rude men,
vas IN the habit OF carrying a pistol for
! protection in case OF need. The whole
| evidence showed that he never used the
weapon for the purpose OF intimidation.
/ Counsel next referred to the question as
10 why Carpenter had not been called,
/ and said it had never been pretended 10y
: Morris or any one else that BeecheT had
! expressed adultery to him in express
! terms, Carpenter was held to contra
/ dict Beecher in rebuttal if the latter de-
MED an interview held with him, but
]
! it necessary. Mr.. Beach said that in his
professional intercourse of thirty years
| with Porter he had gained most atfec-
! tiOnate TesIect for him, and that he had
! spoken in kindness words of reprehen-
! sion which his duty had compelled him
To utter. Iu referring to the unworthy
assaults OF Porter upon plaintiff and his
witnesses, villification did not kill,
and when he had called the attention Of
the jury to the rank injustice Of Porter's
epithets, he had hoped it would lead
them to reflect with care upon his srgu-
ment. Applause in the galleries.
To Evarts, in his extended argument,
had been assigned what might be called
the heavy part Of the work for the de-
fsnse. With the wonderful power of
Language possessed by that gentlemen,
he had endeavOred to change the 'rela-
tons OF the parties in this case. Instead
of defending Beecher he had tried to
place Tilton and MoultOn and Mrs.
Moult0n on the defensive, and called
upon the plaintiffs counsel TO exculpate
them from the indictment which he
brought against them. Mr.. Beach then
considered the proposition Of Mr.. Evarts
that this form of action was an anoma-
ly, and that to bring it was disreputsble.
It was an extraordinary proposition to
come from an eminent lawyer, that
proceeding sanctioned by law, and
brought within the law, was a legal
anomaly, and that it reflected discredit
upon the citizen who resorted to it for
the punishment Of the seducer. Was
there punishment then-no means Of
infiicting legal chastisement upon him
vino invaded the sanctity Of a house.
hold? According to the position Of Mr..
Evarts, there was none. Our homes
might be broken up; our fam
ilies destroyed; our wives and
daughters seduced without any remedy
from the law established to protect So
ciety. So strong was the human feeling
upon this subject that it had pro-
tected an injured man who took the law
into his own hands, forgetting the de-
clsratiOn, Vengeance is mine, saith the
Lord" When had there ever been con
victiOn OF the husband or parent who
had adopted such a course? But here
the man comes into court of justice by
the only path which was open to him,
and restrained his arm from that ven
geance which was opposed to the law of
man and OF the Almighty. He was told
that his christian forbearance was ignO-
miniOus, and that he was q miserable
seeker after pelf. 1t was for the jury to
say which view they would inculcate;
whether they would uphold the doctrine
OF laWlessneas and bl9edshed, or sustain
the teaching OF scripture and the majesty
of the law of the land. He would en-
deavor to show by and by what claims
there were for this foTbearance extended
by Tilton to his faulty wife and her
hOary-headed seducer, and then they
could determine whether this plaintiff
deserved to be handed out of court. He
mad no desire to detract from the eX-
travagant laudation of Beecher as a
preacher and public man, but when it
was assured that Beecher could not, since
he took issue with counsel for defense,
the doctrine ran all through their ad-
dress that because Beecher was great
preacher, a great orator, and had done
great deal of good, therefore he was in
capable Of SHINING. II he accepted this
doctrine, what became of the teachings
OF the Bible and OF our experience of the
world? Were we to accept the theory
that the human heart was not deceitful
above all things and desperately wick
ed; that men no longer stole the livery
Of heaven to serve the devil in; that
men must be good because they ap-
peared SO; what became of the atone
ment under this theory? What neei
was there for a God to descend from
heaven and sacrifice himself for the
sins OF men, il men could become per-
feet and incapable of SHINING? He de-
MED this doctrine, but he did not wish
to disparage uDjustly the value of char
acter. The most eloquent words OF the
counsel of defense had been expended on
this point. He reverenced character,
snd especially that holy character
which should attach 10 min
lister of that God, whom, if he
did not adore in a christian spirit,
he at least Teverenced and feared. II
this case rested upon oral testimony
alone, leaving out that of Mrs. MOultOn,
he should hesitate long to believe that
the defendant could be guilty of this
charge, although il was brought by two
men whom he believed TO be as pure
and honorable as anv who had ever
adorned the ranks Of literature, or Of
that business which had been so eXtolled
by his learned friend.
The hour Of recess having arrived, Mr..
Beach took his seat. Judge Nelson
then told the court officers that they
must exact a promise of quiet from the
persons in the galleries, or they would
be cleared. He said he scarcely knew
what to say to the persons upon the floor
who had offended against order. II he
he'd not witnessed their conduct, he
could not have believed that citizens
could have come into the court and dis
gIaced themselves by disturbing the
counsel and jury with an obtrusive ex-
preston Of their opinions. Recess was
then taken.
The crowd after recess was as great as
in the morning. Tracy and MOulton
spoke to each other and laughed as they
came in, circumstance causing eOnsid-
erable comment among the audience.
Mr.. Beach resumed his address to the
jury, and referred to the regret expressed
by Mr.. Porter that w. o. Bartlett had
been prevented from engaging as coun-
sci in this case, as Mr.. Bartlett was con-
nected with a newspaper in the city Of
New York. He would quote from that
what might be considered as Mr.. Bart
lett's present opinion, whatever his
views might have been in the early
stages Of the case. He then read an eX-
tract from an editorial on the case, in
which it is argued that q superficial
good character did not afford an insight
into the true inwardness of man. The
patriarchs Of Israel, the men be-
loved of God, were guilty
of many sins, and that the best men in
all ages and countries had illustrated the
truth Of the Westminster confession,
that we all inherit corrupt nature, and
we are inclined to all evil. The article