New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-06-12
WHERE MEMORY IS STRONG.

WHERE MEMORY IS STRONG.
But what effect, if your Honor please, does
this doctrine. which conoede have upon other circum-
stances and relations in this case My friends produced
to you an authority stiles agt Stiles, think where
divorce sought by the husband upon the ground OF
tho confessions OF the wife. Well tho case does not
doubt apprehend, that upon confessions fortified by
circumstances however forcibo trivial. the Court
could properly decree divorce But 1t turned out that
these confessions were made by the wife to quiet and
control unacy of the husband and to restrain Its out
bursts and Its violence Well. the Court says:
There Is q motive in the confessions; they werc made
with specific object not with reference to the truth OF
made for laudable and commemorate purpose and not
with any intention to confess adultery therefore,, we
will disregard tho confession.
Your Honor, think, will approve that idea OF tho au-
thority and the principle But. gentlemen, In the same
BREATH our friends say to Mr.. MOutOn and Mr. Tilton,
"Why for three years. all through this land, by solemn
declarations of mouth by written asseveraons, by let
ter by reports under all circumstances, you have been
persistently declaring that Elizabeth r. TtOn was in
nocen and that the only oense Of Henry Ward Beecher
was improper solicitations And yet prove to yOu by
the only proof that possibility be gven these deca
raons made with tho specific purpose OF protecting
Elizabeth r. TltOn and her family, and conccalng from
the public the guilt OF Henry Ward Becchcr Well, now,
wo cannot prove this to You by the persons to whom
have gone to various individuals and said Sir,
my wife is as white snow and Mr. Bcecher has only
ATTEMPTED scduce her, but for that she repused him
with indignant scOrn But till you this merely for the
purpose of cOnccang the fact that she was seduced
We cannot prove 1t in that way No such declarations as
that would have been made, because it would have
counteracted the very purpose Of tho assertion.
But we prove by Tton and by Moulton that those de-
claratons which they made made for that specific
PURPOSE with tho approval and concurrence OF Henry
Ward Beecher and by the professional advice of Benjamin
f. Tracy and repeated In every form to meet every ext
gency and emergency which arose In this case. And still
under tho light OF their theory and the authorities
which they produce, they still insist You arc " DO con-
cluded by the declarations which you made"
Now Henry Ward Beecher does not deny that this was
the policy He says 1t was and more than that. in his
statement given in evidence before the Examining Com
mtee says that that policy ought to have succeeded
In the treatment Of Woodruff in the treatment OF
inquirer in the attempted circulation OF some modified
explanation Of these outbreaks ana these difficulties
which were constantly bringing up through tho uneas
ness and the suspicious OF Plymouth Church and some OF
its MEMBERS these stories circulated that the public
might have something which they could apply all these
outbreaks and bechngs forth OF this fiery secret. and
that those struggling to conceal IL might have
plausible ground upon which they could
maintain actual integrity OF Mr. Boecher and the entire
purity OF Mrs. TtOn Do see it, gentlemen Are We
msled by the theory OF the other side that we are
concluded by these statements and made
under these circumstances Why Is not only contrary
tho teachings Of the law but 1t Is contrary to common
sense No man disputes, Henry Ward Beechcr does not
dispute 1t, that from the first was the resolve of Mr.
ton TO protect the reputation and the integrity Of his
wife. Every statement made by HIM under every con-
ceivable in which they appear is traceabe
that purpose not only entertained but upon every oc
cason avOwed and by his oath upon this trial every such
statement and averment upon his part applied to tho
will ioh
but the league between Henry Ward Beecher
and Tilton and Moulton formed in the
first outbreak Of this difficulty. But my friend
says Mr. Bcecher, in the very representation
given by MOultOn of his declarations denied this In the
account Of of the interviews Mr. Mouon represents
that in to the relation OF tho charge, or the cir
cumstances OF his ocnse, Mr. Bcecher says, II he had
fallen he had fallen through love and not through lust
Well my friend argues that that shows doubt at least
hesitating uncertainty upon the part OF Mr. Beechcr
whether he had boon guilty or not OF adultery. Well
that the language 1t does not profess to give the
language OF Mr. Beecher Il" he had fallen" he said f
he had fallen he had fallen through love and not through
lust" What would have been tho language OF Mr.
Beecher as derived rendered. and from this phrase
giveni Why, he would have said, "We II have fallen
have fallen through love and not through lust" Well
to yOu me- and charges me with sinfuness
and l. conscious of my but believing that there
redecming quality to 1t nevertheless that, al
sal and dcvish yet that nevertheless there some
paation for the oense, that felt that had been
so brutally offensive to morals and TO society was
represented, and say Every true. Sir, have fallen
but have not fallen through lust but through love-" Is
that deniai And the conclusion that that is denial
q fair mode OF argument, or fair deduction from the
language the circumstances to which 1t Is applied
Why 1t perfectly plain that no such thing was in
tended be represented by Mr.. MOuon, and that the
expression which my friend has seized upon in his hyper
criticism does not lead to any such conclusion Does
any doubt that Mr. MOuon meant to testify In that
very cOnversaton-you remember its connections prob
aby-that Mr. Beecher sensible OF his guilt and
fessed his guilt Why he states 1t In that very
tive and do you suppose that Mr. Mouon. swearing dis
tncy to the charge and the admission of sexual inter-
course In that very conversation yet mputes phrase
of Henry Ward Beecher which would contradict the
whole story he had been telling That Is not the
in which il was used; 1t Is not the way In which
evidence is to be criticised. Why, your Honor surely
will instruct this jury that 1t their duty to reconcile
evidence, to consider the whole testimony, to draw ra-
tODal and conclusions by comparison OF
the whole OF it, We are searching here to-day for
purpose OF cOndcmning the character and the repu
tation witnesses seeking for the truth through
human infrmty and weakness, through the and
fraltes Of memories through the cloud OF passion and
prejudice doing the best to reach the truth-be
heve me- gentlemen 1t is all seek In this case, and my
only purpose Is to present to you what confess TO be
professional and logical argument upon this aid
you your effort ascertain tho true character OF this
Now. agree that human memory ie imperfect. be-
believe that there is involuntary perjury committed
court OF justice than you and conceive, with
perfect innocence. and merely through inevitable
fralties. But we are not to condemn men npon mere
surnse and conjecture No detail the facts OF
given happening years ago. It not In the
power Of human fraities to retain the recollection Of
them and you remember the illustration OF my learned
friend, where different parties looking upon
the transaction viewing II from differ
ent standpoints, impressed differently by its