The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-01-12


necessary to prove that the adultery took place al
a particular time or place, but that the Court
attachment existed between the parties. Lord
Stoweli uses this language :-'lt Is not necessary
70 give direct prqo o. the ast OF saI,er be-
tainablc In one out OF every hundred cases. In
every case OF adultery the law allows the TACT to
be inferred from circumstances, to be deduced
from ar inlerences, and unless t1is was the case.
and unless It was so held, no projection whateve
could be given to marital rights"
Mr.. Morris quoted other authorities to the same
purport. among those authorities being Chief JUS
lice SHAW. OF MASSACHUSETTS. who poiits out the
difference BETWEEN direct ana circumsrant,al evl-
dence. Direct evidence Is positive as relating to
the proof OF an exact part. such as in a case OF
homicide; but experience shows that cIrcumstan-
tial evidence, BODY OF 'acts. may be brought III
ana NAV amount to proof as strong as possible.
Ii would be injurious TO society II circumstantlal
evidence were not availeo Of II II were necessary
always 10 nave direct proof OF positive character,
go u wnoy tSe Of
evidence. besides airect testimony, provided 1t
may be relied on, to arrive at satisfactory con-
cluslon.
There Is continued Mr.. MOrrs) another class OF
evidence OF the highest impor ance in the invest-
parties. Where person makes q confession, un-
Influenced by icar-a tree. voluntary confession
and character OF evidence. mi confession made
by one accused is In the nature OF direct evidence.
confess On OF tins KIND. when delibe' ate and
voluntary IL the most satisfactory species OF evil
dence that can be laid before legal tribunal.
Sucn con ession combines statement OF facts
ana lorms me basis OF q charge combined with
THIS species OF evidence. Now. gentlemen, have
stated TO You briefly the general character OF our
tne parles accused and then there are the
confessions OF the parties accused, and this
is very imperfect outline OF tue nature
evidence. Will proceed 10 cal your attention
mCre specifically TO the facts by which we purpose
to establish tnls case. The opens on the 81
OF July. 1870 with The confession made oy the vile
OF the palntf, though not communicated to the
July, 1870. the wlc OF the plaintiff with an over
buruened heart, con 1esses her guilt TO her hus-
non to circumstance that seems to me to pos
sess great strength ind force IN this Inv esrxaton
Up TO THIS period the leatlons OF tue plalntln and
the defendant had been OF the most cordial char
acter. Nothing nad occurred to interrupt their
harmony and good Ieellng so Tar as the plalnif
deendanrs cnurcn; bat alter the 81 or July, 1870.
the plaintiff never crossed the threshold OF MIR.
Beecher's church until the 3lst OF October, 1873,
when he attended there for the purpose OF
confronting the pastor OF that church aud asking
him IN the presence OF his congregation II ne had
spoken falsely concerning HIM. WHAT was that?
II Is one OF the circumstances III this case. Why
was 1t that the piantln, all at once. without any
apparent cause so lar as the PUBIC xnew ds lar
plaintii. who was o member OF the church and
al admlrer up TO tnat time OF the defendant, who
admired the ueenGant beyond all other men, who
placed implicit confidence In HIM, who regarded
him almost as his atner-he was mis- spiritual
iatner-c-ase to attend the minlstratlons OF Ply
mouth churchy why was its He mad received
some wound-some :ning mad occurred that in.
duced him TO keep away from Plymouth church.
THE PLAINTIFFS FEELINGS.
He kept away. He mad received wound; that
wound had pierced his neart, but Tor the sake OF
that wound in his heart; but he could not
listen 10 tue ministratlons Of the man VINO had
brought disgrace sorro" ana rum upon MS nome
to his home with tnis arrow IN his heart Well,
gentlemen. Tor months ne bore IN silence this
great wrong. sthis great sorrow. For that he has
been arraigned, tor thar, too, he has Oeen abused
and traduced because ne did not strike down the
seducer OF his VIE at oncs because he rose to tue
the Christian doctrine and Tor that he mas been
traduced. But | believe the enemies Of this man
will be handled by one who can do 1t with more
power and force than car. On the 3Otn OF De-
cember, 1870, the plaintiff confronted the de1en:
accuses him OF having committed this crime.
WHAT ola Inc defendant doy What would an IN
Would he nave denied IT. Woud ne nave hurled
1t back with indignation Did her No. He
never contradlcted the charge when made. What
are the circumstances Immediately toto wing the
the wle OF the pian,in. lie returns to the house
OF Mr.. Moulton. where this charge IS made against
him. Not a word about 1t. Alter he has naa an
interview with Mr.. TlltOn. who accuses htm OF this
crime, there is no denial OF II either 70 MI: Iton
.rhis Will Kill me-" What Is the next step in tne
history OF this case9 On the following night Mr..
Muu.tO Roes 10 the house Of the defendant, &C
cnses HIM OF having taken mean advantage or
lii'on and asks that paper he mas received be
TED friend Of r,tonhe goes 10 the defendant,
comparative stranger. and asks that ne denver up
thus paper to Hun. a. Does Mr. bee Beecher snow
him why he accuses him OF meanns,s IN what he
dd He IS q comparative stranger to .echev,
nlgnt nc goes 10 his house: Mr.. Beecher invites
him into his study. What did he dOY Does he
inquire whether Monlton has brought HIN an
No, but he writes note about the CONCESSION. lt
commences. say dear friend Mouiton." 'oullon
the night previous, obtained this paper from him.
He sad TO rms man WHO, twenfy-iCur hours be-
lore, mad accused hin OF meanness ana OF taxing
a mean advantage. and had demanded and OBJ
tanned this paper from hlm:-"Ny dear friend
Mouiton, ! ask; through you, Theodore Iil,9n's
| do before my God. He would have been
letter man III my circumstances. | VIII die
is gullress." Might we not stop nersf II
we wanted to make out our case against
the defendant would ;a,s be necessary on to
coded. from tnis letter. that the defendant
mad done some wrong-some terrible wrong
II was adultery with the plaintIn's wife. Mr..
MOultOn says IL was adultery, and another person
sad IL 'as nn All 'ns
utterly irreconcilabie with any other thing. No
human ingenuity can give 1t any other meaning
NO OTHER WORD.
You must blot out the English language and all IL
means, Tor so long as IT stands no other eXplana-
ton can 10 given OF THIS matter. Adultery was
ton with The case, Tor four years, ne strove with
unparalleled hdellty 10 save tue deienJaIt. Tins
Is the whole point Of the case-it Is the focus
That Is the letter Oh which, or four years. this
whole case turns. Why did Mr.. beecher. the
defendant, want 20 60 to Moulton 2 He goes once
aud sometimes twice q day, TO see him-to pian
to plot, TO conceal something. on, but ne
saws MIR. Mouiton has denied tue truth OF the
charge! Of course, that Is wnat he was there for
Was he called on 10 expose the iacts TO the world
That meeting was to conceal tnem. That IS what
Mr.. Mouiton was required Tor. lie wanted 10 con-
ceal-noI TO make known. He was the possessor
Of this secret that could not be trusted by THIS
Cnristiau minister 10 any other human being on
earth There was no other person 10 whom ne
could trust II. Tnere wcs something so terrible
about MS secFet--so terrible tAat Moulton was to
manage II tor iour years. and save the pastor VI
Plymouth church. He did save aim for four years.
The learned gentleman then dealt with other
features oil the csse-Iliton's dismissal IRON the
Independeat; Beecher's allegations that Tlton
was bankrupt IN morals and character; that he
denied the divinity OF CHRIST, and that he had a
tendency toward tree love; and Eeecher's
subsequent statements, IN which he begged tue
forulveuoss OF Theodore Tilton.
AZ one O'Clock tie court took recess for an
hour.
AFTER THE RECESS.