St. Johnsbury Caledonian. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1867-1919, 1875-07-09
The Beecher Case.

CNEIIII ANp CANDID i MNI\" Ir.
The, New York Errnjng Post. which
has hitherto IrtIliurd from amy discus
sion of the i;crChcI-liltnu ease. now
uiNr> an clahur;it,. and we'll weighed
review of the east, from which We taxi"
the following:
In the legal aspects "t II. we doubt
" neither there can hr NY tW" opinions.
Mr.. Triton has NOT had. from Ilr ont >''t.
Il caS,. with which hc could property ="
into court. Every lawyer knows and
viii admit that if hc had hrnu"hr an
action ut divorce against his WItr al The
time the present action WIS brought. Il
would have h,cu hung ont 1T once. and
almost Nth Indignation. lie could not
nav" sustained il tnI = moment IN ia"
face. ot the fact that hnwcNrr gIaNr the
insult. and whatever the evidence lay
which il WIS ~uppnrrcd. il had been
wholly rnud"mcd 10y f"u l".u~ "t sub
>ruurnr rehabilitation. In taking hi
wife back /" hI> AIMS. after Il distinct
know Icd.r of her "tlrn>,. hr virtually.
and IN law. annihilatrd tn, "rlru>r.
This combination WAS an entire >lrilcu-
der of hi~ right of action against hrI.
and a confession t" the world thai the
/ lllIlllN ne llsll >lll'lt'l N'l> wv '''l!N
| forgiven hut rcpaiIrd.
But hn. im@ Irliupui~hr'l. voluntarily
/ aud Deliberately. his ground "t COM
| plaint against his wife. and hI~ r!%ht /"
/ rrrudiatr her. IN" new "lirm"c h'lm"
! ullr"r,i) J oI to sue toT Il dINnIr". with
what lc.Il prnpIicis could he Su" Tor
damages against her suspected para
NOM He had wiped ont the "itrnr" ::
he had conceded. hN his action. thai h"
/ had suffered II" deprivation III his aiirc-
tious. NO loss oi domestic service: that II
he had Sustained wrong. II WAS Il won"
he ,vaS willing to oNcrl"nk and that
his wife. whether an inuocrnt accom-
nlice. ~ he strangely rlIn>t to consider
her. or Il v.utnm culpiit. waS nrN"Ithc-
less. 50 far as others were concerned.
sill his wife. and entitled to all the Ir
spc,t and consideration "t Il wife. They
had reverted tu the relation "i the >tdtH
ante are. to thc stat" III which they
lived before The offensive incident "r-
cured. or in which they would have
lived il uo such incident had occurred
How. then could ht claim damages i"i
that which lc confessed. 10y his act. III
tIirt,d no damage? In II moral and
social sense. no doubt. he might fnl Civ,
I'm, wife. and vet holt the Scduccr re
Spoushlc he might. il he had ch"Srl
To follow the example of Sicklr>. have
blown out the brains ni the one AMI re-
Turned the other to his bed but IN :
legal sense. " hen hc rrlinquishcd hI'
right to Il remedy 10y divorce he alS'
rrlimuuiShrd his right t" il remedy t"l
+ dHmages.
Mr. Brccher'S lawyers would have
been warranted in moving Il diSml>Sa
of the ease ON this ground: the judge
could have properly charged the lur,
to the same effect and the jury migh
have rendered Il verdict accordln%l,
without leaving their seats. But MI
Brcchcr himself and his lawyers natu
l rally wished to rest his vindication up
- ON other than mere technical grounds
They sacrificed the professional hdvan
: taue. which they might easily have
|, gained, for the moral advantage whIcI
f they hoped to gain 10y Il verdict on tn
| merits The issue has Justified thci
= wisdom. \ verdict against their ellen
u waS not to he anticipated. from TN
= ilimSN nature of most of the evidence
f and the general sentiment OF the com
- munity, while verdict III his ihv"
= would he Il triumphant success. ''
# surprising neither of these possible.
- disagreement of the jury. which ut TN
e writing is the probable result, W"ul'
: stall he virtual acquittal. 1t was II"
. tor Mr.. Beechcr to prove himself nm"
e cent the hardest kind of proof "ftrn
j. but for his asS;liamts to prove mn
e guilty. If they fail in that, if their ties
if timony is So suspected. 50 doubtful, :
r. contradictory, or 50 inadequate aS h'
:. to succeed in convincing twelve hone'
If and impartial men to whom it Is sui
l. mittcd, they fail altogether; the
:, charge is unsupported. and the "hle'
is of their assault walks forth III his orig
Is nal innocence that innocence whIr
e the law presumes and opinion ought
st preserve-the condition of any ma