Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1875-06-25


order stated, call your attention TO the
alleged oral admissions. The confessions
of a party. made deliberately against his
own Interest, as to facts known and under
stood by him, if clearly proved, are regard
ed as Of high class of evidence, and de-
servedly so, because it is contrary to ex-
perienee for men to admit what hurts them
Il not true. Experience proves, rather, |
that men evade or deny the truth when
the truth hurts. The testimony to prove
oral admissions should be carefully scr1- |
tinized. The Jury should be satisfied the /
witness clearly understood, correctly re-
membered and fairly repeated what vas
said. But caution against relying on
such testimony too implicitly should hnd
its counterpoise in the caution against
too hasty a rejection Of it.
ImDifed Admissions.
The third class Of evidence stated Is as
to taclt or implied admission. In theory
it appeals to a principle peculiar to pre-
sumptive evidence. 1t Is assumed that on
a suitable occasion most men have such
regard for their own interests that on be-
ing unjustly charged or maligned they will
speak out in denial OF justification. Hence
| it is that silence may often be regarded as
i confession. The most obvious difficulty
in aDplying this doctrine arises from the
consideration that all men may not act
alike in the same circumstances. and that
| Jury may possibly ascribe TO a sense OF
| guilt what was really due to mere sur
| prise or to some unknown restraint. The
| testimony of the plaintiff and Of Mrs.
MoultOn is as to two forms OF admission,
| the one oral, the other tacit or implied. In
considering these portions Of that testimo-
nv which relate to defendants
actual admissions of guilt you will
recall the doctrine stated under former
head, to the effect that a reasonable doubt
as to a want Of apprehension or OF memory,
or of fairness in the witness proving such
admissions, impose upon the jury the exer-
else of great caution upon the testimony.
/ You will inquire whether the witnesses are
correct in their statements, or whether the
/ defendant was misunderstood by them.
In considering the other portions OF their
| testimony as 10 implied admissions, also
cOntradicted by the defendant, you inquire
/ whether in the conversations had by hlm
with the witnesses his adultery with plain
| tits wife was spokeT. Of in express terms.
| If YOU find that he was thus charged so that
| acting on the impulse common to innocent
men, he would have denied it, if without
foundation, you will consider the inference
to be drawn from any apparent excuse for
/ his silence.
The Conduct Of the Parties.
The remaining class Of evidence as to
| the principal question in issue relates TO
the conduct of defendant. In the first
! place, YOU will consider his conduct in his
| intercourse with Mrs. Tilton as proved by
| Joseph II. Richards and Kate Carey. The
circumstances stated by them are claimed
| 10 disclose an undue familiarity. Your at
! tention has been called 10 a series Of
events, to the reasons which may have led
to certain modes of acting, OF acquiescence,
of restraints, to Occas. .Onal disturbances, sp-
preheusions, and resentments, lapsing into
seasons of peace and patient endurance.
| Counsel have given their views as to the
significance of each fact and circumstance,
but in and through it all the vital and alb
| sOrbing question remains, not whether de-
| fendant acted wisely or well, but as he
would not have acted if innocent OF the
particular charge. l rec1r TO the letter OF
the 26th Of December, delivered by Bowen,
| in which plaintiff said TO defendant; 81
demand that for reasons that you explicitly
understand, you Immediately cease from
the ministry of Plymouth Church, and
that YOU quit Brooklyn as a residence"
| The question is as to the manner in which
this demand vas received. Plaihtlhs
theory seems to have been that, as The Of
tense charged in this complaint, the reasons
thus generally referred to would be appre-
hended on reading the letter. The defend
ant said, This man is crazy 1t is for
YOU to consider whether that remark was
| or was not in the nature Of a suggestion
that there was 10 sensible reasons for max
ing that demand, and whether in cOnversa-
tlOn or tone the defendant betrayed any
consciousness Of guilt.
The Policy of silence.
The Judge next referred to the policy Of
silence. aud said Mr. Beecher's course
\ Throughout was to be carefully sCrutinized.
You will inquire whether attentions were
paid to MIS-. Woodruff 10 cOnciliate her a.
the instance or with the appreciation Of de-
fendant; whether before Miss Turner was
sent off TO school be favored that as pre-
cautionaTy measure or contributed money
in that view, and whether he repressed the
presentation and prosecution Of the West
charges. If YOU find that Mr.. Beecher did
not thus act, those questions will give you
no trouble; but if you find that he took
such part in those transactions, or any Of
them, then YOU will inquire whether he
did so in apprehension that his sexual in
tercOurse with Mrs. TiltOn might be eX-
posed or from some other and independent
cause. You will also inquire whether the
defendant RETAINED from publishing de-
nial or refutatiOn of the allegation con
| tanned in the paper known as the Wood
u hull scandal; from answering the inquiry
made by Mrs. Bradshaw in letter to
which he sent a reply; or was held in the
bondage of fear to Mrs. Morse from a sense
of the guilt now charged. In auy view Of
the case YOU may be disposed to ask why
Mr.. Beecher, if innocent, should have gar
nered up in his heart all that pain and fear
so long, when he might have made prJcla-
nation 10 the world and trampled out the
the scandal as with iron boots.
The question upon all the proofs is
whether the defendant understood that he
was charged with adultery, and spoke,
wrote, acted and suffered from and in con-
sequence of ttat; or whethe', laying that
out of view, he understood the charges TO
be that he had made improper proposals or
advances and had robbed plaintiff Of rich
Inheritance in the love Of his wife; and
whether coupled with those charges he be-
Level that he wrODged plaintiff by tayorln2
a family separation and dismissal by
| Bowen, ana IOr JDOSe IcasOilss NEOtcs aCtcu
and suffered as described. If the wrong
was adultery the solution of what followed
IS easy; but # the wrongs and Offenses, ac-
tual or imputed, were OF the other charac-
ter stated, then a just apprehension Of the
J relation between the defendants state Of
mind and his conduct inyokes several con
siderations. What were his personal esti-
mates of his relation TO the church, to the
; world, to literature and of the reputation
: be should leave behind him? What was
his conception OF the nature and gravity oi
the charge Of impure solicitations, o.
: alternating wOman's love from her bus
l band and of the effect Of such accusations
if publicly male? What was his notion Of
+ the extent to which Tilton had been in
jured, as journalist, in his family, and as
TO their means of subsistence.
The Mutual Friend.
He next called the attention Of the jury
: to the credit due witnesses and referred a:
: follows to MOultOn's connection with the
case: Mr.. MoultOn seems 70 have inter
vened as the open and avOwed friend Of
TiltOn. He appears to have undertaken te
4 | mediate between the parties, TO reconcile
|, them, and as far as possible to prevent the
: specific character Of their difference from
, unnecessary publicity. He states that
. | such was the real character of his inter