The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-05-05


and most unfortunate woman. In any ordi-
nary case such an irregular attempt would
have been regarded as an impertinence de-
serving judicial rebuke. But in every point
Of view poor Mrs. Tilton has strong claim
to indulgence. Ii she is innocent few per-
sons Of her sex were ever 50 cruelty wronged.
Even If she be guilty great allowance should
be made for the kind OF temptation to which
she yielded. She was described in the we'll
known letter Of contrition rs .that poor child
lying there with clasped hands, sinned
against bearing the transgression Of an
other; /" and supposing the worst to be true
which has been alleged in this shocking
scandal, she fell after long resistance
and was the victim of deliberate
seducer, who took advantage not merely of
feminine weakness, but of the trust Of confid-
ing friendship, the generation felt for q re-
ligious teacher and the admiration of an APP
preciative mind for splendid intellectual abili-
ties. When tSatan is transformed into an
angel of light it is in accordance with Scrip
ture that he may deceive the very elect"
Whatever may be the truth as to the great
point in litigation it would not be humane to
pass harsh Judgment on Mrs. Tilton, and
we are glad that Judge Nelson, though re-
fusing her request, returned it to her with
respectful reply. While discharging his duty
as magistrate he has evinced the instincts of
gentleman and the spirit of a Christian. 1t
is not Judge Nelson who excludes Mrs. Til
tons testimony it is the law that excludes
it. So long as the counsel for the defence
do not choose to call her the Judge cannot
even consider the question of her admiss-
bility
And yet it seems incongruous that the one
person who knows the whole truth cannot be
permitted to tell it. Whether the alleged
criminal conversation ever took place is,
indeed, as well known to Mr.. Beecher as it is
to her but on the superstition of his limo
cence his knowledge of the fabrication OF the
charges is very slight as compared with hers.
Tilton swears that she made to him an oral
confession in the early part of the summer of
1870, five or six months before Mr.. Beecher
knew that she had accused him at all Mrs.
Tilton knows what did take place between
herself and her husband on that occasion,
when he testifes that she made q confession
of adultery and specified the times and places
of the first two acts. She is the only possible
person who can contradict Mr.. Tilton's testi-
mony as to the fact or the substance
of that oral confession. She also is the only
person in the world besides her husband who
knows the precise contents of the written con-
fession made near the end of the following
December. Mr.. Beecher never saw it, nor
even the copy of it, which Mr.. Tilton says he
held in his hand and tore up in the memora-
BILE interview at Moultons house. Mrs, Tilton
is the only person that could be called for the
defence who knows what the written confess
sion did really contain-whether it was con-
fession of adultery, as Tilton swears, or only
an accusation that Mr.. Beecher had made i'm
proper proposals. 1t would DO easy to men,
ton other points in respect TO which she
would be an Invaluable witness if she were
permitted to 90 upon the stand and
could be relied on to tel the exact
truth. The legal objection was waived by
the plaintiff, and had the counsel for the de
fendant seen fit TO call her she would doubt
less have been permitted to testify. AS she
cannot tell what she knows in court it only
remains to consider the effect OF her offer on
the public judgment
With the discriminating part OF the public
it cannot be favorable. 1t proves in the
first place, that she does not share the opinion
of Mr. Beecher's counsel that he has made out
o clear defence by the testimony already in.
When Mr. Beach arose in court and consented
to the introduction Of Mrs Tilton as wit
ness Mr.. Evarts said that "the defence
believe that their case needs no more testi-
mony,' and professed his belief that there
is no weakness in his clients case
which required to be supplied by further
testimony. fortunately" he said, 1--WE
have not been wrought by any doubt or hest
taton as to the force OF our defence into that
great moral question" Mrs. Tilton is as in
telligent as an ordinary juror. She has fol-
lowed this case and listened to the testimony
as closely as the jury who are trying it; and
she is clearly Of the opinion that the defence
has not made out clear case or she would
not think her testimony necessary to her own
vindication II the jury declares Dir. Beecher
innocent that Of course clears her; for If he
did not commit adultery with her nobody is
very likely to believe that she did with him.
Her letter is, therefore, virtual declaration
OF her belief that the testimony for the de-
fence has not fulfilled the promises
of Mr. Tracy's confident opening. Ac-
cording to that opening speech the evidence
for the defendant was to be so crushing 50
overwhelming that the plaintiff would de-
when this formidable and crushing evidence
is all in, Mrs. Tilton publicly gives her opinion
of its insufiicioncy in pathetic appeal to the
Court to be permitted to 20 upon the stand
and supplement il as q means OF rcscuing her
reputation and the pride OF her children from