Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1875-07-09
The Bccrhcr Case.
CAREFUL AND CANDID SUMMING UP.

| A CAREFUL AND CANDID SUMMING UP.
The New York Ermiag Post, which ha
hitherto refrained from any discussion {
the Beecher-Tilton case, now gives an elal
crate and well weighed review of the cas-
from which we take the following
In the legal aspects of it, we dout
whether there can be any two opinion.
Mr. Tilton has not had, from the outset,
case with which he could properly go int
court. Every lawyer knows and will ad
nit that if he had brought an action of d
vorcc against his wife at the time the pre-,
ent action was brought, it would have bee
flung out at once, and almost with indigna
ton. lie could not have sustained it for
moment in the face of the fact that how
ever grave the insult, and whatever tn
evidence by which it was supported, it ha,
been wholly condoned by four years of sub
sequent cohabitation. In taking his wifi
back to his arms, after distinct knowledg,
of her oilense, he virtually, and in law, an
initiated the ofiense. This conformation wa!
an eutire surrender of his right of actor
against her, and confession to the worlc
that the injury he had suffered, or supposed
himself to have suffered, was not only for
| given but repaired.
But having relinquishcd, Voluntarily anG
deliberately, his ground of complaint against
his wife, and his right to repudiate her, INC
new ofierce being alleged, or to sue for a
divorce, with what legal prOpriety could he
sue for damages against her suspected para
mOur? lie had wiped out the offence; he
had conceded, by his action, that he had
suffered no deprivation in his affections, no
loss Of domestic service that if he had sus-
tanned wrong, it was wrong he was
willing to overlook; and that his wife.
whether an innocent accomplice, as he
strangely chose to consider her. or a wanton
culpfit, was nevertheless, - far as others
were concerned, still his wife. and entitled
To all the respect and consideration of A wife
They had reverted to the relation of the
Sfain AMIR quo. to the state in which they
lived before the offensive incident occurred.
or IN which they wonld have lived if no
such incident had occurred How, then
could lac claim damages for that which he
confessed. by his act, inflicted no damage ?
In moral and social sense, no doubt. he
might forgive the wife, and vet hold the ST.
Queer responsible; he might, If he had clo-
sen to follow the example Of S.ckles. have
Blown out the brains OF the oac and return
ed the other to his bed but IN a legal sense.
when he IelinqaIshed his right To a remedy
hy divorce he also rclinqui-hed his right to a
remedy for damages,
Mr. BeccEer's lawyers would haze been
warranted in moving dismissal of the case
on this ground; the Judge could have prop
erly charged tine jury 10 the same effect
and the jury might have rendered verdict
accordingly without leaving their seats.
But Mr.. Becchcr himself and his hwvers
naturally wished to rest his yindcation u
on other than mere technical grounds. They
sacrificed the professional advantage. which
they might easily have gained, for the nor
al advantage which they hoped To gain bv
verdict On the merits. The issue has in--
titled their wisdom. \ Verdict asain,. their
client was not to be anticipated, from the
himsy nature If most Of the evidence and
the general sentiment Of the community.
while verdict in bis favor would be A
uiui hant success. Bat surprising neither
90 these possible. q disagreement Of the i,rv
which at this writing Is the probable result.
would stu be a virtual acquttal. II wa.
not Tor Mr.. Beecher 10 prove himself inno-
cent-tAe hardes; kind OF proof often: bat
Tor hiS a-saiants To prove him guilty. Ii they
iAl IN that, it their testimony is 80 susrecf-
ai So doubtful, 80 contradictory. or 80 made /
luatc rs not 10 succeed in convincing twelve |
bones. and impartial men to whom II Is sub |
niiied, they fail altogether their charge i
and tie object % ,heir assault (
fs..f .. =. ]