The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-07-03
THU COIINYRYS VERDICT.
Opinions of the Clergy in the
Various States.
The Lawyers and the Quee-
ton Of Guilt.
STRANGE DIFFERENCES or SENTIMENT.
LOUISIANA.

kKw ORLEANS, June a. 1875
An attempt made TO canvass the New Orleans
clergy In regard TO their individual opinions
formed concerning Mr.. Beegher's guilt inno-
ceuce mas not proved entirely successful. That
very large majority think him guilty and have prl-
vately expressed themselves 10 that efect is
readily ascer ,ainabe, but IN most Instances they
hesitate 10 give your correspondent direct ana
authoritative opinion Tor publication. The inter
views published below WIN, however anord some
index OF their general attitude IN relation to the
question.
TIE CLERGY.
Rev. B. NJ Palmer, First Presbyterian church,
thinks the verdict OF the jury will nave little or
no effect upon popular opinion. In his opinion
neither side mad succeeded in proving anything.
Rev. s. Burford, Calvary church, Protestant
Episcopal, thinks no case has been made against
Beecher. Believes that OF all the Protestant Epis-
eopal ministers In the city the Rev. Mr. Lewis and
himself are the only ones OF this opinion
Rev. Mr.. Lewis thinks "the erect OF the trial"
will be In the main good one upon both minis
tiers and their congregations.
Rev. Edward FontaIne Is OF the opinion that
Beecher may have been imprudent, judging
from the evidence, but does not behave hat he is
criminally guilty.
THE LAWYERS
The following lawyers expressed their opinions
freely:-
Thomas Alien Clarke said the plaintiff had not
proved his case.
william A. Hunt said he nad not the slightest
doubt but that Beecher was guilty after studying
the evidence carefully.
James B. Eustis remarked that there can be no
doubt 10 Mr.. Beeeher's guilt The testimony
showed that he wss clearly.
Thomas J. Semmes thinks the testimony had
established Beechers quit.
Gus A. BTeaux said Beechers own statements
had convicted him, and that the burden OF proof
on the trial was decidedly against Beecher.
Charles Z. Fenner said ne had no doubt reat
Beecher guilty.
T. L. Bayne had formed opinion adverse 10
Mr.. Beecher's innocence.
Ex-Judge W W. Howe was OF the opinion that
Beecher had been far more indiscreet than Grim
inaL
General Harry 7. Hays said he could not under
stand how anybody could believe Beecher inno-
cent from the evidence.
IL. n ogden believes that Beecher is guilty.
Mr.. L. John Ellis says that, after reading
Beecher's testimony In full, he came 70 the con-
clusion that he was guilty.
John II. Kennard believes tnat while Beecher
was guilty or all sorts OF l1discretion5, he had
not been crimnally intimate with MIS-. Tllton.
Joseph Potts Harmon said he did not think
Beecher guilty; thinks that the defendant Is
julius Arroni says he believes Mr. Beecher
guilty; the evidence adduced on the trial had es
tablished that fact, and that a. a witness Mir.
Bsecher was not enti led to credit.
W. ". King says Beecher has been proven
guilty; he regards all attempts made by the de-
fence 10 conrovert the effect OF these letters
as innovations to escape from bad dilemma.
Major J. Z. Austin believes the defendant guilty;
the testimony OF Richards alone was sufficient to
against him given by the prosecution mad not been
shaken.
George W. Race says that he has no moral doubt
as TO Mr.. Beecher's guilt.
Percy Roberts is positively convinced OF Mr.
Beecher's guilt.
]. Davidson Hin thinks Beecher guilty ; saws he
had good cause TO form an unavorable opinion OF
Mr.. Beecner's emotional propensities from some
thing he had heard twelve or fifteen years ago.
H. r. steele, Assistant Attorney General. re-
CARDS the charge made against ecner as a con-
splracy 10 ruin him. He cannot even believe him
guilty OF ndisereuon, as he tAlnXs Titons WORD Of
no account
Robert ". Ogden thinks tue prenonderance OF
evidence during the trial has been adverse 10
Beecher. In mis- opinion Beecher must be more
than a human being IL innocent
ExJudge Henry Q. DIoble believes that the
theory that there was conspiracy against
Beecner was overthrown during the trial, and,
although ne had not formed positive opinion,
inclined to the belief that the bulk Of the evidence
was against the idea OF Beecher's innocence
John NJ Bonner says ne has not particle OF
doubt as to Mr.. Beecher's guilt
Ex-Judge John Livingston had not made up his
mind as TO Beecaer's guilt, out his Impressions
thus lar we're uniavorable to the defendant
Judge George IT, Braughn believes Beecher
guaty He does NOT attach any weight to Beech
er's evidence, owing to the position In which he
found himself placed.
3. j. Sage has not the slightest doubt OF Mr.
B.echsr's positive guilt. The evidence against
hun was strong, While Beecner's defence was
simply a remarkably ingenious theory based upon
his own statements.
c. L. Walker Is Impressed with the belief tina:
Beecher Is guilty, and Us convinced tnat a STUDY OF
the evidence OF the case will confirm thIs impress
sion on any fair mans mind
r. e. Zachare believes that strong chain OF
cIrcumstantial evidence proves Beecner guilty
No reasonable hypothesis Of his innocence had
been or could be offered.
Henry c. Miller tanks Beecher guilty. The let
ters produced on the trial fully settled IL.
WISCONSIN,.
MILWAUKEE,, June 20, 1875.
Your corresp ondent, IN conversation with
prominent clergymen and lawyers concerning tho
guilt or innocence OF Mr. Beecher elected aome