Litchfield enquirer., 1875-04-15
The Great Trial.

polnt of 1ntenseSt interest For one week Mir. Beecher has been on the stand testi- lying regarding the remarkable circum- stances of this remarkable case. With those whose faith in the great preacher is unshaken, his repeated and most solemn asseverations of innocence will undoubted. ly have great weight. It does not seem possible that such a man could commit such awful perjuries as he must be com mitting if he is guilty. Perhaps our pre-. possessionsagainst the defendant influence our judgment. but we certainly believe that his testimony in court is much less plausible and effective than hls written statement of August last. The continuity of his story is broken of necessity by questions from his own counsel and by occasional interruptions from opponents. The evidence lacks the vivid coloring of the statement; the weakness of its logic is not concealed to the same extent by the strength of its rhetoric; and, above all, it grapples more iclosely with the great difficulty of the case-the remarkable language of the defendants own letters with, as it strikes us, very unsatisfactory results
 To give our readers our idea of the fun damental weakness of this defence we must ask them to look at some of the facts admitted by MT. Beecher. in connection with his letters, and on the supposition of his innocence. Our quotations will be from the reports of the New York Daily Tribune, giving the date, page, and col umn of the paper in which they appear We ask our readers to consider, first, Mir. Beecher's statement of his feelings of ap- prehension at the time just preceding the interview when Moultoa wrote the "apol- ogy."
 feared that charge made by him and supported by his wife to be at publicly pressed against me; and if it was had nothing but my simple word of denial to interpose against it. In my then morbid condition of mind thought that this charge, though absolutely untrue might result in great disaster avoid public accusation, and the evils which must necessarily flow from it and which have resulted from it, has been one of the leading motives that must explain my action during these four years with refer ence to this matter.-Aug 14, 2:3.
 ''It was in such a sore and distressing condition, continues Mir. Beecher, ''that MT. Moulton found me-. Then followed Moulton's exculpation of Hilton from the charge of immortality, and his assertions that Mir. Beecher had caused Tilton's ruin by urging Bowen to discharge him, and the ruin of his family by alienating his wife's affections. Thereupon MT. Beecher fell into violent mood of self denunciation which resulted in the "apol- ogy," a document which he claims to be incorrect in many, important respects, al- though representing with tolerable accu- racy hls state of feeling at the time. First let us see what reasonable foundation there was for any such state of feeling on Mir. Beecher's part on the theory of his innocence. Granting that Moulton en- tirely disproved the charges made by Bowen, Mrs. Hilton and Bessie Turner, against Hilton, there could be no defence against the still baser crime of having forced his wife to make a false charge of solicitation of adultery against an old friend, most eminent minister, and his early patron. In the face of such fact could Mir. Beecher regret having advised Bowen to dismiss this man from a respon- sible position on religious paper, or could he honestly say that he had imputed to Theodore Hilton any greater depravity than his conduct showed that he deserv- ed? There was no ground. therefore, for Mir. Beecher's humiliation before Hilton except his very proper sorrow for having unwittingly made himself too agreeable to Mrs. Hilton. Does that dact alone warrant the language, or anything like the language, of the apology? Certainly that offence in no way approaches the in- iquity of Tllton's false and malicious charge against Mir. Beecher. Moreover, when Moulton came in, Mir. Beecher was in an agony of fear lest the false charge should be pressed against him by the per jury of Mrs. Hilton suborned by her fu- rious husband. Is it conceivable that any man of Mir. Beecher's sense should be unaware that in the apology he was fur nishing the very evidence Hilton needed to enforce this false change? If the ''apol- ogy' had been the only document in the case Mir. Beecher's inexplicable seH-hu- initiation before such a wretch as Hilton had proved himself, might be attributed to momentary weakness, but there follows a succession of letters, all in the tone of the apology: In his letter to Moulton of Feb. 1, MT. Beecher says, Would to God who orders all hearts. that by your kind mediation Theodore, Elizabeth and I could be friends again. Theodore will have the hardest task in such case; but has he not proved himself capable of the noblest things" There is not word in thls or in any of the numerous published letters of MT. Beecher even limiting a re- proach to Hilton, Mrs. Hilton or Moulton, for the threats of lying and most odious charge that they kept constantly hanging
 over him.
 Indeed, we cannot believe Mir. Beecher
 innocent of the crime charged against him
 without also believing hlm guilty of the most incredible cowardice. We cannot indeed blame him for making the most in his evidence of his regrets for having en- grossed Mrs. Tilton's affections, unawares,
 for that is the only respectable motive
 left him; but the facts, and the conduct
 of all the parties, show that it was the fea1
 of what he insists was an unjust accusa.
 tion which in reality extorted all these re-
 markable letters; which kept him on the
 ragged edge of anxiety, remorse, fear,
 and despair" and which occasioned all
 ''our devices for the restoration of Hilton
 to popular favor, and lucrative employ.