New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-06-17
THE LETTER OF CONTRITION.

Mr. Beech--In commenting upon this Letter OF
Analogy" or "Coniri,ion" whatever designation may
be given 10 IT, Mt Eyars remarked that was originally
called Letter OF Apology" AMI that in the Bacon
Letter ard elsewhere, Mr. T.on had spoken OF IL as
Letter Of Apology" In 10y judgment no significance -
due TO the particular appcson attached TO this paper
whether II Is called Letter OF Apology or Letter
of Contriton its value and effect are TO be determined
BY its contents. II might very properly DO eaieo
either. MIR Shcarinan, when this instrument was
produced. venured TO intimate that II hah peen
prepared with different ink rather conveying the I'M
imitation that had been an entirely fabricated document
and written under circumstances from the fact OF inc
difference in ink and the style OF punotuation whcn
would gcs the idea Of fraudulent fabrication. lua'
has not continued by the arguments OF either OF NY
learned friends 1t could not Ne, because 1t very aP
pareut that those differences in the ink were caused py
the exhaustion of the pen or By circumstances "hch
vary often occur in the OF writing. IL Is pretty
plain that Mr. Moulton did not haYo either very sooo
pen or very fluent ink rather thick and dark; Dit tnere
n no pre:cu,e Of such characteristic no" apou' n
document
The important question arising upon the evidence 70
ssrdInc this paper u.s. whether it is the production OF MI
Fseober whether Il really expressed his sentiments 81
ths tine il was drawn by Mr. Moulton Ana you feue"
ber the general circumstances as narrated by po'h mr.
Reacher aud MI. Moulton under which 1t was written
Nv the tnement Of BOTH SIR. Beecher profoundly moved
from some cause other. not important just now 10 con
sder his whole being disturbed and agitarec lie
vas exprUssirg himself in the most emotional manner
he Was growing sorrowing over something ana Ms
heart was unreScryediy poured out In the eAtemes'
language Of regret. II not OF penence He represents
that MI Mouton was making memorandum OF the con-
vcrsaon or Of his ucrauecs for the purpose OF SUD-
usittng communicated in some FORM TO Mt lI'oh, a
axpressye Of the feelings and sentiments OF Mr. beecher
toward Triton. snd in regard 10 the subject OF some
character which was disturbing these parties
Mr. Mouon swears TO you that he drafted this writing
do las
trdIng HE language writing It under his dictation
we'll there "a no serious laIty between the two Wit
eesses in this respect Whether this was written IN the
strict sense Of dctaon. that is word ~ word rs IL 1c
Immediately from the lips of Mr. Beecher, or whether"
~ an accurate representation Of his language as II was
caught by Mr. Moulton at the time. l. not OF any very
treat importance The question IT, Is 1t the language
n Mr. Beechert
II is said that this paper Is not good Ehgnsh' INA"
meat inastor OF language perfect ingUisi hEe Mr..
Beechcr would not have produced document OF that
character Well this paper has excited very extensive
semments here only, but elsewheie In limitation OF
nv learned friend Mr. Porter may say that when that
Instrument its copy. read to one OF the most cui
ovsted and distinguished Of the editors OF the '1y OF
Wew.Yors, lie broke out with tho exclamation lhats
Reecher that's Beeeher oil over. Shakespeare might a.
yell deny tho authorship Of tic scloquy OF Hamlet as
FAechcr 10 DENY that PAPER" Well We have diner-
saa all of us of the power and grace OF IAN
mage Mr. Porter thinks IL an awkward un-Engnsh
document aether lofty in sentiment nor powerful III ex
pscssicn Well personally dler with him, and think
have the opinion of the educated world with me upon
shat subject. Iwant your opinion If can get H.
Iask through you Theodore Tilton's forgiveness, and
Humble mysef before him as i do before my Cod
Well, there is not much MoultouisDl in that Laugh
sr This man VITO represented "a an esIegous sinner
shs besthcn. they not only in profession but III
pxactice N was originating document OF tina char
seer II not very probable that he would open 1t win
zach an expression OF intense sorrow and humility.
Task through you, Theodore Titons forgiveness and
Humble myself before him do before my God. He
gould have been better mao al my ercums'abee' ua'
have been.
Wei. that Mr. Be.cLcr admits. He adopts that eI
sgssson aud he that re undoubtedly expressed his
sosrow. aud undoubtedly in some form expressed
s,re for the for of Mr. Tton. so the substance
o. this instrument so far is Mr. Bcec0ers
lean AK nothing except that he VIII reuepber all the
s&her hearts that would ache.
Well that s moi denied by Mr. Beecher.
viii not plead for myself eyca wish that were
VOL il Am not mistaken. Mr. Beechor also admitted
cat he isgkt have used that expres-'on-a wish Tor
dsath.
Rut others must live and suffer. VII lie before any
Sse but myself shall so inculpaed
IDculpatedi
An my thoughts are running tow ard my friends toward
sse poor child lying there and lrayng with her toided
txnds She gltless snned against hsarins ne trans
pay God that He may put 1t in the heart OF her nus
i have trusted TIL. to Moucn IN confidence.
Vow imagine Henry Ward Beecher, oppressed with
sense OF guilt accused and conscious Of an otnse against
his nature and character and expressing all the emo
tons which would be awakened in nature like his when
contemplating the haseness Of his Oense and the conse
auences which hid followed upon the heel OF discovery
and publicity, Can you conceive is there man in this
assembly " no can conceive appropriate and e.
rressive declaration TO be addressed to the man he had
vrnged than that Letter of Conttion more naturin
II sentiment forcible in every word in every
pAre and sentence than that parer7 No man need he
asbamed Of It, And Moutcn i the literary sham and
prender he is represented 10 he by Mr. Porter is 1t con-
cetya,c that he could originally draft document OF
that char ctorf Giving him his true qualities az cult
waited gentleman Mr. Bcocber swears he was man OF
literary TASTE yet he an active man or business not
seoustomcd to literary writing literary address. He
vas not at least. prayorfu man. lie was little pro-
f,ue IN expressions according TO the evidence. He
vss bod. active, aggressive worker In the affairs and
Struggle ofIife Would he have written such docu
neut that IN his best estate Would 10 not have been
more concise busnesske practical not dealing in that
exalted sentiment and that force of religious expression
and thought which hrathcs from every paragraph OF that
dncumentt
Well H. too Monl'cn he conspTator; II that letter
never was submitted 10 the inspection of Nj Beecher or
read by Ln IL In careless confidence lie attached TO 1t
the certificate Il his name under the declaration that
vas delivered IN trust 70 MoultOn and there being plenty
Of room between the writing Of the body Of the nsru
ent and MI Beeohtrs name II Mouon DC 90 depravoi
and srra,a q scoundrel. 80 faitbess and malignant
toward cccIer, why didn't he put into the letter
something equyoca aud distinct and cxpliciti
Why ddnt fashion II TO meet these imputed pur-
poses and to CRAFTY this imputed spirit Of rascaty and
nesnnesst And so you see, looking at the cir
cumstsDces surrounding the paper, Judging from its
conception. from its style OF thought its mode Of
expression. from the probabilities arising from the char
scter 81 the two parties perceive that that
obviously the thought sentiment, and expression Of
Henry wsra Beeober II is said is badly pnnctuated