New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-03-02
Mr.. BEECIIER'S REFUSAL TO ACKNOWI EDGE AN
OFFENSE AGAINST MR.. TILTON.

| 20 now briefly, for moment, to the publication
Of the Bacon letter and the effort that made to induce Mr.
eccber 10 sign card acknowledging that he had committed
40 offence against Theodore Tton bat crime which offence
ne nal aposzcl for and that apology had been accepted anu
the difficulty settled and he should not be party to the open
ing controversy That card proposed as you re-
member gentlemen by Mouton who thought pretended 10
think int the Bacon letter still LEFT opeu way OF
compromise and settlement by which this public scandal,
.s great pubic calamity, which has been inflicted UPON
the world could be avoided. His plan that Mr. Iion
having charged Mr. Beechr with oense in the Bacon letter
and not having characterized thai oense Mr houns pan
was that Mr. Bcccher should acknowledge That he had com
mitcd oene but had apologzcd for IT, that that apology
mad been accepted and the settled.
II was in regard to this card gentlemen a. stated 70 youon
Friday evening called into this the adviser Of
Mr. Mouton Mr. Beccier that subject differed with
Mr. Mou,on as there stated could not how friend
Of Mr. Beechcr could advise him 10 sign this card
sought to convince Mouton that he could not siu IT, hut
Moul,on persisted, AMI after had declined Still urged
this upon Mir Becch.r You will remember in the
evidence gwen has been stated you by Mr. Mention
himself that he told Beecher that Lc would sign this
card acknowledging oGeHsc without stating what The
oGcnse was, Mr.. Theodore Tion would accept il Ia
satisfactory and II Mr Beechcr would sign II, he MOuo
would burn every paper ced with t and would
BY Beechcr Triton sought to wage CONFLICT with him
after that Now gentlemen of the jury, Mr. Bcechcr had
known what they say he knew; il he had been con
scious OF g1i with this woman Tor sixteen months ;
il ne had confessed and AGAIN 20 al these
parties IL It be true that his writing referred 10 adultery and
no, TO complicated domestic family dfculyf that be tine
say how can you explain the fact that NJ Beechr refused
the offer Of Mr. Mouon? lie had not dstused Mr. Mouon
at this time Mouton stil had his confidence. lie
It'll believed Moulton his friend and he relied upon
Mouton fnfllinc the promise il be had made H.
Now gentlemen Of the jury do you believe that II HEM
Ward B.eche conscious Of hs guilt II he had
that his guilt could be proved by this cloud Of witnesses that
be would refused the Offer sign card which simply
acknowledged offence, without naming the offence
and thus had the paper destroyed and made an ally
OF Mouton, which Tton could not have detached They
would have disarmed themselves with the destruction
of that paper They would have had nothing to
90 into court with against Mr. BeeChcr
How possible say account for this refusal upon any
known motives which actuates controls human Why
II Nj Beecher had not been conscious q b own innocence
be Els nai ts sonadeg6i he tdSef l6SeT 7Eck The
storm MIGHT beat upon ultimately yind.ese himself
from this charge lac would have made haste sn sat card
attach outon him. and had him destroy the papers Ind the
evidence AGAINST him But he refused -eadfasy refused 70
do any such thing. lie said Il will sign card, and
for this reason" MI TnOn hsd charged, II E true.
in the Bacon letter simply oGense, but he had char Cd
IL in such a way that most people, reading me
Bacon letter thought that it intended TO charge Ia. ~
tense and Mr. Beecher had signed hs card acknowledging
ofense persons who wanted believe him guilty would
that that meant adultery and he would moi sgn uess the card
should specify what the ofene wac Thai Was the point md
the point Of dispute in that adjustment.