Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1875-06-17
The "CatherIHe GauBt" Letter-The So
llcltatiOn TO Become Wife with
all that that Name Implied.
The Brother on the Sisters Adultery
Beecher's ApOlOgy-ExtraTagant
Language Justifled-COBfes-
sion.
HOUItOR as q Ruler Of the StOrm-The
"Step Down and O2t' Letter
PenItenee Of the Preacher
Re-Opening.

| IN the suit OF Theodore Hilton against
y. w. Beecher. Taking up Mrs. Til
toms retTsction letter, he said that the
word "inculpating" used in the letter
was not a womsn's word, and did not be-
long to the phraseOlOgy Of the house,
hold. Beecher used the same word in
his letter OF contritiOn, and certain per.
sons could be distinguished by their
style Of rhetoric. Beecher testified that
Mrs. Tilton wrote the letter, but
il was written at his dictation,
as she says that Beecher wrote the
letter and she copied it. When
Beecher returned to Moulton's that
night, he told no one he had received
the retractiOn, and, if innocent, how
gladly and cheerfully he would have
gone into the presence OF Tilton and told
him Of it. MoultOn was told by Beecher
that Tilton had read to him the confess
sion Of Mrs. Tilton charging him
(Beecher) with having sexual inter-
course with. her, and Mrs. TiIton wrote
a letter to her husband stating that she
hoped her husband would never be mis-
led by good woman Is she had been
misled by q good man. This was said
Of Beecher, who the jury were asked to
believe to be all that was noble and
good. Mr.. Beach then reviewed the SO.
called Catherine Gaunt letter, in which
Mrs. Dlton says to her husband: "Bless
God with me for Catherine Gaunt; and
now / am prepared to renew the mar
rage vow and keep il as the Savior de.
sired in the heart" Counsel followed
this by reading Mrs. Tilton's statement
to Rev. DR.. Storrs that BeecheT, her
friend and pastor, had made improper
proposals to her and solicited her to be-
come q wife to him with all that name
implied. After anAlZying other familiar
points in the case, Mr.. Beach said every
effort at investigating into the matter
was suppressed by Beecher with the great
power which he exercised in that COM
munity; he never prosecuted inquiry into
Ii, but stamped 1t under his feet. There
must have been some consciousness of
guilt which caused him to be silent and
laboring to stife investigation. This
man was to be judged according to our
knowledge of the man and Of his char
acter, and when We find him Sinking in
the darkest paths we must impute to
him the ordinary motives which showed
the true criminal. When Mr.. Richards
was on the stand the other side refused to
ash him whether in 1870 he did not hear
the confession Of his sister with regard
all these considerations to be overlooked,
and were the remarks Of the other side
to overcome these views of the case,
and was this man in his holy robes, this
potentate of the pulpit, to Overturn ell
the rules by which evidence was to be
guided by the law? Mr.. Beach then re-
ferTed to the offer of the prosecution to
admit Mrs. Tiltou as a witness, and
argued that the wife's disability to ap.
pear was an incspacity which could be
waived by both parties cOnsenting, and
il both sides had agreed to the admis-
sion of either Mrs. TiltOn or Mrs. BeecheI
there was no power which could exclude
their testimony. Why was not Mrs.
Tilton called? The jury must consider
that she was pure, white and spOtless
woman in the eyes of BeecheT and Til
ton. The jury would see that Mrs.
Tilton dared not take the stand,
and with the name of God upon her
lips deny the accusation which she had
often repeated. Mr.. Beecher had over
and over Sgain denied the fact of his
connection with Mrs. Tilt0n, but counsel
did not depend alone on oral testimony;
he had written confessions and papers
sustaining and unfolding the oral proofs,
which must be taken not alone collect
lively, but also separately, and these
must be taken in connection with the
character Of Beecher. Moulton, Tilton
and Mrs. Moulton bear testimony to
Beecher's confessions of guilt to them,
and Moulton and Woodruff testify
that adultery was the charge talked
about with General Tracey, and il this
were so, Beecher was a fOresWOTn man.
AFTER RECESS.
After recess Mr.. Beach continued his
argument, and took up the subject of the
letter Of cOntritiOn or letter OF apology,
either name, he said, was appropriate
for the document. The question was
whether Beecher's ideas at the time were
represented fairly by the paper. 1t was
maintained by some that this docu-
ment was not good English, and could
not have been dictated by a master Of
language like Beecher. While opinions
differed on this point, one of the most
cultivated editors in New York, when
this letter was read to him for the first
time, exclaimed, that is Beecher all
over. Shakespeare might as well deny
the authorship Of "Hamlet'sn sOliloquy
as for Beecher to deny the authorship Of
that letter. He did not know that he
could Tefute the charge that the letter
was uDgrammatical any better than by
reading it. Mr.. Beach then quoted from
one of Beecher's lecture-roOm talks some
remarks, to the effect that the eXtTava-
gance Of the language WAS natural and
iastifiable at q crisis of feeling, and at
these moments men did not stand upon
grammar and nicietie5 of expression. 1t
was not right though, Beecher said, to
adapt to common circumstances the
language OF those psrOxysmsl moments.
Here was that word parOXysmal again.
Mr.. Beach then quoted the passage in
the letter Of apology, referring to that
poor child lying there with folded hands,
and pointed out the correspond
ence between this description
and q passage referring to Mrs.
Tllton in Mr.. Beecher's statement. He
also quoted from the statement Of Mr..
Beecher's g description from the man
ner IN which he poured forth his soul to
MOulton like water, and cited passage
in letter from Beecher to MOultOn In
1873, speaking Of his letter to TiltOn
through Mou!ton. Beecher, the jury
would see, did not deny the 8uthOrship
OF this letter Of cOntritiOn, in ] ?3. Mr..
Evarts ridiculed the idea Of confession.
Mr.. Beach declared that criminals did
not confess. Counsel here quoted a
passage on the power OF conscience IN
Mr.. Webster's speech at the White MUIR
der trial, in which he declared that there
was no recourse for the guilty but con-
fession or suicide, and that suicide was
confession. The letters OF February Z,
1871, one to Moulton and the others to
Mrs. TiltOn, from Beecher, were read
to the jury, and counsel said why did
Mr.. Beecher fear investigation II he was
nf
made Beecher write that Moulton was
the best friend that was ever given to
man In an emergency like this? Was
not this almost q virtual confession on
the part OF Beecher? What made him
write that Moulton was the best friend
God ever gave a man If he was
not serving him honestly? Who
was it that was thus holding