Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1875-05-19
stahhmau e gonrnaL
The BROOKLYN Trial.


arguments Of counsel, the charge Of the
Judge and the verdict Of the jury, are to fol
low. But the testimony in the case has been
ofully and accurately reported that the gen
eral public will probably render its decision
without waiting for argument, charge or YER
dict. The trial has been very protracted
one. The vast mass Of the evidence was al
ready familiar to the community, having
been published in the original statements Of
the parties, and in the proceedings before
the investigating committee, and having
oozed out from all the leaky vessels into
which any portion of the scandal had been
poured The trial has not thrown any new
light upon the question at issue. Much ir-
relevant matter has been developed, which
only the acumen Of counsel can show to be
relevant. Mr.. Tilton's statement is substan-
italy the same before the court that it was
in his documents of last year. Mr.. Moul-
toms testimony has not changed in any i'm
portant particular. Mrs. Moulton adds her
testimony 10 that Of her husband, and swears
10 the truth Of certain statements which he
had previously made. The evidence of the
plaintiff has developed no new and corrobo-
rating facts. Even Mr.. Bowen failed to dis.
close anything that touched the vital issue,
and his evidence, so far as it went, was so
unfortunate as to be directly and diametri.
cally contradicted by Mr.. Eggleston, whose
reputation for truth and veracity has not
been impeached. The case of the plaintiff
on the trial is, therefore, in all essential par
ticulars, the same as it was before the trial
began.
The defense has labored under the great
disadvantage of proving negative. Three
witnesses testify that the defendant had con
fessed his adultery to them This is the ey-
idepce on which the plaintiff relies to prove
the fact, and substantate his claim for
damages. There is no documentary proof
Of the alleged offense, except as it may be
inferred from certain letters of the defen-
dant which are put into the case by the
plaintiff These letters are not confessions
of the crime alleged, but only expressions of
the feelings of the defendant under the in
huence of charges which are not related or
even indicated in them. The plaintiff had
destroyed all the positive documentary proof
of the crime when he destroyed the original
confession of his wife. What that confess
sion was, did not appear on the trial, except
from the statement of the plaintiff. But his
destruction Of this important paper will nee
essarily leave a doubt in the mind of every
thoughtful man with respect TO its statements,
and his Interpretation of it. To us, it seems
that the destruction of this document by the
plaintiff himself seriously weakens and in
jures his case. lie, himself, has destroyed
the hook in which the chain of his testimony
was fastened, and cut off his story from its
original and adequate source and head. A
written confession of the offense by his wife
would have been incontestible, and so dam
aging that its force could have been neutral
lied only by proving her to have been
lunatic or a conspirator with her husband.
But now by the action of the plaintiff, and
by the statements of his wife and of the de
PENDANT, such doubts are thrown over the ma
ture of that original document, as utterly to
destroy its moral and legal force And it
will be remembered that the whole case, as
it exists in the mind of the plaintiff and in
the minds of his associates, was made up on
the basis of this original confession. 1t was
on the ground of that confession, whatever
it may have been, that the attack was made
on the defendant. 1t lies at the bottom of
the entire case, and having been destroyed
by the plaintiff, and having been retracted
by the plaintiffs wife, in such terms as in
dictate the offense to have been different
from the one alleged, and as do not Justify
the plaintiffs Interpretation, any candid man
may reasonably doubt, whether the docu-
ment itself would, if existing, confirm the
allegations of the plaintiff. Here is the first
damaging weakness of the plaintiffs case
according to his own showing. He has not
shown beyond doubt that the first confess
sion, which he destroyed, was one of
adultery. The first point therefore fails.
The second point of attack is the alleged
confessions of the defendant himself, sus-
ny MS oMH L MS Is Ine
strong point in the case. The defendant de-
mics unequivocally any such confessions,
and gives such explanation of his letters as
will satisfy men who are well acquainted
with him that his trouble and bitterness of
spirit were not owing TO the commission of
the crime with which he is charged. The
issue here is entirely one of personal verac-
ity. The plaintiff, and his associate, who
has been mixed up in the whole affair, very
little to his credit, according to his own
showing, charge the defendant with admit
ting to them his adultery. He fatty denies
it. Which shall be believed ? The only
course left for the defendant was to prove
that the plaintiff is not credible. It will be
admitted that the trial has shown the entire
morale of the plaintiff TO be shockingly bad
Ii we may believe the evidence, his personal
habits and life, in his own house and beyond
1t, were shameless and disgusting. As be-
tween the plaintiff and the defendant, any
issue of veracity must be decided in favor
OF the defendant. And as for the defen.
dant's associate - the mutual friend
OF both the parties to the case-his friend
ship, according to the testimony began with
the defendant when he first came TO the
knowledge of the crime. He then admitted
him to his house, gave him opportunity of
long and confidential interviews with his
wife, received and returned his visits, not
because he had been an old and trusted
friend OF the defendant, and was interested
to protect his reputation, but because he
was the friend and counsellor of the plain
tiff, whom the defendant had outrageously
wronged, if the story he tells is true. Nor
does his friendship with the defendant ter.
inmate till he asks an investigation into the
charges which had their origin all the while
in the words and statements OF the plaintiff.
Such mans testimony will have the weight
that different minds are disposed to give it.
The man who accepts it all can find no rea-
sonable fault with the man who rejects il en-
tirely. That this man could have been the
friend Of a confessed adulterer-his friend.
ship dating from his knowledge Of the adul-