Litchfield enquirer., 1875-05-06
THE REsvTTAL.

~-eAAS AAU mus lk0 0pOxt8nt matter Ol the closing up of this part of the case arose out of the offer of the plaintiff to allow Mrs. Tilton to be put on the stand, but which was refused, out of re- gard, as Mir. Evarts states, to the policy of the law which he deemed wise; because he thought the defense strong enough without it; and for the further reason that he was unwilling to ''tear to pieces the last shred of responsibility and hope in the future of this family" The Tribune speaks as follows of the present condition of the case:
 The prosecution resumes this morning the work of repairing the breaches in their line of attack. They will utterly overthrow the attempt to connect MT. Tilton with the Woodhulls in. the Com. munist procession--a trivial matter, to which the defense attached undue impor- tance, and on which it was certainly mis- taken from the outset. On the other hand, they will gain nothing by their eff. fort to have Mrs. Tilton placed upon the stand. This poor woman has already giv- en too much testimony on both sides. The ends of justice did not need that she should be further tortured by lawyers and held up to the prurient curiosity of the country. sz.
 As regards the general policy of the law Mir. Evarts may be right, though we great. ly doubt it. In this case, certainly, ii Mrs. Hilton is innocent, it is an intolera. ble hardship that she cannot defend her. self against her husbands hateful at. tack.
 In regard to Mir. Evarts' second excuse, VIC can only say that Mir. Beecher's pres ent position seems 8 very doubtful one to a large proportion, perhaps majority. oi the great American public. The case sadly needs light and not darkness. .
 Finally, MT. Evsrts' plea for the re. spectability and solidarity of the Tilton family. if anything more than pretense, is the most severe condemnation oi Plymouth church and it's proceedings we have yet seen. The recent evidence oi Mrs. Ovington shows most conclusively that Mrs. Tilton's desertion of her hus. band, if not their work, certainly had their sanction. Moreover, they not only took her evidence, ex parte, but publish. ed it to the world, though withholding much of the testimony taken before them from such pubicltyl As far as the great outside public is concerned, before whom Mir. Beecher is on trial rather than before a dozen Brooklyn jurymen, they have in effect put Mrs. Hilton on the stand for examination in chief, and then withdrawn her when MT. Fullerton rose to cross-ex- anime. They have scattered her ex parte story broadcast over the country, and denied her husband his just opportunity of disproving that story by evidence of confessions, and by other rebutting testi- mony showing it's falsity.
 The simple fact is that Mrs. Hilton has confessed and denied till her evidence is worthless to the defendant Nor are her her confessions legal evidence against h1m; but their moral weight in this remarkable matter is a very different question. No doubt she may have confessed herself guilty although innocent; but. in that case, it is of the greatest importance to MT. Beecher's reputation, as well as her own, that the circumstances under which those confessions were made, and their character, should be thoroughly proved. Such confessions, by innocent persons, are luckily by no means common. and, unexplained, they raise very strong of guilt against tine parties involved.
 On Monday Mrs. Hilton preferred g written request to Judge Nelson for g hearing in the case now on trial before him. The more strongly the evidence al- ready before the court points to her guilt, the more strongly does her demand for a hearing appeal to the innate sense of jus tice in the breast of every right feeling person. It certainly does seem an atro- cious mockery of justice that the husband should be allowed to testify to 8 wife's guilt while the wife IS not allowed to testi- fy to her own innocence. In other words a lady is being convicted of crime worse than murder in public estimation. in a court before which she has no legal right to defend herself either by her own testi- mony, her own counsel, or her own wit nesses. It would be impossible to find 8 more glaring instance of the hateful de- pendence of woman under existing law. In this case the injustice certainly cannot be laid at the door of the plaintiff. Mir. Hilton cannot reasonably be expected to put his wife on the stand, for the law would not let him contradict her testimony though he may have witnesses to prove every word of it false.
 One fact lady in Mrs. Tilton's place must remember: court of justice is no place for rhetorical er parte statements. If she testifes she must expect to take the usual consequences of testimony in court; she must submit to the usual cross examination. and to the usual contradiction by opposing witnesses.
 THE BRITISH QUARTERLY REVIEW for April, contains: Gaspard de Coligny; The Higher Pantheism; Biornsterne as . Novelist; Livingstone's Last Journals; KInglake's History of the Crimean War; U Ultramontanism and Civil Allegiance; Mir. Gladstone's Retirement from the Liberal Leadership; Internal Evidence in Case of Disputed Authorship.
 Cornwall.
 My candle burns clearer since it was snuffed.
 The two weeks of fine weather have brought out the spade and rake and, most of the kitchen gardens have peas and let