The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1875-06-17


rules by which the evidence must be
guided by the law d? Mr.. Beach then re-
ferred to the offer of the prosecution to
admit Mrs. Tilton as witness In the case
and read remarks made by Mr.. Evarts on
the subject from testimony, and argued
that the wifes disability to appear as
witness in the case was not created by
statute but arose from common law 1t
was an incapacity which could be waived
by both parties on their consent. The
question of evidence was not under the
control Of the court except under objec-
tons of parties to the suit and il both sides
had agreed to the admission of either Mrs.
Titon or Mrs. Beecher rs witnesses there
was no power which could exclude their
testimony. Counsel was in favor of full
investigation in this case, and in his
professional zeal he did not wish
anything covered up. Why was not
Mrs. Tilton called? The jury must con-
slider that question. They were free to call
her. Counsel would not have offered any
hindrance to it. She was pure, white
and spotless woman in the eyes of Beecher,
and Tilton formerly says there was no
adultery committed and that there never
was any temptation for the offence charged
against him. The jury would see that
with the name of her maker on he lips,
deny the accusation which she had so often
repeated. Beechcr had over and over again
denied the fact of his improper connection
with Mrs. Titon, but counsel did not de-
pend alone on oral testimony. He had
written confessions and papers sustaining
and upholding the oral proofs, which must
be taken not alone collectively but sepa-
rately, and they must be taken in connec-
ton with the character of Beecher. Moul-
ton, Tilton, and Mrs. Moulton bear testi
mony to Beecher's confessions of guilt
to them, and Moulton and Wood
ruff testify that adultery was the
charge talked about with General Tracy,
and if this were so Mr.. Beechcr was for
sworn man. Mr.. Beach commented on the
letter of apology or letter of contritlon, in
regard to which he said that either name
was appropriate; Mr.. Beecher was mourn
ing over something his heart was poured
out in regard to some sorrow. Moulton
swears that he drafted the letter from some
observations which dropped from Beecher's
I;no Tho 10 this bn la
guage of Beecher =? 1t was stated the let
ter was not written in good English, such
as should come from the mouth of the
great exponent of the English language;
this letter has been shown to one of the
principal editors of paper in New York
ard he said that it was all Beecherism and
that Shakespeare might as well deny the
authorship of Hamlet's soliloquy as Beech
err to deny the formation of that letter.
This letter goes on to say that he (Beecher)
humbed himself before Tilton as he did
before his God. Was there much Moul-
tonism in that expression ? Uaughter.)
No man need be ashamed of the
construction of that letter and if
Moulton was the literary sham that
Mr.. Porter represented him, how could he
have invented this document ? lie was
business man and little profane in his ex-
pressons. Would he have written the
same religious expressions and thoughts
which breathed all through this document
1t was said that it was badly punctuated,
but that was not Mr.. Beecher's fault it
was Mr.. Moulton's. Beechcr was so en-.
gagged in the wild outpouring of his
thoughts that he did not pause, therefore it
was not wonderful that Moulton, even if
he knew the method of panctuatng SEN
fences, did not do it, Mr.. Beecher wrote
this letter he was in one of the crises
which the best men reach at some period of
their lives, when they use language which
they would not ordinarily imploy, and it
was in one of these words that this docu-
ment, overlooking with extravagant express
sions, was written. Beach quoted from
Beecher's "Lecture-room Talk" to show
that he had there declared that when the
feelings of persons are aroused and excited
their expressions are apt TO overlap the
bounds of governmental and rhetorical
rules. The speaker also read from
Mr.. Beecher's testimony, in which as
he claimed Mr.. Beechcr had admitted the
authorship of the letter. The confession
of crime, too, was not such an anomaly in
human experience, he thought, as Evarts
would have the jury believe. Beecher's
declared intention to ''step down and out"
if by so doing he could benefit Tilton and
his family was also made the subject of
extended comment unfavorable to Beecher
dragged edge letter was then read and
its extreme expressions noted the word
"remorse" came in for good share of the
orators reflections, he contending
that its legitimate meaning was
sorrow for crime committed. Da-
Davids treatment of Uriah, as mentioned
in the scriptures, was declared TO be, in
many respects, similar to Mr.. Beechers
conduct in the present case, and the third
psalm as showing the effect of remorse
upon the human conscience was said to
have been written with the same feelings
of agony with which Mr.. Beecher wrote
the pitiful words of remorse contained in
the letter under consideration. Beecher's
concuct differed from David's in the
fact that David confessed his sin
before men. Mr.. Beecher did not.
The argument was concluded fol
the day with readings of selections
from Byrons "Giavour" and Hawthorne't
"Scarlet letter." and comments on the
same by the speaker. The scenes reat
were described to be typical of the agonizet
condition of guilty and despairing soul
which knows its own baseness, but which