The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1875-01-30
The Beecher-TiltOn Trial.


hear the arguments on the question of
admitting Theodore Titon as witness
in the case.
Judge Nelson stated that he was in
formed by the editor of the Tribune that
/ q pamphlet containing the so-called Off
! cial report of the first part Of the trial,
WAS not issued from that Office; the Judge
then censurcd the publishers for the Sc
we're criticism of Mr.. Moulton, and hoped
| the offence would not be repeated.
After the Jury had answered to their
names Gen. Pryor resumed his argument
in favor of receiving the testimony Of
Theodore Tilton; he said the act of 1861
/ contemplated no such thing As pro-
I hibiting parties to suit in the case
of adultery, giving evidences for or
against each other. This witness did not
attempt to take the stand against his
wife but it WAS against her alleged
! seducer, To testify to the crime committed
| bv Henry Ward Beechcr. In the case
Of Pctrie against Howe the Supreme
| Court decided in 1874, case OF criminal
! connection, and the husband was allowed
to testify. An appeal was taken to the
Z
argued and attentively listened to by the
Court, and there WAS no question with
the Court but that the witness WAS ad-
mi>>able and it conceded his competency.
The question with this Court now, was
rs TO what decision he should follow.
The learned gentleman OF the other side
of the argument, aS another reason that
no husband or wife could give collateral
evidence in a SUIT WAS that one could not
give evidence, the one to criminate the
other, but was that not sound law? 1t
was not the law of England, neither was
it the law of America. Counsel quoted
two cases where the husband in one case
was convicted of perjury on the testimo-
ny of his wife and in the other he WAS
convicted of perjury and bigamy in the
case. In this State Justice Barret says
the evidence of husband and wife is re-
ceivable though the evidence may GRIM
mate one or the other, certainly this was
case in this State. He had
selected one case from New Jersey
where the limitation of the law was pro-
pounded by the Court, which SAID the
only question WAS in admitting the evil
dencc of husband, where he said he
| thought the rules should be extended and
not limited. If the plaintiff were ad
mitted to the stand, and proved adultery
against his wife did that charge her with
any crime or criminal intent? No; for
that was not the law, as it was known in
/ New York
Adultery WAS not q Crime
or oiiensc in New York, and was not
now; hence the reasons OF counsel on the
other side were inapplicable, because
they would not effect the criminality Of
the wife, nor in the admissablity Of the
plaintiff as a competent witness. He
was competent witness, counsel argued,
in conclusion, and should be SO sworn.
William A Beach rose to sustain
the argument of his brother cOun-
sci He paid compliment to
the rhetoric of the counsel on the
other side. That defamation, he said
would have looked better had it come
from one who was not defending the
man who was believed to be walking in
the illustrious footsteps of his Master.
Whatever Henry Ward Beccher might
say on that stand the justice or impair
TALLY of the law debarred Theodore
Tilton from answering the imputatiOns.
! The .sducer would be allowed on the
| stand while the man whom he had
I wrongcd would be forced TO sit idly by
with his lips sealed, wafthe grave and i'm
portant subject which his Honor had to
| deal with. The counsel believed that
the law cherished tenderly the family
and the home. He argued that no soce
ty or government could stand except up
/ on the sanctity of the domestic circle rs
preserved inviolate. The same held good
with regard to the marriage relations.
! Tne counsel on the other side said that
! this union of souls could not be torn, but
the speaker submitted that 1t had often
! been mangled and torn. His friends on
the other side were digging among the
| fossils of the past and bringing up dead
carcasses of exploded themes and parad-
ing them by way of argument, but these
were not to guide the Court. The coun-
sci imagined a cultured happy home, the
wife weak frail woman devoted to the
| husband of her early choice and the
| father of her children. She had pastor,
| learned and honored, gifted among his
! fellows as one whose words were listened
/ to with difference. All! he was gifted
with silver tongue that would bring an
angel out of paradise; she looked up to
him with reverence; he was almost an
inmate of her home in the confidence OF
her husband. He expended upon her
all his arts and she fell. Is she to be
| blamed for the act? Was this persecu-
: tion brought against her for her condem-
nation? Oh, no.
Consider how Strong he was and how
! weals she was.
and imagine the specious ways in which
he taught her that her crime was but
species cf love; that seduccr is brought in
to the hail of justice to answer for his
crime, and there was no rule in the law
Of this State to prevent the injured man
! from tcstifying against him in suit and
in behalf of this proposition the coun-
sci cited from numerous legal authorities.
He called attention to the case of South
wick against Southwick, in 70, in New