The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-06-25
The Beecher Case Given 10 the
Jury-Waftfng for the Verdict.

of the Court yesterday and after its conclu-
sion the jury we're pat in charge Of officers
specially sworn to prevent all conversation
between them and other persons. Since they
are locked up to deliberate on their verdict,
and nothing that may be said in the press
can reach or influence them, there might be
no objection to comments; but it is safer to
withhold expressions of opinion on the merits
of the case until the verdict shall have been
rendered. We shall probably know in the
course of the day whether the jury are able to
agree. 1t is coincidence which the friends
OF Mr. Beecher will be apt TO interpret as of
happy augury that this case is given to the
jury on the anniversary of his birthday, and
his cheerful and even jovial demeanor in the
court room in this supreme crisis of his repu-
tation would seem to indicate that he accepts
the omen in favorable sense. Had the jury
returned favorable verdict yesterday it
would have been the most satisfactory birth
| day present he ever had.
Judge Nelson's charge is a model of i'm
I Partially, and seems to have been accepted
as such by the counsel on both Sides 1t is
impossible to detect in it the opinion of the
presiding magistrate on the central question,
which is the pith and pivot of the case-the
\ question whether Mr.. Beecher committed
adultery with Mrs. Tilton. But, without
usurping or trenching upon the prerogative
of the jury to weigh the evidence and deter
mine its bearing and value Judge Nelson
does not hesitate to guard them against the
extravagant and unwarranted assumptions Of
counsel He does not comment on the evil
dence, but thinks it his duty to put the jury
on their guard against misleading comments
by counsel on either side. 1t fares hard, in
Judge Nelson's charge, with some of the
prominent arguments, both for the plaintiff
and the defendant but the counsel for neither
have thought it prudent to vince under the
judicial dissectng knife which cuts away
these excrescences. We will direct attention
to some points in the charge which demon
strate prodigious waste Of labor on the part
of counsel.
1t was strenuously maintained by the de-
| fence that the memorandum or letter of con-
triton was the production of Moulton, for
/ which Mr.. Beecher cannot be held respon-
sible. Judge Nelson brushes away this pre-
tence by vigorous application of common
4 sense. Attaching little importance to the
discrepancies between Beecher's and Moul-
tons accounts of the composition Of that docu-
ment, and, thinking it unlikely that it was q
literal transcript of what Beecher said, be
discredits the idea that it was an invention Of
Moulton. 1t is in uncontradicted evidence
that Moulton was holding q pen, with
Beechers consent, and was supposed by
Beecher to be writing down the substance Of
what he said. Even if Beecher did not ex-
anime it, Moulton could not have known,
while writing, that he would not, and would
not have been likely TO take liberties or make
misrepresentation which might have been
point we Wal insert Judge Nelson's own
language: -'While Mr.. Beecher was speak
ing Mr.. Moulton was writing, and with his
assent 1t may well be that in the absence of
a deliberate course Of dictation he could only
note, in hurried and imperfect manner, de
tachsd and striking expressions. You will
consider whether he did SO in good faith or
not, and with what degree Of success. But,
if the circumstances were not favorable to
the making Of a correct report, had the writer
wished to make it. neither were they favor
able to the invention of what was written"
But if Moulton did not invent the language of
that astonishing memorandum, but tried to
reproduce the language of Beecher, the at
tempts Of counsel to impeach its genuineness
fail to the ground, and Mr. Beecher is fairly
chargeable with all its implications.
Judge Nelson's charge equally brushes
away the elaborate cobwebs OF subtle argu-
ment BY which Mr. Evarts maintained that
his clients self-inculpatory letters were in
consistent with and excluded the hypothesis
Of his guilt. These letters are full Of remorse
for some great wrong, and while Judge Neil
son tells the jury that it is for them to de-
termine what that great wrong was he thinks
them perfectly consistent with the SUPPOSE
ton that it was adultery. If the wrong was
the adultery he says, 'the solution of what
I followed is easy" That is to say, that while
\ the letters Of remorse do not concluslvely
\ prove the great offence to have been adultery
they tally with that hypothesis, conclusion
which upsets great deal Of Mr.. Evarts' most
refined and ingenious reasoning. But, though
tallying with adultery, the letters Of remorse
do not Of themselves prove it, for expressions
equally remorseiul might have sprung from
consciousness Of q different wrong. If the
jury should conclude that the offence
which he 50 bitterly deplored was i'm
proper proposals and not actual adultery
the language OF the letters could be accounted
for, and the jury would be obliged to render
4 verdict for the defendant. The memoran-
DUN Of contrition and letters Of remorse are
consistent with either charge; but while
there is little difference in the neral guilt Of
the two they ara totally unlike in their legal
consequences. Unsuccessful solicitation is
not actionable in a court Of justice and il the
lottara ebor,Id he intaypreted Inv the iurv IN