The Cincinnati daily star. [volume] ([Cincinnati, Ohio]) 1875-1880, 1876-03-14
ZINC Beecher scandaI.

The Beecher Scandal.
Some new points of interest are con-
tinuany cropping out from the underly-
Ing strata OF the Beecher scandal. Some
of these, as collected from various pa
pers, seem to be OF such significance as
to warrant their presentation, as throw
ing new light upon this vexed question.
We give them in condensed forms, for
the reason that the different statements
are needlessly dinuse, and in some parts
quite inconsequential. 4si.
The Boston Advertiser Of March 2,
speaking the sentiments of Rev. Dr..
Mears of that city, says:
ssThe Rev. D. o. Mears was member
OF the council. He first took up tie
subject of the charges against Mr..
Beecher at the time OF his Boston visit.
BE WAS invited, with others, to meet the
Rev. Edward Beecher. On coming to
the place Of meeting ne found the Rev +.
ID. w. Beecher, and then spoke with him
for the first time. At the first meeting,
at the Rev. Mr.. Wrighps, Mr.. Beecher
naid, in answer to inquiry, he
was ready to answer any Questions,
whether about himself or Plymouth
Cburch. THIS led to a meeting on the
following day, at which thirteen were
present, of whom some were outspoken
Believers in Mr.. Beecher's guilt. 1t was
no confidential meeting OF friends. In
answer to inquiries and full conversa-
tion, he demonstrated that the proposed
tMutuaI Council was broken up by
mr.. Van Cott, Mrs. Moulton's legal adj
wiser. Trhis afterward appeared. to the
Advisory Council to be an undisputed
fact, and was SO decided by them. The
result was that most OF those present, il
not all, were satisfied that Plymouth
Church had done nothing to prevent
their taking part in the Advisory Coun1
cid, This visit Of Mr.. ,Beecher was
7ayailed of to discourage churches from
taking part in the Advisory Council,
when, if all the facts were known, it
should have had q contrary effect.
ssThe Advisory Council was composed,
and Iaity, who were undecided in their
'epiniens both as to the ecclesiasticat
ind the personal questions at issue; !;
same known opposers Of Mr.. Beecher
were invited, and were present; a few,
ltmay be said, were known friends of
Mr.. Beecher. MIR. Beecher and the
church requested the fullest mvestiga-
ton. The original Investigating Oom-
fmittee of p Piymouth Church were, there-
lore, called into the council, and were
fouesticned in tie closest manner con-
A9erning their Investigations. 1t was
learned that this Committee was nomi-
itsated to Mr.. Beecher by members OF the
regular Examining Committee of the
achUrch which was the occasion of
their appointment. 1t appeared that
the Exami ming GonAmittee summoned
every known witness and search
iugly examined them, Mr.. Beecher not
being present, save when he gave his
own testimony. Their testimony before
HE Council was convincing as to their
lnpartiality, thoroughness and honesty.
Fhey appeared to have no purpose 10
hide any thing, but only to know the
whole truth, With the yieW,of forming
IN independent conclusion upon the un-
Heriying charges, several delegates at
different times visited both Mrs. Tllton
md Mrs. Moulton. The results OF these
Interviews only served to convince the
Waiting gentlemen of Mr.. Beecher's in
4&eeence. In addition to this, ME. B Bow-
ans actions and manner In giving his
.testimeny against MT. Beeeher told
skxaips himself rather than against MIR.
Beecher. One of the many letters sent
10 the Council was traced to its source
ssrd found to be base fabrication, the
author acknowledging that he made
stae statements out OF mere deyiltry.'
seAithough the Advisory Council did
not 90 into an original investigation
kouching the truth OF the foundation
charges, they became convinced, unani'
usousiy, OF their falsity, from the state
n1ents OF the original Examining Com
luittee. and their manner in making
hose statements, and from the numer.
aus side Investigations tnat were car.
tied on informally.
ssThe Council, of about two hundred
ind fifty members. were SO much inter
-ssted that they all remained through the
ten days. session with the exception o
three members, who were obliged to
leave by circumstances over which they
had no CONTROL"
. The Burlington Free Press gives the
reports made by Rev. DR.. Warren, Rev
Mr.. Barrows, Rev. Mr.. Wright, ant
Others, who were also members Of thu
Advisory Council in the Plymouth
Church case. The Free Press says;
1.-THE Rev. Mr.. Barrows, of Lowell
Mass, said Mr.. Beecher's Innocence
.WauId soon be proved by the Commits
Hian. and then the religious press of ths
country, and particularly the Congrega
sttonal press OF Massachusetts,, would be
saompetle to cease its unh0iy traffic In
sEhis miserable scandal. M
s.s.Rev. Mr.. Wright, of the Boston Berke
isy-street Church, said that, while he
had gone to the Council disturbed anC
&isquiesed OF mind, he had come away
&ellng sure that q noble soul had beer
tssailed. .sls aa4 it
3ss.Rev. DIR. Warren, of Lewiston, Maine
had had an interview with Mrs. Tiiton,
uhs gave him satisfactory explanation
sEthe mgsIeries iof the case. He says
hat the sin which she confessed In heI
tgsxera was not the sino adultery or i'm
enrlty, and she gave satisfactory reas
enssfor withholding q public statement
rs sufice IL to say IL had no relation
~ her chastity or to Mr.. Beecher, but
tpiy to her own husbands tnfidelity.
~fhe ReY. Mr.. Van Norden Of 81
AlbsRs gayeto o large cpngregation, or
Sunday his account OF the Council, an,
kts observations and convictions. H,
want 70 Brooklyn puzzled and almos
&oubting the innocence OF Mr.. BeecheI
he returned o firm believer In his inns
tanee, and q strong contemner Of th
tnprincipled parties who have ccnspire
GNxinst him.