Year: 1874

We print this morning, at great length,
the cross-examination of Theodore Tilton in
regard to his charges against Henry Ward
Beecher before the Committee of Investiga-
ton suggested by Mr.. Beecher. This evil
dence is in the nature Of a cross-examination,
and it is to be noted that it was conducted
by lawyer who employed every strategy
known to his profession to break down
the force of Mr.. Tilton's proofs. At the very
outset this lawyer began those singularly
offensive tactics SO common with the legal
profession of having the witness testify in the
lawyers way instead of his own. And further
on in the case, while Mr. Tilton was under
examination upon the question whether his
letter to complaining Friend" and other
writings did not assist in perpetuating the
scandal when he said he admitted that he had
acted like fool, this lawyer chimed in with
the peculiarly brutal remark ''We all concede
that, and do not need to call witnesses
to prove it, There is one word of
two syllables in the English language
by which to characterize a man who
could make such an utterance in such place.





as it is; for man coarse enough to
assail a witness in this manner merits only
silent contempt We should not have referred
to him at all but for the fact that this cross
examination is colored by his questions, and
it is due to Mr. Tilton that these things
should be understood by any one desiring to
arrive at a fair judgment as to the value of the
testimony.


And just here we wish to discuss this very
point which Mr.. Beecher's lawyer has raised
so Extensively. What matters it whether Mr..
Tilton's writings perpetuated the scandal or
not! Everything revived it, and Tilton was
right when he said it had life in it. 1t was
like Banquo's ghost and would not down.
The Christian character of the foremost
preacher in the country was called in ques-
ton, aud it was not to be expected that such
scandal should be easily quieted. Indeed,
the argument is altogether in the oppo-
site direction, and Mr.. Beecher only sharpens
quick suspicion when he permits his
lawyer to show his animus so injudiciously.
1t is not the question to-day, as it never
ought to have been the question, whether the
scandal would have died if the letter to
Complaining Friend had not revived and
perpetuated it. To desire that it should have
died without scrutiny is implication of Mr..
Beecher's guilt, because men are prone to be-
lieve that the innocent fear no ac-
cusations which can be made against them.
And Mr.. Beecher's guilt or innocence is the
very question now at issue He is charged
with debauchinga a member of his flock. He
ought to be able to meet that charge. More
than this he ought to be able to disprove it,
for his own letters and the letters of his
alleged paramour are the strongest evidences
of his guilt 1t will not do to pass those let
ters by without explanation, or with an ex-
planatou so trivial as only to excite
ridicule. Mr.. Beechers confessions
must he solemnly and satisfactorily
explained before it can be expected that his
innocence will be accepted. 1t should have
been the purpose of the counsel in Mr.. Til
tons cross-examinaton to test the value of
his testimony and lay the ground for Mr.
Beecher's defence. Instead we see the wit
ness treated as if he was the criminal, and an
effort is made to impress the Committee of
Investigation with the idea that it is Mr..
Beecher who has suffered because the scandal
could not be hid forever, and whether true or
false that Tilton and not Beecher ought to be
punished.


The testimony elected on the cross-exami-
nation Of Mr.. Tilton, as will be seen by the
mass of matter which we print this morning,
is very voluminous. A careful analysis of all
it's features is fortunately unnecessary, for
in the main it firmly maintains the
ground taken in Tilton's written state
ment. 1t reveals, however, two ad-
ditional phases which have great weight in
the case. One Of these is the strong animus
manifested against Tilton by the presence of
counsel and the extreme latitude of the in
quiry The other is Tlton's inability to fix
the date even within anything like probable
period of the occurrence of the bedchamber
scene and the scene in Mr. Beecher' s
house. In this there is great inherent weak
ness, which destroys altogether the charges
Mr.. Tilton has made upon his per-
sonal knowledge Without the dates or
something very near to the dates it is not pos
sible to rely upon the testimony as proof. All
that remains, then, is Mr.. Beechers letters,
partially explained by the letters of Mrs. Til
ton, and we now await the statement of the
inculpated clergyman as of the greatest i'm
portance in throwing light upon this trouble
some question. When everybody has been
heard perhaps it will be possible to arrive at
something like very tair judgment.


ssCOuncfls of HOnOr.,'