Year: 1874




A deplorable feature of the deplorable
Brooklyn scandal has been the apparent inn
possibility of obtaining plain and truthful
statement from any person connected with
the unfortunate affair. There have been from
the first concealment prevarication and
mystery on all sides. Mr.. Tilton was
censurable when he tattled, insinuated
and threw out hints only partially
revealing the truth, even granting the story
to be as he now represents it If the great
wrong was done him he should have made it
public from the housetops Or concealing and
condoning it once, it should have been
forever buried out of sight and. if pos
sible, out of memory. Mr.. Beecher was
wrong in sealing up his lips when the
charges were once publicly made against
him; for, if guilty, professions Of innocence
though made by dumb show, could only add
to the sin, while, if innocent the cause OF re-
igion and morality demanded an instant re-
pudiation of the shnder. The committee
was to blame for giving to the public incom-
plete and apparently not always impartial re-
ports of the evidence taken by them.
Finally, Mr. Moulton, sour mutual friend"
has not been altogether blameless in
absenting himself so long when he evidently
holds the key to the truth in his possession
and when the public interests demanded that
this reproach should be removed from sight
as speedily as possible. This apparent dread
Of the truth and not desire to plunge
deeper into the offensive mire has
given rise to the general desire for
q legal investigation Of the case. Pru-
rient curiosity gloats on the exaggerated
stories to which mystery and concealment in
variably give rise. The demand for trial
before legal tribunal has come from those
who feel that the public have now right to
the truth, whatever it may be- and that it
cannot too soon be brought to light, SO that
the painful story and all connected with it
may pass out of sight and be forgotten.


There appears now to be some promise Of
an end even before the unsatisfactory COM
mittee. A strong and angry letter from Mr..
Beecher has drawn out reply from ''our
mutual friend" and Mr.. Moulton has ap-
peared Before the committee, armed with the
license of both sides to speak. He has signi-
fed his willingness to make his statement and
to produce the documentary evidence he
holds, on the condition that he is
to be allowed few days to arrange his
thoughts, refresh his memory and prepare
his papers, and on the further consideration
that he shall be accompanied by shorthand
reporter of his own selection. To these terms
the committee have assented. As the evi-
dence Of Mr.. Moulton may thus be con-
sidered as secured it is unnecessary to
comment on his last correspondence with Mr..
Beecher, or to express an opinion as to which
holds the juster estimate Of the position occu-
pied by the "mutual friend" and Of the obi
cations he is under with regard to the letters
confded to his care. The documents ore to
be made public, and that is all that concerns
the people. We may say, however, that
the three letters published this morning
only seem to add to the singular complica-
tions. Mr.. Beecher is angry, but his call for
the production of the documents sounds like
calm and friendly, but his letter
contains at least one hint which is
scarcely reconcilable with Mr.. Beecher's
apparent confidence, and certainly must cause
q shudder in those who hope to see Mr..
Beecher triumphantly acquitted. Mr.. Tilton's
brief and decisive assent to the production of
the evidence reads also like certainty in the
truth Of his published statement. Surely
somebody must be playing desperate game.
Shall we ever know who it is?