Year: 1874

The Beocher Judgment.


Before the ordinary courts of justice charges
made against culprit must be sustained by
evidence or he is held guiltless and goes free.
In the common phrase he is innocent until he
is proved guilty. He is innocent-that is to
say, in the eye of the law, but it may be only
in the eye of the law Justice cannot impose
upon him any penalties, only because it has
failed by inadequate processes to associate the
man with the criminal act. Every person
who knows the man and knows of the circum-
stances in which the offence is charged against
him may be morally convinced of his guilt
Nay, the fact Of mans guilt may be inta-
mously familiar to whole city, and yet the
man go scathless, because the fact of his guilt
cannot be made to appear when the issue is
tried in the special manner and with the par
ticular restrictions that the courts require.
There is real guilt as separated from the
guilt OF courts of justice-the guilt that is es-
tablished when the facts are examined with
legal limitations. 1t is, indeed in the terri
tory which lies between these two that the
adroit lawyers find their Ell Dorado BY guild
ing guilt safely through the labyrinths of JUS
tice half the great fortunes and great names
have been made since the fabric of civil society
was framed


Is it satisfactory to have case like that of
MIR. Beecher determined upon this same stand
ard OF justice by which so many guilty men
escape? In our opinion it is not satisfactory.
1t appears to us that the pastor of q Christian
congregation, charged with immortality and
hypocrisy, is in q position different from
that of culprit before the ordinary tribunals
that his case is to be viewed from a widely
different standpoint 1t is not merely that
one is case in morals and the other case in
law, but it is also that one is in the common
world and the other in circle that is as
sumed to be one of especial purity. 1t has hap
pened that parsons charged with crimes have
been tried in the courts and acquitted, and
have then been dismissed from their ecclesias-
tcal functions because, though enough was
not proved for the coarse processes of the JUS
tce of the land, enough was shown of an i'm
pure life to render them unfit for the sacred
duties of IN altar. They might be fit to live,
or fit to go free and associate with men at
large, but not fit to stand above others as the
Interpreters of the Divine will. Although we
may lay aside as the notion of antiquity that
an ideally pure character is to be required,
yet we must accept as on level with the COM
mon sense views of the people universally that
the pastor of Christian congregation should
be person Of stainless reputation; not merely
one who can 60 safely through the processes
Of the courts


Morals, moreover, and law are in differ
ent spheres Of thought; and in morals the
notions in regard to guilt are the reverse of
those in law. They flow from the constitu-
ton of the human mind which necessarily
believes in guilt when gross imputations have
| been made and have not been satisfactorily
/ met and swept away. Here it is not case of
innocence till guilt is proved, but of guilt
until the imputation Of guilt is SO reduced to
groundless charge that right thinking per-
sons cannot believe IN it. For a man to es-
tablish his innocence by showing that he did
not commit certain act is surrounded with
all the usual difficulties of proving mega
tive but to hold innocence as established be-
cause an offensive affirmative has not been
proved to the satisfaction of the immediate
friends and ardent admirers of the incrim.
mated person is to rest on slippery founda-
tons.


In support Of the charges against Mr..
Beecher there is the testimony of Mr.. Beecher
himself Of Mr.. Moulton, of Mr. Tilton and
Mrs. Tilton. In answer there are tho allega-
tions of Mr.. Beecher and Of Mrs. Tilton MIR.
Beechers word is entitled to great weight, but
are the other persons of such infamous lives
that their words are entitled to no weight
whatever as against him? Is the committee
justified in its assumption that the word of
this one man is to be taken on any fact to any
degree, while we are utterly to cast away as
worthless the words Of several persons who,
till within short time, stood III the light of
his countenance and were his most trusted
tamiliars? What is there against Mr.. Moul-
ton to invalidate his testimony? Only the
single fact that Mr.. Beecher makes against
him the charge Of blachmail and in support
Of this charge there is Mr.. Beechers state
ment only. So it appears that Mr.. Beecher' s
word is not only sufficient to stand alone, but
if any witness should rise up against him it is
only necessary for him to say that such witness
is rogue, and forthwith the witness is ruled
out of the Plymouth Court This is conven-
lent for incriminated pastors but it looks SO
much like idolatry that it cannot be Justice.
As for those famous letters, they are the testi-
mony OF Mr.. Beecher against his own inno-
cence. He has not explained them on any
theory inconsistent with his innocence. They
are mere rawlings, and they are to be construed
in way consistent with the known sanity Of
the writer.