Year: 1875

LENOh As W A.


PossIBLE-THE BILL OF PARTICULARS


TO BE USED ONLY TO PREVENT SUR


PRISE OR FRAUD-MRs. TLToN'S GOOD


NAME TO BE PRoTECTED-No CoMPRo-


MISE TO BE ACCEPTED.


from he CbriaiGn UAion.l


Although the readers of this paper
have had to learn the fact from other
sources, none of them are ignorant of
the existence of an action at law brought
by Mr.. Theodore Tilton against the edi-
tor of this Journal We have refrained
from all mention of the subject for OBJ
vious reasons; and in now giving brief
account of the course of the affair in the
past, and of the intentions of the defend
ant in that suit for the future, we shall
abstain, as far as possible, from saying
anything which might influence the cur
rent Cf judicial proceedings in the case


That the defendant, so long as it
seemed practicable to keep from the
public the names of those pure and hon.
orable women whose regulations were
threatened by false and wicked ISLANDERS,
made every effort to do so-willingly
putting his own name In peril, if thus
they might be spared-he neither denies
nor regrets. If the developments of the
last year have not justified the motives
as fully as they have proved the useless
ness of those efforts, then We are unable
to offer any argument which will reach
the unconYinced. We are not of the
mind of those who profess that they
maintained silence because of the well
fare of the community, the peace of
4o o11 h. IT, -
tian Church demanded Ii, but felt bound
to sacrifice all those interests the mo-
ment that their own reputation was at
tackled. On the contrary, we feel it to
be the duty and the privilege of Chris
tian man to bear thousand attacks up
on his own reputation in silence, rather
than to suffer one innocent woman to he
villified for his sake before the world.


We are not alone in such opinions, or
in the course which we have adopted un-
der such views. Eminent and honored
men in every walk CT life, and notably
SO among the clergy, have pursued the
same policy in numerous instances, some
of which are recorded in history at in
tervals for hundreds of years past, and
others are known to us to-day. But
those which are known are not tithe of
those which are generally unknown. For
in the vast majority of cases the policy
of silence is completely successful, and
is the best vindication of the innocent.
The innocent man vindicates himself by
his life, and If the innocent woman can,
at any sacrifice, be kept from becoming
the subject of public comment, the tri-
umph of truth is so complete that the
lie is utterly forgotten.


1t was only in June last that it became
necessary to change the policy previous
ly adhered to. On June 25, the letter of
Mr.. Tilton to DR.. Bacon was published.
On the next dhy Mr. Beecher resolved to
call for an investigation. He was at first
disposed to place tine matter in charge of
gentlemen outside of his congregation,
but was advised that such proceeding,
besides being inconsistent with Scrip
tural injunction and Congregational
usage, would not be within the protee-
tion which the law accords 20 the disclos-
ures of witnesses as privileged eOmmuni-
cations (and sonot libelOus), if made in
an investigation conducted by the reli-
gious society of which the parties brought
in question are members. He therefore
invited six members of his church and
congregation to take charge of the case,
and left it absolutely in their hands.
Their names were suggested to him by
members of the regular ExaminingC
mittee, and they were heartily approved
by the full Committee when it assem-
bled-


This Special Committee went about
its work with determination to be thor
ough, and was therefore necessarily de-
liberate in its movements, which were
regulated entirely by its own members,
without any attempt at advice or gui-
dance on the part of the pastor of TIE
church. Its conclusions were the results
of its own independent judgment, and,
in some minor respects, did not accord
with his.


Before the Committee had finished its
investigations, Mr.. Tilton, who had at
first willingly appeared before it, and
testified to the honor and integrity of its
members, withdrew from its presence
and brought the suit at law which Is
now pending. The complaint was
served August 81, during the defendants
absence in the White Mountains. The
answer was drawn the next day; but,
OWlIlR 10 Tie hul a SuCCcSclOh
of difficulties in procuring correct official
certificates (without which the defend
ants oath to the answer would have
been a nullity), it was not served until
September z, which was, however, still
some days in advance of the time re-
quired by law.


Much has been said about delay in
this suit 1t might suffice to say that
no case of similar Importance and COM
plexity was ever brought to trial before
a civil court in this part of the State in
so short time as this will be. But, fur
thermore, it has been conceded by coun-
sci on both sides, in the presence Cf the
Court. that there we're not Jurors
enough to try the case in November, nor
time enough in December. The defend
ant personally urged his counsel to ar
range for an early trial But he has left
the case in their hands, and is satisfied
that they have done that which was
wisest and best.


The application for a statement of
particulars has not met with the favor
of certain newspapers; but having been
fully sustained by the highest court of
the State, and indorsed by the best legal
authorities. on the bench and at the bar,
outside of Brooklyn, we venture to be-
lieve that it will stand the test of time.


Already one result of this motion has
been to clear up much of the mystery
with which it was sought to surround
this case, and to present, in a more def
nate form, the question involved.


Our friends need have no apprehen.
sion that the statement of particulars. il
made. will be used by the defendant for
any other purpose than the prevention
of surprise or fraud. He desires and
intends. God willing, to meet the whole
case against him at once, and dispose oi
it forever; but to do this he must have,
and means TO have, fair warning of what
he is to meet.


The object of the bill of particulars i:
not to prevent the plaintiff from intro
dueing any evidence which he may have


He will be at liberty to specify all the
times and places as to which he propose:
to offer evidence upon the trial If h
is limited to one or more. il will be be
cause he is not willing TO say that he
expects to be able to give evidence o.
any other time and place. The object
sought is simply to prevent him froH
naming particular time and place il


his complaint. and then surprising the
defendant on the trial by introducing
evidence pointing to another and differ
ent time and place.


And this leads us to say shat no acqmt


tai is asked, or will be accepted. in thi
case, upon any narrow. or technical, o


apologetic ground. No matter wha
| false construction may have been pu