Hide Article Text (OCR)
IroffHp^aifodFagfc*-oVDFRIDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 26, 1875.This Paper has I he Larpil Circulation of any Evening Paper Published in the t’niied States* Its value as an Advertising Medium is therefore Apparent*Mr. Tracy’s Theory of the Conspiracy Against Mr* Beecher*The defense in the Beeeher-Tilton trial is now committed to the theory and to the proof, that the accusation made against Henry Ward Beecher, of having maintained improper and criminal relations with Mi's. Theodore Tilton, isthe result of “conspiracy;” that the conspirators are Theodore Tilton and Francis D. Moulton, and that the conspiracy had its origin in the necessity which Tilton was under to save himself from the difficulty in which he was involved by writing a letter to Mr. Beecher, demanding his resignation as a minister and his departure from Brooklyn, under a pledge from Henry C. Bowen that he (Bowen) would enforce the demand—which Bowen failed to do. In maintaining the charge of conspiracy, Mr. Tracy, yesterday, took the ground that Tilton never accused Beecher of the erftne of adultery until after the publication of the Bacon letter; until, in fact, Mr. Beecher requested a Committee of his church to examine into the whole difficulty existing between himself and Tilton, and Tilton’s family. Tilton himself admits that he habitually modified his statement of the grievances he had suffered at Beecher’s hands, because of his desire to save his wife and children fromthe disgrace which would follow from an exposure of Mrs. Tilton’s criminality. In order that the offense might be deemed to be Beecher’s alone, he stated to those he intrusted withhis confidence, that Beecher made “improperhundred years after this resurrected Judas shall have sunk Into eternal infamy.Of course, if Mr. Tracy can support histheory of the case, even this picture of aman who could be a party at once to the ruin of a minister, of a woman, and of children will not be accepted as overdrawn, but if it be not sustained, then Mr. Tracy has assumed a great responsibility. In this case now, there can be no victory except over the wreck of dishonored households, on one side or the other.“ advances ” to Mrs. Tilton; that hesolicited her to yield to his embraces.On the 26th of December, 1870, he told Bowen that Beecher had made unhandsome advances to Mrs, Tilton; in the “ True Story,” submitted to Dr. Storrs, over two years later, the offense was “ solicitation ” of Mrs. Tilton to become his wife, in all that the word wife implies; in the Bacon letter, written last Summer, Tilton describes his grievances at Beecher s hands as an offense against him and his family. Nowhere, up to the time Tilton appeared before the Church Committee, called by Mr. Beecher, did he make a charge of actual criminality, in which Mr. Beecher and Mrs. Tilton shared. Tilton explains all this by his desire to shield his wife, who had made to him, if he is now to be believed, a confession of adultery with Beecher, in July, 1870, six months before he had had the conversation with Bowen, following which Beecher’s retirement was demanded, two years and six months before the “True Story” was written, and four years previous to the publication of the open letter to Dr. Bacon. Mr. Tilton’s explanation was accepted as satisfactory by those who credited him with a desire to Bhield hisjsjfgfwith whom he had continued to maintain marital relations.On the^ 30th of December, 1870, the interview took place between Tilton and Beecher,‘/at Moulton’s residence. On this occasion, and for the first time, Tilton swears he disclosed to Beecher the fact that Mrs. Tilton had made to him a confession of the criminal intimacy which had existed between her and Beecher. Of course, there was no motive for understating the offense to Beecher,on this occasion. The very object of the meeting, according to Tilton, was to disclose to Beecher the evidence of his criminal intima-cy with Mrs. Tilton, which was in the possession of her husband, and had been for six months previous to that time.Mr. Tracy; in his opening for the defense, yesterday, asserted that he was iu a position to prove that Tilton gave false testimony when he swore that at the memorable interview referred to, brought about by Tilton for the verypurpose of notifying Beecher that his crime was discovered, he did not make any such accusation as. that Beecher had committedadultery with Mrs. Tilton. If he did not, Mr. Tracy contends, Mr. Tilton is a perjurer, both he and Moulton are conspirators, and Tilton has no case at all in court, or out of court.Here is Mr. Tracy's emphatic statement onthis point, which bids fair to become the pivotal point in the case:Now, what was the charge which TiUon made against Mr. Beecher on that night? This is the most important question m this inquiry, gentlemen, and to it 1 now invite your serious attention; because if we satisfy you that on that night Mr. Tilton did not charge Mr. Beecher with the crime of adultery, you will consider this case disposed of. You will not listen to anycharge subsequently invented of a graver offenBe than that which was brought to Mr. Beecher’s attention on that night. They are bound by that act; they cannnot change that interview as one of their devices by which thoy have been induced to He to conceal thia crime. They brought Mr. Beecher info their presence to make the accusation, and by the accusation there mado they must stand or fall. You will not permit them te change it. I intend to hold them there, and I intend to demonstrate to your understandings asclear as the noonday sun in heaven, that that charge was not adultery.From Mr. Tracy’s reference to the evidencethe defense intends to present in support of this position, it will be about as follows: That there was nothing in Tilton’s manner of life between July and December, 1870, to show that he had in his possession, from the date first mentioned, a confession by his wife that hishome had been dishonored. As late as the26th of December, 1870, he informed Bowenthat he knew that Beecher had made unhandsome advances to Mrs. Tilton, but, whenhe learned that Beecher had treated his letter demanding his resignation as the production of a madman, he did not defend himself, as he most assuredly could, and enforce j his demand at the same time, by disclosing the fact, now alleged, that at that very time he had proof of Beecher’s criminality in his possession. The interview was not sought with Beecher until .Tilton’s business difficulty with Bowen had culminated, and then, Tilton says, it was sought at the instance of Mrs. Tilton. Tilton, in his “True Story,” written in 1872, describes the interview at Moulton’s almost precisely as Beecher has in his statement to his church, and in neither document is the charge of adultery mentioned. Again, the retraction obtained by Beecher from Mrs. Tilton refers only to “improper solicitation.” The following further proof is promised by Mr. Tracy;We shall show you that Mr. Tilton has stated to notless than five different people of the highest respectability of any persons in this city, men whose reputation ■tands unquestioned, in narrating that interview which took place between himself and Henry Ward Beecherthat night—we ehaU show you that he eaid that hecharged Henry Ward Beecher with improper proposals, and nothing else. We shall nhow you that to one of these persons he made that declaration within a week after the interview occurred.Now, gentlemen, we shall show you by a witness who haa no superior for integrity in the city, a man whose word will stand unquestioned by you, a man who was one of Theodore Tilton’s most intimate friends when his course entitled him to the friendship of honorable men; we shall show you that after the publication of the Wood-bull scandal Mr. Tilton showed to this man the identicalpaper that he said he had presented to Henry Ward Beecher on the night of the 31st of December. They Bay it was destroyed immediately after the “tripartite agreement.” We wlU show you, I repeat, that he produced it to a man, and read it, and said: “This is tbo paper that I presented to Henry Ward Beecher on that night; and when that man, looking at the paper says, “Is that in Mrs. Tilton’s handwriting,” he says, “No, it is a copy, but the original is with Frank Moulton.” Andthat was after the Woodhuli publication. Now, gentlemen, if we show you that fact, I think that will end thia case, and reveal this conspiracy in a light so plain that even “he who runs may read.”Mr. Tracy, all through hie speech, presents Moulton as the chief conspirator, the man through whose machinations, devices and treachery Beecher was at last surrounded by complications from which he could not release himself, short of accepting an alternative from which Beecher shrank—thatof telling the whole wretched story to the world, which he claims to have been driven to do, eventually—but not without Moulton's opposition to the last—even beyond the timewhen the Church Investigating Committeemet.Mr. Tracy went to the very verge of the liberty which seems to be accorded to an advocate, and to nobody else, in his denunciation of Mr. Moulton. In the line of ferocious invective it will he founddiU^ult to match the following—rersmg to Moulton :But txo mere words c*n do jmsf ice to this man; none but an artist vrtj) should pssnt the man as he is, can bring out his real marac£er before mankind; and,IhThe Appalling1 Catastrophe in NewYork.Five persons were killed and fifteen werebadly wounded in the Roman Catholic Church of St. Andrew, on Duane street, New York, last evening. The catastrophe occurred in this wise; Beside the church soaring far above its roof, stood a building with side walls of brick and front of iron. This building was six stories high. On the twelfth of Januarythere was a fire in this building which consumed all the interior work, leaving only the gaunt and naked side walls and the iron front standiug, all the bracing beams between being in cinders. The immense height of thesewalls, standing thus alone, made them look like a boy's castle of cards, which he rears on the laws of equilibrium with bated breath, lest a whisper overturn them. Of course, during the fire the walls were saturated with water. The intense cold that followed, froze the water in all the interstices in which a drop could rest. The following thaw working upon this congealed mass of course loosened it. The congregation in the church beneath and beside the brick wall was praying with Lenten fervor and listening to the warnings of the priest, when a few gusts of wineame beating against the tall and now frail and unsupported slab of brick. It swayed and bent before it, hovering in menace over the roof of the church. Beneath the roof, Father Carroll was telling his congregation of the uncertain tenure of life and of the necessity of being ever ready to meet death, when as if to prove the truth of the trite yet solemn assertion, the wind once more seized the wall and hurled the upper portion of it downward through the roof on the heads of the congregation beneath. The cruel mass in its passage downward tore with it the rafters of the church roof, and in far less time than it takes to tell it, five worshipers, three females and two males, were killed, and twenty-three wounded.The congregation, panic stricken, huddled together, and strove to rush from the church. Of those in the galleries, many strove, and some succeeded, in throwing themselves onthe pitiless floor of the church below. Some endeavored to let themselves down by their hands, and when suspended thus remained, fearing to let go their grip. The outlets wereclogged by the mass of people who strove to rush through them. Had the church been on fire almost the whole congregation would inevitably have been burned to death, in consequence of their own eagerness to get out of it. The greater part of the wounded were taken to the Park Hospital, whose wards they overcrowded.As after every catastrophe, somebody must be blamed. And no doubt great responsibility attaches to the Department of Buildings, which inexcusably allowed the walls of the burned building to stand untested after the fire. Tothis charge the Department replies that it notified the owners and ordered them to have the walls taken down. Their responsibility, however, cannot ba covered bythis, for it was their very evident duty, after recognizing the necessity of the order, to enforce its immediate execution, especially when these walls neighbored and overtopped an edifice shell like in itself, andbetween whose roof and floor was no impediment to any falling weight. The authorities of the Department should be held to a most strict accountability, and after due investigation has revealed where the sin of neglect lay, it should be punished to the full extent of the law.But, for such catastrophes as this, others are no less responsible than the authorities. The securing of general safety requires general vigilance. It is very evident that the congregation of St. Andrew’s could never assemble in this church after the fire of January without seeing that disintegrating slab of brick and mortar loom threateningly above its roof. The people living in that populous neighborhoodsaw it day and night, yet it does not appearthat any of these took steps to compel attention to the very evident danger. The mere-writing and sending of a card to the morning papers would have compelled the Department Of Buildings to quick and saving action in the matter. It is the eye of the master that makes a good servant. If we will be our own rulers, it is necessary that we discharge our duties as such, and in due measure compel our servantsto execute the duties for which we paythem. It is as much the duty of the people neighboring a dangerous edifice, or seeing a dangerous edifice reared among them to complain, and insist upon attention from the proper department, as it is the duty of that department to bestow the attention. For over six weeks those balancingwalls stood there. During these six weeks theywere seen not only by the thousand worshipers of St, Andrew’s Church, but by a passing population of certainly not less than a hundred and fifty thousand souls; and among allthose not one had time to spare from the selfishness of his own occupation to utter a passing protest or note of warning.In calling attention to this duty on the part of the citizen himself, we are not at all inclined to diminish the responsibility that attaches to the Department of Buildings. If that Department did issue the order for the the pulling down of those threatening walls, it issued it from a belief that their continuance, as they were,was dangerous. With that knowledge, the duty of seeing their order executed became evident and pressing. Thisduty they evidently and knowingly neglected; and we repeat, that for thi3 neglect they deserve all the punishment the law can inflict. What we do mean, however, is, that as an ounce of prevention is, in such cases, worth a pound of cure, the people of that ward should not themselves have so long allowed the continuance of that fatal neglect. Men • should take interest in the wards in which they live. No man goes to bed knowingly leaving his outer doors unlocked, because he knows there is apoliceman, on his beat. Officials and representatives in the City Council of this ward might well have considefed it part of their moral duty to see to it that the Department of Buildings did not leave this wall hanging liko a sword of Daraoeies over the heads of their constituents. Builders, men of sense, the priests of the church saw the danger, for it was one no man could be within a hundred yards of and not see. Any one of all these couli have prevented the catastrophe, and is secondarily responsible for it. It is as much our duty to 6ee that our public servants do their duty as it is our duty to see that our help at home do theirs. When the official is a servant of the public, the public owes him the watchfulness of a master. In France, the Government assumes all the responsibility, because it assumes all the power. The Gov-5rumenfc there is paid, not to obey, but to rule, and it is expected to rule; and Paris is to-day the most safely built city in Europe, aswell as the most beautiful.I*think heaven, gentlemen, iiiat portrait has been painted, and by one of the greateet artists the world has ever known. If any of you ever visit the beautiful city of Milan, you will find that, next to its magnificent cathedral, ou which thousands of saints and angels stander.carved In heavenly white, in the attitude of afient pray*the pride and glory of that city is in the humble refectory of an ancient monastery, upon the wall of which, fourhundred years ago, the iuuatrioaa Leonardo da Yineipainted his almost inspired picture of the “Last Sup-olopar”—a picture, the colors of which aro two rapidly fading, but the fame of which will never die. And, gentlemen, In the moit striking portrait of that group ofMdisciples you will recognize the startling likeness between the red matted hair, the sharp and angular face, the cold and remorseless cyea of Judaa Iscariot, and the same features in his legitimate successor, the “mutualfrienA” (Laughter and applause.! There, on that oonsecrated wall, the portrait of Francis D, KouHonhas stood wafting for his birth 400 yearsThe noise still oor ttnuing, Judge Neilson said: “Mr. Tracy, please stop,” [To the audience.] “I will adjourn this Court if there is any more demonstrationoi that kind.”j£r. Tracy (yeeuming}—-And will stand for twice fourMatters in Franco*For the present, at least, Republicanism istriumphant in France. The bill for the organization of the Public Powers has passed,and MacMahon has called upon the Presidentof the Assembly to form a new Ministry thereunder. The bill was passed by a vote of four hundred and thirty-six to two hundred and twenty-six. The Legitimists protested, andthe Bonaparfcists fought all they couldfight; but Gambetta steadily held his men together, and they voted down all opposition in solid phalanx. The French Republic is far more Hamiltonian than Jeffersonian. It still leaves a greatly centralized power in the hands of the Administration; but it is in form and in fundamental spirit republican, in that it leaves to the people the power of a periodical choice of its rulers. Under its present form it will have ample opportunity and a strong tendency to Belf liberalization. It is the cradle of a republic more than a republic, but the giant infant within iscapable of almost incalculable growth. Theinherent wisdom of France has never been sopowerfully exemplified as in her management of herself since the ending of her late disastrous war with Prussia. The financiering of the younger Pitt was but folly compared to that of the France of 1870-1-2-3 and A. Compared to it, our own is a disgrace and a reproach. Her rehabilitation of her internaland for army, hi system lt;reeuperiher gre; sence of tion, w are, tab the opirgovernsance inof heras ifwas or in whatWhile hciples aithe verj ing und flying fi emigrat German legacies Franceing thlt; science unknow the belli ford stri and froi ture of ] no othei amid mclt;The iHouse v vote ancnot reacties in I blackguiIt was “ rule” most in cannotjourn,another joum to crats to therebymotion except1tion to of the ( same cccall ofmotionf Samuel have be Democi bellown the peo detestal which r ered, bi time h. Democi minded their pc believe ( bill in t resourc be drav discussi there, c when tl We thii peeringthat inof its n As wlt;propose create aurai oppE. Rook given nc such cla followin Hoar is i William* General, man, foison to b' in court.net of G of it. Yever, thlt;utmost 1distend inot relis' did not J of Congdinate b: did corntween hi always o est perse Mr. Hoa duty in ed wit in the ed to scoundrt Congres pose witby fraucStates, tion of ’ inated 1 preme Ced roun His namthe Cabi stances From M tesque ’case ofexpect t'the Hou by themThe hbut equt the Houmany instious p:himself and hassuspend “in timlt; tator coi more po Presider tigues tl part is ai a changethe polic sition is to punis! mur to 1 tentate c Christen or creat ehambei the scho “law.” 1 is the pc even Gr made inis that t colossal These m their kii re garde lt;the Uni: The prrshould them, lt;shouldwomen, sters. should Arnold, have ah Wedwe do ube exec execute they ca:thorougby law.could rr.eonditk whatsoi bill is ibeen flt; it becoiconspir eramen which that wothe mevotes, c this bi party,tion o: measurnation;Wherefproposidealt w opinior and inelegal o should proper! should
Newspaper Details
Brooklyn Daily Eagle
Brooklyn, New York, US
Fri, Feb 26, 1875
Page 2
Full Page
Clipped by
Walter B.
AL, USA 10 Aug 2020
Other Publications Near Brooklyn, New York
The Red Hook Star Revue
Brooklyn Eagle And Kings County Democrat
Brooklyn Daily Eagle
Brooklyn Daily Eagle and Kings County Democrat
Illustrated Speedway News
