The Indiana State sentinel. [volume], July 01, 1875, Page 6, Image 6

About The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895

Image provided by: Indiana State Library

                
THE INDIANA STATE SENTINEL THUESDAY. JULY 1 18751
THE LOAF GIVER
I Fro oi Lccy Larcom'a Idyl of Work.
there a lady yet
Under the un?"
Dames of Oly to pus
Called down, one by one.
"If a true lady
Be left of eai th 8 race.
Sea' of the goddesses
Offer br place."
Acswer came slowly
From hemlsDberes two:
Deadwemed tne old world,
And heedless the new.
I am a lady, then!
Heritor I wear
Latent of bonnets, .
Last twist of hair;
French gloves unci lace
WhU more can i uocc .
Laughed mighty Juno,
"Alady.inJeedT'
I am a lady born!
I have a name!
An unbroiten ancestry
Settles my claim."
Weak ! f aid M i nerva,
'Irrelevant 100!
Substitut ladyLood
Never will do!"
-I am a lady!
otoxenoftoll
Is on my tine floors
Vulgarity's noil!
I mix with no workfolk!
"All!" Ve-jus exclaimed,
I wedded a blacksmith.
And am not ashamed."
'What face, bright as Hebe a,
Il.umines yon stre-t?
Thit btautiiul maiden
Uives begsirs tbeir meat;
Br ijracelui handieals them
To honor and peace.
My Risrli for lost lad t. '
Said "Venus. "1 ceui;."
I. too," called Minerva,
And vointed to where
In a dreary leg school house,
A girl, Toung and fair.
Spent life, strength and beauty
she scatters live sred!
She works In wi d thought fields.
The starved soul to feed."
Cried Juno. "Yon farm wife,
With white arms 11 e mine,
Rmml, fowy irves shaping.
To me seems di vlte.
She. moulded a goddess,
w ho yet can prefer
To be u-ful and helpful
What lady like her?"
Nodded the ky women,
Ulad, oue by one,
Htill th-ire are ladies left
Under the sun.
"Counterfeit creatures
May borrow the name;
But the deep seeing heavens
Accept not their claim."
"Lady Is loaf giver!"
Kctioed tne three.
"Who stays the world's hanger.
True lady issne!"
ABOUT WOMEN.
As the young lady remarked about the in
fant, "How sweet; but how bald for one so
young!"
Ii i3 better to love a man that you can
Ttver marry than to merry a maa that you
-cs-a never love.
Khoda Broughion, the authoress, is said
nottoba admired by the gentleman. Sha
ha too sharp a tongue, and dares to be pe
culiar. Mile. Plaster, a young Trench actress, is
coming over next season. We presume all
Vi voting fellows will be inclined to court
Pjnter.
A Texas woman never stands up Ion in
a "rowded roilroad car. She says "git"' to
Home man, and he gits, or finds lingers la
bis hair.
A lady lawyer is established as Consulting
counsel In London, but her clients begin ti
complain tuat tneir secreia omuuuw
o leak o at.
A fair petitioner for divorce in Kentucky
13 13 years eld, and the ground for her peti
tion is that her husband abandoned her mare
than a ye3r ago.
A Newark girl hastened the departure of a
Imgerine gentleman caller the other evening
by remarking, as she looked out ot the win
dow: "I think we 6hall have a beautiful sun-
rjse."
Sitting in the arbor,
Where ihe de wv lisjht reposes,
(Three or four steps, a whlil and an attitude)
Twos there I saw my darling girl,
like love among the roses."
iMore little steps and a general breakdown.)'
That Tennessee preacher lorgot himself
who, while addressing a ladies' charitable
societv, said: My bearers, I now urge on ye
all to dive down into your breeches pocktts
and haul out suthin' lor the poor.
Washington ladies are all on the ragged
edge of remorse, anxiety and fear. Madame
Ytishida, wife of tha Japanese minister, bad
dome native embroidery ou her crimson
crepe dress the oth6r nigtt, whicb drove
tbf.m wild with agonizing envy.
q aeen Victoria is sal J to keep hor "real"
birthday alone with her family, and allow
her subjects to celebrate the auspicious
vc-nt some davs later. In free America the
populace would prefer to celebrate the
,:ea' h el ? ucL an aristocratic queen.
Anene Houssaye, writing from Paris, sajs
that in the American society, pretty women
tn'nk tcemselves still prettier when th6ir
dresses drag out of sight; in the official
worl. lacs dark with ridiculous gravity; in
tLe Parisian world, beauty, ribbons and
deviltry.
The following excellent toast was given by
a schoolmaster: "The fair daughters of
America may they add virtue to beauty
subtract envy from friendship multiply
Mutable accomplishments by sweetness oi
temper. iivide time by sociability and econ
omy and reduce scandal to iu lowest de
nomination." The London Pest has an advertisement in-
vtinj; "proposal from ladies of character
and suitable fortune for the hand ot an Ea-
tclifch baronet of tbe earliest creation." The
pjügeut p:irgraphist ot the later-Ocean
should interview old Undo L'Ul Allen, and
Hertain the antecedents of the baronet from
tue early recollections of that gentleman.
A TitusTille philosopher is cudgeling bii
ocnoeof brains in an attempt to understand
wny a woman can fall iu love with a man
who Las a corlr. leg. Soincsbody ought to la
form hiui at once that in nine caes oat ot
ten a cork leg is the moat intelligent and in
corruptible part ot man, and there is now
and tten a woman who comprehends the
tact.
The golden oriflame of day was sinking
r.-e-hind the western hills and glorifying the
landscape with its parting rays, when the
ifrd h?r arms out of the washtub, shook
.ff the fOHiny festoons of suds that clung to
taeu,aud g-zlrg indignantly at a pile ct
ber h'l-baad's linen observed: "Two shirts
a week! ThitV more than I cm stand. Now
Jet b'.ru wah 'era himself." Brooklyn Ar-
No, w do not believe tho Pittsburg con
vention can abolish the family circle. That
is a secret society which always gets into
tiontle any party which tries to meddle with
it. Then, besides, does anybody believe that
while a woman lives on the face of the globe,
ehe can ever be persatded to give uptbtt
Ti?of her's that terrible grip with which
she's wont to make fcavoc with her hus
o'i's SaaisGiiim lcc.-LChico Journal.
WAITING FOR TILE VERDICT.
JUDGE NEILSON'S CHARGE.
An Impartial Review of the Points in
the Case With Advice on the
Laws of Evidence.
TUE JURY RETIRES.
JUDGE NKIUSOS REFUSES TO RE-OPEN THE
CASE AND DELIVERS HXS CHARGE SATIS
FIES HIMSELF AS TO THE JURY'S D1ÄNBR
OrVES THEM HIS BENEDICTION AND SENDS
THEM OCT.
New York, Jane 24. The court room
was again crowded to-day. Beecher and his
wife sat among the Plymouth throng. Til
ton was early in his teat. Judge Neikoa
entered the court room a few minutes be
fore the hour. On opening, J udge Neilson
said he was compelled, on an examination
of tte affidavits, to deny the application for
a reopening of the case, and, in accordance
with Beach's request, the papers were filed
with the clerk of the court. Judge Neilson
then stated that the jury might retain their
B4t. if thev so desired, while he delivered
to tbecn the charge. After congratulating
the jury on the approaching close or their
labor?, and tajing that he had habitually
retrained from stating his own opinions
on the questions oi fact, be
said: It is your duty to accept fully and
without a shade of mental reservation the
rules ot law stated. But, on the other hand,
I wish to pav a like degree of respect to your
great office. " You are the sole judges of th9
weight of testimony and oi the credibility
of the witnesses. A sense of this restrains
me from commenting on the proofs at large,
and from indicating to you what my own
opinions may be on the questions of fact in
volved. Your recognition or that, as your
relation to the court and to the cause, is due
to the oath you have taken to render a true
verdict according to the evidence. My
recognition of it is due, not only to yon,
but to these parties, as the moral force of a
verdict depends largely upon the fact tbac it
is tte unbiased judgment of the twelve men
select?d from the body of our citizens and in
the most solemn form known to our laws
consecrated to the service. He then stated
that the counsel had extracted so much tes
timony from the one hundred and eleven
witnesses that if he was to quote it to them
they would not reach their deliberation
until days hence, weary and exhausted.
The pleadings had been stated in their hear
ing, and they understood that the charge of
adultery lay at the bottom of it. The jadge
said that some of the testimony related to
the principal question in issue, some of it to
the credit of certain witnesses, and some to
the mere question or damages. The plead
ing has been stated in your bearing, and
yoa perceive that the charge ot adultery,
denied by the answer, lies at the foundation
of the case. Upon the issue, thu joined
THE BURDEN OF PROOF
rests on the plaintiff. You are also to un
derstand the evidence should be such as to
carry conviction to the minds of just and
prudent men, and should point to actual
guilt more directly than to aoy other reason
able hypothesis. Tho wrong charged in this
complaint might be proved by direct or by
circumstantial evidence, but such a charge
is not usually proved, or, indeed, probable,
by direct and positive evidence. The reason
ii obvious. In ino t instances where, under
a series of restraints, an apparent improper
intimacy degenerates into licentious act.,
the evil intent and life put on the garb oi
innocence. To euch cases, to all cases oi
doubt and difficultVt the law of evidence,
searching and llexible, applies peculiar tests.
presumptions and inferences drawn from
fac'.H, from conduct according to the
dictates of experience, so that finally
the question of guilt or innocence may be
determined by the jury in the light reflected
by the surrounding circumstances. A few
simple illustrations stated with reference to
a case of thia character may enable you to
understand sufficiently for the present pur
pose th9 difference between direct, circum
stantial and presumptive evidence. If a
witness should testify that be had seen the
actual commission of the sexual act
charged, it would be what is called direct
and positive evidence. If a witness should
testify that the wife and the para
mour, the defendant, had occupied
the same room all night in such
a manner as tended to the conclusion that
they had slept together, or if be had admit
ted bis guilt, that would be circumstantial
evidence. If to a letter, received by the de
fendant, explicitly charging him with thA
adultery, he answered simply, saying: "I
am sorry and hope to be forgiven," or, if on
being thu charged in a conversation by one
having an interest in the matter, he had
made no answer whatever, that, by a tmt
urai process of reasoning, would be presump
tive evidence. The Judge said that circum
stantial evidence must fce acted upon very
cautiously. Evidence bes-ingon the prin
cipal question, that ot adultery, may be taken
up in its order, thus: first, as to the writing
referred to; second, as to the oral admission? ;
third, as to the tact or implied admission;
fourth, as to the general conduct ol the de
fendant. I purpose briefly to call your at
tention to some of
IHK MORE IMPORTANT MATTERS
falling under each of these heads. Your
conclusions should not be drawn from these
classes of evidence, but from all the testi
mony on this branch of the case combined.
In taking up the writings referred to, you
will observe that the plaintiffs letter ot
the 20th of Ddcember, 1870, demanding that
the defendant should leave his pul
pit and the city, was the first open
act of hostility. That demand
Mis withdrawn at an interview had by the
paniea at Moulton's house on the evening
of De;tmber 30, 1S70. The plaintiff claims
that it was in deference to the wisLis ot his
wife. At that time, a paper written by Mrs.
Tilton in respect to her relations to the de
fendant, was held by Moultbn. Tte copy of
it which the plaintiff had was torn ap auer
havinu; been retd or stated to the ds 'endant,
and th9 original was also torn up afterwards
by Mrs, Tilton with her husband'i assent
Proof of the contents of that paper is ruled
out. because the writing was a
COaUdential communication by the
wild to her husband, and because
bo was a party to its destruction. Tint that
ruUng was m hardship, an no charge writ
ten by Mra. Tilton could have been evidence
at;aia-t the defendant. That same eveuing,
Heecher, with tbe assent cf the linsband.
called on Mrs. Tilton. He then obtained a
paper, commonly called the retraction, after
wards surrendered to Moulton. The next
paper in order i that ol July 1,1871. It is
in Moultoo's writing, except tha Unas at the
bottom and the signature, which were
written by Beecher. A questioa of fact
in dispute as tD this paper deserves your at
teution. Mr. Moulton says that it was dio
tated, sentence by sentence, and that it was
read over. Mr. li-jecher denies that dicta
tion and that reading. As to the degree ol
credit to which these witnesses thus iu con
flict may ba relatively entitled, you are to
remember that they speak of what occurred
at
A TIME OF GREAT EXCITEMENT.
They may not have been equally affected,
but while tbe one was pourins out his
thoughts in agony of solf depreciation, the
other may Lave been, moved in pympathy.
The law hs a tender consideration for an
infirmity cf memory thua inherited. The
witness ia not expected to speak of events
with certainty as to tbe subjects thus sworn
to by tbe witnesses. You should be prudent
in reference to mere probabilities. You are
not to Indulge in speculations or to lightly
consider a matter which baa been affirmed
because It may not seem reasonable. The
judge 'said that reference by him to the other
papers wonld be nearly unnecessary, but
lrom them it appears that tbe defend
ant was conscious of having committed
some wrong or offence affecting the plaintiff
and his family. With that observation as to
the Import ot the papers, I submit them to
your consideration that yoa may, taking
them in connection with the proofs at large,
determine what that wrong or offense was.
Passing to the second branch of evidence, as
to the principal charge in the order stated, I
call your attention to tbe alleged oral ad
missions. The confessions of a party made
deliberately against his own interest as to
facts known and understood by him, if
clearly proved, is regarded as of a high
class of evidence, and deservedly so, because
it is contrary to experience for inen to admit
what hurts them, if not true. Experience
proves, rather, that men evade or deDy tbe
truth when the truth hurts tbem. Testi
mony to prove oral admissions should be
carelully scrutinized. Tbe jury should be
satisfied that the witness clearly undertood,
correctly remembered, and fairly repeated
What was said. Bat caution against relying
on such testimony too implicitly, should
find its counterpoise in the caution
against the too readv riection of
it. The third class of evidence in
the arraignment stated, is as to the tacit or
implied admission. In theory it appeals to
a principle peculiar to presumptive evi
dence. It is assumed that on a suitable Oc
casion most men have such regard tor their
own interests that, on being unjustly
charged or maligned,
THEY WILL. SPEAK OCT IS DENIAL
or justification. Hence it is that silence may
be often regarded as a confession. Tbe most
obvious difficulty in applying this doctrine
arises from the consideration that all
men may not act alike in the same
circumstances, and that the jury may possi
bly ascribe to a sense of guilt what really
waa due to mere surprise or to some un
known restraint. Tbe testimony of tbe
plaintiff and of Mr. and Mrs. Moulton is as
to tbe two forms of admission, tbe one oral
and the other tacit or Implied. In consider
ing those portions of tbe testimony which
relate to the defendant's actual admissions
ot guilt, you will recall the doctrine stated
under a former bead, to the effect that
a reasonable doubt as to a
want ot apprehension. or of
memory, or fairness in the witness proving
such admissions, imposes upon the jury the
exercise of great caution upon tbe testi
mony. You will inquire whether the wit
nesses are correct in their statements, or
whether tbe defendant was misunderstood
by them. In considering the other portions
of their testimony as to the implied admis
sions, also contradicted by the defendant,
you will inquire whether in the conversa
tions had by him with the witnesep,
his adultery with the plaintiffs wife
was spoken of In clear and express terms.
If you find that he was thus charged, so
that acting on the impulse common to in no
cent men he would have denied, if it was
without foundation, you will consider the
inference te be drawn from it and any ap
parent excuse for his silence The remain
ing class of evidence, as to the principal
question in issue, relates to the conduct of
the defendant. Iu the first place, ou will
consider bis conduct in his intercourse with
Mrs. Tilton, as proved by Joseph W. Rich
ards and Kate Carey. The circum
stances stated by tsem are
claimed to disclose an unduo
familiarity. Your attention has been called
to a series ol events, to the reasons which
may have led to certain modes of action, to
an acquiescence to restraints, to occasional
disturbancesi, apprehensions and resent
menta, lapsing into seasons of peace and pa
tient endurance. The counsel have given
you their views as to
THE SIGNIFICANCE OP EACH FACT
and circumstances. Cut in and through ii
all, the vital and absorbing question re
mains, not whether tho defendant acted
wisely and well, but whether it was as
he would not have acted if Innocent
of this particular charge. I recur to the
l6tter of the 2Gth of December, delivered by
Bowen, in which the plaintiff said to the de
fendant, 'I demand that, for reasons which
you explicitly understand, you immedi
ately cease from the ministry of Plymouth
Church, and that you quit the city ot
Brooklyn." The question is as to the
manner this demand was received. Tbe
plaintiff's theory seems to have been that
as the offence charged in this complaint
bad been perpetrated, the reasons thus
generally referred to would be apprehended
on reading the letter. The defendant
said, "This man is crazy." It is for you to
consider whether that remark was or was
not in the nature of a suggestion that there
was no sensible reasons lor making that de
mand, and whether in the conversation, or
In tone and in the manner, tbe defendant
betrayed any consciousness of guilt. The
judge next referred to the policy of silence,
and aid that Mr. Beecher's course through
out was to be carefully scrutinized. You
will inquire whether attentions were
paid to Mrs. Woodhull to conciliate
her at the instance or with the approbation
of the defendant, whether before Miss
Turner was sent off to school he favored
that as a precautionary measure, or contrib
uted money in that view, and whether he
repressed the presentation and prosecution
of tbe West charges. If yon find that Mr.
Beecher did not thus act, those questions
will give you no trouble. But if you find
that he took such a part in these transac
tions, or any of them, then you will inquire
whether he did so in apprehension that his
sexual intercourse with Mrs.Tilton migbt be
exposed ,or from some other and independent
cause. You will also inquire whether the
defendant refrained lrom publishing a de
nial or refutation of the allegations con
tained in the paper known aa the Woodhull
scandal, from answering a particular in
quiry made by Mrs, Bractebaw in her letter,
to wbicb be sent a reply, or was held in
THE BONDAGE OF FEAR
to Mr3. Morse from a sense of guilt. ow,
charged in any view of the case, you may ba
disposed to ask why Mr. Beecher, if Inno
cent, should have garnered up in his heart all
that fear and pain so long, when be
might have made a proclamation to
the world and trampled out the scandal as
witb iron boots. Tbe question upon all tbe
prools Is whether tho defendant uuuerstood
that he was charged with adultery and
epoke, wrote, acted and suffered from acdin
consequence of that, or whether, laying
that out of view, he understood the charges
to be that he bad made improper proposals
or advances, and bad robbed the plaintiff of
a rich inheritance in the love of his wife,
and whether, coupled with these charges, be
believed that be bad wronged the plaintiff
by favoring a family separation and a dis
missal of Bowen, and lor those reasons
wrcte, acted and suffered as described.
Ii the wrong was adultery, tbe
solution of what followed is easy,
But if the wrongs or offenses, actual or im
puted, were of the other character stated,
then a last apprehension of the relation be
tween the defendant's state of mind and his
conduct invokes several considerations,
What were his personal estimates of bis re
lation to the church, to the world, to litera
ture, and ot the reputation be should leave
behind him; what bis conception of
the nature , and gravity of the
charge of impure solicitation of
alienating woman's love from her hus
band and of the effect of auch accusations, if
publicly made; what his notion of the ex
tent to which Tilton bad been injured as a
journalist, in his lamlly and as to their
means of subsistence. The judge next called
the attention of the jury to the credit due to
tbe witnesses and referred as follows to
Moulton's connection with the case. Mr.
Moulton seems to have intervened as the
open and avowed friend of Tilton.
He appears to have undertaken
to mediate between the parties, to
reconcile them and, as far as
possible, to prevent the specific character of
tbeir differences lrom unnecessary pub
licity. He states that such was the real
CHARACTER OF HIS INTENTION
and the defendant, in his letters and other
wise, has borne large and generous testi
mony to that effect. Yet Mr. Moulton on
various occasions, as he himself testifies and
as other witnesses state.declared that the de
fendant was not guilty of sexual in
tercourse, which he now says
has been admitted. It is for you to consider
bow far the inconsistency in bis statement
goes to discredit him. If you shall be ol
the opinion that be intended to state the
truth on his examination here, and that bis
previous declarations were inspired by a
spirit of loyalty to tbe defendant's reputa
tion, and to that of Mrs. Tilton from an
earnest wish to divert the minds ot
others from tho subject, in car
rying out the policy of suppression
adopted, you are at liberty to make such
allowances lor that a3 shall seom proper.
As to Mr. Tilton. you will consider whether
his testimony as to the confession of tbe de
fendant's guilt can be reconciled with hi
previous declarations that his wife was in
nocent. The peculiar theory which be has
explained to you has been illustrated
by the counsel, and may be
accepted as far as you think
proper. As to the testimony of Emma D.
Moulton, it is claimed that there is an inhe
rent improbability in the supposition that a
lady of her confessed refinement and deli
cacy would have conversed so freely with
tbe defendant as to his adultery, or under
taken to advise him on that subject. It is
also said that on tbe occasion when she
claims, to baye. had an important inter
view with the defendant, he was not at her
bouse. You will consider and apply the
proof which. . stands in conflict and
in corroboration. In the discussion, that
proof has been recited and illustrated so
freely that I have but to commend it to
your careful consideration. Did she, at or
about the time stated, have that interview,
and was the conversation substantially as
given by her? If so, and she were
In error as to the length of the in
terview, whether that one incident
would not be conclusive, gentlemen,
reets with you. Another observation may
be proper. Had Mrs. Moulton got tbe im
pression that the defendant's guilt was adul
tery, and in her conversation regarded that
a? tbe subject in bis mind, as it was in ber
mind? Do you believe that, whether mis
taken or not, she testified honestly? Her
MANNER ON THE STAND,
and the opinion which the defendant him
self had of her moral character and worth,
as stated in his letters, commend her to your
respect. I had occasion to state in your
hearing my view of the suggestion that this
witness testified at the will or instruction
of the husband. I will hold to the
opinion then expressed. There is no
proof oi artifice or coercion or undue influ
ence. The fact, however, that her husband
is deeply concerned in this controversy, and
that her testimony, without repeating, con
curs with his, is to be considered. On the
mere question of bias in sustaining tbe
plaintiff's cause, she is sustaining
ber husband as a witness. As
to the witness Kate Carey,
it is proper to state that the persons called
to prove an alleged bad character lor truth
and veracity, should have a general knowl
edge to be lairly derived lrom the opinions
expressed by the people who knew tho wit
ness. Such an impeachment is weaic in
proportloa as the circle in which the un
favorable opinion prevails is narrow, and
as that opinion can be traced to
special difficulties. As to another
witness, Benjamin F. Tracy, two suggestions
have been made. Tbe first is that having
acted as counsel for the defendant he should
not have been called as a witness for him in
the case. Tbe second is, that owing to an
arrangement witb, or promise to the plain
tiff, be should not have acted as such coun
sel. Tbe judge commented at lentrth upon
Tracy's case and said: I bave only to add
that my own view of the propriety
of the course pursued by Mr. Tracy agrees
with that of bis associate counsel in tbe
cau?e. I think with them that there has
been no violation of duty on his part, per
sonal or professional. The question oi dam
ages was next considered, the judge calling
the attention of the jury to the large
amount'of evidence, including the plain
tiff's alleged misconduct at home, and
abroad. Peculiar to this was the question
of damages. Such misconduct, said tbe
juge. may reduce the amount of recovery,
out is no ueisnce to the action, some
OTHER FEATURES OF TUB CASE
remain to be noticed. Upon principle and
authority, and alo with reference to our
accepted ru.es of social order, tbe ul
tlmacy and intercourse which is al
lowed between a married woman and her
legal adviser, physician or pastor, is greater
than that which would be considered proper
or becoming between a woman and a man
holding no such special relation. That
principle applies here and. tbe delendant is
entitled to the benefit of. it. We are wont
to say that all suitors are treated alike
and in most respects they are
But yet in a case of this charac
ter, a man grown old in
proper and pious service has prima facie the
beoefitota presumption which tha mere
tuen ot the world has not. Mr. Beecher's
advances of lnoney, which, through Mr.
Moulton, went to the benefit of Tilton and
bis family, apoear to have been mere acts of
Keuerosity. lhat money was not extorted
by Mr. Moulton, nor does it appear to
have been the fruit of any improper
artifice. Although it is of no special mo
ment, I think it proper to say that uncontra
dicted evidence shows that Tilton did not
know that ho was thus benefitted by
Betcher. "We bave before us no evidence
Which could support charges or ronpptracy
and blackmail, and. If we had, the defend
ant's position would remain the same, if n
nocent. to be so declared, independ
ently ol such artifices. The nearest
approach to blackmail wonld seem to hat
arisen between Tilton and Bowen, if tbe
former did threaten to publish a card inja
rious ti the latter unless tbe money was
paid. But we bave no interest In that ques
tion. Moreover, be did not puoliah
the card, nor was he paid until
after due course of investigation.
It seems that tbe covenant cf Bowen ayrjd
Tilton in respect to compensation for service
on the two papers provided for certain pay
ments on a termination ot the employment
before tbe end ot the teri, and that claims
or disputes should be determined by arbi
tration. In the notice of dismissal put. n
evidence, Mr. Bowen proposed that mode of
adjustment. He had a legal right to st&Jd
on that. He did so, and
THE ARBITRATION ,
was had. The gentlemen acting as arbi
trators, men of character and integrity
found that ?7,000 was due, and that was
paid. No special purpose could have d
such men to that determination if the
monev bad not in their la.lcment hn
actually due. It seems proper to refer
vu i wo rapjecta oi considerable
lmnortance which, to some extent, have
been brought into the case. Tbe one is tbe
proceedings and report of the investigating
committee appointed by Mr. Beecher after
the defendant's letter to Dr. Bacon had
been published. That was a matter whioh
concerned Plymouth Church and the de
fendant aa its pastor. Tbe report of the
committee, after such an investigation
they thought proper, was 5n favor of
the defendant. I have simplv to; remind
you that that determination should not
have any weight or influenoe with yoa here.
The other subject is tbe advisory conven
tion held at the instance of two of our prin
cipal churches. The question presented
here had no relation to the subject there
involved. The West charges, which
sre in evidenco before you, not having been
prosecuted by the Plymouth Church, and
Mr. Tilton's name having been dropped
a member without censure, notwithstand
ing the charge ol slandering the pastor, had
been made by Mr. West. Tbe advisory
council bad cognizance of that as a question
of discipline and church polity. You will
readily perceive that that proceeding
did not affect or assume to reach Mr.
Beecher. Yon are not to accept the notion
that these two powerful churches werej ar
suing Mr. Beecher. I simplv call your-.-tentiouto
this subject that "the defendant
may not suffer from any misconception ii i
the ground on which that council was
convened. Gentlemen, the case is now
submitted to ycu. It is of a i j -
ture to call lor the exercise
your highest intelligence and most scrupu
lous care. You will retire to jour delibera
tions with an important and earnest pMr
pose, and be just to the witnesses, jut; . he
parties and to render a verdict which ou
ma v think of hereafter with mtUfarM-m 1 1 v
duty honestly performed in the presence
vou sou oi men.
THE JURY GO OUT.
ACTION ON THE BEQUESTS TO CHARGE COM
MENTS ON THE CHARGE WAITING.
After the judge had got through eading
the charge, he took up the requests
charge, and instructed tbe jury that tbe
fendant was not obliged to prove himeel
innocent, that the mere proof of an opportu
nity to commit the act was not proof
of the guilt of the party concerned, that
the destruction of a paper which was
evidence in the case raised the presump
tion that its production would be unfavor
able to tbe party who destroys it, tbat none
ot the defendant's letters declared
bis guilt, but only commis
seratlon and reproach" lor the
trouble be bad caused. The fact that the
plaintiff cohabited with bis wife after learn
ing of her guilt was in favor of the innocence
of the defendant, tbe ludge thought was not
very applicable to this case and would not
therefore so charge. The jury were
to take into consideration tbe " fact of
the plaintiffs six months silence after
alleged confession at bis wife's request.
When the judge completed his comments on
the requests to charge, be asked if the coun
sel were content, and Mr. Beach replied:
"We are, sir." One of the jurors asked if
there were any papers relating to the case
which could be given to them
when in tbe jury room,' and
Beach said that he had no objection.
Evarts stated there were some capers wh'.ch
were not in evidence, and Judge Neilson
replied that tbe jury could bave any papers
which they deshed, relating to the case.
Judge Neilson asked a court officer what
arrangement bad been made for the
jurors' dinners, and he was told tbat
all the necessary preparations had been
made. The court officers were then sworn
to take charge of the jury, and to allow no
communications with tbem except by per
mission of theconrt, and at six minutes past
ODe the jury retired to their deliberations
on the case. Alter the jury retired, the
spectators remained in the court room dis
cussing the merits and demerits of the
charge, and it was agreed, on all hands, tbat
it was very favorable to the de
fendant. Beecher, with his wife, sons
and daughter-in-law, and Dr. Edward
Beecher and wife also stopped in court,
awaiting any intelligence tbat might reach
them from the jury-room, but up to 3:30
o'clock no news was received from them.
CAPTURE OF COUNTERFEITERS.
THE PITTSBCR3 GANG RESPECT AHLE CON
NECTIONS. The Pittsburg Telegram has the following
details ot the capture of counterfeiters
noticed in these columns Wednesday morn
ing: Suspicion was first aroused by the re
ceipt, at the "dead letter" department in
Washington, of two letters containing coun
terfeit $10's of the Richmond, Ind., Bank,
and mailed at Pittsburg. Tbe matter was
given to Chief Washburn, who gave
the case to the United States detectives to
work up. Mr. Milton H. Fronk, of No.
65 Preble street, Allegheny, waa suspected
Of knowing something about it, and middle
men were employed to puichasethe "queer"
from Froak. The arrangement succeeded,
Fronk selling them a large quantity ot the
stuff. It was also ascertained that he regu
larly shipped the queer to other points. Iiis
accomplice was ascertained to be an Alle
gheny mail carrier named D. D. Davis, jr.,
who brought the letters ostensibly addressed
to other parties directly to FronK. On Fri
day evening last, the arrangements being
ripp, the doctor was arrested on the street
and locked up. At first be was dis
posed to say nothing, but he finally
weakened and made sundry admissions.
Davis was also accustomed to purchase meat
and sundries, offer a bogus ?10, get the
change and throw the meat in tbe sewers.
Fronk used a cipher in bis correspondence
which for a long time puzzled the govern
ment officers. On Monday Davis was ar
rested and yesterday waa released on g-5,000
bail, his father becoming bis security. It
was also learned that John Conners, alias
Black and John Lyons, of Cincinnati, were
members of the gang, and a dispatch was
sent to Porkopoliä by the detectives
inviting them to come to Pittsburg. They
responded alürmaUvely and were cap
tured near Steubenville en route to this city
with a complete 4'kit" of burelars tools in
tbeir possession. Last night K. Langet, an
other cf the gang was arrested in
Beaver county and locked up for a hearing.
On tbe person of Frouk, Lyons and Black
counterfeit passes on tbe Pennsylvania rail
road and other lines were found, enabling
the shovers to Impose on tbe railroads and
make "rapid transit" between both cities.
Dr. Fronk, who is alleged to be the bead of
the gang, is respectably connected, as is also
LDgfit, but this fact seems to bave enabled
the culprits to ply their game more success
fully than they otherwise could have done.
It is given out that other arrests are yet to
be Iii atle.
Jeff, Davis has removed to Texas, far fro an
the baneful influences of the sleeping car,
and hopes to spend the remainder of his
days in peac9 and virtue. . Bat his recent
speech at Houston indicates .that bis old
weakness is still upon him. Said he: "Five
times and four am I proud. It baa been said
that the last war was a war of women. If
o, I hug the charge to my breast. Iem
Eroud of it.' Eight times and seven. Mr.
'iris, we warn you not to talk in such a
vague manner about bugging in Texas.
Thirteen times and twelve we caution you
that it you do not refrain from Buch
language, you will be shot on suspicion by
the first Texan racger who you mests alone.
Chicago Times. -'
A CAUSECELEBRE.
THE MERRIGAN-HAMMILL MURDER
RESULT OF MRS. MERBIUAN'S SECOND TRIAL.
-AS INCREDIBLE CHARGE AND A STIIX
MORE INCREDIBLE DEFENSE STRANGS
CHAIN Or CIRCUMSTANCE. (
Last Monday the second trial of Mrs. Sa
rah Merrlgan for the murder of her friend
Miss Maggie Hammill came to an end in tbe j
Brooklyn City Court by a second disagree-1
ment of the jury. The story of the case has
been told before, but it is so remarkable,
that it well deserves reproduction. It is
thus told in the Brooklyn Eagle : The case,
it will be remembered, was tried last au
tumn, but resulted in a disagreement of the
jury. The story ot Miss Hammill's death.
as told by the prosecution. Is very simpl
though not free from improbabilities, wh
that told by the defense is very complicate
though not devoid of truthful appearance. I
Mrs. Merrlgan murdered Miss Hammill,
Bne commuted a crime odious to an extraor
dinary degree, and if she did net murder her,
circumstances hardly ever conspired more
evuiy against an innocent woman. Mrs.
Merrigan'a home was on the second or third
floor of a North Ninth street tenement. On,
the 21 of September, 1S73, Margaret Ham
mill, an old schoolmate and warm personal
friend, came to the house on a friendly visit.
Two days after Miss Hammill bad been seen
to 6nter Mrs. Merrigan'a house, the neigh
bors were etartled by an alarm or fire, which,
proceeded irom the floor in which Mrs. Mer-
ritran lived. Tbe flames were subdued, and
following their subjugation came tbe revela
tion which gave rise to the indictment fcr
murder. Margaret Hammill waa found
tfead in Mrs. Merrigan'a bed room. There
ai a rope drawn iclo a runninar noose
about her neck, and the appearance of
tbe throat and tace showed she bad been
stranged. Moreover, an examination of the
room showed tbat it bad willfully been set
on fire. Materials for tbe rapid spread of the
flames had been gathered together; the win
dow blinds bad been caref ully closed and
the door of the room locked, so tbat it had
to be broken open by the firemen. These state-
ments, we believe, are not contested by the
defense. On the contrary, they admit the
blinds were closed, the combustible material
gathered, tbe match applied and tbe door
locked by Mrs. Merrlgan, who, they further
admit, did so with the intent of burning to
ashes the body ot Marzatet Hammill. Upon
these facts the indictment for murder is
based, and the theory ol tbe prosecution is
that Mrs. Merrigao, having murdered hery'
old friend for what little money she had on
her person, set fire to the bouse in the hope
that the flames would wipe out all trace of V
the deed.
THE DEFENSE,
as we observed, is somewhat complicated,
but it is not the less entitled to attention oif
tbat account. Emerson has said that the
impossible Is always occurring; this may be
somewhat overstrained even for a paradox,
but tbe murder ot one friend by another,
under circumstances such as we have de
scribed, is 60 improbable that the defense
set up must not be scouted because it bears
about it something of the marvelous. First
of all, the defense affirm tbat Margaret
Hammill was accidentally haoged, and in
support of tbat affirmation tbey present xxt
with a series of curious antecedents, two
or three suggestive accompanying cir
cumstances, and the word ol Mrs. Merrigan.
Mrs. Merrigan and Miss Hammill
were, it appears, weak enough to run after
fortune tellers. They had visited oracles of
that kind together, singly, and at divers
times. A day or two before the coming of
Miss Hammill on her last visit, Mrs. Merri
gan had been in consultation with a gypsy
fortune-teller, who, in addition to revealing
some startling things about the future, in
formed Mrs. Merrigan, how, by a series of
measurements upon her person, she migbs
herself find out not a few ot the things to
come. When Miss Hammill arrived, Mrs.
Merrigan told her of the gypsy secret,
and so taken was she with it, that she
determined to put tbe knowledge into
practice. The measurements were,
it seems, to be made with a
rope run round the neck, one end pass
ing through the loop and long enough to
reace the experimenter's feet. In order to
carry out tbe gypsy's Instruction, Miss Uan
mill got upon a chair, produced a close rope,
and proceeded according to directions.
While the measurements were in prog-
res s Mrs. Merrigan was called down
stairs by one of tbe neighbors, and in I
her absence the banging took place. For j
reasons which need nardly be explained, Ihr-'
apartments being small and tbe weathe
warm, Miss Hammill had placed her haiA
on which she stood behind a half open door.i
Alter extending tne rope irom her neck to
her feet and making certain measurements
of her arms and breast, she
it seems, according to the gypsy's
instructions, began to make separate
MEASUREMENTS OF HER TOES.
In stooping over to measure her toes sle
found the long end of the rope dangling iu
her way or rather bsfora her eyes, and to
be relieved of that annoyance ehe roso and
cast it over ber shoulder. But in casting the
end over her shoulder, she also cst it over
the door, which was not very high, and, by
fatal mischance, it encircled tha handln of
the door, at the taine moment the chair
upon which tbe unfortunate woman stoddl
must, by a sudden motion have slipped
from under her, and tbe rcpa tightening,
she was ie:t banging by tbe neck, unable, ot
course, to call lor assistance, and unable to
astd.c herself. Alter a lew taoruent's ab
sence Mrs. Merrigan returned and
found Miss Hammill hanging as ('escribed.
In&tead ot calling upon the neighbors, sbj
cut the rope with a pair ol smsors.as soon as
she collected her senses, and proceeded ia a
frantic way to do all tbat she could think of
for her friend's res'.eration. It is needless to
say that she did not succeed, and that, QOt
mcceeding, grief, fear, desperation, and a
tbouxand other conflictinir pmr.tmnn vn-
spired to drive Mrs.. Merrlgan into an in
sanity which culminated iu an attempt tdk
burn tho bouse and cremate tbe body of her
friend. These are the rival stories the one
by the prosecution, and . the other
by the delense. Tbey are both BUtp
ported by evidence and neither in-
volves a belief in the impossible. It
may doubtless be said, and said with some
truth, that tne story about the fortune tell
ing, the measurements, tbe accidental going
out of Mrs. Merrigan, and the accidental
fastening of tbe rcpe upon tbe handle of tbe
door, is somewhat bard ot belief, but it is no
more than justice to the accused woman to
say t hat it is not easy to believe that she for
a trivial suui of monev would murder tbe
friend of her youtn and the friend ot ber
married lite one who wa still her Irienu .
iu the chamber fcbe bad entered as h gue
Moreover, Mis. Merrigan kuew thai
neighbors ba n Margare- II-iminill ente
was la tbe aaytime, and tbe turroun
were such that concealment must have ap
peared impossible. A single cry would have
brought duzend ot people to tbe scene.
The Virginia City Enterprise: -Winter
sleeping in the laD of spring," "wicter lin
gering in the lap of May," "winter slum
bering in tbe arms ot ppring," "winter ly
ing in the lap of May" these are a few
atrocious renderings of a well-known quo
tation. "We beg to make the following im
provement: "January chawing the eat-'
T It rrvi v.i . i . i .
wuuo. a iii a LTiDga inn uieiapuor WJL
witu
the comprehension cfthe mviaces
maker, '
t