After-Effects—Charges against Tilton—Advisory Council—Investigating Committee called by Mr. Beecher—Its Report—Dropping Mr. Moulton—Council called by Plymouth Church.

In October, 1873, formal charges were preferred against Theodore Tilton, by Plymouth Church, for slandering his pastor. He replied to the clerk of the church, that he was not, and for four or more years had not been, a member of the church. The church then voted to drop his name from the rolls, agreeably to the provisions of its manual, relating to such cases.

Most of the sister churches were content that Plymouth Church should attend to her own affairs in her own way. Not so the Church of the Pilgrims (Dr. Storrs) and the Clinton Avenue Church (Dr. Budington).

They felt themselves outraged by this action of Plymouth, in omitting to try the charges preferred against Tilton.

Special meetings were called in these churches, and a committee of seven appointed in each, to formulate, and send, a letter of remonstrance to Plymouth Church. After a considerable, but ineffectual correspondence between the churches, and consultations between the pastors, looking to an amicable adjustment of their differences, the two dissatisfied churches called the “Advisory Council” of 1874, to advise them as to their course toward Plymouth Church.

While the correspondence and conferences referred to were going on, a very serious difficulty broke out in Dr. Budington’s church, which at one time threatened to split it asunder. A large number of influential members denounced the manner of calling the special meeting, at which the committee of seven was appointed, and by which the church was committed to its position of hostility to Plymouth, as being irregular, and in violation of their own rules.^[13] This led to a number of stormy meetings, in which great bitterness was felt and expressed on both sides.

Mr. Beecher, instead of fomenting this difficulty—which might easily have been made the means of turning the tables upon his clerical critics, and forcing them from the attack to the defensive—or even sitting still, to await any advantages that might accrue to him or his church, came at once to Dr. Budington’s relief. On January 12th he wrote to a prominent member of the latter’s church, urging in the strongest terms that both the doctor, and the protestants, should seek for some intermediate ground on which they could meet in peace, and that the best men of the church should join to avert the catastrophe which seemed impending. He also wrote an earnest letter to Dr. Storrs, that he should join with him in seeking the peace and unity of Dr. Budington’s church.

At the same time he wrote a long letter directly to Dr. Budington, in which, among other things, he said:

He also advised such of his friends in Dr. Budington’s church as he met, to the same effect. Ultimately the storm blew over, though a feeling of soreness remained in the Clinton Avenue Church for a long time.

On March 24, 1874, the Advisory Council convened in Dr. Budington’s church. Plymouth Church had been invited to be present at the council by pastor and committee, “to correct any statement of fact that may seem to them erroneous, and to furnish any further and special information the council may request.”

To this Plymouth Church replied “that the calling of this ex-parte council to consider the affairs of a church which has not declined a mutual council is the consummation of a course of proceedings against which, as irregular and unwarrantable, we have felt bound to protest from the beginning. That we recognize in the statement, the letter-missive, and the invitation as in former communications addressed to us, a persistent attempt to put this church under accusation and on trial, and that we cannot accept the invitation of these two churches to appear before a council in the calling of which we have been permitted to take no part, in which we have not been offered the right of equal members, and in which we are not even allowed to be ordinary defendants, but only to be witnesses to correct errors and answer questions propounded to us.”

On the 28th the council made its “deliverance,” but so like a Delphic oracle that neither its friends nor its foes seemed able to agree upon its exact meaning.

As nearly as we can make out from the “deliverance” itself, and the comments made upon it by members of the council, it was to the effect: 1. That Plymouth Church was not en regle in its disposal of Mr. Tilton’s case; 2. That the two sister-churches were unwise and hasty; and 3. That Plymouth Church should not be read out of fellowship.

Very shortly after the adjournment of the council a series of letters were written by Dr. Bacon, of New Haven, and published in the Independent, which reflected very strongly upon Mr. Tilton, who, in the latter part of June, published a statement in which he made an open charge; in this he declared that Mr. Beecher had committed an offence against him which he forbore to name. This was the first public charge made by Mr. Tilton. Up to this time the stories afloat were vague and indefinite, impossible of tracing to their source.

Mr. Beecher was absent from the city when Tilton’s statement was published, but, returning the next day, at once sent the following to the gentlemen named therein:

These names were selected after conference with the Examining Committee of the church, most of them being suggested by that committee. Two of the gentlemen named were members of the Examining Committee, which immediately ratified the selection, and by formal vote made them a sub-committee of its own.

After the committee had been organized and begun its examination Mr. Beecher wrote and sent the following letter:

”Gentlemen of the Committee: In the note requesting your appointment I asked that you should make full investigation of all sources of information. You are witnesses that I have in no way influenced or interfered with your proceedings or duties. I have wished the investigation to be so searching that nothing could unsettle its results. I have nothing to gain by any policy of suppression or compromise.

“For four years I have borne and suffered enough, and I will not go a step further. I will be free. I will not walk under a rod or yoke. If any man would do me a favor, let him tell all he knows now. It is not mine to lay down the law of honor in regard to the use of other persons’ confidential communications; but, in so far as my own writings are concerned, there is not a letter nor document which I am afraid to have exhibited, and I authorize any and call upon any living person to produce and print forthwith, whatever writings they have from any source whatsoever.

“It is time, for the sake of decency and of public morals, that this matter should be brought to an end. It is an open pool of corruption, exhaling deadly vapors.

“For six weeks the nation has risen up and sat down upon scandal. Not a great war nor a revolution could more have filled the newspapers than this question of domestic trouble; magnified a thousandfold, and, like a sore spot in the human body, drawing to itself every morbid humor in the blood. Whoever is buried with it, it is time that this abomination be buried below all touch or power of resurrection.”

The committee commenced their sittings on the 28th of June and did not complete their report until the 28th day of August. The committee requested the attendance of thirty-six witnesses, and endeavored to obtain such facts as were relevant to the inquiry from all attainable sources of evidence. In their report they stated that “most of the persons named have attended as requested before the committee. One notable exception is Francis B. Carpenter. Francis D. Moulton promised to testify fully, but has failed to do so. He has submitted three short statements in writing to the committee, consisting chiefly of reasons why he declined to testify, and of promises to testify at the call of the committee. The committee have called him three times, with the results stated. In addition to the evidence of the persons named, we have examined a considerable number of letters and other documentary evidence which, in some way, were supposed to relate to the subject-matter of inquiry. We have held in the prosecution of our investigations twenty-eight sessions.”

Mr. Tilton appeared and presented a partial statement, finally refusing any further examination. Mrs. Tilton was examined, and most emphatically and solemnly denied the charge which her husband had made. Mr. Beecher was also examined; the substance of his statement we have already presented. While the committee was in session, and on the 21st of July, Mr. Tilton published a statement in the Brooklyn Argus, in which for the first time he made the specific charge of adultery. Up to this time, in his private statements, he had charged “improper proposals”; this statement he had made repeatedly, in confidence, to many different persons, and had incorporated in his so-called “true statement,” which he had shown to several; in this, in the most positive manner, he had denied that his wife had been guilty. The reason for this change of position will be made apparent later.

The committee in their report, after exhaustively reviewing the evidence, concluded:

This report, with its conclusions, was presented to the church on Friday evening, the 28th, and accepted with great enthusiasm by a unanimous vote, the immense throng, nearly three thousand in number, rising en masse when the vote was put.

The terrible struggle in silence had passed, and to Mr. Beecher the relief at feeling that he could speak out in his own defence was unutterable. He spoke of it often and strongly:

“And what was most singular was that when the church came into the eclipse I came out of it. I had had my time when I was dumb and opened not my mouth, and was led as a sheep to the slaughter; but when the trouble came upon the whole church, with its intense suffering, there came to me emancipation. God was pleased to uphold me as I walked alone and in silence, and afterwards He gave me such relief that during the two or three years in which the church was shrouded in great anxiety I was filled with trust and courage, and was enabled all the time to lift up the church and carry it hopefully along from Sabbath to Sabbath.”

“ ... I have rolled off my burden; I am in the hands of God; I am certain of salvation and safety in God, and I do not give it any lower application; but I am hidden in His pavilion, I am surrounded by His peace, and I have got back, through storms and troubles, to the simplicity and the quiet enjoyment which belonged to me many years ago. My thought, my feeling, and my soul run very quiet; and it is the result, not so much of any visible and external thing, as that I am sure I am surrounded by the hand of my God. I live in Him, and He lives in me, and He gives me the promised peace.”

The publication of Mr. Beecher’s statement (a short time prior to the committee’s report) was as great a relief to Mr. Beecher’s friends, as the opportunity to make it had been to him. Many who trusted him implicitly, believing that there was some reason for his silence, could not but wonder what it might be; and when they learned that he had suffered reproach in silence, rather than open the doors to the vile flood which would deluge the land, bringing sorrow to hundreds of homes, unwilling to violate the pledge he had given to Tilton and Bowen until the former’s treachery at last compelled him, their loving confidence and sympathy were only intensified.

The clouds of mystery had been cleared away, and all was plain as noonday. We have room to quote but one of the many letters received, as an apt expression of the feelings produced by the statement. We give entire the letter of President Porter, of Yale College:

Early in the sessions of the committee Mr. Tilton withdrew—as we understand, not liking to be followed up on cross-examination—threatening to institute legal proceedings against Mr. Beecher, and, as preliminary thereto, published his statement of July 21.

We have alluded to the fact that at this stage Tilton wholly changed the nature of his charge. In all the stories which he and Moulton had told to various friends at different times, and in the statements which he had prepared and shown in confidence, the charge was always “improper proposals” and an emphatic assertion of his wife’s innocence. Now he proposed to stake all on one cast of the dice. He would bring a suit, and, if he could get no more help, he would at least, so his vanity and Mr. Beecher’s evil-wishers assured him, crush Mr. Beecher. Indeed, he and Moulton were cornered, and must resort to some desperate measures or surrender themselves to everlasting infamy. Had they been left to themselves, it is perhaps doubtful if they would have attempted so desperate a remedy, even in self-defence; but there were those, not a few, who egged them on, contributing to the expense of the suit, glad to keep up the attack on Mr. Beecher, provided only their names were not brought out.

But an action at law would not lie for merely “improper proposals”; it must go further than that. The case must be reconstructed. In no published statement, up to this time, had Tilton made any definite charge. Now he would put his charge in such shape as would serve the purposes of a suit; hence the statement of July 21, followed by a similar statement from Moulton published in the Graphic on August 21. The same day Tilton began his action against Mr. Beecher, placing his damages at $100,000.

On the 3d of October both Tilton and Moulton were indicted for criminal libel by the Grand Jury of Kings County, on Mr. Beecher’s complaint. (After the failure of the jury to agree in the civil suit, this was nolle-prossed.)

Tilton’s suit came on for trial the 6th of January, 1875, before Judge Joseph Neilson, of the Brooklyn City Court. It is not necessary to go into the details of this trial. The same evidence, substantially, was presented as was received by the investigating committee, and as appeared in the published statements. For six months the case occupied the time of the court and jury, the testimony covering several thousand pages of printed matter.

The case was submitted to the jury the 24th day of June. For nine days the jury strove to reach an agreement, finally being discharged the 2d day of July, standing three for plaintiff and nine for defendant.

We are informed, on the authority of one of the jurors, that several times they stood eleven to one in defendant’s favor, and once all agreed on a verdict for defendant, when a juror unfortunately remarked that his son had wagered a large sum on a verdict for the defendant; this statement split the jury at once, and from thence on they remained three to nine, until they were discharged. The case was never brought to trial again, the plaintiff wholly abandoning it. It is well known that after plaintiff had abandoned his case, his leading counsel, Hon. William A. Beach, frequently and publicly declared that the trial of the cause had convinced him of Mr. Beecher’s innocence, and that he felt as though they had been a pack of hounds trying to pull down a noble lion. Five years later he expressed similar views to the writer.

In the course of the trial Mrs. Moulton took the stand against Mr. Beecher. With downcast eye, and hesitating voice, she corroborated her husband.

Before the trial she withdrew from the public service of Plymouth Church, and became a constant attendant at the Church of the Pilgrims (Dr. Storrs).

Plymouth Church could no longer tolerate her within its membership. It was fully believed that, under the coercion of her husband, she had committed perjury during the trial, and had grossly slandered her pastor. This would have been the ground of charges against her, but the church was advised that to try her on any charge based upon her testimony in court, while the suit was still pending (plaintiff’s attorneys had renoticed the cause for a new trial, shortly after the disagreement), might involve them in a contempt of court, and, in any event, would be construed as an attempt to intimidate one of plaintiff’s most important witnesses. But, since she had persistently absented herself from the services of the church, she could be dropped under the seventh rule of the church manual. She was accordingly notified of the proposed action of the church and invited to be present on the 4th of November. After hearing her defence through her legal counsel, her name was dropped from the rolls by a vote of the church.

She at once demanded a mutual council, to be called by Plymouth Church and herself. Plymouth Church protested against Drs. Storrs’s and Budington’s churches participating therein, both of whom she had named, on the ground that they were obviously committed to her side and could not be impartial, but at the same time stated that they would go on with the council. Mrs. Moulton declined unless the protest were withdrawn. This being refused, she withdrew.

About this time it was being rumored in certain circles, and notably in Boston, that Mr. Beecher and his church had some great secret that they were concealing from the world, and for this reason had declined the mutual council which Mrs. Moulton had proposed—forgetting that Mrs. Moulton was the one who had abandoned the council, and further forgetting that an opportunity had been offered to any who knew anything detrimental to Mr. Beecher, to testify against him, first before the committee, that sat for two months, and then in the trial, that lasted over six months. Friends of Mr. Beecher wrote to him from Boston of this feeling. He sent word at once to a friend to get the doubters together, and that his brother, Dr. Edward Beecher, would meet them and answer all questions. From this friend we received the following account of the meeting:

“Immediately I set about the work of collecting those who, I thought, were honorable men, but misinformed into believing many things in the case which I knew to be false.... I did not invite a man who had given signs of being a friend of your father, but I asked every man of weight in the community whom I had reason to believe was prejudiced against him, and every man, to whom I had access, who had expressed to my knowledge a judgment hostile to him.

“The majority accepted.... My parlors were filled.... At the appointed hour a hack arrived from the depot, and out stepped your father, followed by his brother. He entered the parlors, and said in substance:

“‘Gentlemen, I have been told that some of you feel that there is a lack of frankness on my part with reference to the painful matter in controversy, and that there is a desire, either on my part or on the part of my friends, to cover up and conceal facts. If you think so you are in error. Our first desire is to make everything known. But it is, we find, impossible to do so, because so many false rumors are flying about, and everything we say gets into the papers twisted awry. I have come here to beg you to ask any questions you desire. Do not spare my feelings. Do not be restrained by any consideration of delicacy. The more searching, the more crucial your questions are, the kinder you will be. I will answer any question you can ask pertaining to this affair.’

“Hour after hour questions were asked. They were put one at a time, slowly. Some seemed but slightly relevant. Some made my blood boil to hear. Some seemed such as a judge might ask of a convicted criminal before pronouncing sentence. But every question was answered categorically, when that was possible, but always fully and exhaustively, so that the questioner pronounced himself entirely answered by the reply.

“During the entire session there did not fall from your father’s lips one impatient word, one harsh rejoinder. Not by a gesture did he give evidence that he suffered. Only the quick flush that came at times upon his cheek, showed the keenness of the torture caused him by this inquisition.

“Before he left I asked each one present, privately, if there was any question he could think of, an answer to which would, in his opinion, throw light upon the matter, which had not been asked. In every case I received a negative reply.”