Burlington hawk-eye. [volume] (Burlington, Iowa) 1845-185?, 1849-05-24

more has there been even clerk during
that time? Mr. Macarthur, who was for
merly partner Of Mr. Beach, was this
clerk; but he left the State years ago, and
has been practising law in New York
City, until, within the year past, he set
tied in Boston. The law above quoted
provides that "upon the death, resignation,
or absence Of The clerk, The Muster in Chan
Gerry may appoint another in his place"
Has any other one oficiated? A gentleman
who has seen the papers in Mr. BIS Office
asserts that the records are signed by Mr.
Macarthur alone. Who will believe, then,
that the case was not considered as closed
long, long ago. and that this new pretence
is rot entirely uniounded. The dividend
was paid 10 creditors in Sept, 1914. Has
not Mr. Beach received his own pay--and
the whole Of it? That, at least, is "clos-
cd we dare say.
But there is other and more pinching
proof against Mr. Beach. We ask partic-
ular attention. In the Post of Wednes-
day, April 18th, he endeavors 10 escape
alleging, three several times, that the case
40 NV 1>U" tuTu 10 Tile Col
umns of the Union, and there is state
ment under his own name, dated April
It'll, that the "pRocEEDlNGs WERE CLOS
Ed" He says:--
"Ftz Henry Warren refusing 10 ap-
pear before the Master TO render .ehed-
Jules of the assets and debts of the firm,
to submit 10 an examination, or TO take and
subscribe the oath prescribed by law, he
was refused discharge. Some time be-
fore the proceedings uere closed, he made a
demand in person upon the Master for a
discharge, but it was refused for reasons
stated TO him."*
These are Mr. Beach's own words, adj
dressed to Mr. Richie on April 7h. On
that day, for the purpose of producing one
impression in Washington, he alleges that
the proceedings were closed but--was it
defect Of memory? ON the 25,h of the
same month, having different object in
view, he asserts through the Springfield
Post, three times over, that 'the case is
not finished!
One statement or the other is not true.
With which of them is the public to be
deceived? II, as we believe, the pro-
ceedings were closed years ago, then all
that we said in our article of Tuesday is
fully justified. He has wrongfully kept
possession of these records and papers,
and is now wrongfully using them to in
jure Mr. Warren. That was our position,
and we appeal to the good sense of the
public, if it be not fully vindicated.
But if even Mr. Beach has, since April
Hh, deluded himsel into the belief that the
case is still pending before him, and is not
finished, in what light does he stand?
What is TO be said of JUICE, who, while
case is pending in his Court, panders TO
partisan appetiies, and publishes such
shameful misrepresentation of the case,
and such abusive language of party, as
are contained in the article in the Union
of April 7h, TO which Mr. BIS own name
is affixed? We know what is TO be
thought; and, therefore, charity towards
him as well as evidence from all sources,
compel us 10 hold him fast TO the other
horn Of the dilemma.
So much upon this point. Tomorrow,
as the Post has not yentured 10 do il, we
will rsppblish from The Union, Mr.
Beach's statements of April It'll; and the
public will see in them as pretty a speci-
men Of unfairness as its appetite can well
stand.
I'VE are authorized to say that this is utterly
and basely false in every particular.
The Whig Governor of Tennessee ON fLe |