The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1875-03-31
REECMER.TILTON.

served for the public was occupied,
When the court was formally opened
Mr.. EyarR rose and stated that an i'm
pOrtant witness, Mr.. Henry Cleveland
was very sick and was about to leave III,
city. He asked that the court shOult
make arrangements to take his testimony
and he would like Judge Nelson TO b,
present,
The Judge said the counsel shouIt
make what arrangements were necessary
and suggested some afternoon, whichwai
agreed TO by the counsel, but the day wa
not fixed.
At this point 1t began to bO whispere.
through the court that Rev, II. W
BeGchcr would take the stand after thI
usual recess to-day.
Henry b. Clatlln was called and hi
examination continued. He said; Thu
arbitraLors, Jas. Freeland, Chas. Storr
and myself, met at the time agreed; aftel
half an hours consultation we agreed
on the award and sent for Bowen
aud Tiiton and made the announcement
Of tho result; said that they should
first burn all papers belonging to the
scandal, and Bowen should pay 81, 900 To
TiltOn, and they should sign q covenant
Moult0n and Tillon agreed to this, and
seemed satisfied, Bowen said he Ind no
papers TO burn. The agreement was then
drawn up, and Tilton took his pencil
and interlinod the paper, and wrote
something on another paper attached TO
II, The paper was then satisfactory to
all OF them. Witness was handel q
check, and said he did not know. whether
II was the check paid to Tilton by Bowen
or not, l gave the paper to Charles
Storrs to take to Bowen, but the paper
was returned to me without any sigma
ture. took Il 10 Bowen and got II
signed, / then got Tiltons signature,
and took II 10 Beecher, and he signed ii.
This finished the direct examination,
and Mr.. Fullerton began the oroSsex.
animation. Az the first meeting TiltOn
showed me . press copy Of a personal
statement, which he threatened to publish
II Bowen did not give him satisfaction; |
said II would be wrong to publish this
Wilkeson proposed that they should sign
an agreement, and | agreed with him.
Tllton made some suggestions az to what
lie would sign and what he would not; at
the meeting in MoultOn's study Tilton
said he would sign llle paper ten times II
Bowen would sign II once; took the
paper To Bowen aud left II with him, and
returned to Moultons house; WilkesOn
or TiltOn said ! ought not TO have left the
paper; TiltOn named Charles SLorrs a.
one Of the arbitrators; | think named
Mr.. Freeland; don't know who named
the third man; tie check was drawn after
the award was made, did not lend the
money to Bowen; / was present when
Bowen and Beecller signed the tripartite
agreement; BeeCheF signed II last; print
cd slip was attached to the agreement; We
never went into the truth or untrntli Of
the stories In the paper nor discussed
them; took the mplcted agreement to
Wilkeson and have not seen itsinCe;
BeeCller borrowed the paper one day
while / had II, but returned II soon after;
know Victoria Woodruff little and
have seen her on two or three occasions;
was at her house once. III,
No further questions wcrO put by tic
prosecution and recess was taken.
Mr.. l}eeCller was absent during the
entire morning, but Mrs. Beecher aud
daAightGr.in.lAW came in shortly after the
opening Of court. Evarts remained hall
an hour and then left the case In Tic
hands Of the remaining counsel for The
defense.
After the recess, Louisa Joanna Roger,
young lady, took the stand and testified
| mn telegraph operator, and was so In
1879 1 was IN that business in New York
IN June Of that year In the employ OF The
Western Union Telegraph Company
Handel tlispntch) received Ills
message, Nnd AM able toswCar ! received
II, on tho 81 Of June; recognize the nes.
sage by certain marks and the writing
upon II.
She was not cross.examincd, and left
the stand.
Mary O. Joseplls testified: I am n tcl.
cgrapli operator In Peekskill, and was 80
on the 81 Of June, 1873; received this
telopaphic dispatch there OH tlat date
This witness also left tile stand without
being cross-examined.
The next witness was George 4. Vii.
liams. IIetestihed: / am the law editor
Of The New York HendM, and have been q
journalist for eighteen years; was at one
time tic managing editor Of the New
York Times; saw the Woodruff pnblica.
tion Of November al, 1872, and saw The
proof slips before II was produced pub.
licly; I received proof slips Of the scandal
against Rev. Henry Ward lIeeCher.
This was objected 10, and slicarmar
said they proposed to show that these
slips were IN existence before the story
was published, aud In plaintiffs sight be.
fore their publication, prior to the time
on which Woodley said he saw them.
Mr.. FullerlOn said that tic other side
desired to bolster mp Woodley's evidence,
but they could not do II in this way. He
submitted that the proof In regard Ia
this matter was entirely irrelevant, and
the other side must show that the plant.
III had some connection with II.
Mr. Hill argued that the plaintiff
was connected with II, as shown by the
testimony Of Condy, Cook and WO0lley,
and he desired to show that the newspaper
niCn we're intimate with The story before
| IL was published. Hill, In support Of his
nrEtimehi, quoted from the testimony
given by the witness, Woodley, and Slicar-
man quoted from the cross.eSamination
by Fullerton Of the same Witness
| Iu.t--. NutIka4 HWa1Iss sttIatI aAN Ala