New-York tribune., 1875-01-27

Fads putting this presampye and on the sys-
dnc only concerning whose existence there Is clear
proofand the testimony distinct that some letter
OF Mr. Clsrks this subject he did show TO Mr. Beechsr
Mr. FneronThe absurty Of this proposition win be seen
al put the gentemans proposition In the shape OF
syogm Mr. Clark did write several letters 10 Mr. Moaton;
Mr. Moulion has found only Of those letters the rest be
has destroyed and therefore the be has found must be the
letter which he showed Mr. Beecher Now that IL fair
statement OF the There Is the slightest evidence In
the world that this Is the which showed Mf BeecheG
There Is not evidence enough from which be inferred
ALL We regard the letter quite mmatera In any aspect
the for any de OF the certainly
Identified the letter which shown TO Mr. Beecher
the contents Of which stated to Mr. Beecher
| evidence in the
Judge Neilson-That point Of doubt with me thns
you viii identify II further think you will
hold it until you identify il farther gentlemen Il may
have been the eerprobaby wasbu does not appear hat
| II was
Mr. TacyHaye you searched for any other letters OF Mr.
Cak' Yes Sir my-elf and have ssked wife Co.
Perhaps she may find today
| o This is the only you Andi A. Yes Sir.
Mr.. Eyarts-This the witness direct examination Read
| ng
% Handing paper TO wtness Tel me whether the pape'
nov 'aSwn S"T, You you $ sas received % ~ By yOu' A. Yes Sir
q Did you show it to Mr. Beecherf A. did: yes, sIr.
9 Did you read Il to him, or did he read II which, A !
was either read to him, or he read il himself
When did read to him. how after 10 receipt,
O. Within what time A. should think within month !
remember the conyeacIsomethng Of the conversation
| that subject
Beecher with reference to that letter A. Il was wh regaSi
to the difficulties OF The God>a Age TO Mr. Funerton wiz
you LET me look at that letter again.
Mr.. Egllerton1Certainly
The Witness-tAfer examining the letter am not sun
ciently clear about that 10 swear in regard 70 IT,
Mr.. Eyarts-What s sitY
The Witness-I sufficiently clear that this the letter
Clark
smen s IN otaI ad T 70 fsfu & a MAJ ne e s wa 20 nbs ~
sure"
Now seems he letter now he rec
election Of having destroyed any other specific fact
and stands very distinctly his original examination thai
that letter he did show and that he talked with hm sbosi
tina, letter Now have exhausted all present existence.
all definite evidence that any other letters did
not rely upon their direct evidence and eYamna
ton submit the question that that Is the letter concerning
which he had with Mr. Beecher He says had
yersations about that letter He say that he howed
hmas ultimately ends but the doubt the whole doubt
that withdrew the fact testified he had shown
to him, that he either read IT, that read 20 him. &c,
that disturbance because there supposed be other
letters which he still had and he matter reserved them
Now there other letter. be found and
submit your Honor thar sufficiently deuasd Ast
letter beng shown Mr. Beeehe any shown
him and there disturbance Of the fact that letter
shown him. either him read by him and hs
that This letter 'aked about NJ beechei
MOulton We offer read IT,
Mr. Beach-Ths question, Sir when presented 70 yoss
Honor the original offer Of ths paper decided dib
eraey and after argument by counsel Your Honor then held
that the paper not sufficiently identified 70 authorize tho
defendants counsel have marked for Identification Your
Honor said counsel that the paper not identified that
within the control Of the plaintiff counsel who held
IT, and permitted them, under sn exception taken
by Mr. Evarts, withdraw II from marking fos ideu-
tifcatOn. Has the evidence gwen. Sir, changed the
attitude Of the question? Ths witness says he knows thai he
other Mr Clark that he supposed he had them
in his possession he made dgen search for them,
nd hem and thar he uppoes they destroyed,
although dfnc, present recollection the paru
descon but that be had other letters and that
they beyond all controversy upon th Bs
says Sir that recoct this letter another
Of the letters which destroyed NJ
Beecher formed the sub % conversation between them
The general topic regard the difficulties
The 'oSdea Age matter Of discourse oswess
this and Mr. Beecher hat Of j. oOmpetep
but how the declarations Of Mr Clark in written form 70 NJ
Mouon communicated 10 either Of these parties can be
made evidence by the counsel upon the other side without
Identification Of the paper having been thus submitted
unable perceive; and submit your Honor that this
question having been decided and The counsel taking
exception that there evidence gwen which
should reopen the inves'iga
Mr. Evsrts-I only read g part o. The evidence Ny
learned friend right n saying that this wness
tain whether this other the subject Of
saton. he is perfectly clear Oh that point
40 You are not clear this wa shown Mr. Beecheri A.
No Sir not clear IN regard TO mat want TO correct my sse
ment in regard to that That the letter wa subject o con-
yersaon am sure but that showed 70 him am not sure"
Mr Beach readng-
"Iwant you tell the You had with Mr. Beeches
with reference that letter. 4 Il WIKI ~ the df
cultes Of The Golden Age.
Not with reference especially 70 that letter.
Eyar,s-The letter Is full Of IT, that i al here Oft
Mr. Beach, don't know about that.
Judge Neson-I think you will have identify the letter
fua of the~
case.
Mr. Evarts-I don't know how that IL have got through
with this witness this letter don't know any other mode
have got through with this witness this letter Sir
Judge Neson-I think it sufficiently identified zee.
Mr. Eyarts-Your Honor viii note our exception.
Judge Nelson-Yes, Sir.
Mr. Evarts-we that entitled resd h wbehcs
It was shown TO him or not the clear statement that the sub
ject OF it
Mr. Beach, make IL your Honor please susgeson to the
discretion the whether when make objection 70
evidence shall ordinary privilege Of counsel Of
closing discussion upon the point especially after the dees
ion Of the Court has been rendered.
Mr. Tracy-Now Mr Mouton, that letter shown to Mr.
Tltony A. don't recolect whether il
O. Was the subject Of conversation between you and
Ttonf A. don't recoect whether the letter not
The purpose Of Mr. Clark purchase TIE GOe. Age was
Sir
Mr. Evars-we submit that the whole subject Of this letter
exactly this witness in his direct examination wac asked
abouthe conversation concerning iand stated 70 De- 70
wit he talked TO NJ Beecher about the difficulties Of Ts
Golden Age.
Judge NesonTere may be another letter on the same SUB
ject for aught we know.
Mr. Evars-But take The presumption !hs, there
might have been another etteri
Judge Nelson-He that there other ettefs
Mr. Evars-I don't understand. IL your Honor please,
Mr. MOrrs-Is this appeal from your Honors decses
that they are arguingf