The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1875-06-12
photograph
ASSOCIATED PRESS REPORT.
TO THE DAILY LNTELLIGENCER
THE SCANDAL TRIAL.
Third Day of Beach's Argument.
Burning Of the Letters Not a Part Of
the Tripartite Agreement.

Burning Of the Letters Not a Part Of
the TTipartite Agreement.
New YORK, June ll.-Again to-day
the Brooklyn Court room was crowded,
Mr.. Beach, on entering, was received with
a round Of applause, The following is n
synopsis taken from the EreniHg Post:
lie said large amount Of Indignation
had been expended on MOultOn for his
alleged dishOnOrable conduct in not burn
ing the documents in this case after the
Bowen arbitration, which is alleged to
have contemplated this action. lie called
to the testimony Of Mr., StOrrs
that MoultOn said BeeCher thought lie
had burned all these papers, but that
Sam Wilkeson was mistaken ii he thought
he had, and thought il they were burned
Iilton would have no protection. There
was no intimatiOn in this conversation
that the request 10 burn the letters arose
from the arbitration, but il came from
WilkGson after the tripartite agreement,
with which he was intimately connected.
Mr.. Beach read tho letter OF apology.
This showed that the burning Of all the
papers was not requested, and that the
destruction Of none Of them was COntem-
plated by the arbitration. MOutOn held
the papers intact and unmutilated, as II
friend OF both. What had this matter,
any way, to do with the examination Of
this case?
SIDE ISSUES.
All through, Tie defense had gone into
side issues to distract attention from ma
tcriaI points. The proposition that
the trouble between l}eeCher and TiltOn
formed part Of the subject matter Of
BOwen's arbitration was one Of the most
extraordinary which had been put forth
in this case. There was business dill
Guilty between Tilton and Bowen, There
was written submission Of this difficulty.
The decision was given and the money
paid. Where was Bcechcr II lie was in
volved in this arbitration? Why didn't
he appear and submit his case? All the
testimony was to the effect thRt nothing
was discussed before the arbitratOrs cx.
cept the business difficulty with Bowen.
This whole plea had been written up to
sIander and throw discredit on the man
who was then the trusted repository Of
Bcechcr's letters, and friend whom
Beechcr regarded aa raised up Tor him by
n special providence Of God. When the
papers were destroyed there was u
clamorons ontcry, and when they were
preserved there were teroclon5 com,
plants. II these papers were 80 trivial
as the defense alleged and so easy OF eX'
PLANTATION, why DID the defense complain
that they were kept Il they furnished, rs
was asserted, internal evidence OF Beech
ers innocence and secured his accqnittal.
Why then the gentlemen for the defense
should be grateful to God and thank the
plaintiff for their preservation. Laughter
and applause.l
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE LETTERS.
Tho ,ru,h wos FIN, ,ho,o lo,,cr, hod n
deem Significance, which gave the defence
the strongest reason for wishing that they
had been destroyed. As to why he had
not been called, Frank Carpenter con
iirmed the statement made by MIR. Beach
yesterday. AS to Beechers statement that
he first knew Carpenter in connection
with the scandal, Carpenter says that he
painted Beecher's portrait in 1893, and
says that the fact Is nttested by q notice OF
the picture published in the New York
Ercning Post Of October 20, 1858. In re.