Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1875-06-13
Frank Carpenters Confirmation Of
Bslghs Staten nt OF Thursday
When and How the Art st First
Heard OF the Scandal.
Bowen Jlbbeted as the Man who StimU-
lated TiltOn 60 Action and After.
ward Basely Deserted Him
Mrs. Ti,tOn's Confession.
Foreman Carpenter RebUBed-Arg.
TiltOn's Confession Significant
OF Beecher's GuiIt-POrteT
Calls Beach a Liar
Etc, Etc

/ was the Brooklyn city courtroom crowd
I Ell, and almost Oue-baf Of those pFesen
we're women. Mr.. Beach on enterinl
was received with s round of applause
! The following synopsis Of Beach'g sd
! dress wSs taken from a report prepared
1 for the EUening Post, in advance Of pub
/ LEGATION. lie said large amount OF in
| dignstiOn had been expended Upor
| MOuitCn fer his alleged dishOnOrabit
! conduct in not burning the documents il
! this case after the Bowen arbitration
which Is alleged contemplated this actor
/ lie called attention to the testimony o
/ Mr.. StOTrs, that Mr.. MOulton said tina
/ Beecher thought he had burned all these
! papers, but that Sam WilkesOn was mis-
taken if he thought he had, and that i
they vera burned TiltOn would have ~
/ protection. There was no intention il
| this conversation that the request tx
/ burn the letters arose from the arbitra,
| ton, but it came from Sam WilkesOn afteI
/ tie trlpartite agreement, with which hE
! was Intimately connected Mr.. Beach
read letter Of apology. This showed that
the burning Of all papers was not re.
! quested, and that the destruction o.
none OF them was contemplated
MOultOn held the papers intact and un.
mutiiated as q friend Of both parties
| What had Moulton, anyway, to do with
the examination Of this case? All
/ through the defense had gone into side
| Issues to distract attention from the ma
| terial points. The proposition that the
trouble between BeecheT and TiltOn
! formed q part Of the subject matter oil
| the Bowen arbitration was one of the
| most extraordinary put forth in the case.
| There was business difficulty between
| IiitOn and Bowen; there was a written
submission OF this difficulty to Moulton,
! and Bowen appeared before the aTbi.
traitors. The decision was given, the
| money was paid. Where was Beecher
il he was involved in this arbitration?
! Why did he not appear and submit his
csse? All the testimony wsg TO the
elect that nothing w8s discussed before
! the arbitratOrs except the business
difficulty with Bowen; these arbitrator
were members Of Plymouth church and
friends Of Beecher, and it was very like.
~ this suggestion as to burning the pa
pers may have been made ny them after
the award. Was there anything to make
this suggestion OF the aTbitratCrs bind.
ing? II there was, why was il not pro-
duced by the defense. This whole plea
had been gotten up TO SANDER and throw
Gi5C-Sdlt on = man who was then the
trusted depository of all Of BeecheI's
letters, and a friend whom BeecheT re-
gaTded as raised up for him by the spe-
Cisl providence Of God. When the pa
pers in the case were destroyed, there
was clamOrOus cutlery; and when they
were presented there were complaints.
II these papers were SO trivial as the de.
tense alleged, and so easy Of explana
ton, why did the defense complain that
they were kept? What was was the
trouble? If they furnished, as as
serted, internal evidence Of Mr..
Beecber's innocence, and secured his
Gcquittai, why, they, the gentlemen for
the defense, should be grateful to God,
and thank the plaintiff for their preser-
walton. Laughter and applause I
The truth was that these letters had u
deep significance, which gave the de-
Tense the strongest reason to wish they
had been destroyed. As to why he was
called as a witness, Frank Carpenter
confirmed the statement made by Beach
yesterday TO BeeCher's statement that he
first knew Carpenter in connection with
the scandal, Carpenter says he painted
B5echer's portrait in 1855, and says the
fact is &ttested by q notice Of q picture
published in the New York Evening Post
Of October 26, 1855. In reply to the
question, "When did you first hear of
the scaDdal?" Carpenter said: "My first
intimati0n Of wrong came from a lady
intimate in Tilton's family, now dead,
during p visit to my studio early in the
year 1871, just after Tiiton'srupture with
Bowen" He then heard something of
it from TiltOn himself before WoodhulI's
publication. When that publication was
made be was in the country. On his
return TiltoD, who was nearly distract
ed, told him lie had been to see DR..
StoTTs TO ask his advice about the publ
cation of the card, and that DR.. StorTs
told him a card that svadad and did not
deny Mrs WOodhull's chargeslwould be
worse thsn useless. Mr.. Beach said he
did not feel called upon to act as defend
eT Of Henry G. Bowen, VINO had been
placed upOnEthe stand. In answer to a
demsnd he sketched the position Of
Bowen and TiltOn at the time the latter
sent his letter demanding Beecher's re-
signatiOn, and said that Mr.. TiltOn
was betrayed and fOrsaken by the
msn who had stimulated his
action. We had 40 explanation
Of the sudden change OF front by Bowen
aud bis COnfsdeTates with BeecheT. He
was not asked by the defense how he
came to change his purpose and sudden.
ly become Mr.. Beecher's ally. Bowen
was no friend OF plaintiffs, but was in
trOducsd simply for the purpose Of
throwing ali the light obtainabIe upon
this case. Tie counsel again asked if it
was pretended that the conversation IN
regard to BeecheT's adultery did not
take place between Bowen and TiltOn,
Why did not counsel for the defense in
teuOgste Bowen upon the subject? Az
ter reading the testimony Of Tilton in
regard to his Wife's confession, Mr..
Beach said it was easy to see how her
secret ranked in her breast, and how
all the power of aroused conscience
forced her to make a confession Of her
guilt. MI. Beach then said the Ian
gusge used by Tilt0n in repeating the
substance Of his Wi'e's confession was
his own language, and no attempt had
been made 10 give Mrs. gilbOn's exact
words. This disposed OF the verbal
criticisms upon which so much stress
had been laid 10y EvsTts. Mr.. Beach
next read from letter OF Mrs TiltOu
in 1866, in which she said that until the
three lsst dreadful years in which their
confidence in Heecner was shaken, she
and her husband had looked up TO him
Sc to no other human being. It was
evident that in the three years prsCed-
ing 1866 something had occurred to
shake Mrs. Tiit0n's confidence in the
guide OF her youth, notwithstanding the
theory Of the defense that the purity of
MI Beecher had never been tainted 10y
a suspicion before the bringing Of this
charge. Mr.. Beach then referred to the
criticism OF Mr. EvsTts upon the re-
msrk Of Mr.. TltOn, that sending the
letter demanding the resignation OF Mr..
BeecheT was grand thing, but that by
not sending it would have been grander.
MI TiltOn's letter Of accusation was not
a confession; was not intended as q
record Of charge in this case, but was
merely letter Of introduction to the in
teTVieW between her husband
and Mr. Beecher. Mrs. TiltoD,
months before, had made verbal
Of adultery, but these the
prosecution hsd not been allowed to
prove. The prosecution had also wished
to prove what the contents Of Mrs. Til
TOMS paper was, but the defense had op-
posed this and the court excluded the
evidence.
a recess was here taken. The specta-