New-York tribune., 1875-05-12
Of tho arbitration and the covenan don't think st.en

OF tho arbitration and the covenanI don't think atten
ton called to that
Mr. Beach-This Is the question that we propose
Mr. Evarts-How Is 1t competent evidencef
Mr. Beach-Please hear question and then make
your comments This Is the question You have said
that the "Tnpartite Covenant" not executed until
after the arbitration OF April how do you Account for
Its bearing date on April 2 2 That IA the question.
MI Evarts-That object to. 1 don't care whether
he can account for It or not
Mr. Beach-woll, 1 do.
Mr. Evarts-Wen, 1t Is not proper subject Of evidence
Mr. Beach-That is the question.
Mr. Evarts-It does not necessarily require great
accounting that paper should not be executed until the
day aiter Its date You would not expect it to be
cued before its date But the whole matter far 1t
competent evidence dealing in facts has been already
produced. Mr. Wlkeson, who drew it, has told you how
he drew H. and when he drew It, and the date part
OF the draft Then the history OF IT, in respect Of the
emendations. the reengrossng OF 1t, ard s being
production of tho original, except to the modifca-
TONS is all in evidence
Judge NeilsOn-Yes.
MI Evarts-And the whole matter OF the delay TO sign
is in evidenced
Mr Bcach-We admit all that Sir.
Mr. Eyarts-Iha; has all been gone into.
Mr. Beach We admit all that
Mr.. Evarts-Now to ask the witness how he accounts
for 1t Is not producing evidence. Ny learned friend
account for II. anybody else Tie facts have all
been given
Judge NeilsonWeH. the fact Of the date the fact
that was dated back the fact that the draft having
been dated the document remained of that date
has spoken to.
MT Evar's-That N already produced in evidence and
now the witness s asked argue.
Judge Neilson-That may be; but nobody has spoken
as to that circumstance of its being dated earlier than its
execution.
Mr.. Eyarts-The whole thing has been told in all its
facts anu now the witness is asked to on these
facts.
Judge Neilson-IIe should not reason.
Mr.. Eyarts-We that Is all that he ia asked ts do.
Mr.. Beach-rhat shows, sir, the unwarranted assump
ton OF the counsel How does he know that all has been
told on tiso subject How does he know but this
witness can that 1t antoated at the time OF
the execntioni do not know what he will upon
that subject; does the learned counsel Now,
il he shalt give only the explanation that
the date OF the executed " Tripartite Covenant "
followed the antedated date OF the draft why then he
gives nothing but call for any information lac
may have upon that subject. do not know whether my
colleague has talked with him or not. have not.
don't know whether he has got any information on the
subject.
Mr. EvartsThat object TO. The whole matter 80 far
evidence is concerned has been exhausted by this
witness in his narrative We have, then. given the
ratiyes of Mr.. Willeson and OF the arbitratOrs TO
extent, and Mr. Bowen has been
examined their part, and the facts
arc all in. Now IL this il intended To
Introduce any facts concerning that interview
cernng that transaction. why, is not competent be-
IL Is not rabutting and il it is introducing
Ing it is not competent, because reasoning is never ad
missble
Mr. BcachTt is not rcairming evdC nee, Sir. This
the first suggestion that has been made on that point or
should not venture to speak TO ysur Honor again. 1t is
not affirmative evidence. what shoud have been given
flp hey
the "Tripartite Covenant" united with the
arbitration was part OF the Arbitration. we
denied that upon crossexaminatOn. We
now. upon re-cxamnation, propose to an
swer tie theory which they presented in their
affirmative Defense that these two proceedings. the arb
ration and the united and 10 do that
out that must explain the fact that the " Tri-
parte Covenant bore date April ., whereas we say,
ami have said it not executed until April 4th or 3th
IL you please other subsequent date Now, this Is
part Of the explanatory evidence We seek to give in
answer to the affirmative defense which they have pro
duccd
judge Neison-I think this witness may account. fhe
can in respect date; may state whether ii
dated executed days after III date. see no OBJ
lection to that.
Mr. Evarts-I object to the question, II your Honor
please matter OF evidence it is not in rebutta
and matter Of reasoning it IL not admissible at all
Your Honor viii please note our exception
Judge Neson-It is in answer to some matter you
have proved
Mr.. Morris-G0 on and answer, Mr Tilton.
The WitnessThe first draft OF the Covenant was made
by Mr. Wkeson. and it made bearing date April e
That draft torn to pieces by Mr.. Bowen and by me-
and Mr. Wilkcson afterward made new draft, incor
p0ratng into it Mr. BOwens alterations and mine,
and when the new draft came to be en-
crossed in the form in which 1t now appears
Mr.. wilkeson copied accurately what he saw on the
papers the original date ncuded and the paper rs thus
copied not signed by t.c three partes-what you
technically call executed, beieve-for several days
aferward-G rather think week. possibly or ten days,
Judge Neilson-But il was executed finally, without the
date being changed.
The Witness-Executed without am change OF date
Mr.. Morris-You speak of its being torn to pieces,
you mean by alterations that YOU Dadei A. FlSura
lively speaking, Sir.