The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1878-12-27


ot, our committee Is not based on sufficient
testimony, then Mr.. Acklen Is entitled 10
the benefit of II. II, on the other hand, II
Is justified, let the imputation rest where II
belongs. Respectfully,
Here follows statement made by the
Committee showing that their decision
was adverse TO Acklen's innocence. They
notified Acklen that their decision would
be made public. Acklen entreated US not
to make this decision public until after Il
NJ, Sunday, the 15thiinst., in order to de.
termine, as he said after more calm reflec-
ton, whether he would withdraw from the
canvass or not. To this delay We assented,
for the purpose he had indicated. Pend
ing this delay Mr.. Acklen secured fayora-
BILE opinion from second committee,
composed OF prominent Republicans,
headed by Ex- Governor Hahn, and late on
Saturday night sent this second and favor
able opinion to the city press for publica-
ton in the Sunday papers.
This extraordinary conduct OF Mr..
Acklen's coupled with the fact that the
second decision was directly opposite to
the one We had rendered, though pro-
fessedly based on the same evidence,
compels us TO give brief synopsis Of the
evidence on which We gave our decision,
to show, as we think It will, that our de.
cision was not dictated by prejudice or i'll
will. The history Of this very shameful
affair, as developed by the evidence ad-
duced during our investigation, Is as fol-
lows: A column of the synopsis OF the
testimony follows, reciting that Acklen
engaged the girls father to manage his
plantation.
Sometime after an intimacy sprang up
between the girl and Acklen. In August
1877 Acklen accompanied the girl and her
mother TO New Orleans, and was active in
perfecting q marriage between the girl
and q man named Wright who had been
a hostler on his plantation. From others
welearned that Wright deserted his wife
and went to Texas q few days after his
marriage. The girl was delivered OF an
infant in February 1878, and after that
sunk lower and lower in social life. She
died OF yellow fever: in September, 1873.
We will now call attention to two atfidayits
professedly made by the unfortunate
young woman.
Those afiidavits were presented to us by
MT. ACkleu. NeWHi Sahl thht oho hlhua-
Wit MOL. The other was found among the
effects of Mr.. II. L. Smith, alter his death.
We call this one affidavit No. 2. Affida-
Wit No. Is very important, and very ia
yorable to Mr.. Acklen, as the girl testifes
in 1t to his entire innocence Of any GRIM
inal intercourse, at any time, with her.
This affidavit mo. y was signed Matte P.
Wright. The girls name was in full sig
nature, and was evidently that Of person
accustomed TO writing-that Is, the name
was written in running hand; no hesita-
tion was manifest in the formation OF the
letters. The name was not written in the
handwriting OF a beginner or OF person
unaccustomed To writing their name.
This affidavit was sworn to before Mr..
Alfred Ingraham. Notary Public, in Aug;
ust, 1873, who attested the signature, and II
was in form and nature Of questions and
answers, and when Mr.. Ackiin presented
II to us he called our attention to the fact.
We were told by him that the questions
were propounded by the Notary, and the
answers were written down by the Notary
as spoken by the girl and that she signed
1t In the Notary's presence.
We requested Mr.. Ingraham to give his
teSlluOuy uu tiilS Mhtot. h0 LhSt Sa'
committee and testified that one morning
Mr.. Acllen came into his Office accompa'
MED by young woman; presented him
the affidavit, the questions and answers
all written and already signed, and that he
only read the caption to learn that the atli-
ant was the person mentioned in the atti'
dayit. Mr.. 1ngraham asked the woman
II that was her signature, and that was oil
Mr.. Ingraham did in the matter. He was
asked especially II he had propound-
ed any OF the questions set forth
In the affidavit and had taken the answers
down. He said he had not, aud that he
knew nothing Of the contents OF the atti'
dayit at all. We have very grave reasons
to doubt the genuineness OF affidavit No
/. We have most positive proof that the
1iri could not write. We had evidence
that a pencil was placed in her hand and
she was requested To write her name and
she could not make the first stroke oi
| the letter N. Moreover. Mr.. Ackienr
admits and states in his card, published or
Sunday, October 18th, that the girl coulc
neither read or write. She certainly die
not sian the affidavit bearing the signature
al Matte p. Wright, because she coult
not write. Now the question presented 1t
salf To The consideration OF our committee
who aid sign this affidavit? We could on
| iy conjecture, but had no evidence to de
termine the question satisfactorily to our
selves. 80. ,...
in great measure, on this affidavit No. !
AfIidayit, No. 2, made by. the girl, Is o
damaging to Mr.. Acklen as affidavit NO.
. aI9N EIaaRRN