The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1898-09-11

Rev. III. r. Browne, and Bishop w. w.
Duncan were examined for the defense.
These are not of the class toward which
Mr.. Beckwith gravitated; they are the
best of South Carolina. Note what they
all say. They declared that the defen-
dant's reputation is of the best Read
their testimony; read Bishop Duncan's,
and hear him say that the defendant
should thank God for his South Caro-
lima record VIII you believe these or
will you believe Lawyer Beckwith and
Rev Thomas Jefferson Gattisg
In Columbia the defendant took the
dispositions of Senator McLaurin and
Governor Ellerbe. These men represent
the political world and tell you that in
that world no man in South Carolina
has better reputation than the de-
PENDANT. Governor Ellerbe says that he
is incapable of mean act for his own
interest.
You recall what DIR. Wilson and DR..
Christzberg said. They have known the
defendant through his entire ministry,
and declare that his reputation has al
ways been high. DIR. Wilson gives in
stances to disprove any ecclesiastical
ambitions.
Rev Mr.. Turrentine and Mr. Bass
tell You what DIR. Carlisle said to them,
and Mr.. Newsomc tells that DIR. Car
Isle said that he would not change a
word he said to these gentlemen.
You have heard Professors Merritt,
Flowers, pegram, Bivins. Crawford and
Bassett say that the defendant is an OPP
on. frank and independent man. These are
not the qualities Of Il wire-puller of ward
politician type. All of these are hon
0rable gentlemen.
On the charge Of his performances in
North Carolina warranting his South
Carolina record there is not a word Of
evidence.
On the Tennessee record there is not
word. The prominent preachers
name is not given. though defendant
challenged Judge Clark in the public
prints to name the man. He did not
name him; he does not now name him.
There are. therefore, the best reasons
to believe that no such statement was
ever made to Judge Clark. No man
would hazard his vcracity to cover a
traducer of character.
Gentlemen. / now come to the history
of thas case in order to show you the
malice of Judge Clark.
He is member of the Board, and
the defendant is an employee. He sat
here a year ago and expressed one opin-
ion while he covered up another. Why
did he not have the manhood to say
here what he afterward said to Mr..
Brown behind the back of the defen-
dant?
Look Mt the correspondence between
Judge Clark and the defendant. | chal-
lenge you to find one word from the pen
of the defendant that was unkind or
even harsh. In his letters Judge Clark
tried to dodge every issue, and gave as
his reason that he did not wish con-
troversy. Is that the truth?
| remind you of his vote commencing
President Kilgo and ask you to reconcile
it with his later talk to Mr.. Brown. He
cannot say that his mind had changed,
for at that meeting, before he voted on
the resolutions, he had placed his resig-
nation in the hands of Col. Alspaugh.
The spirit in which he published let
tiers to Mr.. SOuthgate and the enraged
spirit that he put into them Indicate Il
spirit of venom.
When called to face the charges at
your July meeting, he knew nothing to
support them. He asked for thirty
days, and you gave him forty-three days.
Mark you, he only wanted thirty days.
You ordered him to furnish the names
of witnesses to your prosecutor at once.
He did not obey the order. Your prose-
cutor went to see him, and was put of
till August 10th. He consumed % days
of the 43 in giving the names of men
Al ha1 in, do
Who believes it?
August the 18th he gave the names
to Mr.. Beckwith whom he selected to
act for the Board The defendant was
notified to meet the following engage
ments to take deposition: Roxboro, n.
c., Monday, August 10Th, Rock Hill, s.
c., August 10th, Spartanburg, S. c.,
August 18th and 18th; Abbeville, Au-
gust 10Th; Columbia, $. c.. August 22nd;
Sumter, S. c., August 23rd; Whining
ton, n. c., August 18th; Kelford, \. c.,
August 9th. The 2Sth of August was
Sunday and the trial began August 30.
Your Board ordered him to furnish his
dispositions by August 10th, so the de-
PENDANT could have ten days to prepare
Il reply. You see how he and Mr.. Beck
with arranged the programme. Mr..
Oglesby was out of the way, and the
defendant was at the Winston District
Conference and with INSCRIPTIONS de-
sign Judge Clark sought 10 defeat the
possibility of the defendants securing
Il single witness. That, sirs, is a mean
err scheme than a ward politician could
have perpetrated, but it is the scheme
of Judge Clark of the Supreme Court
of North Carolina. Certainly he 'in-
tended the consequences of his acts"
as he so emphatically urged on another
occasion.
l ask that you note the conduct Of
Mr.. Beckwith in South Carolina If the.
defendant has the reputation of a ward
politician in that State he would not
swap it for the one your Mr.. Beckwith
left behind him with the decent people
Of old South Carolina.
/ refer you to the document read by
Judge Clark on yesterday in which he
tries to show that this Board is incom-
petent to try this case The defendant
is ready to leave the matter of his char
acter in your hands, and Judge Clark |
who is mere witness should raise no
complaint. 1t was only one of his lodges
20 ovoJn oDx, Investigation Rut cuch |