The New York Herald Newspaper, May 14, 1875, Page 4

4 ‘MECKLENBURG. Disputed Documents. WHAT EX-GOVERNOR GRAHAM THINKS. ——— \A Firm Belief in the Declarations of May 20, ’75.. sre OPPOSING VIEWS. paarenederieaeres JMr, Spofford Explains Mis Belief in the Resolves of the 3st. EX-GOVERNOR GRAHAM'S LETIER. Ariissoxo’, N. C., May 7, 1875, ‘To vax Epiror or THB HeKALD:— Dwak ScR—! received in due course Of mail your Vetter of the 23d ult., requesting, for publication in the HERALD, my views on the sudject of the wo Ss of Independence im Meckleaburg \county, N. C., in May, 1775, aud desiring to have my opimion on this topic at some length tor dis- \gemination through your widely circulated joar- (nal, but regret tuat Luave not found leisure for toe laak. ‘This disappointment. however, gives me the less concern, because I have BOs long since, at a mags meeting of the people of Mecklenburg, prepara- tory to their Centennial celebration, made to tuem an address upon the questions in dispute touching this Declaration, which has been pub- ‘Jished in the numbers of a weekly paper In Cha: vlotte, and is now im @ course of pubitca- tion by Messrs. BE. G, Hale & Son, in New York, in a@ form better suited for pres- ‘ervation. To thia address, the issue of which, i presume, may be daily expected, 1 beg weave to refer you for the full discussion of (the themes, and should be gratified to see the suh- stance of It presented la the HERALD, though its Jengtn may preciude tke whole publication, But, since my opinions are called lor by you, | cannot omut @uthenticity of tae Deciaration of Independence by the committee of the people of Meckienburg on the 0b of May, 1 Lam a native of the ad)oin- tng county of Lincolu, and sprung from Meckien- burg parents, My /ather and other near relatives and sundry other Revolationary characters, whom 1 knew im my youth (among them the Rev. Bumphrey Hanter, long pastor of a congregation of wOich my parents were members), when most of shem were Ofno greater age tuun I have now attained, gave their testimouy of this event as a transaction at whicn they were personally pres- ent, detailing tine, place aad circumstancer. In this Suey were corroborased by tue tradition of tue people of the county then its inbabitants, and by i emizranta in Georgia, Tennessee and = elsewbere. This testimeny was taken aad given by laymen, most ef them Widely separated irom each other, and not mar- Shalied aad shaped by advocates to support the potats ia dispute. Governor Stokes, a Revolu- ogary oMicer himself, not a resident of or in any Way connected with Mecklenburg, in 15380, tea years atter the frst bewspaper publication on the snyect, testified that he hud seen a copy of ch! ar ation im the hagdwriting of Juno McKnist Alexeuger ip the possession of Dr. Hugn W iliiam- sou ip che year iT Wiliamsos, a Peansyiva- Disa, came to the State durtug the war anc about this me emigrated and settled im the city of New York. Be published 4 work emtitied “Hisvory of Norta Carola . the narrative of whieh verma 1, Saylag im tue preisce inet he had gesigned to bring it dowm to 1790, an4@ to imciude the evens of the Revolution, and that with tnis view be fad collected much material [rem ancient Cltuzens of the State; but he found the task aru. us, and treated ouly of the colonial history to the Period shove stated. And, to show how curviessiy tuts top c Of the Meckeuourg declaration has ween 1 conside:ed by those who Bave called ip ques- Sion, 8 well informed a person as Person, in bis letter (o Mr. Adams im 1819, mentions as a rea- “ou why 1 should be discredited, tuar Dr. Willam- son forgot this event im in the his. tory he wrote of Nort® Caroiina. it should as Well nave been looked for in Lewson's -o-called “tHistery of North Osrolina,’’ which was writves in 714 oF Brickeli’s i 1741, as im Wiliamsou's, which ended with 1771. The history of the Revolution im this State at tracted stention from the professed writers of bisiory prior to the drs ject 10 IXta. Even the instruction to ber delegates in the Continental Congress to vote for indepen Gence on the 12th of April, 1776, in advance of the (ot olber Colonies had faded from recollection tli re- vived boas chis time, and the most impor- tant taiusary events in the region around jovve Bad never found achromivier until the tmpuiee given to historical imquiry about thas time, Evem yet, mom of them wave failed to re colve ce (rom ti® pen of nistury. ints dec. Jaraticn is a8 Well authenticated as we action in Charlotte au@ the reireat on the Saitsoury roa bewweeu Davie’s and Tarieton’s cavalry on the 26tn of September, 1780, We Dave the accounts from those Who saw boIb, and better than those at Rocky Mount, Rowscn’s Mill aud Cowan's Ford. ‘They al! rested in a common neglect and obscurity untiialater day tham ive Meca.enuurg Decara- tion of independen The olutions of rne Committee of Meckien- burg, Of tne Sist of May, 1775, were wot discovered or known to any one iiving, so far as we are in formed, till 1838, It has juvariabiy neen asserted that taere Were numerous meetings of ihe peo of tbat county on the momentous issuce pending Ja the «pring of 1775, and these resviutions fur niah avery natural sequence to thoge declaring independence om the 20th of that mont. Thes yroviee # government for a people who nad carded (hat to whieh they bad Leen aceustomea, Tiey Make Bo ailltsion to the baits of Lexington, the exeltiag topic of the dar, which had no doult been denonuced a ty, bw frame a code fer the govermment uf the inn tanteo! the county, FOr amght that we know neersing tuem, they may € been adopred fo & coom with closed doors; and being muni regulaions, in'ending to subject those to imp eat or exile Woo faved to submit to them. 1 nay heave been deemed humane a6 well as pru deut toward tind oF disemected ctiizen® to in as rm o1 their duration, “Muti the I : body of Great Hritaim resign te nyu aroitraty pretensions will regard to Ameri ™ Gaite os dedant aud offensive toward Briveah authority ax Would have bee conveyed by ine word ‘iurever,” bat affording to suc cise some distant h of recouctiation. However (ils may 06, the actu open and enthusivntic I Coo Well eStabliened ence to be rebutted demonsiration of the 2000 vy Ofal and documentary ev by Lhe eX bresSI0n IM tue series of resolutions of we dist, But om ‘Panscending my design, wWhict was Simply to state my portion, wor te lortiy Mt by to bbe adress mea- Voned vu Lam. sir, very respecuinily youre W. a. GRAHAM. A. BR. SPOFFORD'S VIEW. To raw GviToR or THE HeRaLD:- fa reply to your request for my views regeraing the auiuenticity of (we Declarsiiou of Indepena- ence of Meckienvurg coub'y. North Carona, bearing gute May 2, 1776, 1 wave to sar that | know Of scarcely any sCFseet Of Msiorical Inquiry concerning Which 60 Mmuny ivowe statements have been meade as the one. In treating of '* wany writers have deemed themseives jusuted in ignoring established iaws of evideowe, taking toings for granted Which are unproven, au Kod insiniations and abuse for srenment siioa 8 One the elements of WHICH are simple and the evidence viear, A calm and dis- passionace sittiug of it, applying only the same I Continuation of the Discussion on the imaependecce. The “resoives” (aa they style NEW YORK HERALD, FRIDAY, principies of historical criticism which govern | any matter of record evidence can, (t seems tO me, lead tO OUb One conctusion. T. -Yhere 2 authentic, uadiaputed and con- | temporarily published Mecklenburg Declaration of | | themselves) which embody it were adopted, aad bear date the Slat of May, 1775. They were printed | tn the South Carolina Gazette and Country Journal of June 13, 1775; ia the New York Journal of June | 20. 1776; tm the Massachusetts Spy of Juiy 12, 1T75,/) and in the Cape fear Mercury of June —~, 1775. 2. No other Mecklenburg resolusions than those of May 31, L775, were ever publisied tm any con- temporary newspaper, Oor bas any contemporary record of any other come down tows, The Meck. lenvorg Deciaration of Independence purpornag to lave been adopted May 20, 1775, first saw the light in the Raleigh Register of April 39, 1819, 3 The evidence cof the genuineness of this declaration of May 2 none of tt contempora- neous, ia proper sepae of that word. It all consists of the recollections of men who were | Present, of of the frieuds or relations of mea | | | | | present, at the meeting in Chariotte, in May, 1775. Leas than half of these persons mention the date of the meeting, and Joho Daviason, the only sur- viving member of the committee who pugeed the resolutions, does not say that the trne date was the 20th of May, Must of tneir statements are coupled with some expressions sbowing the un- certainty they feit in testifying to such facts after the lapse of ball a century. That they should have mistaken the Slat of May for tue 20tn was natural enough, ‘4 4. The resolves of tae Sist of May are attested by the contemporaneons reference to them of two royal governers. Sir James Wright, then Governor of Georgia, forwarded tae South Caro- Una Gazette of June 1%, 1775, containing the Meck- lenburg resolutious of May 31, to Lord Dart- | mouta on the 20¢8 of Jane, 1775. Im like manager Governor Martin, of Nortn Carolina, in a procta- mation dated August 8, 1775, refers tothe “Ie- solves of @ set of people styung themselves a Committee for the County of Mecklenburg, most traiboreusly deciaring the eatue dissolution of the laws, government and constitution of this country, and setting up a system of rule and regulation repuguant to the jaws aud subversive ty’s government.’ Now, the re- | Solves of May $1 are put fertiu by tie | Committee of the County, signed by order ' of the commt'tee by Ephraim Brevare, Clerk, and | here to prociaim my belief ia the the word “committee”’ is eleven times repeated in them, But in neither of the copies of the reso- lutions of May 20 Is there a word about any com- mittee, but the resolutions are in the name of “We, the citizens of Mecklenburg county.” Neither of the royal govermurs makes any allu- | sion 0 resolutions of tne 20th of May, 1775, nor _ county of Mecklenbare in publication on this sub- © closes such resolutions, 5, The authenticity ofthe resolves of May 31 betng estadlisued by the Dighest evidence— bamely, contemporaneous publication and cita- tion, and nowhere dented then or since, it de- volves upou the supporters of any rival set of resolutions to prove their anthenticity by at least equal evidence, and expecially to slow that the copies of them purporung to be preserved are con- sistent with the attested resolutions of May 31, aud with each other. None of these things can be shown in tne case of these resolutions, but the conigary will appear to any careful examiner. 6. The resolves of May 30 aré palpauly invon- Sistené with toe general resolves of May 31. The former declare abseln’e and unconditional inde- pendence, while the latter say that these resolves shail be in jail force “until the legisiative body of Great Britain resigns its unjust and arbitrary pretensions with respect to America.” The former ciaim to be a Onal dissolution of ali con- nection with Great Britain; tne latter declare wat they are simply provisional and contingent, If indepeudence had beea unconditionally pro- claimed on the ata, ts It crevibie that the same men who procisimed it would have silently re- ceded from it eleveu days later’ Moreover, there is im the genuine resolves of May 31 no hint or a lusien to aay previous proclamation of tveir tn- Gependence. if such & proclamation haa been mace would it aot have been 1a some suape ri ferred to? 7. Men are co be judged im history by their acts as well as by their words. Four of the Meckien- burg patriots who, it ts said, signed this absolute Deciaration of independence of the Britisu crown, signed only taree montus iater (Augast 23. 1775) A Lest declaration with this preambi “We, the Subscribers, grofeasing our alleguance to the King aad acknowledging the coustitational executive power of government,” 4c. This test of loyalty 4nd of patriotism was signed by ail the members of the Provincial Coagress of North Carolina, and among them oy Thousas Polk, J. McKaitt Alexan- der, Jobn Pier and W. Avery, representing we that Congress, It is not credible that these Norta Carolina patriots should have «@ soon and so deliberately recanted their own repudiation of alieciance. ‘S-Phe Meccieaburg resoives attributed to May 20, are not only inconsistent with the later re soives of May 31, and wick the conduct of tae patriots who were seid to have adopted them, buy there are serious discrepancies between tne riva; copies of them which ¢iaim our credence, The first copy of them ever covelusively proved to have existed appeared, a# we tave sald, tn the Kaleigh Reyister of April 39, 1819, forty-four years after (he date when they are alleged to have been written. Ihe secoad copy of teem was published in iso, by F. X. Martia, in the second volume of his “Hisiory of Norit Carola.” Tre discrepan- cles between these two documents are very namerous, Tne first, published im the Raleigh Register (which ta that adopted by the State tn the officia! pamphlet of ist!) contains only five resolu tons; the second, in Martin's histery, embraces six, The Other discrepancies are inaicated tn ita a the fo'lowtug copy of both papers, which are placed side by side for tue reader's compari- sop EOOLVES IN THE RALSION REGIITER, or ind.reetly aber wunionancat the ww Ur Figlin. a chaired by airy. to America ‘ian ctuaens ¢ ‘enburg county the polities! bonds which have coi (ry. and hereby absolve ourselves Che British crown, and abjwre ali polite 1819, wetiy an v Or: wndrad ov qamuriation With that vation, war trampled of our rahts and liberue=. and shed the blowd of American patrivts a. Lex » hereby declate ourselves a free and inde le: are, and J. ang avuabed o wtganived governmen 4 te be ew Urs pr ots ARRATIAM ALEXANDER, Chairman Jows McKRrrt ALEXAN De, Secretary MECKLENBCRG RESOLVE#, ACCORDING TO MaRrrN's NOTH CAROLINA, 182%. Resolved. That whomever directly or iadire oF iD any WAY. Form or manner, comnenauree th inv of oor Fights, ae attempt: the Parwoment Kritain. is an enemy ty this conawy, to as the rights of wan he 1, That we. the citizensof Mecklendn do here > the polities! bands which mother cuuutry end absve ourseives ¢ ioibe British crown. aijuring all po- fies! connection with a tation tit hus wantonly wnpied on our rights and liberties and ishomen.y ned ibe Umocent blood 9) Americ t Lexington Rewnived it we do hereby e ourselves a free and independent people; that wr are, and of right ought oDe. a sovereign amd self governing peop’. under tne your of God and the General Congress: (0 the main which Independence we selemuly pleage ‘0 rour mutual cooperation, our ives, our for \uyes ao our most sacred hour eso ved. Phat we hereby order and adopt ae rnies of cov and each of our jormer jaws: and the crewn ered hereayer ay Loiding #, Otion Hd Harinony -_ Li the wrntry, and use every *pread the love oi Merty and of country eral and betier oreanieed system o/ HOY: vod, That 1 ropy af these verslutions be travemitie® by 60 the Prewdent of the Continedtal Congres ansembled | PiCadriphoa, (0 be laid bey ore that body. | What can the historical tmquirer in quest of | | record evidence sar to these rival eeprnee Sa All the autborities concur that the author of / lar, ft | genuine resoives of May SL tu He must aay, if a candid man, that both caanot be true copies of the original; indeed, would aol ve justified, in view of their numerous unex- platned discrepanctes, in conciuding that neither ia a true copy of the original? Do they not irresisti bly suggest an attempt to reconstruct the re- solves from memory, thus reducing the entire prool ou which this famous Mecklenburg Decia- ration of Independence rests trom record evt- dence to parole evidence ? whatever Meckienburg resolves were adopted was Dr. bphraim Brevard, Now, Brevard was a culti- vated scholar, a graduate of Princeton aud a mas- teriy writer, a8 the clearly expressed resolves adopied on the 31st of May attest. It ts imposst | ble lo believe that the writer who composed the resolves of May SL could have written either of the rival sets Of resoives of May 20, with thetr numerous tautologies and bungliag imitation of tue language of legal instruments. It bears every mark (aside irom ts surprising borrowings from the Declaration ot latanendenge of July 4, 1776) of baying been réconstructed alter the fact by some adeavotiog to express the ual the periud fo make it as strong as possible. . The theory that these resolves of May 20 ere au allerthougbt, an astempred reconstruc. tron Of some lost original, aoes lesa violence to probabiitry than any over, The original recora, Whatever’ it may have been, im declared to fave been burned with the house of J. MAY 14, 1875.—TRIPLE SHEL. TIME TRIAL OF REPUTATIONS. . Kighty-eighth Day of the Great Scandal Suit. ALL THE EVIDENCEI Both Sides Rest and Prepare for the Closing Addresses. eae SUE SIX DAYS’ REST TAKEN. aoe A Rapid Tying Up of the Fag Ends. McKuitt Alexander in 1800, Fven tue new pepers contami the undisputed resvives — ot May 31 hud 80 disappeared as not to have been seen by auy parties to the controversy prior i to 1838. What could be more natural than the supposition thatJonn McKnitt Alexander, striving tw record without 4 tic documents beture him the resoives which toe Meckiendburg patriots | 0! 1778 bad adopted, should have fale: into the | very urdent expreasions which so well describe | the spirit of the period, mingled thetn with @ Lit- tie law learping, and transfused into them those striking phrases of the Declaration of Lugepend- | euce which hud Stamped themselves in bfS mind ? | oJ As (0 the parole evidence, which is held to aftocnticate bow the date and the substance of | the Meckienburg deciaration Of May 20, a carefut siltiug of iL will show th whut is cuiiea the “sworn testimony’ of fourteen witnesses is in no gio mstance sworn Lestimony, Kelng SLatements from recvileotion, not ailidavits; that the wit. | nesses differ materially, and that tne only ome of | them who was a member of the Mecklenburg Vom- | mittee does not clatin tuat the Convention was on the 20th, Nodoubt shey declared what they be- lieved co be true, and ki Bo More surprising that | they shouid have made & mistake Of eleven days | in forty years than toat they snouid have faiied to | recollect closely the puraseviogy Of # set of re | suives which suey had never seen in print, but had | only heard read irom the steps of a court house. | I is Ho impeachment Of tne honor or the hones: y of these men (0 hold tnat, jogged by record evi- | dence, they were mistaken. He koows iittle of | BIStory or Of human le who has not learned that the easiest thiug in the worki is to be mistaken. | Men instinctively accept aud aceredit as true wuat | rons 10 harmony with tlelr patriotic lupnises and | pride of neighborhood. | 2 latiacn litte importance to the argument drawn from the similarity of these Meckien- | burg resolves of May 20, 1 and the Dec- | laration of Independence, of i776 Mr. Jemer- | son never claimed originality for the lead- | iz ideas or even expressions of that to- | strument, ‘ine phrases which are common | Pp 1m both, with one exception, are Hot the compost tion oi Mr. Jefferson nor of Ephraim Brevard, but ot Kuchard Heary Lee, of Virgiuta, Wao drew ihe resolutions passed vy Congress July 2. 1774, “That these United Colovies are, aud of right ought to | be, free aud independent States; that tuey are svived irom all wilegiapce to the British crown d that all political connection between ta d the Stale of Great Britain is, and of right | ought to be dissolved.” Mr. Jederson, chairman of the commustee instructed to draw the Declara- tion. edopred (his resoiation, as be adopted many | expressions from the Bill of Rights apd constitu. / ton of Virguua, Into that immoral State paper. Kal, let me ask, wuick is the more reasonabie SUppositiony, that bie Conunental Congress, through Kichard Heury Lee, vorrowed the ascology Geciaring ludepeudence irom certain pian yi g, resuives, heyer eH ‘4 Of ip print tht , Or Liat te Cons ractor Of those Meckienburg resvives borrowed some phrases 0! them irom tne Deciaration of independence? 1a Li we are to abtach any weight to Nistorical authorities,on when side will the balance tau? ‘The late veler Force, of Wastingiou, Waose nulf century of indelatigavie and jruitiui Loreal labors ade bis Rame lamillar (o the Whole coua- try, deciared bis velief of the uolisterical char- acter oi tne Mecklenburg resolves Of May 20, 1775, Me went 10 publishing the be vational Jntel- jurther ligenver of December 15, 1835» The authenticity of the resolutions of Mav 20, 1775, has we others have bees produced. I e The resoives 01 May 31, i775, them Force's cuaracterization vu’ tae geuuine “Deciara, tion” (which will t be aecepled by ali) was dou ctiess based on the preamble. which aeciares, lm substance, “ihat all laws aud commissions de- rived from the #uthority of the King and Parlia- Mmentare aunulied sna va , and the former civil constitution of these coiwnies Jor tue present Wholly suspenued.”” Mr. Bancrell, iu the seventa volume of Dia “His- topy of tue United States,” published im 1858, pp. 370, 814, does ample justice wo the Mecklenburg resolves of May Sl, ant to their patriotic auiner, Ephraim Brevare, making ho aijlu-iou to auy otber Meckienvurg Veclaration of independence. Mr. Bancroft wrote in Marci, 1842, to Mr. Force, “The ducuments, 4s 'hey existed velore, prove to MY Wiinad couclusively (Bat the people of Meckien- aud that the | assed spirited resolutions, e but the reai burg set publisned by the Legusus “a ones.” 1 ‘The testimony of Thomas Jeférson ava’of John Adams to the Jact that no such resolves as the alleged Mecklenburg Deciarauon of May 20, 1775, were ¢Ver seen OF heard of in the Continental Congiess iS auvotner OK ID (oe Chatu Of historical | evidence, and 1s ubeuutradicted ny Lae testimony vl a single memoer oi That boar, many Of Whom survived When LWLs CoM! roversy began. itmay be added that wiiters o: bistory, such | as Professor George Tucker, Benson J. Losmng, Henry 5. Randall aad Wve late Hugh Blair Grigsd; coseurrea in accepting the Mecaieaba: of May 31, 1775, as tue omiy mistoricai Finally, no true son of North Carolina need wend $he loss of 4 smgie lanrel Lom tae Of & State whose history |s «u illustrious, 4 80 persistently made of the autnenticity Of tae Meckleabury Deciaration of May 200e abandoned, Sareiy it ix giory enough for & single State to Have success(uily resisted the Siamp act as early as January, 1766, (niough the daring patriotism of Coloaei Joun Aste aud Coio- | nel Hugh Waddell; to bave antedated Virgina aod New England by more than a mor Ou the 12th of Apcil, i delegaies in the Cou coscur with the deiegaies coloniet tn eclaring independence ; have fought so bravely, sod wich’ su auimosity against the Hriish 4s to draw trom Colonel Tarietow the declaration that “the in- bitants of Mecklenburg Were wore hostile (Oo | Engiand than any otnersin America; and to gave resolved. May 31, thirteen woulas belore the Deciaration of independence, that the aachority of toe King and Pariiawe: nnatied throagh- out the corenies, whoever atiempted to exer- cise authority under them snouid be deem enemy to his country, and thatthe military o of Meckienourg count thelr powers vy virtue of © habitants o: this county, and crown of Great Britain, NULPENDENT Of ti A. K. SPOFPORD. Jvkany OF CONGRESS, WASHINGTON, Muy 6, 1875. _ HOWARD MISSION. 4 TTS FOURTEENTH ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATION 1 NIGHT IX THE ACADEMY OF MUSIC, The immense auaitoriam, piatiorin aud boxes of the Academy of Music were densely crowded iast Bight upon the occasion of the lourteenth anal- versufy of tne Howard Mission. The platform was occupted by @ pleasing array of tldlly dressed, ss intelligent looking boys ant girs, anked on either side by Many Well known friends of tne mission, Mr. Hates, the President of the Mission, presided Tre family of Wiliam H. Vaadermit fied a proscenium and many people of the best soviety in the city were present, The opening prayer was delivered by the Rev. Dr. Manaimg, of Loudon, ‘This Was followed by a Byma of wei come, Which was Very cr bly sung by the epil- dren's aud mfante’ classes, wnrer the uirectio Miss Kave BE. Stark. Mr. Wycort, tre Misate Secretary, read bis snnual report. The \odowing is @ synopsi- of bis Raancial statemen::— sie at Board of Apporionne Genetai con trivutons T ‘ebaren Money on hand May | Votnl Doriog the past year there were @istmbuted £000 garinenia, U4 pairs of shoes and So quits, B Vaine of Which wee $6,685, Of provisions, 414 baghei4, 500 Dashels potatoes, foar, meat, rice, tee and coflee. to the aggregate aniount of $5,000, were ai sribweed atone tue poor. No less than 122,800 were furnished to the aecessitous poor at their own Nomes, There ure over a0 tf ies connected with and sreque upon tie Mission for During Wwe ever by George sheppar Rev. vr, Gtilte cotiand; t 4. 7. Kiaer, paster of lien avenue Baptias charce ; the Key. George Mingins, of the City Mis- sion, de. The short imtervais vetween the ad- dresses were most agreeably filled up by tue chil- Gren's aod iniants’ classes Finging @ series of mente? | hvainn, | uncommon degre that neither side could accuse him of partiality. In the case of Tichborne, | which, in point of popular Interest, bore an , Cockburn threw the | the lawyers and witnesses than the necessiti ‘There will be general congratulation at the an- nouncement that the Beecher trial ts virtually over. The evidence is ended, and the Court has taken an adjournment until next Wednesday, when the summing up takes place, In regard to this Mr, Beach taformed the HERALD reporter that Mr, Evarts and ex-Judge Porter will occupy five Gays between them in their addresses to the jury, Mr. Beach will take at the farthest three days, and Judge Neilson’s charge will occupy about two hours, The jury is expected te return @ verdict promptly, 80 that the final termination of the trial may be put down for tne 28th of Ma: Judge Neilson, who has presided over | the case so long and with such an of fairness and judgment, will be one among the many who feel like rejoic- ing at the somewhat unexpected ending of ti trial, Me has won unlading iaureis as a judge by his conduct on the bench, and it seems proper at this particular point to draw attention to tne singular good temper, the firmness, combined with suavity, that has characterized his cours When it ts borne im miad that this case has ex- cited DEBP AND BITTER FEELINGS ju avery extensive community; that even the law- yers engaged on both sides have sbared in the ani- mos that welled up tn pehalf of the one or the other of the principals to the cause, it will be seen the presiding Judge had a dificult performance in holding the scales of justice so evenly balanced anulogy to wis of Tilton vs, Beecher, we fad that @ great mass of the English people be- came filled with the belief that Chief Justice ight of his judictal in- faence against the claimant tothe Tickborne title, Noboay will have grounds to accuse Onlef Justice Netison of leaning even @ hair's breadth to one side or the other, Some may accuse tim of giving more latitude of talk to | of the legal inquiry demanded, put the same people would more quickly complatn tf, per- suing an opposite course, he had inhipited | the faliest pursuit of any fact calculated to throw light on the scandal. Respecting ON THE CHARGR OF LBGAL BLACKGUARDISM made against Mr. Pullertou by 4 contemporary, for atteriug the remark to Mrs. Uvingtoo, when she answered in ber extra enthusiastic way, “{t is false," to the Martin statement which was quoted to her, regarding the length of time Martin sat on ber piaz Mr. Falierton said to a AgRaLo reporter :— was not examining the lad), She adéressed herself (o me, ‘It is false, Mr. Fuller- ton,’ and I responded, ‘Well, you can repeat it, Mrs. Oviogton, if you think tt becomes a lady so todo." { Mrs. Ovington shook her forefinger at him, and he said, “ Yuu peed not approach me in that styie. af you forget you are a lady, others may forget tt also.’! BRECHBR'S APPEAQANCR. Beecher oad speat the previous day on lis farm in Peeks&sill He came down to the trial yeater- day with a Gushed face andasore throat. He Was in excellent bumor, aud ne sat ai! the fore- noon with his left hand ciasped and resting in the right hand of his wile. Hix complexion was nearly as red as that of a voiled lobster, TRE FIRST WITNESS on the stand waa Mr. Calvin J. Mills, who was at- tached to (Le Standard. lle was called to prove the fact at proof slips of tae Woodhull scandal were shown in the Standard omMice long be- fore it Was published by Wooulail and Ctafin. Ex-Ju¢ze Morris and ex-Judge Fallertom cp- posed te admission of the evidence, contend- ing that it would throw the door open to endless testimony. Judge Neilson took toe same of tne Matter. Mr. Evarts, taking the aint from the wch, Withdrew the inquiry, so that several wit- nesses in the same line Of tavestigation were de- barred /rom appearing. MK. HENRY ©. ROWEN was recalled to deny that he had ever told Dr. Eggleston that Reecher said tessie Tur- ner had told Mrs. Beecher that Tilton car ried Bessie Turner screaming from her bed. He denied that the arbitrators had ever spoten about the Wootstocg letter at Mr. Moulton’s hou: ! that Mr. Claflin bad ever «aid that Mr. Storra would ook out (or twat. On cross-examination he stated it Was two days a'ter the arDitrativn that Mr. Charies Storrs «poke to tim a! it the Woodstock letter. ANOTHER RECALL. Mr. Angustus Storrs was another whose face Was not uniamiliar to the witness stand. He was cross-/Xemined with some totensity by Mr. Beach, Who insisted, with his usual vehemence, on a categorical auswer to the inquiry whether a paper could bave been drawn up tu his presence with- out bis knowing it, referring to ® aocument sub- igted to the arbitrators of the Bowen award vy yank Moulton, Storrs could oniy say that he dia Dot think it possibie. THE CIRCUIT RIDER. Rev. Mr. Eggleston was agatn called to the wit- ness stand, He nas changed his occupation since he was iu court last, Then he was au author, le turer aud clergyman, iving round loose geners iy, Now he isa clergyman altogetver, prstor «, choren of Christian Endeavor,” veionging to no particular denomination bat “on its own hook,” as he says himseis. Mr. Fullertoa’s cros#examination Was aimed to show (hats diflereaee occurred Uelween Kggies ton and fowen om account of the former ing engaged to write a story for the Jndependent and afterward disposing of it fm another quarter The Witness explained the mater in a way that Made it appear be Was a hare working employe of Boweo'’s who took advantage Of an opportuuity to make a ihe money outside of bis reguiar em ployment. tue PRYOR’S PRONUNCIATION. General Pryor was criticwed in this column the other day when he made ap address to the Court mm favor of the admission of certain evidence re- garding bis pronunciation. The Generai is sensi tive OM (bat point, aud he hoids that the proper accentuation of such words for instance as “pre- cise’? should be with the sound of ‘2’! on the let- ter “se in the word. THE PROCEEDING Jndge Nelison took hu atoo the bepeh shortiy | before eleven o'cioek, Pullerton, before the proceedings com- menced, saia:—I! Your Honor piease, I desire to call attention to on editoria; in one of the rn- ing papers thi morming. An article jn the New York Tritvune is headed @6 follows: “As asum the Beecher lal was enlivened yesterday vy some choice exiibitions of legal biackguardism.” It then goes on to quote question put te Mrs. Ovington wile o tand ava her answer; | also ao observal m by Mrs. Gvington to me aod my reply. Mrs. Ovingtot er to the qQhesioo Was as (oilows:—"Ie ana thea turning (o Ine, When she Was Not under examina- ton by me, and jn am excited Manner, and with a ood dea! of geaticuiation ahd emphasis, eal, “it sfaise, Mr. Fulierton:” when | replied, “Well, you can repeay it, Mra, Ovingion, tf you think it becomes @ lady to dose, You heed not approach | me in that style. I you forge: you are a laty may forget ital Now, the writer of aructe could no ve undersiood that t } Mrs. ington at that time. | but that my itiead, Mr, okearman. Was and Wb | Suearmau—Sinee | Lretarned to Mr. Bowen's house af | called upon with reference to tl she had no right to turn toward me and call He wy name in such aloud tone and in such em- phatic manner, Why she did tt I certainly did noo @t the time understand; but I did think, alvhou aoe was 4 lady, that it was such & pl f im- rtinence, DOL to say soyéhing harsher of tc, that it required some ovservalion from me by way of rebuke. If the lady had been under examination by me it would, 0! course, have veen a very differ- ent matter; buv as it wi had po occasion and no right to address me in a public court room in that kind Ol a way, caillng me by name and re- peating her answer in @ manner Which was very oftensiv nich she did Judge Neilson—1 am sorry to s appear tn the paper. 1 remember the occasion, and recollect it as the counsel now states it, and regret that Mra, Ovington should bave as the mo- ment so far forgotten hersell as to make the re- mark she did, especially as the counsel was Dot then examining her, Mr. Fullerion~ She undoubtedly discoverea her mistake, because she apologized In a moment and her apology was accepted. Judge Neilsou—The error of the article goes buck beyond that. Will you be kind enough to re- peat the first lines? Mr. Fullerton—The language is this :—‘*As usual, the Beecher trial was eniivened yesterday by some cuoice exatoitions of legal biackwuardism."” sudeD Neilson—That will do, sir, I consider buat the offensive part of the arucle, The reference to Mrs. Ovingion no doubt proceeds in a measure auch an article | from msapprenension—irom the supposition that: | perbaps you were dealing with the witness at tle time, ‘The assertion that the proceedings yester- day or ther day Rav ty acier iio nt ay spate ardisar is 8h on ea haa c fenoe. 4 in one way aud another during my experience here und at the bar, have se contested cases, civil aud crimint seen a case Where counsel have treated ¢: aud treated Witnesses with more courtesy a circumapection than in this case, 1 think the re- mark ol the editor of that paper was a most un- pardonaple olfence and calis for an apology. Mr. Kvarts rephed to the effect tuat he did not think that Mrs. Ovington intended any affront to hun in what she said, and it must be regretted that there was an occasion for her speaking again in repetiion Of ber auewer, as a matter of evi- dence; but she was drawn into it by Mr. Fuller- ton’s position and by his expression of countenance Wane preparing for cross-examinauion. Judge Netison—The act of Mrs. Ovingtonm was accidental, aud quite patural to a person not much accustomed to proceedings in court, and L think she has been treated very property and with courtesy, But for the mention of the circum- stance in the press, I think we may paas It over salistactoriiy and pleasantly, | don't think even for a moment Mr. Fullerton bad a wish to censure her. THSTIMONY OF CALVIN J, MILLS. Mr. Calvin J. Mills, journaiist, was the first wit- ness examined, and ip reply to Mr, Hill testified bo the (aot of having read Wual l8 Known as the Woodbull scandal. Q. Mr. Mills, did you at any time prior to the | readiug or examiuation of that publication see in type tue substance 0: that artic! moon im proof ape or tu wny otner form, before November, 1872? r. Beach objected, and the adinissibility of the evidence baving been discussed at length, Mi. Evarts tually consented to withdraw the ques- Uva. ‘THATIMONY OF H. ©. BOWEN. Henry C. Boweu was next called and cross- examined by Mr. shearman. Q. be you recollect at the last interview saying to Mr. Eggieston that Mr. Beecher had told you that an adopted daughter of dir. Tilton bad told Mrs. Beecher that Mr. Tilton bad taken her screaa- ing out of ber bea at Digest A. [have no recoiee- tivn of anything of tue kind, Q. Do jou recollect, after the signing of the arbi- | trauion, going with or. Claflin aud Mr. Storrs A. L recollect going with Mr, Storr: Mr. Claflin and the others may ba’ Pe i Seoailect saying to thémi th&t you destred ty e the Woods! letter returned to you? A. i said nosuing woat- ever on the subject; Lam positive | did not teil Mr. Storrs to look auser it; nothing was suid for | lwo days after tne arbitration on the subject. ‘To Mr. Puvertoa—! don’t recollect the precise hour at whivn [iett Mr. Freeland’s house; it was berore six o'clock; I went there tu the afternoon bon: four or five o’elock; the interview was pra rT jor some time; Mr. Storrs called at my | oMice aiterward, and said be had some news (or me to the effect that be was in possession of the Woodstock letter; 1 Wo not recollect whether le | then gave is to me er went out and got it. Q. Was that ao unconditional delivery of the letier? A. Yes, sur, it was Unconditivaal, TKSTIMONY OF REV. & BGGLESTON, Rey. Dr. EB. bggieston was examined by Mr. was last on tie siand | have | anged my occupation; J was then # lecturer, author and clergyman; | am now a clergyman: In December, 1870, 1 bad some business relations | with Mr. Henry ©. Bowen; [ was employed by nim as literary editor of the /ndependent; he made an appointment with me ou Decemver 26, L870, at his | i was there twice on that day; | Oret saw lum in the afverpoon, Q. Did Mr. Bowen say to you, “If Tilton Is as bad as they say Be is, he bud told a presty piausivic story? Mr. Beaca objected and the question was ruiod out. Q. Did he say he had @ letter from Mr. Tiltou? A. | think be Made & remark something like that; very many hotly Ward; ne asked for tt, claiming I sold the story for $100; 1 am pa urch of Our Caristian Kndeavor, coraer of D and Hooker streets; 14 us not of any deneml- nation. Q. It is on its own hook? A. Yes, on its owa Rowk, sir. (Laugheer.) To Mr. Shearman—i received no special pay for that story. THSTIMONY OF MH. RB. CLAPLIN, Rorace Bb. Ciatin was exammed by Mr. Sbear- Q. You were one of the arvitrators ? A. Yes, sir. Look ut this paper, the submission, and siate wheller you ever sawitbeiorer (Handed vo witness 1 never saw it before. Q. Were you iniormed in April, 1872, of the ex- istence of suen @ paper? A. No, sir. Q vid you bear Mr. Bowen say be would dectine | 1o take RBy Steps Uuless WOat Waa (o be submitted were pucin writiug? A. | did not; jnterval wheu the arbitrators were went away toxether; ou my way hor addressed sofme of us, Asking for t jeter, but | do wos recollect tu Whom the question Was adaressed. TESTIMONY OF CHARLES STORRS. Oharies Swurt oy Mr. Shearman. Q. You were aise preset at the arbitration in 1872 t A. Yes, sir. q. Examine this paper, being the written sub: mission of Kowen and Tiiton, and siate wuether Bbeiure’ A. No, sir. . d Mr. Howen state ve would decline to sav- mit aoyiuing Unless Lue submission were put in writing’ A. NO, sit; | jeit in company with Mr, Clatin and Mr. Cleveland, @ With whem did you go to Mr. house that evening ? Uujected to aud ruied oat qy. You took the Wooustock Bowen’ A. { did. Cross-examined by Mr. Reach:—Do you assume to recoliect ail the proceedings ana conversation beiore the arbitracors ? A. Notati. q. Do you mean to swear positively that in the presence © bve arbitrators—in presence of Mr. ‘Tiwon—Ar. Bowes and Mr. Moulton did not draw up the submission’ A. I have no Knowiedge ; | con't beink 1. Could have beew done without my Moulton's letter to Mr. “any recollection Of any paper har- ing beeu executed by Mr, Bowen oF ait, Tilton? A. No, sit? q. have you amy recviiervion of any paper hav- jug been drawn up aiter the award? A. Thee Waa some Wriving Gone. wr. f imine Upon the drawing vp * soy paper t heer i think Mr. Bowen éemid not would decine to submit any were put in writing without my uot » /ge W, Howler examined by Mr. Shearman eded In Brookiva in ids; im 1870 and 171 t the owner of the house m which Mr. Mouton 1 visited the house in tne I weat inro the parior aad saw a picture of Heory Wara Beecher anaging there; I Saw It before tue January, Mr. Mouiwn left the honse 1 saved in ClInton street: first part of Isti Mr. Cross ¢x Fullerton—! don't ree. ollect her portrait except that of Mr. Heecher {8 Moulron’s nonse; did Ot ace « portra:t of Mr. Tiitou there; wae certain it was Beecher's portrait aot not Titew’s, The Court bere took @ recesi THK RRC The court room was preity well filled in the atternous. It became generally kKnoWn that we end Was near at band as far asthe evidence is concerned, and many were curious to be in at the close. Mr. Shearman made the annouucement, greutiy to the relief of tue Jadge and jury, that bis side bad only one witness to examine and that one had been telegraphea for, In the meantime the Plaimti@ called two “short witnesses as they are Known in legal phraseology. The first was Joun B. Kowen, « younwer son of Henry C. Bowen, who took a letter from his father to Mr. Freeland arranging or an interview with Mr. Beecher, and the pext Was a Mr. Morrow, who testified as to (ne Way (he sun shone on Mrs. (vingtom's back piazza, The latter Was cross-examined tn a ridiculousiy minute Way vy brother Shearman a* tw how and When the sun shone: wheiner the old tree near the piazza Was barren or in leaf, and so on, wien Biot of questions having no signineance or im portance. The jast and final witness was a Mr. Southwick. a young man of fashionable apparel, Who mounted We Witness stand With & Drisk step took of his cout with much ostontation, and made himeel/ extremely foolish, thowgs evidenty satished he was aciiog quite a emart and effective part. He Was asked if we ber on the verdict, and be irted to be very oriiiant in rep aying that he always backed bis opmmons with monty, and finally @ consummate sport. ‘Tbe end of the evidence was hatlea with general delight Kvarts made # quiet speecn of ten Mmjanveg’ duravom, expjalnipg to ibe Court tne retiring With the air of courte to be adopted by the two chief counssl for the defenaant. Beach said he would prefer that the resumption of the proceedings began on Mon- day, but im view of the length of the proceed- ings he was satisfied with an exteusion of the period of adjournment, The Judge took bis seat on the bench precisely at two o'clock, and the jury auswered tue call. Tue Judge said—1 think this would be » good time co reat, Mr. Fulierton—There ts no rest for the weary. (Laugnter.) ‘The Judge—! take ® portion of that to myself, (Continued laughter.) TESTIMONY OF WALLACE B. CALDWBLL. ‘This witness, who has been knewn as Floor Manager Caldwell duriog vbe trial, (or the ushering ip of the Beecherite party to the court roem, waa called a8 a witness for Lhe defendant. He testt- fied ax foliows:—I nave resided tn Brooklyn for twenty-(lve years; | am acquainted with D. Moulton; came acquainted with him seven or elvht years ago; visited bis house in February, 1871, at Clinton street; | went tuto the parior and saw there au oii painting of H. W. Beecher; it was banging on the wall opposite the door. Mr. shearmay suid buey had telegraphed and sent for their only remaining witness, and if he did not come in lew minutes tuey would do without bin, ‘The witness not appearing a8 expected the plaintii’s counsel ealied Joho Wiliott Bowen, woo Was sworn, is was eoreined oF Mr. Fullerton— son 9) Aone Oo, Bowen ;, eside with my rp ee stu Vibe hi school; ‘ recollect de- lvering & letter irom my father to Mr. Freeland, bat canaot say that it was in December, 1870; f saw the address on tie letter; tt was addressed to Mr, Freeland; he read the note and guid, “All right,’ or “I/il attend to it.’’ Cross-examined by Mr. Kvarts—I recollect Mr. Freeiand opening the door, and he delivered the message to me; | was aoout thirteen years oid when | brought ‘be letter to Mr. Freeland, TESTIMONY OF M. J. MORRILEn Marshall J, Morrill, examined by Mr, Morris aman architeot; | have made au exact diagram of the back premises No. 148 Hicks street (Mr. Ovington’s), He was examined as to the position of the houses on each side of No. 143 Hicks street; there are trees in the yard of one of the houses next to No. 148, inciading cherry trees; the trees are so dilated as to break off the heat of the sua in the afternoon, The witeess was briefly cross-examined by Mr. Shearman. He said he had never been at No, 14s Hicks street tn the afternoon. TESTIMONY OF JOHN Jobn CU. Southwick, reoalied by the defen witness staved thas he had heard that $5.0 been placed to the credit o: frank Moulton; hi bad deen so informed by Mr. Wooarat, Q. Did Mr. Woodrull inform you tn that inter- view that Mr. Mouiton had deposited that money that very day and that Moulton said it was to be drawn out for Theodore Ttiton? A. Yes, sit. . Did you say to Mr, Woodruft that you thought your uncie, HW. B. Cladin, Uad paid that money? Obdjected to. &, Did you not say to Mr. Woodrum something ol that kind? This question was ruled out and defendant's counse| took ao exception. I recollect an tn! view with Mr. Woodrud at my house anortly a the publication of the scandal; I recollect Mr. Woodraf saying (here Was something in regard to Mr. Beecner taat would drive lim out of Brook- lyn; Mr. Woodruff suid to me that he would show me a letter the pabiication of which would drive bum out of Brooklyn; witness asked Mr. Woodrut! iC the cisrge against Mr, Beecher was aaultery, and ire said “No,” ‘Tae witness was briefly cross-examined. He said be had uot a single douar now bet on ther Bult Of this case, but ne had some time ago. The witness gave some answers that crea! oou! deal of merriment in Court; ne said he {iked to make up Qis Opinion cautiously a be did a wrong thing. (Laughter). ‘This ended the testimony in the famous Beecher case and nothing ts pow left but the summing ap of counsel, the charge of the learned Judge ana the verdict of the jury, if they sail ever be able to arrive at the finding of one, THE COURT ADJOURNS TILL WEDNESDAY NEXT, Mr. Evarts then arose and said tliat it seemed very desirable in consequence of the long period of their engagement at tats trial, during which a wer d been accumuiated, little invervai or recess order to enable them to sum up. short tnterval would be very desirabie. ey unaersjood from their learned friends on the other side that chelr expectation was thatonly one te other side would sum up. Judge Porter and himself had advised His mor ecarty in the case t! they Late? ps! ope w jum np vn behalfoft the deieudant, aud tuey pro- Posed bot to repeat what tue other might . is y was thee expectation that both together sould not iv (usir addresses sittings of @ week (Gve days). been obliged to atvendin Court, a had no opporwunity ws yet to ma toe matter between Ju Porter and bimseit. It would (sereture, seem convenient if they snould now adjourn unul Wednesday morning next, aad i! His Honor took that view of the case ne hopea that there would de an adjournment til that time. Mr. Keach replied, observing that parsanadp be rom Would prefer the case to go on on Mouday. his own engagements it beca: him to attend to this case tn com could not refuse it without being discourteow He therefore acreed to an adjournment ua Wednesday next. Jodge Netison said the arrangement of counset would be acceptatte to him, and jad no doubt 1 Would be acceptable to the jury, He furtuer re- marked that he would be giad 10 see the counsel in nis room. The iearned Judge also said that reporting the trial) would ao 80 now. The Court was then adjouri of Wednesday next, May 1%, at @ MUNICIPAL NOTES. lu a communication to tne Aldermen yesterday Commission r Fitz Joha Porter said that $650,000 morning ‘clock. | hed been «appropriated for lamps on Manuattan island, and that the penaitures and liabilities to April Ju were $249,228. Por ine ensutug eignt Months the estimates were ¢ To w Twenty \nird aud Tweniy-fourtn wards $100,000 Was appropriated for lamps. To Aorii 30, $33,508 of this amount had been expenued. The esu- mate lor the rest of the year for these wards is 17,089—a deficiency in appropriation of $15,548, | Four bun red new lamps, provided for by resolu- tion of the Common Council, are to be pau fur Out Of the estumates. A letter ‘rom the Comptrolier was read atgthe meeting of the Aldermen in which he staved hat he nad received from the Aldermen resoiati directing Dim to lease several buildings and pari of batidiogs jot city purposes, the total annual rental of which Would amount to $29,100. Tne rent approprialiog for 187d Was $75,000, troWer siased, and the amount wi expended for existing loases is $64,300, ihe val ance beg ouly $10,700 of the Bowrd to the fact t that no exvenditure of a be youd ppropriation for why special parpos rhe Commiutiee on Salaries Were instructed wo consider the matter, Alderman KKILLY Offered the following resola- Boara, the Aldermauie tow in whick was adopter report to amouat including Decom ita the law or laws aachoriing the payment of suet swlaries Aloerman PUKROY oSered a reseintion, whick was pus recting the Clerk of the Common Conwer ‘lease to John B. Haskin of the builling to oe used as a Court Mouse for tne Tenth darriet Mr. Garietsoa, the auctioneer who sold the fur- nitare of mrs. Hughes ut aucun, Whose case wae referred toin thet ALD Jesterday, appeared yes- terday | the Mayor's chie! cerk and stowed vad Nad a special agreement wien Williaat jain, Who represented fitmereif to be the of Mra, Hughes Jor the disposat of the tar- fe ed # written order of Romain’s © coodict the sae and allowing nt. Mr. Garretaon Wi wort him teu per lowed go Without baving fw Wuasmucn as be aad proved that # concerned mS trausachons Were all carried om in good fat A pelition from citizens uptown was presen to te Board of Alderman vy Aloerman Mevarth yesteraay, Woicu Will Mase the dogs bow! worse inan ever if they get wind of i 18 humerousiy signed ot begs the Alfermen to probibit the keeping of doys anywhere by Buy one withia the then barking and hewing at night isposea citizens from sieeping ring to the petition Eighty sourth sonndly street is overrun With dogs. fhe trivia of City Marskals, against some of whom complaints are made a/most every week Jor extortion and wrong doings of various kiads, as Weil as trials of mock auciloneers and others whom the city authorities Nave sworn by city Ordinance |v deal WIth severely, used to be leid tn public, aod the coMpisinw against tue were a ways acce-sioie, A cifferent rie aow pewvatis, and itis only by the merest accident that am thing concerning the compiatnts and the dectsio arrived at pon them cau be learned, YHE DOCK COMMISSIONERS. The Yuard of bock Commirsiourrs met veaterdag in their uew offices, No. il) Duane street. The members present were Commissioners W co the cnatr), Westervelt. Dimock and secretary Lynen, there Was oo business oF any importaw Wansacted, A humoe: of communications, pe Hons aud applications were read and reer u the Bxeculive Committes for consideration, and nportaot papers were reported back by Phe pagetinn ® mittee to the Kourd ave Three o'CWOR.