The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1853-05-10

States
in the very thing which his employer designed he
should? There was no proof OF the terms of his
agency, but the scope OF his authority vas 10 get
a crew and engage master, and from the COM
mencement this was evidence against the owner.
Now, admit all that So in regard to the
American Fur Company's case in selling liquor
TO the Indians contrary TO the laws OF the United
States. They set out on their trading ex petition
not with little rundet of liquor for their voysg e
but with large supply which supply was sold to
the Indians. The question whether or not
they had htted themselves out with this large
quantity, and whether or not this was a Giro UNI
stance from which the jury mightinfer an ton
to violate the laws OF the United States in tradip
this liquor with the Indians and whether these peo.
pie who carried II up the Missouri river were en-
cases which striklngly illustrate the rule-frst
the fact OF the agency, and then the scope of the
authority which may be proved by circunsta nces
And what sort of circumstances in these cases ina
titled the application of the rule? 80
linen let Us see what sort of circumstances we
nnd IN tnls case As to the question of agency, il
Is idle to talk about 1t The who wrote all
these lsters, and did all this work did it knowing
ly, II we are to adopt the construction put upon
taem by the counsel for the United states A man
Is an agent only so long he has no connexion
with the guilty act; but the moment be becomes
connected with the guilty act ITSELF that moment
be 10 either principal or accessory Here il 10 urged
on the part of the United States, that the witness
was sent TO Mexico to procure testimony for his
authorized 10 take such means az were mecca
sary to procure that testimony; and this is to be
proved how? From the letters of the witness him.
self And why ia that scr Because the only fact
which the witness is called by the defendant to
prove is the procuring of copy of a deed from La
gunilas; that's, identify pa per as having come
from the othce Of the alcalde OF that place The
only TACT which has luolcialEy come to your hon
or's knowledge, independently of the letters il that
he, the witness weat TO La guinlas and on the 10th
OF November 1911, received that copy of the deed
which has been admitted in evidence. Now did
be do that tor his brother or no9 First ITO prove
the agency,) il is said that he is the brother of the
defendant; secondly, that be was intimately asso-
ciated with him, living with him in the city Of
w Washington, and interested IN this claim, and a
multitude OF other reasons given; but, anon gst
them all, the cOCnsel have carefully omitted one
which struck me at the very Threshold, and which
must have struck your honor the fact that the
witness was indicted for false swearing in that very
matter, and that be went to Mexico while his
brother was in Europe to procure testimony fer
himself, preparing for his own defence; and your
honor knows Judicially that this witness was in-
dlcted Tor false swearing in regard to the very
matter now pending before this court. Did he
then go the agent of his brother2 No sir; he
went to procure testimony for himself, and, having
procured that Testimony, offered it on the stand
| say then that independent of the evidence con-
tanned IN these letters, there Is not a particle of
proof OF his being gent for his brother because
we show your honor from the records Of your ow "a
court that the witness, far from being an agent
for anybody, merely obtaining evidence for
himself. HIS brother had not even been arrested
at that time. So much, then, for the question Of
agency.
Now, sir, they say that he is a conspirator and a
confederate, and the proof of that is-as has been
stated over and over again by both the counsel for
the proSccutlon-that he is the brother of the de-
PENDANT. l have endeayored TO show your honor
that the witness went to Mexico to procure testi-
mJny for himself but il has been urged that it is
impossible That he could have done this without
some compensation, and without having inter /
Al IL, bia Apfe
arguments tOgether-hrst, that the witness ia the
brt Their Of the defendant, and therefore strongly
interested In feeling; and, secondly that he could
not go there 10 get this evidence without some
compensation. word first, however, about this
letter to RulrOs. II your honor please, in my uu-
Outstanding of collateral matter there is no such
thing, unless this letter to Quiros is collateral:
What ls II? Ii is written in December, 1874. Let
see II that 10 collateral / refer to the de-
cision your honor has already made when the
witness was asked ii he Mr.. Quiros or any
body else this place; and your honor ruled il |
out as beng purely collateral.
Ia this letter, then, collateral or not3 They have
said that George Gardiner was in Michoacan in |
lS44 or 1915, they think. They prove that by GER
tain letters introduced by Mr.. Wright, from the |
hand Of A J. Halsey, the writing of Charles
Gardiner, VINO it is proved taught Mr.. Charles !
Gardiner to make his hourish and then they read |
certain letters produced from his possession |
through the instrumentality of James Wright. |
Now, they say that il is material fact to prove |
that George Gardiner was there. Well be it so |
tharles Gardner was not Intercepted about that;
not one word was sald to him about Mchoacan in !
his examination in chief; but on his cross examina
ton your honor permitted the United States coun-
sci 10 ask him where ne during the whole |
period Of time he was in Mexico. He ia asked |
about various places, which he answers; and then |
he IL asked whether be knows this Quiros, and |
your honor specially ruled that they could ask
him any such question. Now, he has stated
that he was at miChoacan in 1915, and it is now
sought to contradict him upon the very point on |
which your honor said they could not interrogate
hlm-that Is, 90 you know MIR. Quiros? Why? |
Because il is collateral. They say that this letter
Is 10 show that this witness, the brother of the ac-
cused, was there; but let me ask, would that be /
primary evidence?
he has not said that bis brother was not there; |
he not asked the question. But, sir, even
without this objection the letter would be evil
dence, merely being the declaration of third
party. | therefore dismiss that letter. Then, as
the letter Halsey, what relation has the fact
Of his being in Mirahores to this Issue, any more
than bis being in any other place? None in the
world. IL is purely collateral-a fact about which
the United States had no right 10 inGaire, except
for the purpose of refreshing memory or testing
its accuracy. That letter written in 1851 and
taking into consideration the fact that be get
ting evidence for his own defence. he writes in
qure " bat was contained in that letter.
1.-THE letter was hare read
How, then, is that evidence pertinent TO this
issue How does 1t bear upon it Not in the re-
hottest degree Does that in any way prove that
ne the agent Of his brother? Not at all.
Does il prove that there was any confederacy be
tween them Not at all. That is not the issue
here. Itwould be purely collateral, and does not
bear upon the issue whether the memorial was
true or false or whether the defendant swOre tru-
ly or falsely. | therefore dismiss that letter as
being purely collateral.
Now what is the further proof2 They say O
mad II in Mr.. FendalPs remarks, al published in
the Republic of this morning) that it is stated
that Philip c. Johnson testified that the bro
Their came to him, &c, and that be called il
"our" claim. Mr.. continued to read from the
report to show that the statements made by MIR.
Fendall and Mr.. May wholly unsupported by
the proof
Now where is sour" claim? Where are shown
to be connected? Nowhere. What further? They
rely upon Mr.. Green, and he tells you in many
words that neither of them told him that Charles
interested in his brothers. claim, but that
Charles had certain claims in which be was inter-
ested, and in the prosecution of which he desired
10 have MIR. Green's assistance-French claims
amongst others
So tar, then, we have not particle Of proof of
the declarations of either of these parties that
Charles was interested in this case. IL seems sir,
In these times to be dangerous thing for a TO
have brother, and more dangerous still 10 be
brother and swear in his case. because the brother
then is to be affected by all the witness says or
does.
1.-THE conclusion of Mr.. Bradley's speech Will be
published in our Issue of Tomorrow.