The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1853-04-27

4. Get .sss.g cxsAr e,,rsxs.se. 70 svt~s 4.
$sssss~g ~ 80 Messeo T. . etsd md Aosordtt
sic r.os s = sHos ss.S e:
and George Slaoum ESQ.,, certain sus6s Of money OF
account Of the expenses Of The prosscction Of N,
United States against the defendant. 0eorgeA
Gardiner; and Ne defendant then asked the sale
witness what snn Of money bad bsen 90 paid /,
each Of said persons respectively; and the tim.
when such payments were made respectively
and out Of what fund; Offering at the same time
show that certain other large sums of money
amounting in the whole to the sum of 812,997 %
had been paid by the disbursing agent of the Stat,
Department to various persons on account of tht
prosecution; and to follow said offered evidence with
proof Of the manner ofthe disbursement of the io
respective sums OF money, and the times places
persons to whom, and when and where the 81 me
disbursed; and that the said offered evidenc,
ia to be taken in connection with other conduc
of the United States already given in evidence a,
tending to show that The United States has re
sorted to new, illegal, and unconstitutional mca NJ
to and harass the defendant, and to procure
his convictions and in order to meet and rebut ths
ev dcnce heretofore given by the United States t,
show the fairness and Openness with which they
had acted towards the defendant, and of theil
offers to him t. facilitate his pursui. Of evidcnc,
in his Defence which said offered evidcn. c is OBJ
jected to by the United States, and the cou-
refuses TO permit any part thereof to be given ex
cept 90 much relates TO the Gums Of money paic
from time to time to the witnesses who have beer
examined in this cause. To which ruling Of tn,
court the defendant excerpts and prays tn,
court to sign and seal this his - bill o
exceptions, which is accordingly done This 23d o
April 1883 And thereupon the defe nd mt offcrcc
to show, by the disbursng agent Of the State De
partment, that he had paid to Edmund Barry, wb,
has been examined as a witness in this case since
the finding of the bill of Indictment and befor,
testified such witness, various sums of money
amounting in the whole to the sum Of S3,864 SO
and further evidence to show that he had also pait
IN draft DfM in;o Of TT~;k
States at Mexico, since the return of the commits
sion (called in the evidence the Senate's commits
sicn,) the sum Of $4,000; and that both of sait
sums were paid on account of the procuring Of
evidence in this cause"
The CoURr. l used the following language in
my decision the other day: "But far as con
ccrns the fund used, am of different opinion
Now, either the fund within he control of tn,
Presidents order, or II was not; that is not for
to decide, nor think proper matter o. inquiry ,
l still remain of the same Opinio The Gov ern-
ment may employ agents irrespective of any dec
sion here.
WiHiam C. Zdnxtingsr, suorn.
Mr., BRADLEY. Are you not the dsbursing agen
of the State Department.
Ans lam
CUES. Were you the disbursiug agent OF tba
Department in 1851 and 1852?
Ans. Yes. sir.
Ques As disbursing agent of the State Depar,
ment, did you pay any money to j. Togno'
Ans. did not.
qua Have you paid any to James Wright AL
fred A. Lewis or Richard l. Jones5
Ans. No, sir.
Ques. Have you paid any to Edmund Barry?
Ans Yea. air. have paid money to any in
the lat OF witnesses you gave me yesterday, ex-
cept Mr.. Barry.
CUES. Please state the amount you paid him
and the time when you paid il?
Mr.. May. The question relates TO the amour,
of money you paid Captain Barry as a witness in
this cause, and not as an agent of the governmen,
to Mexico.
The CoUar. The amount must be confined tc
what be was paid witness.
Mr.. BRADLEY. That can only be 81 25 per day
and mileage.
The CouRr. III more was paid YOU have a ripbi
to show it.
IA discussion here arose in reference to tn,
same points set forth in the paper previous
y submitted by Mr.. Bradley
Fhe CoURr thought that it had been very ciea
in its decision. The inquiry could extend as far
il bad stated it could. but no further.
Nr. Zdnfzingsr, recalled.
Mr.. CARLISLE. The vouchers in the State De
partmeut will show what amount Captain Barry
received?
CUES. Have you the papers here?
Ana. 1 have.
CUES Look at the accounts and see whether
there is any item for his services al witpesss
Ana paid him nothing as a witness
Mr.. BRADLEY examined the papers brought into
court by MIR. Zanizinger, and, by consent, read a
letter which was found among them from Mr. Nav
10 the Secretary of State setting forth that the d
ties OF captain Barry In Mexico were extremely
arduous, and that he had discharged them in q
manner creditable 10 himself and nd ,antageous 10
the Government.
recess was then taken.
The court having reassembled-
Mr.. CARLISLE offered to give in evidence a m
per purporupg TO be full y au thenticated copy OF
Dr.. GARDENERS mining title, which had been in
possession OF the defence since 1851
Objection made by the prosecution and q
lengthy discussion arose to the admissibility of
the paper, which was continued till the adjourn
ment Ii was commended that the paper was no,
properly authenticated under the Mexican LAVE.
The court then adjourned.
THIRTY EIGHTH DAY-Mondav. ApyiI 25tb
The CouRr. On Saturday the defendant offered
in evidence officially authentica ted COW OF the
mining deed dated 10th of November, 1851. certi-
fed by La Vega, the then alcalde o. Lasuinillas
and by the project of Rio Verde, on the 9th q,
November, 1851. He certiies, under the seaI .,
bis prefecture, that La Vega was alcaIde at tina
time. 1t is alleged that this paper has been in nos
session of Joseph H. Bradley, esq., for more than
year.
Mr.. BRADLEY. Itcame into our possession dur.
ing the December term. in the uonth of Jan
uary or February.
The Couar. The signature of the project has
been proved as genuine to other papers, but not
to this particular one. The United States objected
to this testimony and it was disc used at some
length.
This offer ia made to meet certain evidence givsn
by the United States and ia therefore free from
any obj ction as to its relevancy 1t is said that
the court has already decided this question and
several opinions which have been delivered on
this trial have been referred to | W i'll recur ~
them for moment. Two reports in relation IN
mines, being exactly the came except as to the
certificates appended to them respectively. were
overruled by the court-one of them becanae II
was not an exemplihcaton OF q record, but Ger
tihcae of the register of the existence of certain
facts; and the other because il was certified Nv
Governor Reyes after he had ceased to be Covcrnor
of San Luis Potosi. The court being of on;n;or
that If they had been properly authenticated thew
would not have been evidence, because mere 70
ports by one officer to another, &c. a s,t;st;cs :,
account oil the county of Laguinias obtained nv
witness from the project of Rio Verde was ,c
Jscted on the same day within the Last branch
OF the above opinion; and again a list of t,Y
payers in Laguinilas was rejected. hrc,rse :,
was mere compilation of the names of tbosc u,bo
bad, through a series of years. paid taxes in m
county, and was certified not as an exemol;ca t;or
of any paper on file record but as 6st
the names of all who held urban or rural nronsr, :
in Laguinillas; the court remarkipe that srr;on.
DOUBTS were entertained whether tar coIjac,o,
vas such an officer as is qualified to give anthem.
ITCHY by bis certificate to paper In for.;ar
country, but not grounding its decision upon these
doubts. 'o
II Ia only necessary TO make this statemen, r.
show that no decision has been made Of the nend
ing question. The paper-it is part of the Offer r.
Il a no On In,