The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1853-05-08

oil his agency what oil truth or neton, indeed Inc whoie
history OF this mining title Capt Barry has stated that
such was 10 Lsgunlss when he searched the records
there, N 1852 and yet this copy appears TO have been
the value OF this conflicting evidence The court cannot
undertake TO do this.
H. These letters are evidence against the witness
lst To show his interest IN the case.
ID, His bias as witness.
80. To contradict his testimony.
Before discussing these propositions, allow me TO read
the following written decision OF lhs court, made three
days ago and repeated on the following day
"The Court. IL is proposed ask the witness who was
with him Morea, and this the defendant objects To-
the doubt that the right OF cross.ex
animation extends TO testing witnesses accuracy or ruin
whether he is under bias whether he has received money
TESTIFY whether he related 20 the defendants whether he
is nleested-which by the way, IS not collateral ques-
ZION whstaer he has moi had quarrel d MIN ab tHe TsaI
questions are proper and may be put as they have been
put N ths case requires no aagunent 70 PfSye ,nns
been said ardenty is beside the question,
/. All through these letters the pecunlary interest OF
this man is ackno wiedge d-the statement that his
brother and himself were owners OF great claim al
Washington, which had been presented in his brothers
name, and his statements that he, the witness, would
keep his contracts with Vrrastegui, and then stating
what their shares OF the business were, &c.
The counsel read several passages from the Letters TO
show the pecuniay interest OF John Charles Gardiner, OF
Verasegui, and the other conspiTatorS
2 Can any fail to see the bias OF this man in
every word and sentence OF all these letters Is not the
reader struck a, once with this glarlng quality!
g. Do not these letters contradict him Upon this
point il is SAID, by the opposing counsel, " That as the
witness neither affirmed nor denied that he had written
them when they were shown 10 him, therefore he can
not be conradicled by them"
We admit that is the law here, by the decisions OF the
circuit court, as TO verbal statements, but not as TO con-
lradicng witness by his writings 10 the one case
the witness has recollection ; and if he be honest, i
might 10 be hard to dsced him by previous verbal
statements, which he has forgotten. 10 be sure, this
rule goes protect usually lis practical application,
the cunning and unprncp pied witness who comes ever
ready 10 say, (as this witness did, al have forgoten,
or | do not remember" And as 10 such the rule is
hsrh py a1ti4 Ha,l
But in the of a writing, IL Is not an act OF memory
aone but of observation The eye of the witness rests
on his own writings his memory on the record. present
before his mind, OF its contents Then, there Is no eX
cuse be allowed for any failure OF memory, which IS
the and foundation OF the rule applying 10 verbal
statements.
his faculties, his memory and in tull ygor. The
letters shown hun are kabe IN every ne evidences
of his crime 1t impossible that he cannot say speaking
truth under the obligation OF his oath, whether or not.
decidedly. they are his Writings.
Then lie has violated his oath, and would on every
ground ba lrhng with duties here to for bid us TO
contradict him by those letters clearly proved by Col
Thomas 10 be written by The witness. Let us examine
these letters There is one dated al San Jose Mlafores
and yet the witness be never visited such place
There two others dated at San Luis Polosi, the
OH and 10Th OF November, 1851, and yet the witness
that the lOth of November, 1851. he was at
LagunIilas 90 leagues, or near 100 miles, distant and
that day he received from The alcalie the copy OF The
mining title which he has here presented and proved II
be such The certificate on Il appears to have be been
proving, rs we alege iha! IS is, a sheer forgery
Again. this witness swears he visited his broihers
and yet here 10 this letter of the "a November, 1851 be
asks his accompice VeEasiegu, Tell me The exact
position situation of my brobel's mines: their dis
lance from Rio Verde and IRON LagunIas," &C., sc
Again be was asked # he interested in his claim,
and he no and yet here, in The letter OF the
sh of May, he that he and nus brother interest
gesung or ibrcating The mining tk in LasnniIlas aud
swore he bad not; aud yet here in This letter OF No
vember TO- 1851, he says neither ought The Guadalca-
agents OF the United Staes apply there for the title deed"
&c, &c.
Is no this plain suggestion TO his confederate to have
the deed made aid pat on record before Mr. Slacum
should 20 there TO examine for II
The counsel pointed many other discrepancies and
contradictions between the testimony Of the witness and
his letters, and said that all OF The three grounds the
letters must be admitted TO go TO the jury against the wit
ness
It's said this is not rebuliing, but evidence in chief
and ought TO have been offered before This is begging
OF the question We could not offer them against the
witness until he had appeared as such. We could not
offer them against the trayeTser, because the evidence OF
the conspiracy, for the mast part, was furnished by
the defence; and, until furnished, not in
situation TO show the common confederation.
The counsel then recspualed his positions and con-
sideted that clear both grounds taken by his coll
league and himself these letters ought TO 20 TO the jury
first, substantive evidence against the traverser
cond, evidence against the witness John Charles
Gardiner.
He concluded by an appeal TO the court to sop
pdt the and the administration OF puble justice, and
not allow them be trhed with aud put under foot by
any technical views gong TO shelter the taver-
and bis brother accomplish lie stated that the people
OF the United States, who the plaintiffs here, would
require very strong TO satisfy Them how this ey
icAcc clear and conclusive Of the whole case, could
be shut out from the consideration Of the jury
Mr.. Bradley Ii appears from the Republic OF this
morning that The letters the admisslbiy OF which in
denee has been argued today are 10 be published in that
paper Tomorrow morning We think they should not be
published TIL The court has decided that question. Their
publication will produce outside pressure on the jury
trust that the court will take order with reference
TO the matter.
The Court | cannot control the press.
Ir May have read able decision OF the supreme
court OF New York, 10 which the position Is aiken, in
libel suit growing out OF the publication OF matters de-
veloped 10 the progress Of trial IN court OF justice in
that State, that reporter undertakes TO publish any
part, he should publish everything that tansres pub
cly in the face OF the court take this TO be The law
on the subject
The Court said myself in early stage OF the trial,
that ell ought 10 be published, II any.
Mr. May So understood the Court. Ii Is the duty
OF the reporter to take the whole thing and fSom The
beginning of this the fact whether evidence has been
rued admitted has been stated IN the report Your
honor ted the Jury that they should not pay any aten
ton 10 newspaper reports. In my judgment, faithful
port presents what occurred a. II occurred.
Mr Bradley. II your honor be OF opinion that these
papers cannot be admitted in evideRce, prejudice will be
effected The jury by their publication. We do not de-
sire 10 have The jury influenced Al ha, manner, and have
therefore called attention TO the notice OF the intended
publication II they be published, and pat in the hands
Of the jury, il is impossible that they should fail to have
an influence.
The Court II is impossible for me TO control this
thing, If reporters furnished with copies for publcs
ton
Mr proJl RAJ, ~ ;n,o