The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1853-05-18


speak to the jury. have not at any time during
the proxress Of this spoken to the court Owe
the heads of the jury.
Mr. FEnDALL. The gentleman was not conten
with the refusal of the court to admit these papers
but wished to get them before the eye of the coun
sci OF the United States.
Mr.. CARLISLE. This is matter of substance
and although your honor has said that these ietter
were not evidence, had right to offer them, 81
that if they were refused might use that refusa
as an argument.
Mr. MAY. take it all, and will by-and-by tell
the counsel why we do not accept them.
The CouRr The defence must conine itself te
rebuttng proof, and not reafirm what has already
been stated.
MIR. BRADLEY. That being the case, the witnes:
can state in whose handwriting that paper is
Handing the witness paper,] one of the letters
the dates of which were in evidence.
Ans believe it to be the handwriting OF Manuel
Verastigui-I mean the body of the writing. My
signature think is genuine. His writing and
mine are 90 very similar that at frat could hard
ly tell the distinction
No 6 ] In whose handwriting lie that:
Ars believe it to be in the same handwriting
as the body of this petition that ia in the handwrt
ing of Vincent Verastegoi.
Quss. Have you any papers in your possession
MIR. FsNDALL. object to the question The
court has already decided that 1t cannot be
asked.
Inc COURT. mat certainty cannot De evidence
now.
[Another discussion Of some length arose as to the
admissiblity of the question; but it was finally
overruled. -f
Mr.. BRADLEY. We are now closed on the pal
Of the defence. This case has occupied more than
two months, and the court and jury have listened
with great patience to the arguments of the coun-
sci, who have made many speeches. We are of
opinion that the jury have had full and ample CD
portunity of making up their minds on the case,
an VIZ Offp tn In thor xp;&h
Mr.. May. We anticipated precisely that this
would be the tactics friends on the other side
would pursue, from the course of observation in
which they have INDUCED; and it is exactly for
the purpose of meeting that state of facts that we
desire to recapitu late the evidence. We think
that, by recalling the facts to the minds of the
jury, we shall be assisting them to come to juet
conclusion. will state to the gentlemen, how
ever, that willing to limit ourselves -
The CouRT. For how long?
Mr.. MAY, To three hours each. wish myself
that the case could have gone to the jury to day.
cannot consent, however, that the case should 60
to the jury without some remarks.
MIR. CARLISLE. l am sorry that this offer of ours
is not accepted. had thought from the opening
speech and the promise which was then 30 vaunt-
ngly given US of perfect demonstration of the facts
which would argue for themselves, and convince
to argue the case. the United States promised
the jury demonstration Of facts, and now they
desire to argue the case so that they may affect il
by their eloquent speeches. We were willing that
the jury should take the facts they are 1t, how.
ever, i am to speak to the jury.I will make no
terms as to time. But would 81 ygest to the pro-
secution that they should refresh the memories o.
the jury, and then let one OF US reply.
Mr.. MAY. And take the conclusion on your side?
Oh, no!
Mr. BRADLEY. | made the suggestion in per.
feet good faith, and without supposing that the
counsel on the other eide could raise any good
ground of objection do not reco!lect, in the his
tory of the criminal cases in which ! have been
engaged, that such offer was ever refused by the
Government.
Mr.. MAY. The gentlemen for the defence have
been making speeches to the jury since the first
commencement of this case.
Mr.. BRADLEY. The first argument made to
the court not directly pertinent to the issue was
made by the counsel for the United States to the
jury through the court. In regard to the PROPOSE
ton of the United States, it is not to be thought Of
of opportunity to give review Of the testimony
in this case; for if am, by refusal OF offer,
competed to undertake it, l shall deem it abso.
lutey essential to go through the whole. / have a
duty to perform which regard as hi h in respect
to my client as any duty which devolves upon the
counsel for the United States. We both have du-
ties to perform which are binding upon our con.
sciences; at all events that is the measure of duty
with me. 1t may be the interest of the United
States to punish a criminal; it is my duty and
privilege to defend the accused when there is the
least shadow of doubt in regard to his guilt, or
the faintest hope of his innocence. But when
think his innocence is demonstrated, think it is
more imperatively my duty to prove that it ia 90
than it can be for the prosecution to endeavor to
obtain conviction, made the proposition in
perfect good faith. did not desire to say single
word, but if we are not to have the case submit.
ted in the way suggest, further state that before
the case is submitted to the jury shall ask from
your honor certain instructions points of law
which think will cover the whole case. By this
course think much labor will be saved | wish
to avoid elimination and recrimination; l wish
to avoid review Of the testimony; did not think
it necessary, because we know that much of il
has been published, and doubtless the jury have
read it 1t ia true that have mass of testi-
mony taken by the reporter for the defence
which was never published /; but after all, 30 ia
from assisting the minds of the jury by any
thing say to them, ! imagine that our ei
forts will only tend to perplex them for one side
will doubtless endeavor to give to each separate
piece of evidence one construction, while the othe
side will be cndeavoring to give it another. sub
NIT that it would be far better for Va now to sub
nit this case to the jury al it is without being in
any degree disturbed by the gloss which may be
put upon it by either side. ! have already sale
twice that have made this proposition in perfec
good faith, without, as the prosecution imagine
having contemplated any effect of the kind which
they suppose. The case ia already fully before tn.
jury, the evidence has been printed-most Of it, a
least-and think to argue it further would be
waste of time.
MIR FENpALL. We have no desire to waste time
We have proposed to confine ourselves to thre'
hours each.
Mr.. BRADLEY. The District Attorney proposes
to argue the case, and to confine himself to thre
hours. If he speaks for three hours upon it, h.
will mystify it that it will take three days te
put him right. ! have duty to perform which
cannot be measured by time. To talk to me abou
measuring what ] may have to say by time i
perfectly idle, and still more if the gentleman VIII
has conducted this prosecution (Mr May) shoult
open the argument 1t will require us to prepar
ourselves to answer the speech he may make, an,
say SO because he has identified himself with it
His whole mind is imbued with it; and we all Sc
and feel the power of his eloquence. And knowing
that he has thrown himself into the case-I will no
dense his argument into three hours, after he hal
been occupied in the case for two years.
After some further observations of counsel Oh
both sides, the court inquired whether the evidenc
on both sides was irrevocably closed; and bein
answered in the affirmative, made a note of tn
fact.
The court then adjourned till to .morrow morn
ing at ten o'clock.
FIFTY SECOND DAY-Friday, My l3.
The court met at the usual hour.
Mr.. BRADLEY remarked that the exception
which the counsel for the defendant had taken t
rulings of the court had not been put in form; an
that time would be required for stating the evidenc
and preparing the bills. He referred to some case
in which Inconvenience and difficulty had resulte
from delay in preparing the bills of exception, an
| suggested that the court should adjourn for til
purpose of having this done.
The counsel for the United States acquiesced i
the su peatiOn: and after some conversation he