The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1853-04-05

Ans should ny Il wns about hundred yards
across In ss9s places psstaps mese.
Qwss. Howdee did II IKE yoff horsess
1.s Nearly to the sisl. 1kSN got my feet
wet; but it vi not deep cough fhcrsss to swim.
Que. You xpt into the di>trict Laguinillai on
Monday morllng, and reached thSsillage on Non
day Afternooo2 f
Ans. Yes. -
Qsss. And remained there on Tuesday, and left
on Wednesday morning3 e>~- -
RS-sss~iasd BY Mr.. Mey -------
Spanish scholar Were you able 10 speak pretty
well with the people of that country!
Ans. have studied the language somewhat,
and know It sufficiently we'll TO travel in Old Spain
or any Spanish country.
Rs.ezami~ed BY Mr.. Bradley 81
CUES. You think a steam engine could not be
carried into that couatry5
Zns. should say il was nearly impossible.
CUES. Could il not be made in small pieces and
transported into the country?
there.
Cues. Then you think it imp ssible to get one
there!
Ans. It 10 impossible for me to imagine bow it
could be got there.
CUES. Could it not be made in sections aud at
terwards screwed together?
Ans. suppose it might, but the sections would
be very email.
Cues. How much weight can good mule carry
in that country?
Ans. About one hundred and thirty to one hun
dred and fifty pounds. We had good mules, but
we broke down several
Cues. Will not hrst-rate mule carry much
more than you have stated!
Ans. We had the best mul the country could
afford
Mr. BRADLEY. No doubt you thought you had.
The court then adjourned at half past four
O'Clock.
NINE TENTH DAY.-Satsrday, april 2.
Examination Of Mr.. Partridge continued
Mr.. May. Are you acquainted with the seal
of San Luis Potosi which was used in the year
1882
Mr.. BRADLEY, Ito witness.) Have you any
know ledge in regard to it except what you stated
the other day?
Witness. None whatever.
Mr.. MAY. He states that he knows the seal; that
he has seen II impressed upon public documents in
the public office OF that State
Witness. They were shown 10 us.
Mr.. MAY. We offer to prove by this witness that
he knows that seal; and that. iron his knowledge
OF it, lie able to say that the seal afi xed TO the
mortal of the defendant which was laid before the
Board Of Commissioners is the seal of the State
of San Luis Potosi.
Mr.. BRADLEY. understand the witness to say
that he has further knowledge of that seal thar
what he stated here the other day, and which was
ruled out al not being evidence. Nothing is more
easy than either to counterfeit seal. or to be mis-
taken in regard to genuine one seal can be
changed in the twinkling Of an eye II ia very
different with regard to handwriting. which can
only be changed by habit. All the arguments
therefore which would go to exclude handwriting,
knowledge of which was acquired post litem
tam, would apply with tenfold more force to the
knowledge of seal obtained in the same manner.
Mr.. MAY supposed that the rule in regard to
comparison of handwriting wouIc not apply to
seals % 40 to exclude them. They had offered
krt he fNe 81
refreshing his memory with respect to the seal Of
San Luis Potosi, which was allowed. They did not
now offer the zeal for the purpose of comparison,
a. had been urged by the counsel for tue defence,
nor for the purpose of refreshing the memory of
the witness, but for the purpose of showing what
it really was After the impression of the seal was
made, inquiry was made by the head Of the com
mission Tor the seal of the year 1880; and immedi
to go into the State Department for the purpose OF
bringing some public documents of the State, with
the view of exhibiting by the dates Of the papers
themselves, taken unde- these circumstances,
without any knowledge of the government that
they would be called for, to show what the
impression of that seal at that time Accordingly,
the witness saw the Secretary go into the archives
and bring out large bundle If papers, from which
these papers were extracted, and which were near
est to the period of time when the impression of
this alleged forged seal was made.
Now. want 10 ask the witness whether, from
his knowledge of the seal of the State, derived
OOtu from SEEING tue seal ltSelI, as wei as from
se-ing impressions of it upon genuine authentic
documents in the archives of that State Depart
ment in the year 1850, he is able to say whether
the seal on this memorial is genuine or not? That
is the point which i, objected to. Now, it appears
"a me that of the decisions Of the court hith
erto made have any thing 70 do with this question.
do not think with the counsel on the other side
that the objection in regard to handwriting can
apply to the SEAL because it is not in evidence that
the witness we I to this State Department express
ly for the purpose of obtaining this information.
The GoURT The question ia whether or not by
looking at the mining title, and from his know
ledge of these seals, he say that the seal on the
mining title IL a forgery.
Mr.. MAY. Here is the point seal cannot be
removed; we cannot produce it here; and the next
best evidence of what it ia is the evidence Of the
man who has seen it. In addition to that, he is
asked TO state his knowledge Of the seal from pa
pers contemporaneous with the disputed one,
which are found in the archives ofthe ate OF San
Luis Potos We thus bring forward two sources
of infornation-frst the knowledge of the witness
from seeing the thing itself, and then his know :
ledge derived from Impressions made from it,
MIR. CARLISLE. l think thi, whole matter is
involved in the decision of yesterday. Ii the coun-
sci induce the court to revoke the ru made yes
terday, they will call upon your honor to retrace
your steps in the whole matter. The opinion which
your hohor gave yesterday and the opinion which
the counsel ask from you to day cannot co-exist.
| can perceive no possible distinction AetYeen the
two cases. The question 10 precisely what it was
yesterday in regard to the nature Of the evide nee,
viz: that the witness is to estify to his opinion
that is all; because he cannot prove the papers
which otherwise irrelevant in the case, and
submit them to the jury. The only thing he can
do 10 to give his opinion to the verify of these
Impressions. What was asked for yesterday? Why
merely that the witness should give lie opinion as
the difficulty with regard to them? Not that he
had not obtained them from the high fonctiona
ries alleged, at the public Offices Of the State;
that was not the objection. The objection was that
the source of his knowledge were not such as to
entiue him to be heard witness on that point;
that the image he had got in bis mind of the sigma
| tures-for the Lapers could not be given in evi
dence, being irreieyant-was an exemplar not OBJ
tanned in the natural and ordinary course OF bust
ness. This the objection in regard to
ha writing, which clearly sustained
by your honor. And 10 it possible to dis
tinguish between the exemplar Of a seal which
he has got In hts mind in the same manner
as he got that OF the handwritiugl think not !
cannot see the slightest difference. in both cases
the witness speaks from knowledge which he has
obtained post Item motam. But, in order to make
his evidence admissible, he must in both cases de
| rive bis knowledge In such manner as not simply
to be tree from any direct suspicipB-t0r that ID
| not the question-but to be free from the pr0ba
bility, even the possibility, that any improper
motive might exist In other words the law musi
act upon general rules and principles. The rule
in this case ID, that his knowledge must be
quired in the ordinary and M tural course Of bust
ness. and not that which 10 acquired while he il
acting in the matter which 10 In controversy The