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

"forged'' papers. Governor Reyes was there also;
GuzInar, was there, and Olavda was COW enient-
| find? Why, sir, when DR.. Gardiner goes to seek
| for evidence ia Mexico, and after the attempt at
assassination has failed, we hnd these gentlemen
| met by rescript from this same Governor to turn
them out not to keep them there, but to send them
out of the States while in regard to the commission
of the United States, they treat them in the bland
eat manner, and say, "Oh yes. gentlemen, we VIII
furnish you with all sorts OF facilities Our ar
chives our people, all at your services we give
you a kind of carte blanche to find your evidences
but if you find these other fellows there, turn them
out of the State" Thus, sir, you perceive that we
| have not only been deprived of our pecunlary
means, but we have been ehut out in a great mea-
sure-and that too by authority-from the ordinary
sources of procuring our testimony; shut out oy
that very Government against whom and IN whose
territory the offence is alleged to have been com
| mitted. We 60 there to obtain evidence; we are
turned out oftbe country, and then we are tauntng
| ~ asked, "Why don't you prove such and socn
facte?" say then, that we stand In position oil
| ierent-entirely different-from that OF tine United
States. ! tr;t,'s H., re.,.sfs
Connected with this is another branch of the
question, material to the proper understanding OF
this case-the fact that when this commission, arm
ed with all the powers of the State OF San Luis 70
| tos and the central government Of Mexico got
down far as Laguiniilas and saw the very title
deed which we have offered III evidence, and had
means and opportunities and facilities afforded
them to go to the Mines instead of going to them
they went to Queretaro and Arroyo Seco, or some
| other places. And why? We tried to get at the
reason. Was it that they feared 'bIliita" among
the serranos on their way to the minee!
But there ia another reason connected with it; it
is this: that at the time they arrived at Laguinii
las. this accomplished gentleman" MIR. Veras-
tegui, had put in possession OF the commissioners
these letters, which chow beyondal doubt, as they
say, that there can be no genuine deed at that
place, and therefore that it would be labor lost to
look for mines when they knew that the title was
forgery. Sir, we tried to find out the why
l. not To ihooo h,,fvJ hQH mo-
remotest suspicion that that reason would exhibit
| itself in the production of any such evidence as
this; or that the United States would retain in their
possession what should be evidence in chief if is
evidence at all-the very evidence which they now
say is the fulcrum on which their whole case rests
and then attempt to bring it in as rebuttng testi-
| mony. Sir, we are almost laughed at, if there
were not little irony in the laugh, for setting up
| these objections. What, asked the gentlemen, in
| the most confident and triumphant tone, il ever
such objections as these have raised had been
heard OF! Why, sir, never In the whole history OF
/ Jurisprudence was such a proposition theirs
| heard OF. They exclaim, emphaticaly, that the
whole internal structure of the evidence shows
what-"decephon and combinations" and they
generously assert that it is "worthy of the defend
ant and0hs ingenious counsel that they should
raise this objection, which strikes every man with
ashtoniehme nt-an objection say they, (Which
we never dreamed could possibly be raised.''
As have already said, we stand in an unfortu-
nate position. The counsel of the United States
have not been satisfied with an open attack upon
US, but have even got spies in our camp; they bave
had an ainbuscade; and, instead of coming out
boldly and CALAMITY with their evidence in chief,
they have kept this ambuscade until they got us
in this cut de sac, as they think, and come down
upon US with overwhelming forces. 1t ia not fair
| towards an
racter of this proof. We are told that man with
an unprejudiced eye can look at it without seeing
that 1t Is utter destruction to the defendants
| would like to know VT ere our friends on the
de tn find cd to hfch
to exhibit it. All the evidence of the United States
| and many things, am sorry to say, which not
evidence, and never in the nature of things could
be evidence-has been published; not secundem
1 Grftm, but even when rejected by this court; and
then they excaim, in the ejudtced ear, sproof
as strong as holy writ" But, sir, it has the
good fortune of one of the counsel for the defence
| to exhibit these papers to gentleman of acknow-
/ lodged candor, and of some talent; and when he
read them over he replied that he did not see any
harm in them. "What,'' said he .sis it all about?
see nothing here which an agent-might not have
1 written in perfect good faith There are some old
/ Spanish proverbs TO be found here and there. but
nothing that should start man from his proprie-
| ty." Whether they have found an unprejudiced
man. cannot say; put we having seen one, must
take issue, and say that, unless these papers are
read through the medium with which the United
States and everybody else connected with the pros
ecution have looked at them, they will bear con
struction widely different from THAI put upon them
by the counsel for the United States.
Having disposed of some of these preliminaries-
great deal more, it is true, might be said, and
the proper TIME may be said Il shall proceed tt
| examine the whole question before the court
which admit to be one OF great interest. 1t viii
be best to give general outline of the state of the
question in order its proper understanding. The
United States had offered all the evidence which
they deemed necessary TO rove the allegations in
their indIctment TO wit: that the statements made
by the defendant in his memorial were false, and
| that he knew hem ID be false at the time that be
made them. The defence had closed its testimony,
| or mil af of last tn ca
on the part of the defence the United States pre-
sented to him certain papers, and asked him whe
Their or not they were in his handwriting. With
one exception, he did not admit that they were
nor did he positively deny that they were. Both
sides had closed their case One of these letters
the one admitted-was read TO the jury. Then
! there was letter marked No. S, which was moi
| read-a letter from San Luis Potosi-dated 9th
November, which he said he thought was in his
| handwriting.
| Now, your honor will connect with these letters
the fact-lst, that the witness has testified that he
| obtained this deed in Laguinias on the 10th o.
November, certified on the day of the date of the
Il certificate. and that he saw the alcaide sign it
And I'd, that he was not interested in the prosecu
| ton OF the claim of his brother. And Sd, that he
did notsuggest or advise that the title which he
brought from Laguinillas should be made up OF
fabricated, nor did he assist in fatrcating it.
These are the three points As to the admission OF
denial of the letters will come to that in diff
| ferent part of the The United States then
put upon the stand Colonel Thomas, Gas rebutting
| testimony } who proves that In his judgment all
j these papers in the handwriting OF the witness.
That proof being in the United Statee they for the
fret time, exhibit the papers to the defence. The
| defence before cross examining the witness have a
right to examine these papers, and, after examina-
! ton of them, they object to their admssibihty.
That is the true state OF the case.
! 1t is maintained on the part of the United State
that these papers substantive proof primarily
| One of the gentlemen says that these papers are
evidence in chief; the other says that they are
| evidence in of these shapes-being the state
ments of a confederate or agent of the defendant.
them; secondly, if they not evidence of the
| to go to the jury to impeach the witness. They
of these grounds. Now it is material for US to as
! certain what the witness did say in regard to
these papers. The United States have offered evil
1 dence of the interest of the witness in the case,
and they rely upon the proof of Philip C.. Johnson
! and Benjamin F. Green. For the purpose of the ar
| gument / admit that they have proved that the
witness s interested in the case and also, for the
same purpose, that they have shown him to be a
| confederate conspirator with the defendant.
Taking, then, this view of the question, under
take to demonstrate, as far as legal proposition
! can be demonstrated, which is not a subject of
mathematical proof, that these papers are not ad-
| missible.
/ IMr. BRADLEY here read the evidence of the
United States to show the interest of the witness
in the CASE and also that relied upon to show that
| he was confederate, and proceeded thus
i Now, add to that the papers now offered in evil
! dence, and you have the whole proof upon Nhich
| the Government rely to show the agency or con.