The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1853-05-17

|
ste 20 correct the impression here and wherever ma,
be- that We have been looking to this result and prepar
ing Tor II IN the progress OF The al II has been sub
jec of conversation, as have before stated between m,
colleague and myself only within the last few days
In regard to the proposition submitted by the United
States, coincide with my colleague Three hours woul,
AFFORD noe no kind OF opportunity 10 make review o
The testimony in this which, il dettaken deem
absolutely essential have duties to perform as wei
as the counsel for the United States
II may be the interest of the United States 10 recover
oack sum OF money, and 10 punish supposed crIm
nal, but Il is my duty and privilege to defend the case
while there is the least shade OF doubt OF the guilt
the defendant; but when lee his innocence has beer
demonstrated, deem my duty imperative than lha
OF The prosecution TO persevere IL is better that thou
sand gully men should escape than that innocent
man should be punished. made the proposition have
N perfect good faith. I however. are not have
The cause submitted to the jury without argument, will
pow state that shall ask your honor to give ceran in
s'Tuctons on points OF law which consider necessary
to the true eucda,ion Of the issue in the We
thnk, with great submission, that many matters have
been drawn unnecessarily into the issue and desire
That when we do go 10 the jury 60 under such instruc
ions from the court will leave doubt as TO the is
sue TO be tried wish TO avoid elimination and recrim
ina'ion. wish 10 avoid review of The testimony Il
has been subnlted and the Jury have heard il all The,
have not read all, because sorry say, there il
mass OF which never has been published but all thai
minds as il IS in ours; and so far from our assisting,
will venture TO say that we will tend TO perplex The
minds oi the jury On the side there will be strain
ing OF the testimony with all the power OF argument,
show ills true bearing while, the other, there will
be great exeron to il sustain different construc
tion.
The DrsrRIcr ATTORNEY Mr. Bradley is mistaken when
he supposes that is unprecedented thing for the Uni
ted States TO decline accepting the offer made the part
oil the defence TO submit the case 10 the jury without agn
ment have IN my remembrance several precedens OF
that description during the service OF OF my prede
cessos My own practice heretofore has generally been
TO offer TO submit the to the jury without argument
but that offer rarely accepedperhaps never except
IN cases IN which the counsel for the accused had either
made an argument in the openRg statement OF had kept
up running argument during the progress Of The case
In case before the present judge oil this court the coun
sci for the defence argued both these wAys, and then
offered to submit the case to the jury II being OF
importance and compexy the facts the offer
was declined III there ever was instance IN which II
was the duty of counsel TO take opportunity of refresh
ing the minds OF the jury TO the testimony Ae presen,
case, III which vouminous mass OF evidence has
been given, and much Of it weeks ago. is certainly such
to say nothing of IFS peculiar and important char
acier That there may be unnecessary tax upon The
patience of The jury have proposed the discussion
should be restricted TO three four hours for each
sell II does seem little extraordinary that the learned
gentleman who IS OF opinion that the innocence oi his
client has already been demonstrated should require
than four hours for what, according 10 him. must be
work OF supereogaIon IT, though the innocence Of the
defendant is clear more time is desired 10 make II clearer
would think that four hours to each OF his counsel
would be sufficient for that purpose.
After some further observations of counsel both
SIDES the court inquired whether the evidence on both
sides evocably closed and being answered in the
affirmative, made note OF the fact
The court then adjourned I'LL TO morrow morning a,
ten o'clock.
FIFrY-sEcoSD DAY-FRiDAY, May 10, 1853
, The court met at The usual hour.
Mr. BRADLEY remarked that The exceptions which the
counsel for the defendant had taken 10 rulings OF the
court had not been put in form and that time would be
required for stating the evidence and preparing the bills
He referred TO some cases IN which inconvenience and
difficulty had resulted from delay in preparing the bills OF
exception, and suggested that the should adjourn
for the purpose OF having this done
The counsel Tor the United States acquesced in the
suggestion; and after conversation between the
counsel both sides and remarks from the court, 10
The rules OF practice this and other courts, the