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


ment who we're sent to investigate this atroclous
fraud The common purpose tnen existed, and
now up to this hour exists 1t 10 to get the money
a part of which, fortunately the government has
found and enjoncd to the amount of 1920 900;
and also to free his brother and himself from The
meshcs OF the law. These are the objects OF the
conspiracy, and to promote these this offered evil
depce was constructed. Every word and line OF
these letters taken together, show this object; the
fraudulent evidenuu1hus contrived. ia now here,
and relied to acquit the traverser II ia utterly
absurd to say the conspiracy was ended when these
letters were written. X was, and is now, in full
opera ton. CEIf I5
II. These letters contain the declarations Of an
agent. (if not accompce } The counsel read the
Law of agency, and cited the Supreme Court re
ports. r.,f .-.r ~ lrr ...tfllq ssfli..lt. s-
These letters were written for the purpose, as i,
plainly to be seen, Of forging and fabricating false
proofs. One Of them says 'neither ought the Qua
daicszar and LaguipiiIas matter TO be delayed
lest the agents apply there for the mining title, .
&C., &c. "Nevtriheless, as believe that, as in
the documents relative to the matter, it (the
mine) ia denounced at Rio VrRDE. tits necessary
to say that the announcement was made Mt BOTH
PLACES, for whatever may occur; BECAUSE TO ".
NY THAT WHICH WAS MADE AT Rio VERDE Is Tt
DENY ALL THE oTHER DOCUMENTS ts1fi. a'.
ssThe affair will go on very well, If all be done
quickly and with TACT but ONE FALSE STEP WILL
sINp Us ROLLING TO THE DEEPEST ABYssEs OF HELL
Firmness and courage, two qualities which you
possess, and WE WILL LAUGH AT THE WORLD
Does not this chow, and indeed each letter be.
tray the objects, suggestion to his accomplish
Verastegui to get up. to labricate, the necessary
titles &c, in order that the Government agent
Mr. Slacum, who was then in Mexico to invest
gate the claim, might not find. upon inquiry a
these places where the title ought to be- that nom
" AZ there, and 80 at once explode the whole fraud
which rests for its support upon the mining title
recorded in the proper ofhce!
Again: you see, in another place, the suggestion
not to abandon the Rio Verde title, (on which the
claim " as passed by the board.) No; he says"wt
must say, for all that may occur, that we de-
nounce ed the mine in both placesP'
And this Lsguiniilas title, thus suggested, in
vented, and fabricated, ia brought here by thit
very witness, and proved by him-adopted and
used by his brother this trial. Surely, on every
principle of the law Of agency. we have the RICH
to show by the written declarations of this agent
If can, made at the time within the scope OF HI,
agency what of truth or fiction, indeed, the whole
history, Of this mining title. Captain Barry hal
stated that none such was in Laguinllas when he
searched the records there, in 1882; and yet this
copy appears to have been granted in November
1851. The jury only can estimate the value OF thu;
conflicting evidence. The courtcannot undertake
to do this
Ill These letters are evidence against the wit
ness:
lst. To show his interest in the case
I'd His bins witness.
Sd. To contradict his testimony.
Before discussing time propositions, allow me tc
sead the following written decision of this court
made three days ago and repeated on the following
day; -.
:sThe CoURr II is proposed to ask the witness
who was with him at Moreiia, and this the defend
ant objects 1t is impossible the court can doubt
that the right of cross examination extends to test
ing witnesses accuracy or truth; whether he il
under biasI whether be bas received money to ties
tify; whether he is related to the defendant; whe-
Their he Ia inter ested-wbch, by the way, is not a
collateral question; whether he has not bad quar-
rel with the partly whether be ia an accomplish
These and all other kindred questions are proper
nd be = they have been out. thls
case. 1t requires no argument TO prove thing &c
plain and perfectly familiar to all lawyers. AL
that has been said so ardenty is beside the CUES
ton"
l. All through these letters the pecunary inte-
rest of this man ia acknow ledged-the statement
that his brother and himself were owners of grea
claim at Washington, which bad been presented
in his brothers. name, and his statements that he
the witness, would keep his contracts with Veras
tegui. and then stating what their shares Of the
business were, &c.
The counsel read several passages from the let
ters TO chow the pecuniary interest OF John Charles
Gardiner, of Verastegu and the other ators
2. Can any one fail to see the bias of this man in
every word and sentence of all these lettersl l:
not the reader struck at once with this glarine
quality, -.. 81 pr.
Do not these letters contradict him! Upon
this point it is said, by the opposing counsel
THAT N the witness neither affirmed nor denied
that he bad written them when they were show n
TO him, therefore he cannot be contradcted by
them"
We admit that is the law here, by the decisions
of the circuit court, TO verbal statements but
not to contradicting q witness by his OWE
writings. In the one CAGE the witness has nc
recollection, and IL he be honest. it mi bt seem tc
be hard to discredt him by previous verbal state
ments, which he has forgotten To be sure, this
rule goes to protect usually, in its practical appi
cation, the cunning and unprincIpied witness
Who comes ready to say, Gas this witness
did y 81 have for gotten" or al do not remember.
And to such the rule ia sheer absurdity, as We
the bar have often daily seen.
But in the OF a writing II is not an act o.
memory alone, but of observation. The eye of the
witness on bis own writing; his memory or
the record present before his mind, Of it's contents
Then, there is no excuse to be allowed for any
failure OF memory, which is the reason and foun
da,ion Of the rule applying to verba! statements
In this case the witness is a young man in tho
prime Of his faculties, bis memory and senses in
flll vigor. The letters shown him are remarkable
in every line, evidences OF his crime. IL Is inpos
sble that he cannot say, speaking truth under the
obligation of his oath, whether or not, decidedly
they are his writings.
Then be has violated his oath, and il would or
every ground be trihIng with our duties here tc
forbid us to contradict him by those letters 81
clearly proved by Colonel Thomas TO be written By
the witness. Let Us examine these letters. There
ia dated at San jose Mirahores; and yet th,
witness says he never visited such place.
There are two others dated at San Luis Potosi
the 9th and 10Th of November, 1851, and yet tins
witness swsars that on the 10Th OF November, 1851
he was at Laguinillas, 90 leagues, or near l6'
miles distant, and that day he received frou
the alcalde the copy Of the mining title which ht
has here presented and proved TO be such Th
certificate on it appears to have been granted OF
the same day 10Th November, 1851. Thus proving
as we sIlege that it is, a sheer forgery. Again
this witness swears he visited bis brothers. mines
three several times, in lo44, lo4o, and 1870; an'
vet here in this letter of the Sd November, 1851 h
asks bis accomplice, Verastegul, Tel me the ex
act position or situation of my brothers. mines
their distance from Rio Verde and from Lagul-
nillas," SC, &c. -.4. ....' lu -.
Again: be wa. asked if he was interested in hi
claim and swore he was not; and yet here, In tn
letter of the Sth Of May be states that be and hi
| brother were interested together in it. He wa
asked if he had any part in suggesting or faori
eating the mining title in Laguinilas, and swor
be had not; and yet here in this letter OF Novembe
| 10, 1851, he says, "neither ought the Guadacaza
or Laguinilas matter to suffer delay, lest the,
(tbe agents of the United Slates) apply there 70
the title deed" SC, &c. ID .Iafa.a.I Dig STA.
| Ia not this plain suggestion to his confederate
to tave the deed made and put on record befor
! Mr. Slscum should go there to examine tor iii III
| The council pointed out many other discrepan
| cies and contradictions between the testimony O
the witness and his letters. and said that on all
| the three grounds the letters must be admitted I
| 20 to the Jury against the witness. .-..
IL 10 said this 10 not retutting, but evidence II
chief, and ought to have been offered before. Thi
J 10 begging of the question We could not otfe
them ga inst the witness until he had appeared a
such. We could not offer them against the ira
verser because tn. evidence OF the conspiracy, 10
the most part. furnished by the defence; and
! until 30 furnished, we were not in a situation
! show the common confederation. ,..l..
] The counsel then rccapitulated his positions, an
! tha il lear. on both grounds tax