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

the rules By which bis predecessors have been gov
erned. thus refusing to bring oil cases within the
| principles established by that kind OF common
sense which has gone before them, we snail Dc Ut
| terly at sea. When, therefore, speak OF common
sense, do not speak OF the common consent % lnan
| kind, but speak of the means OF Judging o.
ss common sense" given to us to compare ana an :
alyze. to sift and examine rules, and to apply
these rules far as possible to the matter In nano;
| and, where these rules fail, then that we should
bring these facts within the analogies upon which
| these rules are based. That lie the measure Of
common sense by which we are to be guided. !.
But, if your honor please, think we are not LETT
ity of certain kinds of evidence. In the progress
Of time rules have been adopted founded upon de-
cisions which have grown into precedents, which
| rules are the standards to which we must bring
| almost every question that can be raised. This
we admirably illustrated in our rules in regard
to the order of proof, and the time when we shah
introduce certain evidence. Without theee, COM
| mon sense would teach that a plaintiff has but
to make out prina facia Gaze; he may examine
one witness alone, and may think that his case is
proved by that one witness, and be satisfied with
It as thus proved. The defendant may bring two
three witnesses to,prove quite different state
of facts yet is there any rule better established in
the course Of jury trial than that you cannot bring
cumulative proof under the pretence of rebutting
! the evidence of the defendant? -. ssi5ssvs,, 4
Yet common sense would teach US that that is
one Of the cases in which evidence in chief might
| be introduced rebutting proof. Let me suppose
case by way of illustration: Suppose that in this
the United States had offered all the evidence
which they deemed sufficient to show that the
acts complained OF against the defendant are
founded on conspiracy, in fraud and forgery,
and are supported ~ forgery and perjury sup,
which they think it is unnecessary to introduce
because their case is made out, defendant offers
his evidence, meets, and fully disproves their
| case, and then they should ask to introduce that
| in ief
and which, If introduced at all, ought to have been
introduced in it's proper place. Suppose they do
this, and call itreoutting proof? Why, sir, one
means let hem introduce it it was not necessary
to burden their with this cumulative evil
dence. since it was, as they thought, sufficiently
established BEFORE" But that, may it please the
court, is not the kind of common sense' which
is to govern US here.
shall have occasion TO touch this subject again
on the different points Of the they arise
and to chow what is meant when a lawyer talks oil
looking at question in 'scommo sense point oil
view" At present it is sufficient to say that by
the common consent of judges from the time the
question was fret raised to this day, it has been
settled that where there is evidence in chief in the
| possession OF plaintiff or defendant they shall
not split up their case, and prove it piece-mcal
and that evidence in chief shall not be introduced
which would be cumulative, tending to prove the
same fact as r;ebutting proof but that it must be
would become of any triaF What would become
of any defendant, civil or criminal, arraigned OF
sued, if, when he has presented against him a
slight case by the prosecution, he goes with his
defence, and makes out, as he supposes, trium.
plant answer to the allegations against him, and
then, to his amazement, the prosecution having
| found out the nature and extent of his defence
come back de novo with what they hold to b.
overwhelming. damning proof? That is precise =
the question involved here; aud it will be nv pur
pose to show that if this evidence was admissible
at all, it was only admissible evidence in chief
ov,d narvd not hn ttnIo o1,1tt
In this case, if the court please it is evident be
yond all question that the defendant fights at great
disadvantage, and his counsel at still greater, a.
compared with those who represent the United
States. First he has not the means for his defence
This has been stated more than once, and when
stated has been met with sneers and gibes and
laughter. But Notwithstanding these sneers on the
part of the United States they have taken the
| trouble themselves to prove the fact; and beg to
call the attention of your honor to the proof they
have offered. They have offered to prove in evil
! dence that one-fourth Of this claim being S l07,
+, 600, was sold by the defendant for $4,000. They
have further offered to prove that one of the coun
sci engaged in prosecuting this claim before the
commissioners received fifteen per cent. of thu
whole claim-over 100000; that another had re
ceved five per cent. more, amounting to $40, 900
that third had received the like sum. This take
off nearly one-half of the whole claim. Then, o
the $4,000 which the defendant received for th,
one fourth of the claim, your honor has accoun
in the evidence which has been offered; and thu
to complete the difficulties with which this defend
ant has been hemmed in on every side, the Unitet
States laid their grasp upon 1920, OO0ofh his money
$4,000 more than the half of the whole claims
that on the small balance OF the few thousand dol
lars which remained to him of his sale of fourth
he has had to live for five years, to pay all the
penses incidental to the prosecution of this claim
over and above those already mentioned, wei
as those attendant upon this and other suits whic
the United States have brought against him, Hal
he not been economist of no ordinary charac
ter, he would have been without a cent long ago
He has been literally stripped by the United States
his means OF defence have been taken away from
him. aat s-lss -na boss
On the other hand the whole treasury, so far a
we can understand is at the disposal of the prose
told here that the whole army and navy wer,
at their command, and all the administrative
offices OF the Government at their disposal W.
have lao had commission sent to Mexico, ant
we see here at least one of the extraordinary re
suits of that commission. What is it! We ar
told that MIR. Verastegui is a very handsome ant
accomplished gentleman. Who is he? He wa
project of Rio Verde, and officially certified tn
! papers presented by George Gardiner to the com
missoners under the treaty on which the CLAIM
was founded, and his secretary joined in that
tificate; and MIR. Injury, as was said yesterday
was procured to write the book of accounts; an,
who is he? Why, the alcaide of Rio Verde. Ant
who else have we? Why, sir, we find these paper
authenticated by Mr.. 6 Gutierrez, who secretar,
of the prefecture at that time, and lie secretary a
| this day. And what further do we fnd' Why
that the Government of the United States, By
some means other, have obtained from Mr.
Verastegui these papers, which they now ask Il
get in as evidence, and, whether they are true O.
false, they stamp his character with infamy.
these are genuine papers, and will bear the con
etruction put upon them by the counsel for th,
United States, then this agent of the United States
| thus stepped in infamy, WAS the main spring o
this plot. and 10 now the betrayer of his confede
| rates. Excellent evidence to come from 30 pure
source! This Verastegui, who undoubtedly hele
at one time the highly respectable Office of prefec
Of Rio Verde; who undoubtedly. as project, certi
fed the papers presented by DIR. Gardiner; wht
undoubtedly, by DR.. Gardiner, was supposed te
be-and under his oath he swore that he believed
| him to bean honest and upright man 81 late al
! October last; this Verastee vi, under some pres
| sure, turns round and denounces the very mar
who had been his friend, and in that denounce e.
| ment makes himself out to be utterly despicabl,
| and debased. This is the witness on whom tn,
United States rely. Sir, we have no means to c,pt
| with such case as this. What else this s'hand
some and accomplished" Verastegui n ay hav,
placed in the hands Of the United States it 10 i'm
possible for us to cOnceiye but this s abundantly
obvious, that however bad the defendant may be
the witness on whom the United States rely Is i'm
measurably and incomparably worse.
Mr.. FENDALL. He was introduced by the de
fence. .t. sas ,'ecsra = .s-t.t,gs., . l..5.,s-
Mr.. BRADLEY. We introduced him when we be
| leved him to be an honest man, and not after W,
found him corrupt to the core, degraded and in
famous But. If it please the court. we are in al
unfortunate position In other respects. 1t ia il
evidence that the defendant is q man of character
and standing, and that he went to Mexico for til,
| purpose Of obtaining more complete evidence O
tn hia mil ie = IL