The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1853-05-10
THE GARDNER CASE,
CRIMINAL COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA. 1ksf


COLUMBIA. ~ m
TRePoaTED FoR THE REPUBLIC.l
Our report of his interesting trial wss suspend
ed two or three days ago with the view Oh avn
ing the decision Of the court in regard 10 'ns gu
mission az evidence of some tourtee" VI nitee"
letters alleged to have been wri"en oy 'onn
Charles Gardiner, the brother o. LII. oaruiner'
while in Mexico. Objection was mace 20 Ioen
sdr,;,s;or bv the defendants counsel, and very
animated and interesting discussion ensued, which
,c,nni.d nearly three days. Although these let
a., ,.srs read 10 the court, notwithstanding the
h;,,;op which was interposed, we did not deem
;, onr apty to publish them until the question was
e-st decided as to whether they were legal evf-
dence They were ultimately rejected, for reasons
which will appear in the decision of the court,
which we will publish to-morrcw.
The argument ON the objection was opened, by
Mr. CARLISLE on Tuesday afternoon in a. short
soeech in hch he fined himself entirely to the
legal grounds of the question. Itbsipg understood
that the court had adjourned until Wednesday
morning in consequences of the sickness Of one OF
the jurors, our reporter was not present on the
opening of the argument, the court and counsel
unknown 20 him, having subsequently, agreed to
meet on Tuesday afternoon to consider the question
of the admissibihty these documents.
The DIsr sIcr ATTORNEY followed Mr.. CARLIsLK,
quoting a variety of authorities in support Of the
admission of the letters.
TO give even an abstract of these three days dis
custom would fill an entire paper. We therefore
present such portion of it az we think will be
most interesting to our readers, embracing con
densation of the speeches Of Mr.. May against the
objection, and Of Mr.. BRADLEY in support of it.
FORTY-FOURTH Day Wednesday, Nay 4.
Mr.. May said, that the prscise question to be
Acfs ned or vbgfn er
tain letters, proved TO be in the handwriting OF
John Charles Gardiner, a witness examined for
the traverser, addressed to Manuel Verssteg u,
whose name and official ncts connect him with
this case as the author Of certain certificates upon
books and documents presented as substantive
evidence for the defence-wheher these letters are
competent evidences for the considers ton of the
iury2 The letters-scme fifteen in number-had
been read TO the court their contents appreciated
and their direct relation to all that 10 dark and
mysterious IN this Transaction plainly seen; nd
they are the most decisive evidence touching THE
in CURRY in his (Mr htay's) Judgment which the
nature of the case could present before the Jury
When investigating the truth of a business
mysterious in many OF Its relations, light so
clear and SO bright had been thus shed upon it;
and while could not wonder that the learned
counsel W no defend the traverser should desire to
interpose their hands between this light and the
minds of the jury, they should feel authorized to
wonder prod giously if the court should shut il out.
Where the evidence was as decisive be begged
leave to say this was, its admissibty became
perhaps the most important inquiry that had been
presented to the consideration of the court during
the progress of the cause. He (Mr. May) thou ght
that every question which had heretofore been
mooted absolutely Insignificant compared
with the importance of this, the present pro-
position, a matter of moral evidence. it
would strike the mind of every candid man.
As matter of practical consideration, If those
letters bot the mere declarations of a
stranger, had been argued, and in no way went
to reflect the guilty designs of the traverser, no
harm could be done TO him by admitting them;
N na they we al no ri
ter which be conceived them to be, acolabls
harm would be done by SURPRISING them. There
fore, taking practical view of the question as to
the admissibility rejection of this evidence, il
must to the court that while TO admit it, if it
had no relation to the case, could DO no harm TO
the trayerser, to reject it would be to do the great
est amount of wrong to the people and Government
of the United States, who were here the plaintiffs
in this cause. He (Mr. May) accustomed to
look at these questions as they struck his mind
practically, and as they appealed to his common
sense, because be knew, 6 a lawyer, by the de
clarations of the abest judges, that the rules of
legal evidence were, after ALL nothing but the de-
ductons of common sense; and if he could see how
I common. sense view would place the matter as a
question of evidence, be could pronounce with a
pretty safe judgment whether il not
competentto theinquiry lie was, therefore, always
extremely gratihed when he the question
pTinG fGcts, addressing itself in the conclusive way
in which this did to his common sense; for then he
thought be could always find abundance OF
strong legal authorities to support it. Any man
no looked with the eyes of common sense on q
question like this could not fail to be convinced at
once by such proof. He had. therefore, felt bouu
to address these observations to the court showing
the practical importance of the question before it,
and bow such practical things deserved to be at
tended to when d ey concerned the administration
ofjustice. be knew that sometimesit happened that
technical rules went contrary to these, and over
turned them; and he knew that il was because of
this that sort Of reproach had been brought upon
the adn'inlstra ton Of the laws. He knew that IL
because of this that the legislatures Of this and
d Or improvements
ada those hncal rules more to the suggestions
Of common sense He could point the court 10
innUmerable authorities from the lips Of most en-
HghteDed judges 70 the effect that the tendency OF
the judicial mind in day IL, and must continue
to be- to enlarge the Of the rules OF evidence,
nd To open wider the door TO the admission OF
truth, rather than TO close il. And whenever the
institutions OF society, especially those which
concerned the administration of Justice-and there
were none Of more importancc-got behind the
progress Of society, they would always see those
Heightened judges inclined TO advance the
work of judicial reforms by their construction and
application of the rules Of evidence. Nothing,
said Mr May, SO much distinguished the greatest
of all judges-Lord Mansfeld-as the common
sense view he took of all those questions, and
the strenuous stand he made to simplify the
rules Of law and evidence, and to bring the
detcrmi nations Of the courts down TO the rules
of common sense. The question presented by The
United States, rather by the objection of the
counsel of the trayerser, came in rather an un.
usual shape before the court, because questions
concerning accoInplices had been made, general
w. where accomplice had been put upon the
stand by the government. In that case the accom-
pEce came undoubtedly in very questionable
shape; and all the writers on the law Of evidence
adrnonish US to treat bis testimony with many
grains Of allowance He appeared in that case
guilty, il were, of act Of treason in appear
ing as a witness, and therefore be must be corrob-
GRATED. Not 90 when the declarations of the )
compice were brought into the court, and the very
man himself presented by his confederate as wit
ness in the cause and in that character truth
ful person In this respect the court would that
the question distinguished from that which
usuaiy came before IL on the admssibillty OF evil
dence as an accomplice. His decla rations again st
the traverser, if they be admiss BILE, would have
more authoritative weight from the fact OF his hay
ing been presented "a hiswitness. He could hardly
conceive of any evidence which could be more sat
isfactory TO the mind than that of witness comln
with the additional sanctions giving authority TO
IL on the part Of the defencs. The beat evidence
of which any subject 10 susceptible Intricate aud
nysterous in its details this, would be the con-
fs.siou of the accused man himself; and next TO
bis confession would lie that of bis accomplice.
And this ia the character of tine present offered
evidence Any confession by letters, or in any
other solemn form that would imply dehoeratioD,
would be received the very biz heat and best ey
dence especially If il comes from man having the
same purpose, knowing the same facts, and being
concerned in the same affair with the accused. nd
further, when you see that man making these dec
carations into the bosom OF another accomplish, in
all the confidence which usually soosists between