The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1853-04-01
rHt GARDINER CASE.
CRIMINAL COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA

United States; and Messrs. Joseph H. Bradley,
James n. Carlisle. and B. F. Perry OF south
Carolina, for the defendant.
SEVENTEENTH DAY-1x.ysday, March 81.
Immediately upon the assembling of the court,
his honor delivered the following decision upon the
point argued yesterday:
The CouRr. Two papers submitted by the
United States proper to go to the jury; they
the same but differently certified, dated January
3, lS49. They are offered printed copies of
report in relation to mines in the State Of San Luis
Potosi, made to the government of that State. and
appended to message Of the governor to the Leg
islature, and were handed in 1852, at the govern
ment hall. to MIR. Partridge, by the Secretary of
State One of them has this certificate:
II, the citizen Luis Guzman, Secretary of the
department OF Government of the State of San
Luis fotosi certify, that in this present table
named all mines existing in this State, and that
neither before the formation of these Statistics
s nos 'nsn to the present time has any knowledge
ISkALl LUIS GUzMAN, Secretary.
SAN LUIS PorosI, November 20, 1852"
: The other of these certificates is
:, This report lie really the which was pub
llshed during my administration, and authenti-
cate it with my Original signature in order that it
may have due effect, according to the request Of
MIR. George w. Slacum.
(Signed) "JULIAN DE LOS REYES.
"MExIco, March S, 1892.
The undersigned. Minister of Foreign Affairs,
certifes that the foregoing signature OF his excel
lency Don Julian de los Reyes, who governor
OF the State of San Luis P1;osi i; gen1iHs
MsxISo, 9th Of March, 1852.
lSeal OF the Department of Foreign Affairs Of
the Mexican republic.l
The certificate of our late minister to Mexico,
that the signatures of Governor Reyes and Minis
ter Ramirez genuine, and made in his
presence 9th March, 1852.
The certificate of Luis Guzman is not
thentication of the paper offered az an exemplih
cation of the records in the office Of State, but a
certificate that in this present table are named all
mines existing in this State, and that neither be
fore the formation of these statistics, since then
to the present time, has any knowledge been had
OF any others. This certificate is no better than
that of any other man in out of office of the facts
il sets FORTH 1t ia authorization of the paper,
which, if it were a report to a Department of our
own Government, could not be received in evil
dence in the shape in which this paper comes,
cording to what is said by the Supreme Court in
Watkins Holman, IA Peters, R., Sc.
The other paper is certified by Julian de los
Reyes after be ceased to be Governor of San Luis
Potosi. He was then private gentleman, with
out the power to certify to the verify or official
public offices of which he once had control. Is it
aided by the certificate of Don Jose F. Ramirez,
the Minister of Relations in the Republic of Mex
leo? | think not. He certi6es that the signature
of Julian de los Reyes, who was Governor of the
State Of San Luis Potosi, is genuine.
And our late Minister to Mexico does not make
the certificates any stronger. He states only that
the signatures are of the proper handwriting Of
these papers are, in my judgment, altogether in
formal But if they were regularly and properly
authenticated, do not think they would be evi
dence. The mere fact of paper being public
document does not make it evidence, if intrinsi-
cally il 10 not The Journals of the two Houses
of Congress, and all matters of State, here and in
England, evidence, and may be 80 even in
criminal in the United States, in very
few and peculiarly circumstanced cases, chiefly,
If not exclusively, where the party against whom
they sought to be used, the act char
10 in cd tka
document, and not always then; in England where
indicted for seditious meetings and sedi-
tious bes, there has arisen frequent legal occasion
for the admission of such evidence. The Journals
evidence of what each House of Congress
does-that such petition Withdrawn or pre-
sented, such bill considered and passed or reject
ed If question was whether certain officer of
either House was elected, and when, undoubtedly
the Journal would prove it, if properly authenti-
Gated So if the inquiry is whether the President
transmitted message to Congress, and in it treat
ed Of certain subjects, the record would be evil
dence; but suppose man should be charged with
crime in any Department Of the u overnment,
will it be urged that the statement of it in docu-
ment would be evidence to go to a jury? Take the
ten members of the British Parliament who have |
been lately unseated for brbery suppose they |
should be, they ought to be, indicted for the |
bribery, it would scarcely, imagine, be deem
ed proper in that country to adduce the re-
ports of the committees of the House Of Commons
which they were deprived of their seats
evidence of their guilt. / differ
ence in principle between that case and this,
except that this ID the weaker of the two; for
the members, it may be presumed, appeared be-
fore the committees. An agent of the govern
ment in San Luis Potosi made report in lS49 to his
government, which is offered in evidence to show
that the accused falsely, not bee it states
certain fact, but because ii does not contain |
one that s alleged by the defendant to exist. This
report Is not unlike the geological reports that
made to most of our State governments and trans
united with the message of the Governor to the
Legislature. If man were indicted for obtaining
money by false pretences in saying he had coal
mine in certain district, or, if in the gold bear
ing States, gold mine, it would scarcely be al
lowed the prosecution TO adduce Of these
geological reports to show he had such mine
They are no doubt very convenient to the Govern
ment it may be- in reference to taxation certainly
as showing the real quality and wealth of the
country. They extend knowledge and advance
science, but think those are their proper uses.
The evidence ia rejected.
Mr.. MAY. We now offer, without any argu-
ment upon the subject, paper which the witness,
Mr.. Partridge, proves he saw the Secretary of
State take from the archives of the State Depart.
ment of San Luis Poosi--the statist ics of the mu
nicipality and town of LaguinilIas, giving au-
tbentic and particular accounts OF every thing of
public character which exists in that munich
pality, with its boundaries, roads, &C., dated at
Laguinillas, November Is, 1887
Mr.. BRADLEY objected to the paper
The CoURr said it could not be received with
out consent.
Mr.. MAY. We now offer the other papers which
were proved yesterday. We offer first the seals
Chat is impressions of the seas) of the State of
San Luis Potosi. Since these papers were offered
the other day, the testimony of MIR. Partridge
has been given in court that he saw these seals
impressed upon these papers in the State Depart
ment of the State of San Luis Potosi. The ma
pers were offered without evidence then; they were
now offered with evidence of the circumstances
under which they were obtained.
The counsel for the defence objected to the pa
per. Mr.. Carlisle reminding the court that it had |
already decided that no paper should be given to
the jury for the purpose of comparison.
MIR. MAY said the papers were offered before to |
show The handwriting. There was a marked DIFF
ference between the ndwriting and the seals
Mr. BRADLEY read from the Republic of yester |
day the decisions of the court, which he though
were clearly applicable to this
Mr.. May referred the court to 4 Cowen and
Hills notes to Philips Evidence, D. 2SO, to show
that there was distinction between seals and
handwriting. Seals could not be presented by
themselves but must be pr scented with evidence
of their authenticity. They had therefore called
the witness, Partridge, to authenticate them. He
referred to a case, in Cranch's Supreme Court
Reports, in point. If the objection which was
made the other day was made to these seals-that
they were obtained post litem n,otam-he submitted
that they had removed that objection by proving
tina they were obtained from the Office of the depart.
ment These we're the papers be offered the other
d,v. h,,t tbeu uvere now offered with evidence IF