The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1853-05-13

Mr.. BaADtsy. Ms. Partridge has stated that The
eehsx paper. bad 10 consented With IT,
WStsss. They bad none In the world.
Mr. MAY. I understand You to Day that that val
the only mining title on record
A.s. II wss the only one that We could find.
MIR. BaApLsY objected.
The Counr. do not think that is strictly in evi
dence.
Mr.. MAY. Do you know where the letters signed
by John Charles Gardiner, and which were read te
| the jury the other day, were obtained
xdns. Yes, sir.
Mr.. BaADLr1. submit to the court that that i,
not evidence.
The Couar. | do not think that il is
MIR. MAY. 1t is part of our case to show how we
got those papers.
The CouaT. 1t 10 part of your CAGE to show thai
John Charles made them, if you can.
Mr.. MAY. We desire to show that they came tc
the person to whom they were addressed.
The Counr is Of opinion that this s not rebuttne
defence have given.
The DIsrRicr ATTORNEY. The letters to som.
extent, BY the decision OF the court, have beer
permitted to go to the jury, and unless they come
in a. rebuttng evidence, they could not come ir
at all They were part of our rebutting evi.
dence. and we have proved them to be in the ha nd
writing OF John Charles Gardiner. We now pro
pose to show how we obtained them
The CoURr Had they dropped from the cloud
it world not have made any difference. The cues
ton ia. we're they the work of the witness, John
Charles Gardiner. taw
The DlsrRscr ATTORNEY. There is no objection
on the ground Of its not being evidence.
The CoUar. I do not think that il 10 evidence O
any thing. rebutting or otherwise.
MIR. MAY. When John Charles Gardiner was or
the stand / asked him whether be had correspond
ed with Verastegu. He said that he had. anr
thereupon presented him With these letters, hict
he refused to admit were part of the correspond
snce which he had with Manuel Verastesui. Now
want to prove that these letters received by
Manuel verastegui from him, and in that way L
contradict him
Mr.. BRADLEY. We waive the objection, to saw,
| dis ussioh.
MIR MAY. (Handing to the witness the letter,
al. T.. Nos 4, S, g. and Ii )" and the petition from
John Charles Gardner to Domingo Chsyes: all o. o
which have heretofore been pubIished.) Do 20,
identify these leterst
Ans. Yes, sir. .1l
| Mr.. CARLISLE. When did you f rst see them2
| Ans. fret saw them in Rio Verde.
Ques Were you present when they were de
| livered?
Ans. Yes, sir; they were delivered by Manue
Verastsgui into my hands at the table at which
| Mr.. BaADLEY. Who was there at the sam
| time?
Ans. Mr.. May. h
Quss. Was there anybody else PRESENT.
Ans. There was nobody else present belon gin
to the commission. MIR Richter was present
Quss. Who js Mr., Richter
-Ans. He ia Prussian.
| CUES. Did he speak English
| MIR. BRADLEY. Isuppose that he spoke Spanish
of course?
Aus Yes, sir.
Mr.. MAY (Hsnding the witness the letter from
the Governor OF Queretaro, and aso the map giver
! to the Senate commission by that Governor :
Have you any recollection of those papers9
Ans. Yes, sir; 1 have seen them before. Th
application for that map was made in Queretaro
&ues. By whom was the application NADER
Ans. BY the chief of the Senate commission In
letter addressed 10 the Governor of Querctaro.
Quss. Was that on your way up into the country
Ans Yes, Sir; the fourth day before we got t
San Luis
Cues. Was the map enclosed in the enveIopt
along with the letter?
Ans. think the letter was enclosed in an en-
velope. The map came to Rio Verde
Ques. Is that letter from the Governor of Opere
taro.
Aus. Yes, sir.
CUES. Was the map received at Rio Verde?
Ans. 1t was received either at Rio Verde or San
Luis; but think il was at Rio Verde Ii NAV be
that it was received at San Luis.
CUES. Do you know what the character of the
application to the Governor was?
Mr.. BRADLEY. would ask the counsel on the
other side whether they have a copy of the lette,
sent to the Governor
Mr. MAY. We have not. In going I'D to the
State of San Luis, an application was made by me
as head OF the Senate commission to the Governo,
OF Queretaro, in passing through bis own citv
Tor copy oft most authentic and recent man OF
that part of his State which lies contipuous to
guinllas. The letter put in Spanish, nd
sent by the witness to the Governor and we desire
him to state the contents of it, that the court
jury may know that the map which presented is
a map of only part of the State of Queretaro
and of that part which lies Immediately south OF
LaguiniIas.
The DISTRICT ATTORNEY The best evidence il
the letter itself The next best evidence ia a cow
of the letter; but where none exists, and IL ia i'm
possible to produce one, the next best evidence ia
that of the witness
The CoURr. You cannot use the conv unIe,,
you have used due diligence to obtain the original.
The DIsrRICT ATTORNEY. Where there is no
copy OF letter, and the original ia in the posses
sion o! person not within the jurisdiction of this
court, We cannot compel him to give it up
The CoUaT. A written instrument ca mot be
given In evidence without showing that the origi-
nal has beenos destroyed, or that II ia in posses
sion OF an adverse party, who refuses to produce it
on notice; and perhaps the rule extends to a case
where toe paper ia possessed by a person without
the Jurisdiction OF the court 1t would be no better
evidence than verbal statement of the contents
ola papsr. There Ia no degree in secondary evil
dence; but STILL before you give evidence of the
contents of paper, it must be shown, in some way
or the other, that the original could not be OBJ
tanned.
Mr.. BsADLrr. If tho letter were, here, it could
not be admitted
The CoURr. l do not think it is a matter of conse
quence any way map 10 evidence of nothin o.
except as diagram to exhibit. Some one must
swear that it is correct.
MIR. MAY. We mean to offer witnesses to testify
to Its correctness. Ny desire now ia to show the
authenticity OF the document. The court decided,
In respect to the treaty map, that the authority
to 1t was because it came from the proper deposit
tory; and that, had il not come from the State De-
partment, it would not have been admitted l
think the present case comes within the same rule.
The CoURT. No; for this is a map from a foreign
government. .i
(To CoNTINUED.1