The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1853-05-10

FROM just so soon is our civil eli ice rel dsred unsafe
care not what pressure exists out OF doors care not
what the American people all the worli may think OF
the rejection OF evidence IN particular case, which may
or may not have been exaggerated ia order produce pub
hc opinion. look TO something higher and holier;
look 10 the plain dictates of duty aud that in which
The general safely and welfare rest.
= What, then, is the rule in regard 10 rebutting proof
NO proof can be admitted rebulng proof which is
cumulative, First, no proof can be admitted which is
not responsive 10 up by the defendant, and
which would not he admissible in chief That is a
sacred great fundamental rule, and | star, with it,
Lei Us ses then what 1t q la order 10 what s its
appcaon, We must see what is the condition OF the
VIII present 10 your honor resume OF the case as
uhuef stand u Inc case set up by the prosecution is
false swearing with regard 10 the memorial in which he
sells up his title TO mines in Mexico of which hs
was deprived by the Mexican government and which
involved heavy expenditures; and he claims indemnity
for his expenditures and the loss Of his mines cali
the attention OF your honor the fact the memorial
does not embrace the abstract OF title from Rio Verde Ii
sets up right to- and title in, and possession Of the
mines What that rghl and title were by what authentic
document evidenced; where The title lodged or
recordednone OF these things appear IN the memorial
agree that afterwards an abstract OF the title from Rio
Verde was 6led. That Is not in the memorial. II
part of the which the government was bound To
show and prove was fraud They were to aegaive all
these substantial parts of that memorial They under
TOOK 10 do BY proving hrst The essential part OF this
case, an ai6i secondly, search for the mines, and that
no mines existed; and thirdly, the forgery of certain
documents or papers which have been filed evidence of
the claim.
Ano,her fact material 10 be considered is this II is
pressed IN The case that The commission the of
the United States. and representing the United States in
this natter advertised OF and shown deed which
the defendant sells up OF record in Lagunilas, and that
they were advertised at The same Il ne of the existence
OF The mines, and an offer made to show them
where they were. This oher The commission declined
will take The resume thus FAR The government under
take 10 show that the claim fraudulent, and there
fore that the oath false, (not that the title in Rio
Verde alsefo that merely incidental and nothing
more) The defendant was on The spot in little village
in the municipality where the mines he with his agents,
and within stones throw Of the house where The
misslones were, and also within stones throw OF the
once where thus deed was recorded and there was an
offer made these commissioners show them the mines
mentioned IN that deed Now at that very time the United
States were possession Of all the proof upon which they
relied to show that this accomplce OF the
defendant. Can any awyerl do not speak of the
sense out OF doorsbut any lawyer doubt that
that evidence OF the and declarations of the
plice agent care moi which, the and decla-
raions OF the defendant, and, SUCH primary and
independent proof, admissible, and which ought 10 have
been admitted, IN order 10 meet the title deed in Lagu
nllss. Your honor will perceive that is not mat
ter 10 which these papes apply, but old matter The de-
fendan says that he has NINE there and title to it.
aud before this Trial the prosecution advertised OF the
title and OF the existence Of the mine. say again. sir.
can any lawyer doubt that hsis evidence in chief Sup
posing then, that they have made ou the which they
have supposed, lmantanand if is necessary can
fer the gentlemen authorities but under stand that it
d-,ha il this evidence in chief and not
admissible responsive 10 matter set up by the de-
iendant IN avoidance OF the charge, that not admss
Cafrnglon and Paine, .. as; and Knapp us. -, did,
500 But, sr we do not want 10 go there. The rule
been down win The utmost srctness by The
cult court in the of Alexandes Hse and Others
and in already ced and upon the fullest
argument precisely as understand to be the rule
that cumulative proof is not admissible rebutting
dence and that no evidence be admitted rebuing
proof which would have been evidence in chief, and
mig ght have been introduced as such.
make that, sir, the hinge OF the whole question. |
deny, however that The witness in any manner IN
eresed with the defendant the which affects him
conspiracy confederacy but before go into that,
will state the general proposition, that unless be
confederate agent there be preteHce that these
letters admissible as evdenee-l mean, independ-
ent proof 90 to the jury. They the dec
laratons OF third party and the rule IN regard that
suppose Is as distinct as any rule we have
Now, let what is the evidence which they
rest the charge OF his being accomplice But first
10 the question oil agency. i admit OF course, that both
acts of his agents within the scope OF his authority and
by bis declarations having reference TO the exercise of
that autborty but they mast first proveaod they have
left out hatbe scope OF bs authority Tney have for
gotten, IN the argument which has been made, that in
order let in the declarations OF an they
prove his authority and its scope, and that these
acts declarations within the scope OF his authority
do not know that could better illustrate this than did
when put question 10 Mr.. May yesterday, when he
said, il send Montgomery county to get deed
| am bound by everything he said and did What am i
TO understand by that that il send aman 10 Montgomery
TO buy horse and give him money for the purpose and
he goes and steals horse and brings him TO me, that
10 be responsible for his feoay' '.Oh no !" they
say, |" that is TOO absurd upon its face" Then IT comes
to The rule within the scope of his authority and that
Sir. was somewhat surprised that that learned and
able counsel should have attempted TO make the rule
much narrower in Goodwln's case than the court laid
down. had supposed that the rule IN regard 10 agen
had been that where you prove the authority and
It's scope. and of agent within that scope, that
them and then only, the principal bound by The acts
OF his agent. The scope OF auhonty,l agree, may be
proved by crcums'anual as well as By direct proof
What was Goodwin's case He had fitted out vessel
for the slave trade and bad put board OF her all the
appliances used in and suited tor that trade in Baltimore
and then TO ST. Thomas and tired TO engage another
crew. The question was whether Goodwin intended
that she should upon slavery expedition conlraryto
the laws OF the United States Can anybody doubt that
the was engaged in the very thing which his EN-
pioyer designed he should There proof OF the
terms OF his agency but the scope OF his authority was
10 get a and engage master, and IRON the COM
this evidence against the owner NOW, we
admit all that So in regard the American Fur Compsnys
case selling liquor TO the Indians contrary to the laws
OF the United STATES They set out on their trading ex
pedon with little rundle OF liquor Tor theu yoy
age but with large supply, which supply was sod 10
the Indians Tne question was whether or not tney
had fitted themselves with this large quantity, and
whether or not this circumstances IRON which the
Jury might infer intention 10 violate the laws OF the
United States in trading this liquor with the Indians,
and whether these people, who carried II up the Mis-
the only two which strkingy illustrate the rule
hrs the fact of the agency and then the scope OF the
thory which may be proved by circumstances. And
what sort OF circumstances in these cases justified the
application OF the rule
Then, let us what sort OF circumstances we find in
this case As 10 the question OF agency it idle TO talk
about it, The who wrote all thesa-leers and did
all this work, did II kno eingly, If we are TO adopt
the construction pat upon them by The counsel ior ,he