New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1853-05-21
The Gardner Trial.
QIJIs

WASHINGTON Friday, My 90 1853
In the Gardiner trial this morning ths District Attorney
10 continuation called attention to dscrsp incies between
the evidence before the Board Of Comm soners aad tho
testimony Of Abbot and SloCun The latter none Of
tmbers remains Of the exter building and min
ing machinery described in the deposition before tho for
nsr The mines they visited could not have besn thse for
which clsm allowed There not particle &c ev
deuce thar those mines GARDENERS mines except the
stat. ment a defendant him-ef
Abb.t and Slocum undoubtedly the mines they de-
sribd but those the mines OF Dan in tbe State Of
Quettara. visited by Capt Barry and others He farthsr
0Limsdverted upon the conduct Of accused which he
thought wholly inconsistent with that Of innOeen
conclusion thake ed the Jury for their indulgence 10
the extended remarks he had felt bis DUTY IKE lie
bad never before been engaged in case Of sueh rsoons
bIiy. There never had been q case in this country
-pelbaps not in any country-which deyOlyed high
responsibility upon al concerned The character and
peTperuiy Of political Institutions involved in IT,
The question whether virtue, which the founda'on Of
Republican institutions could b. maintained was at issue
IL was more difficult t. bring offenders 10 justice ia this
country than the mOnarobes Of Europe and the ewes Of
ihis great nation and of the world were upon the jury
looking with anxious solictude a. the result.
lie submitted he 10 the Jury coniden. th It they
would decide, not from motives Of sympathy with the
cusO but out Of srict regard the ends Of public a4
tice, acQui him If reasonable doubt existed in their
IDS, and conyiciing If Otherwise.
Al the conclusion IT the District Attorney remarks Mr.
Bradley in behalf Of the Defense again proposed 70 SUB
NIT IN. case TO the jury without argument
Mr. May inquired whether the Counsel for defense de-
M Bradley shea il understood that they now submit
ted the case to the jury bat that they did waive any
right 20 argue ard were prepared 10 argue
Mr. May stated the rules practice IN Maryland, where
was laid Gown that the closing address Of reply
and the defense made argument Of there could
be no reply. lie desired 10 know if such % be the
practice Of this Curt not he should feel IL his dn,y 70
address be Jury The only consideration which produced
tbs lsast embarrassment hesitation in his mind was
Of public duty. But he should scquesce in the de-
cision # the Court
Mr. Bradley called the attention Of the Court to the decs
ion Oftbe Circuit e. Of this District that ia where
counsel having made the opening argument the Latter are
net eneo further 10 argue the Jury their further night
being merely that Of reply.
Juoge Crawford IN conformity with this decision ana az
The time following the practice in Maryland, decided
that The further gh, OF the United s'aes 70 argue was one
OF reply and consequently counsel for the defendant did
no address the Jury counsel for the United States could
not furfher address them Recess
Immediately Resembling after the recess the Court
directed The Jury retire Il being contrary % the usage
OF this Cor1 for the Jucge 10 charge the jury
The Jury desired take out with them certain papers
but the Ccu-t said according 20 the practice Of this Court
they could take any papers except the Indictment bat
might examine any Other papers IN the evidence before
leaving the Courtroom.
The jury accordingly spent half an hour in carefully ex
aiming the signatures Oh the mining tnes &c aDolging
tracing paper and At o'clock they retired
The District arney offered 20 20 on With the case OF
John Charles Gardner ne1t Monday week 20 which time
the other Jurors had been dismissed In sncpA Of PRO-
trseted rgOmsnis in the present case
Mr. Bradley IN Gardeners behalf expressed desire that
bis case should then DO proceeded with, bat there being
several important jail cases dOcksted which the Court