The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1853-05-08

The evidence adduced by him to epel the abb and neg
alive The fraud.
Mr May said. that the precise question 10 be deter
mined this application was whether certain letters
proved 10 be IN the Handwriting OF John Charles Gsrd
ner wtness examined Tor the ,rayeser addressed to
Manuel yeraslegui whose and official acts connect
him with this the author OF certain certificates
upon books and documents presented substantive evil
denee Tor the deieDee-wbether these letters compe
evidence for the consider OF the Jury The let
tes-some fifteen in numberhad been read to the court,
their contents appreciated and their direct relation 10 all
that is dark and mysterious in this transaction plainly
and they the most decisive evidence touching
this inquiry in his (Mr Mays) judgment which the
tufe OF the case could present before the jury When we
investigating the truth OF business mysterious IN
many oil lis relations, light clear and 50 bright had
been thus shed upon and while could not wonder
that the learned counsel who defended the should
desire nterpose their hands between This light and the
minds OF the jury, they should teel authorized 10 wonder
prodigously If the court should shut It out where me
evidence decisive. as he begged leave 10 Say mus
was, its admissibty became perhaps The most important
inquiry that had been presented to The consideration OF
the court during the progress OF me cause he ! VI
Nav thought that every question which had heretofore
been muoed absolutely Insignificant compared with
the importance of this the present propositions as mat.
Ter OF moral evidence, il would strike the mind oil
every candid man As matter OF practical considera-
ion if those letters bu, the declarations OF a
stranger, had been argued, and in no way went 10 re-
fleet the guilty designs OF the averser harm could be
done to him by admitting them butt on The other hand,
il they OF the character which he conceived them 10
be- ncaculabe harm would be done by suppressns him
Therefore, taking practical view OF the question as 10
The sbiity rejection of this evidence, II must
TO the court that while to admit H. II il had no rea-
The case, could do harm 10 the trayerser 10
ect would be 10 do The greatest amount Of wrong
Inc people and government of The United States who
here the plaintiffs in this cause. He MT May was &C
customed 10 look at these questions as they struck
mind practically, and they appealed 10 his
sense, because he knew, lawyer, by the declsra
tons OF the ables, judges, that the rules OF legal evil
dcnCe were, after all nothing but the deductions of
mon sense; and If he could see how common sense
view would place the matter as question OF evidence,
he could pronounce with pretty safe judgment whether
u
therefore, always extremely grathed when he saw the
question prima jac addressing itself in the conclusive
way IN which Tins did 10 his common sense Tor teen
he thought he could always find abundance OF strong le
gal authorities TO support il. Any who looked with
the eyes OF common sense on question like this could
not tail 10 be convinced at once by such proof lie had,
therefore, felt bound TO address these observations to the
Court, showing The practical importance oil the question
before IT, and how such practical things deserved 10 be
attended TO when they concerned the administration of
justice. he knew that sometimes happened that tech
meal rules went contrary these, and overturned them
and he knew that it was because of this that sort OF
repoach had been brought upon the administration Of
the laws. He knew that il was because OF this that the
legislatures OF this and other countries promoting
improvements TO aapt those technical rules 10 the
suggestions OF common He could point the Court
10 iBnumerabe authorizes from The lips OF most enllgh
ened Judges TO the effect that the tendency OF the judicial
mind IN day Is, and must continue 10 be, 10
large the area OF the rules OF evidence, and TO open
wider the door 10 the admssoA OF TRUTH rather than
close It, And whenever the institutions of society,
especially those which concerned the administration
of jusice-and there of more Importance
got behind the progress OF society," they would always
those enlightened judges inclined 10 advance the
work OF judicial reforms by their construction and appii-
cation OF The rules oi evidence Nothing said Mr. May,
SO much distinguished the greatest OF all ludges-Lol
Manshed-as the common sense view he took OF all
those questions and The strenuous stand he made to
pity the rules OF law and evidence and bring the de-
examinations OF the courts down 10 The rules OF common
sense. The question presented by the United States,
rather by the objection OF The counsel OF the
came in rather unusual shape before the court, be-
questions concerning accompces had been made
n. ~
stand By the government In that case the accompce
came undoubtedly IN very questionable shape; and all
the The law OF evidence admonish 10 treat
his testimony with many grains of allowance He ap.
peaTed IN that case guilty, IL were, OF act OF treason
in appearing witness, and therefore he must be
robofaed Not so when the declarations OF the accom-.
pce broug BIT into the court and The very him.
sell presented BY his confederate witness The
and 10 that character as truthful person In this respect
the court would that the question distinguished
from mat which usually before II The admlssby
OF evidence accomplish His declarations against
the ii they be admissible, would have
tboratve weight from The fact OF his having been pre-
scented his witness. He could hardly conceive OF any
evidence which could be satisfactory 10 the mind
than that OF witness coming with the additional
tons giving authority il the part OF the defence
The best evidence OF which any subject susceptible
intricate and mysterious IN It's details as this would be
the confession Of the accused man himself and next 10
his confession would be that of his accomplish And
this the character OF the present offered evidence Any
confession by letters or IN any other solemn form tha,
would imply deliberaon, would be received The very
highest and best evidence, especially II IL comes from
man having the same purpose knowing the same facts
and being concerned in the affair with the accused
And further, when you that man making these dec
sations into the bosom Of another accomplish in all the
confidence which usually subsisis between partners in
crime, man can be mistaken about the authority due
to such statements They irresistible in convincing
the mind OF every candid inquirer This testimony is not
INFERIOR matter oil moral truth, 10 the admissions and
confessions OF George Gardiner himself Look ing at the
internal evidence OF The letters he inclined TO the
opinion that perhaps the witness might be considered
rather the principal and the averser accessory. The
knowledge OF John Charles Gardiner 10 this appears
TO be comprehensive and exact He appears have
been the efficient active workingman in the whole busi-
ness OF making up aud defending this atrocous scheme
OF fraud To shut out, then, proof like this
eprse fit for the ingenuity OF the counsel on the other
side. But whether II TIT to be gTathed by the court
was another and difficult question. We contend
that this evidence is admissible two grounds FIRST
substantive evidence against the traverser; and second
evidence against the witness But may be well, be-
fore discussing these propositions TO consider the char
acer of these inquiries they relate to that division oil
practice which distinguishes law from fact.
In that celebrated decision OF Lord Mansfield, in the
case of the King the Dean oil 81 Asaph, II IS laid
down by that great Judge that the maxim ad qus-
honen, &c. is fundamental one, without single excep
lion and 1t has been ever ack lodged IN Eng
land and country The Judge decides The law, and
the jury the facts"
The consideration OF these letters is certainly ques.
ton OF fact and such questions ALWAYS belong 10 the
Jury But here also question OF intention, the quo
mo OF these letters 10 be investigated, and This al
ways FOR the jury The counsel read from the reports
OF The Supreme Court the OF White ps Nichols
4 Dinsman Wilkes
i The determination OF questions TO the sdm.sibty
of proof is exclusively for the court and is necessarily
con6ded 10 The discretion Of the Judge in each particular