The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1853-04-27

to whom the money! were paid: but they want to
Amount of money he has paid to thoss persoos
| without specifying on Whist account. He saye s.
| docs not know on what account o. to whom ~
| money paid.
| bat do not think it ought TO 20 beyond what ~
witnesses have received who have been examined
nere. Iney have right to trace op. and to chow
That "A. b. received 20 much money And that
e. D. paid 1t to the witness; and that L what they
cay they are going to do.
MIR. MAY. Neither Mr. Slacum nor Mr.. Smith
are witnesses in this cause.
| The CoURr. Any person who saw il oa,d the
| witness could prove it also.
| Mr. CARLISLE. Cannot show what amount
was PAID TO them, and then ask how much was
PAID 70 the witnesses? What 10 the mystery about
| III What has the Government been doing that
tn'y are not willing to let know? We simply
desire to get at fact in this cause; and as we ca
not get at It directly, obliged to get at it
indirectly, by Legitimate means, and begin lon q
way Oft When we find the agent of the Govern
ment did not pay the witnesses directly we have
right to know whom be did pay; how much he
placed in their hands; and bow much money they
paid TO the witnesses.
The Couar. You have proved by this agent tina t
he paid money to Mr.. Slacum, Mr. Buc kinpham
Smith, and Mr.. Fendall. Now if you can nrov.
these persons paid money 10 witnesses it is right
Mr. BRADLEY think that it ia competent. on
the part OF the defence, to show if they can thai
the United States have taken money out of the
treasury without warrant of law. do not how.
ever, state that fact. 1t ia in connexion v;t n
o'her matters IN this cause, TO go to a iury for
waot IT 10 worth. The applica ton of it is another
/ question. We wish these questions reserved and
not decided until the matter is fairly brought to
| the notice Of the court That Mr. Buc kim cha
Smith was one of the commissioners sent out bv
the Government to Mexico, and that Mr. Slacum
was the agent employed by the Government have
already been given in evidence. suppose it is
proper, hrst, to show what they have received in
| order thatwe may show that they have applied
| TINS money 10 the procurement of testimony not
only as to the witnesses who have been ex smined
but also as to the witnesses who have not been ex
| amined in this cause.
| The CouRr. | think the only Legitimate no;nt in
tnis inquiry is to what effect il has had upon
witnesses; and, with that view. you have a right
70 inquire no" nucn those Witnesses received, as
the court stated yesterday, and one way of Q ct
ing at It, the questions you have put to the witness
are perfectly proper. 1t does not appear TO me that
now, to propose to ask what sums were paid, tends
| - prove any thing, or is legitimate subject of
| inquiry In this cause. The object is to see what
the witnesses who have been examined have re-
celved. do not think we have any thing to do
with the agents of the Government
Mr.. BRADLEY. (To the witness Can YOU state
from memory when these sums were paid TO
Messrs. Fendall. Sacum, and SMITH
Ans. No, sir, cannot.
CUES. Was 1t since the indictment was foundp
-dns think not.
CUES The indictment was found year ago last
July, and have the payments all been made since
that time?
Ans ] think the payments must have com
menced since the indictment found. | have
not distinct recollection about the matter did
not know the objects of the payments.
Inc Cousr' You can tell whether were
made lately, not,
dns. Yes, sir, some of them were made lately
Only one has been made recently.
Mr.. MAY None OF this money will be found TO
have been paid to any person for attendance as
witness in this cause; and Understood the decision
of the court to conhne the inquiry to the amount
paid witnesses In this Mr.. Buckingham
Smith had nothing to do with the Treasury De-
partment. He was an officer appointed By the
Senate of the United States Mr. Sacum was ap.
pointed by our Minister in Mexico.
The CoUsr. The Treasury of the United States
no doubt furnished the means
MIR. MAY. Undoubtedly; but Mr. McKaps can
have no knowledge of what Mr. Smith has received
commissioner. The Treasury of the United
States have no more to do with the accounts of the
Senate than | have.
The CoUar. The Comptroller settles The accounts
of the officers of the Senate Do not all their &c.
commits pass belos&you, Mr.. Whittleseyl
Mr.. Whittlsssy' Yes, air; quarterly
Mr.. MAY When finally liquidated they go to
the Treasury
The CoUsT- Yes, sir.
Mr.. BRADLEY. Ito Mr.. whittlesey,) Are the
accounts of the disbursing officers brought up an
| nually9
Ans They are, generally.
Ques. Then moneys placed in the hands of the
discussing officer last fall would be accounted for
/ by this time?
] -dnS. The disbursing agents make out their &C
| counts, and return them to the Comptroller The
time OF their being acted upon in the Auditors Of
ice depends upon the state of the business of that
| office. 1t is very frequently the case " hen there
ia pressof business, that he accounts remain un-
settled for six, nine or twelve months after being
/ lodged there
Ques. Would twelve months be your limit
-Ans. No. sir; it is the design to have the ac
counts settled as rapidly possible.
Ours Were any accounts of the sums paid TO
n. md
your office?
Ans. They have not come from the First Audi
tors Office yet
Mr.. BRADLEY said that, in the opening of the
cause, the United States bad proposed to show that
they had offered every facility to the defendant for
the procurement of testimony for his defence that
the defendant was charged with having wifu,Iy
refused to join the commission going to Mexico;
and while there, with having wilfully united with
Colonel Abbot in his letters to the commissioners
1t was charged upon the defendant with all the
eloquence of the other side, that be had not re-
sponded to the committees of the two Houses
Of Congress, which had instituted an inye,-
tigatiop the result of which, if in his favor,
would have had effect on the decision of
this court. The defendant offered to show
that the Government had not acted towards
HIM in the manner claimed; and, to do this was
it not competent 10 look into the machinery which
had been put in operation, and the means EN- ploy-
ed by the Government from 1851 to procure testi
mony gaipst him? II the defendant's conduct were
be inquired into in that respect aud he was to be
\ assaulted because be kept aloof from the Govern
ment IL not competent set for tn as powerful
reasons any which could operate upon the Judi
| cial mind Why he ought to have kept aoof9 How
| could that be done but by showing that the Gov
| eminent had taken money out of the treasury
without appropriation of Congress, 10 be disbursed
/ by agents not appointed by law? That was test-
mony of the highest value. One of the means of
| probing the conduct Of the Government was TO as
certain the sums of money placed in the hands of
secret agents for the procurement Of testimony
against the defendant. He (Mr. Bradley did not
mean TO impeach the conduct of the President or
! Attorney General, or anybody else in this matter
He only said that if the money had been applied
| as alleged, it was without the authority of law
Mr.. MAY. The court has decided that question
and have nothing further to say the subject
The CoURr. | still remain of the opinion that
we cannot inquire into the conduct of the Presi-
dent in relation to this matter. He is bound to
discharge his duty on his own responsibility and
he is not accountable TO this court for that This
court it appears to me. can 60 no further into it
than it has necessarily gone already. so far as
there is evidence, OF course the conduct Of every
body who has been brought into review is the sub
ect of remark, no matter who be is, whether the
President of the United States or anybody else.
Mr. BRADLEY. We driven, them to the ne
cessty of examining the District Attorney.
The CoURr / cannot help that.
The DISTRICT ATTORNEY. I said that the court