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

secondly that he was intimately associated with him. y-
ing with him IN the clly OF Washington, aud Interested In
this claim; and multitude OF other given bat
amongst them ALL the counsel have carefully omitted one
which struck rue at the very Threshold and which must
have struck your honorlhe fact that the witness
indicted Tor false swearing that very matter. and that
be went 10 Mexico while his brother in Earope 10
procure testimony for himself preparing for his de
fence; and your honor knows ludciaily that this wit
was indicted Tor false swearing in regard TO the very
matter pending before this Did he then go as
the agent OF his bIoher No, sir; he went TO procure
testimony for himself; and, having procured tina. iesi
mony we offered Il on The stand say, then, that indie
pendent OF the evidence contained these letters there
ID not particle OF proof OF his being agent for his
brother. because show your honor from the records
OF your court that the witness, SO lar from being
agent for anybody, was merely Obtaining evidence for
himself His brother had not been arrested al that
time. SO much, then, Tor the question OF agency.
Now, sir they say that he IS a eonspralor and con,
iederale, and the proof OF that s-as has been stated
and again by both the counsel Tor the prosecu
ton--that he rs The brother OF the defendant have
endeaveIed TO show your honor that the witness went TO
Mexico procure testimony for himself but has been
urged thai il is impossible that be could have done this
without compensation and without having an
interest in this defendants Now put these two
arguments together: hrs that the witness is the
brother Of the defendant, and therefore strongly in
ieresed in feeling and, secondly that he could not go
there to get this evidence without some compensation
word hrs however, about this letter 10 Quiros. IL
your honor please, IN my understanding OF collateral
matter there is such thing unless this letter 10 Quros
is collateral. What is it, 1t is written in December
1874. Let if that is collateral not refer TO the
decision your honor has already made when The witness
asked if he Mr. Quiros anybody else at this
place. and your honor ruled il being purely col
lateral Is this letter, then collateral noi They have
said that George Gardiner was IN Mchoacan IN 1914 or
ls45 they think They that by certain letters m
troduced by Mr. Wright from the hand OF Mr.. A. j.
Hacey, the writing master OF Charles Gardiner, who
it is proved taught Mr. Charles Gardiner TO make
his Aoursh and then they read certain letters pro-
duced from his possession through the fundamentally
of James Wright Now they say that it is material
fact 10 prove that George Gardiner there Well be
NAIL 1ahp thSt
not word was said 10 him about MIchoacan in his
examination in-cbiet, but his examination your
honorpemted The United States counsel 10 ask him where
he during the whole period OF time he was in Mex
leo. He is asked about various places, which he an
swers and then he is asked whether he knows this
Quros and your honor specially ruled that they could
not ask him any such question Now he has stated thai
he was at Mchoacan IN 1885 aud it is sought to
contradict him upon The very point on which your honor
know MIR. Quiros' Whyi Because it is collateral.
They say that this letter show that this wness, the
brother Of the accused there but let me ask, would
He has said that his brother was not there he
not asked the question. But, sir without this OBJ
lection the letter would not be evidence merely being
the declaration OF third party. therefore dismiss thai
letter Then as 10 the letter 10 Haley What relation
has the fact of his being MIlahores this issue any
more than his being in any other place None in the
world 1t is purely collaterala fact about which the
United States had right TO inquire except for the pur-
pose OF refreshing memory testing It's accuracy That
letter was written IN 1856 and taking INTO consideration
the fact that he getting evidence for his own de-
fence he writes to inquire what was contained in that
letter. The letter was here read
How, then is that evidence PERTINENT this issue! How
does it bear upon Not in the emotest degree Does
that in any way prove that he the agent of his
bro,heri Not at all Does it prove that there any
contederacy between them Not at ALL That is not the
issue here would be purely collateral and does not
bear upon the issue whether the memorial was true or
FALSE whether the defendant truly falsely
therefore dismiss that letter being purely collateral.
Now, what is the further proof' They say q find il in
Mr. FendaPs remarks published in The Republic this
mornng) that it is stated that Philip C. Johnson testified
that the brother him. &c, and that he called it
our" claim [Mr b. continued to read from the report
% show that the statements made by MIR. Fendall and
Mr. May wholly unsupported by the proof]
Now, where is 1" our" claim? Where are we shown 10
be connectedl Nowhere. What further? They rely
upon Mr.. Green, and he tells you many words that
neither OF them told him that Charles interested in
his brothers. claim; but that Charles had certain claims
in which he interested, and in the prosecution of
which he desired have Mr. Green's assslance-French
claims amongst others
So TAR then we have not particle OF proof OF the dec
laraton of either OF these parties that Charles was inter-
esed in this II seems, sir in these times, TO be
dangerous thing for man 10 have brother and more
dangerous still TO be brother and swear in his be-
the brother then is be affected by all the witness
says or does.
[To Continued