The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1853-03-14
The TRIAL OF DR.. GARDNER.

~,
70 Procure an Award from the late Mezican
Board OF CommlssiOncrs.
from the Washington Republic, March 12.]
CRIMINAL COURT FOR THE DISTRICT or COLUMBIA.
The United States vs. George n. Gardna.-
Messrs. Philip r. Fendall, United States District
Attorney and Henry May, for the United States and
nessrs; Joseph Il. Bradley, James N. Carlisle, and
Mr.. Fendall proposed to take up case 81 on the
docket-that Of John Charles Gardner.
Mr. Bradley objected, saying that he and his as.
their attention to the case of George A. Gardner,
being perfectly satisfied that if the United States
should fail in the first they would not press the Sc
cond case, which is that Of John Charles Gardner.
ner, and the proposition now made was a surprise
Mr. Fendall argued that it had been the usage of
the counsel OF the government to regulate the order
OF trial, and he trusted that this would not now be
would ask to take up the case of John @. Gardner,
and therefore did not intend surprise.
Mr.. Bradley repeated that he and his associates
were taken by surprise. The case of John Charles
Gardner had never been called; his counsel was not
ready; and now it was proposed to try it. The
counsel of George A. Gardner, however, were now
prepared for trial in the last named case.
Mr.. Fendall said that the cases were arranged on
the dOcket:-33, George A. Gardner; 81, John
Charles Gardner; and IS, George A.. Gardner. They
were all for trial during the present term; and be-
side it was important for the ends of public justice
that the case OF John Charles Gardner should first
be tried.
Mr.. Carlisle contended that the case of George A.
Gardner should first be tried it went to the very
root Of the whole matter. He is accused of present
ing claim based on mere vision. Ii this is true,
all the dispositions in its support are founded on
fraud as a matter of course. Why, then propose to
try the case involving single affidavit in support of
the claim? Why not march up to the strong part at
and there was no reason why that of George A.
Gardner should be now thrust aside.
Mr.. May said the simple question was as to the
there are three indictments touching this transac-
ton of fraud committed on the government. Two
OF these are against George A. and one against John
Charles Gardner. They stand together. The case of
tict Attorney offers to try the of John Charles
Gardner He thinks it is his right to regulate the
order of trial. And he Qfr May) concurred in this
view. The case Of John Charles Gardner was the
hensve of the three. The paper is more compre-
hensive and contains more facts than the memorial
of George A. Gardner before the Board Of Commits
sioners. In support of this, he appealed to the in
gentlemen are prepared to try the CASE they
prepared to try the other The grounds assigned by
counsel on the other side are that the case Of John
Charles Gardner is less important, and that in this
they are not ready. And he called on the Court to
act according to the principle it asserted the other
day. and permit the District Attorney to regulate the
order Of trial II this right be taken away by the
Court, it would be with full knowledge Of the re-
suit to public justice.
Mr.. Perry said this was proposition on the part
of the District Attorney to take up the accessory be-
fore the principal. If any one was indicted for MUIR
der and there was an accessory, the District Attor
ney would try the accessory before the principal is
tried He asked the gentlemen on the other side to
point out the distinction between the two cases. 1t
is known that a man by the name of Geo. A. Gard.
ner is accused throughout the length and breadth Of
the land of having perpetrated monstrous fraud
and that his brother is charged with aiding and
abetting him. Counsel have been employed by Dr.
Gardner, witnesses have been brought from abroad
and he (hir Perry was here from South Carolina
to assist in the defence. If John Charles Gardner
should be tried first and acquitted it would amount
to nothing as to the guilt or innocence of DR.. Gard
ner ne had heard no reason assigned for first try
ing the brother Of DR.. Gardner, except discretion
on the part of the counsel for the United States.
Mr.. Bradley remarked that this was not uues-
ton OF order OF business but question of the right
and privilege OF the government to take up what
case It may please whether the other party is pre-
pared or not for trial This was now urged upon the
Court Such a proposition was never entertained
for moment in England, and he trusted it never
would be in an American court of justice. He de-
MED that such rule had existed in this court from
the beginning.
Mr.. Fendall replied, saying he had not claimed
flg1t on the part OF the United States to try de-
tnat it had been the practice OF this court Of the Cir
cult Court (when 1t had criminal jurisdiction and
OF every other court of the United States having such
Jurisdiction, to allow the attorney OF the government
perience had shown that this usage was conducive
to purposes Of public justice. If when a case was
called up the defendant was not ready it was in
cumbent on him to show legal cause for not being
ready The cause now assigned was that the de-
fendant's counsel were taken by surprise They
ought not, however to be surprised. They were
bound to be ready in all the three cases.
The Court explained the rule Of the court, saying
he could see no possible advantage, rather the ad
vantage the government ought to derive by such an
arrangement; and decided. for the reasons which
he gave, that the case Of George A. Gardner must
jury was then empanelled consisting of the fol-
lowing citizens Peter Magruder, John NJ. John
son, Alexander Borland, Abram Butler, Eben Brown
Jesse B. Wilson, James Fualove, Charles H. Lane,
George Crandell.
The witnesses were excluded from the court room
until they shall be severay called to testify.
All witnesses in other cases were discharged until
next Monday week.
Dir. May Cat quarter to two o'clock) opened the
case; and in addressing the gentlemen of the jury
he expressed the pleasure which he experienced
IN renewing his relations with them, which in former
days had been SO pleasant. This pleasure was en-.
HANGED by the responsibility of the Office which he
now occupied, as the humble assistant of the Dis
trct Attorney in the prosecution of this 1t
enhanced too, by the fact that this was the most
important case upon which any one of them had
ever been called on to act, and in long lifetime may
never again be called upon to act on one involving
such momentous features and results. He was graft
Dcu utyUHu HlehsuTt tndt tnl6 CaSe u0uer LneSe CHI
cumstances confded to those who occupy the pc
sition of intelligent men, substantial men, whoare
identified with the responsibility Of the people, and
the support and dignity of the government. The
importance of the grows out of the fact that this
is not only the bodest but the largest and most snc
cessful scheme of fraud ever. within the whole range
OF human history, ,perpetrated against the govern
ment. The very dignity and responsibility of the
government Of the United States were at stake on
this issue It question in the eyes of the world
whether great republic like ours, in the admins
tration of its duties by its subordinate agents is
honest and capable enough to protect itself against
fraud. After further preliminary remarks he said,
with respect to the accused he stands here with the
presumption OF being an innocent man, and must be
allowed the benefit that presumption until his guilt
is proved. The law presumes him to be as innocent
stranger, and the government must be allowed to
stand in the attitude of merely performing its duty
outline Of the character of this and Of what the