The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1853-04-05


papers being proven makes any difference a. all
1Ae Act that ~ PaFHtdge nav them tsken out
oftbe Office offhe Seryetary of Sate. can1,ot ma ID
= pArticte ok1ifersace For these reSlnns the
ceftt must rect thepapcrs."
The effort &estbe oQ1nsel, If sucoes.f,,a in mi.
n4aner in getting in 3idence a. to the - would
opy in regard q land writing. and sg 'e sec
oodary evidence and mere hear5ay be ohiectad r.
It as incompetent
The CouRr. The counsel for the prosecution base
their argument that there 10 a differences hetvssr
the handwriting and the seals.
Mr.. BRADLEY. 1t the principle on which thew
rest is justthat they can 60 into the archives of
government and have document taken from the
walls and exhibited to them for the mn rr>oss ~ ~
tanning knowledge of the seal of the covern.
ment-so in the same manner they NAV taRe from
the same archives papers with the view Of ohtain;n
knowledge of handwriting. That, NAV Il nlea se
pour honor, is beyond escape Besides. too. the
handwriting of q man varies, and a man miUht
find it exceedingly difficult to day to write in The
same manner in which he wrote four or 1--WE vea r.
ago; but to make seal 10 the simplest thin IN The
world. You have at once pattern from which to
copy. All man has to do is to have an imnreas;on
Of seal, and he can make one TO-DAY nrecissIv
the same as it was four years ago. The fsciI;tv II
counterfeiting seal is so much greater than The
facility of counterfeiting handwriting, that fraud
certainty and infinitely less liability of deect;on
This we know from our daily exparience
Now the question 10 as to the seal of 1850. What
knowledge has the witness of that seal? He was
not in that country in the year 1850. He never
saw the seal until he went on that mission. h Is
then shown papers BY a certain party for the r.r,
paupose-mark it, your honor-for ne reru r,.yno;s
Of enabling him to become scitness. bv showinc
him his handwriting. at the same time that the
party produces to him a seal which he savs was
used in 1850. It is not even knowledge derived
from some third party who has acted unon Il witch
| would, in my opinion, make stronger case: but
il is the merest hearsay from a second party, with
the view of enabling him to become A witness
no says, "this is the seal used in the year 1850.
and now give you an impression ofit.I
Now what are the attending circumstances on
which they claim TO make this evidence? They
rely upon the date of the paper But how can that
affect it, Why, in no way. Then thew relv unon
its being taken from the archives; and what does
that amount to? They have not shown. nor can
they show, that these papers have been acted upon
in any way. They may have been mado, for aught
we see to the contrary, either with a special view
to this case or for any other purpose the most dis
tant and uncomfortable. / think, therefore that
all that has been said the subject of ba writing
applies With infinitely more force to the seal The
question itsef shows that there is stronger and
better evidence behind; that there must be hum
dreds of persons living who know the seal used in
1850, and who have acted upon it; and, inasmuch
as we are entitled to have the best evidence that
can be addoced, presume that is the principal
and broad ground on which all this hearsay has
been ruled tut by your honor.
The CoURr. In decidngthis question the court
must look to general principles and rules. 1t
would ill become the court to impute corrupt mo-
tives TO any man connected in any way with the
evidence offered. j have no right to think that
any such motives exist. The principle on which
the decision pf yesterday was made embraces this
question There is undoubtedly difference be-
tween the Uniformity of signatures and that of
seals, but the danger of connecting evidence when
the witness gees to qualify himself to testify is as
great in the one case in the other. The know
ledge is not derived from ordinary business trans.
actiOns May persons must be able to testify to
this seal IRON the same knowledge that Mr.. Ma
varro possessed, who was on the stand few days
ago, and theyare best qualified, if others at all
qualified, to speak of the seal.
The offer isDverruled.
MIR. MAY Ct. witness.) Are you acquainted with
the Handwriting of Santiago Gomez?
dns. am. have seen him write his name.
Mr. BRADLEY. Before you go any further, allow
me to ask whether this ia the same man whose
name is attached to one of the depOsitions?
Mr.. MAY. Its.
Mr.. BRADLEI. l want to have some proof oil
that.
The Couar. They may prove that afterwards.
II they do not, he evidence goes for nothing.
Mr.. BRADLEY. But submit to your honor that
until that is proved the question is wholly irrele-
want.
The CoURT. The court cannot interfere with the
question. 1t is as to matter of fact; and it is to
be supposed thai the attorney for the prosecution
would not offer il unless it had some bearing upon
the case. What that lie. is afterwards to be ascer-
tanned
Mr.. BRADLEY Ito witness } Before you go any
further ask you whether you obtained any other
signatures than those you have spoken of?
Ans. ! never saw him write on any other occa :
sion than when be signed the deposition in the
office of the alcalde at Guadalcazar.
Mr. BRADLEY. understood you to say that the
man you speak of is a Mexican?
Ans. did not say He is a Spanish subject
a merchant residing in Mexico.
MIR. CARLIsLE. | should like to understand on
what ground it ia supposed that this evidence il
competent. Our attention is called to one of the
dispositions filed by the defendant, purporting to
have been MAIDS by Santiago Gomez, residing al
one time in San Luis Potosi, and at-another time
in the city of Mexico, who goes to state certain
facts in regard to this claim. The offer now is
without any proof toidentify this person-to prove
that the witness saw a man of the same name sgr
a deposition made in the presence of that commits
sion The object of the inquiry suppose, is tt
ascerta whether this signature, which is attached
to the deposition dled by the defendant, 10 the sams
that made by the Spanish subject Santiago Go
mez. Now should like to know in what possible
way that inquiry tends to this issue: 1t this s t.
be admitted, where is such evidence to stop? Sup
pose that the defendant had filed affidavit signee
by one "John Smith," native of England, ant
The with. snys, 81 man of the name {
'John Smith, residing in Mexico, sign his nam'
once to a deposition, and l am prepared to say
from my knowledge of his writing. that the sig
nature TO the deendant's affidavit is not the sigma
ture OF John Smith in KnglAnd,' having seepshin
write once. What. then, if it is not his signature
The counsel will not say, suppose, that the per
son spoken of has any identity with the person
signing this paper, which they allege is fals'
paper?
Mr.. May. Does the counsel desire an answer tt
thatS
Mr.. CARLlsLE. Certainly.
Mr. NAV Certainly; we have the evidence o
the identity.
The CoURT. Then 1t would be better to prove
the identity first before you attempt to prove thu
signature II the identity ia not proven. the proof
OF the signature goes for nothing.
Mr. CARLISLE. They have proved already thai
he ia not the same man. They state that he is 8
Spaniard, and this deposition states him to be q
native Of Mexico
The CnpRT, This is one step towards the objec
they have in view.
Mr.. CARLISLE. Until heard this ! had sup
posed that the evidence was exposed to fatal anc
unans~erable objection lying at the very thresh
Qld-tnat to prove that the witness saw person
named Santiago Comes Sign his name is no evi
dence; that he must identify the person before he
can testify to the signature attached 10 that paper
That s one distinct objection.
The next objection is that this witness goes ou
on the same errand with regard to this signature
"a to all the others, we'll as the seals--ignora an
entirely as to any one signature seal. That il
the secopd objection. He is put up fret upon on.
and then upon smother, when your honor hal
stated that the witness cannot testify as to hand
writing being genuine, if he acquired his know
ledge of it under such circumstances as those
under which The witness testifes to having &C