The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1853-04-08


will see that this just step has bcen approved:
protest to you the assurances Of my particular
esteem. ,-cor,
To Mr.. GsoaeE A. GARDINER.
(SeAl OF the Prefecture Of Rio Vsrde.1
Mr.. BRADLEY. Here 10 another paper liz Spanish.
Ask him If he knows that handwriting and the
seal?
Ans The printed seal 10 that of the paper OF the
Secretary of the State of San Luis Potosi, but this
il a sheet which has been stolen. This paper 10
kept under lock and key. This is the KIND OF pa
per that used at that time for ofhcial CON-
munications. 1t has been extracted or stolen, Do.
cause they never use any wax seals Of the otate OF
San Luis Potosi, and because the handwriting -
not that of any clerk in that Secretary's once,
because the signature which Gays Luis Guxman 10
forged, and because Don Luis Guzman being
Secretary Of State, docs not write communications
on paper of the Governer's office, but on paper
with the stamps of the Office Of the Secretary
This paper can only be used by the Governor him
self.
Ques Ask him if that paper could not be used,
with the consent of the Governor, to write COM
munication under his directions?
kinds of paper-one like this produced, which il
used by the Governor in bis communications to
the supreme authority Of the General Government
and the government Of the State, and another used
tosi, which is exclusively reserved for his COM
mupications with the inferior authorities Of the
same State.
Cues repeat the last question, and tell him to
anwser it "yes' or "no!"
Ques Ask him if there is any law OF the state
to prohibit it?
Ans. To require law for such prohibition ap-
pears not to be worth the trouble 1t is prohibited
by common sense.
CUES. Ask him eyes" or "no;' is there any
law to prohibit it?
Ans. If there is law to prohibit it, it has ever
come to his knowledge.
Ques. OF what county is he q native?
Ans. OF Moreiia.
Quss Near the capital OF Machoacan?
-Ans.N No. Morelia is the capital of Machoacan.
CUES. Was he born in the city OF Moreliaa
Ans. He was.
CUES. When did he remove from there for the
frat time?
-Ans. In the year 1S4l.
Ques. When did he go to San Luis Potosi3
Ans. He went there from Morelia in l04l.
Cues. In San Luis Potosi did be know Don Jose
Antonio Barragan?
Mr.. FENDALL. We object to that question; we
did not ask him any thing about Antonio Barra-
gan.
Mr.. MAY. Isuppose the proper time to object
is, when an improper question is asked?
The CouRT. Why is the question improper?
MIR. FENDALL. Because there 10 no foundation
laid for it in the examination in CHEZ.
The Court. And do you mean to say that the
defence can only ask such questions in their cross
as relate to what you have aske in
your examination In chief!
Mr.. MAY. Certainly. The law on that subject
has been distinctly laid down by the Supreme
Court in the of the Philadelphia and Trenton
Railroad Company us Stimson, in II Peters.
Mr.. NJ. read the case, and commented upon it;
but report Of this days proceedings has run to
such length. that we cannot do more than give a
mere reference to the case
Mr.. BRADLEY. If you look at the case more mar
rowly, you will see that the rule laid down by the
Supreme Court il restricted to that particular case
Mr. NAV hpp
mistaken. The next exception is in page 459, of
the same volume.
CMr NJ. continued to read.l fanny one thing
can be more cistnctly enunciated than another
as the mode which ia to govern courts in such
cases, Think it ia this rue-that examina.
ton must be confined to what has been elected in
the examination in chief
MIR. BRADLEY replied and
Mr.. FKNDALL rejo;ned quoting Greenleaf, sec.
AS After which
The CoURr said 1t is proposed to ask the wit
ness a question, TO which objection is made on the
ground that the cross-examination must be con:
fined to the matter which the witness was ex-
amined in chief. My idea OF the rule of cross-ex-
amina ton is much wider than that alluded to by
The counsel for the defence. by no means think
t il 80 restricted as the counsel have commended
starkic, is: 1.-THE learned judge here quoted the
law. for which we have not room.]
What shows that the right to cross examine is
not co-extensive with the right Of examination in
L
quote from Starkie.J
What shows further that it il not necessary that
It should be confined to the particular matter about
which he has been examined is the following.
The judge again quoted from Star kie.
The law of England on the subject, / think, 10
clear and plain; and my opinion was that the same
rule prevailed in the United States, until heard
he case read by the counsel for the prosecutioni
md of course am bound by the decisions of the
Supreme Court OF the United States, although do
not think the referred to by the prosecution is
exactly applicable to the matter in hand. have
heretofore thought that the right of examina
ion was limited only by the issue, and that cross
examination might be made in regard to every
hing in the issue but this seems to limit it to
he facts and circumstances connected with the
matters stated in the direct examination, and the
court rules accordingly.
MIR. BRADLEY. Does the court mean to say that
We may not test the witness to ascertain whe Their
he is speaking the truth?
The CouRr sad nothing of the kind. You NAV
'sk the witness any question which may test bis
'eraoty on any matter thing connected with
lis examination in chief. ! think the rule goes
'nly to matters and facts connected with the ex.
animation in chief
which may tend to elucidate or explain what he
has already said?
The CoURr. Oh, certainly.
Mr.. BRADLEY. Then ask him if he knows Anto-
Mo Barragan?
Mr.. FkNpALL. / really do not see the connexion
Of the question with the case.
Mr.. BRADLEY. We cannot help that, MIR. Fem
dali. We see it we'll enough.
Another long discussion arose as to the admissi-
by of the question; after which the court said be
would examine the subject of the extent of the
right of examination more fully, and, in the
mean time, would not restrict the counsel for the
defence to any particular mode OF inquiry, unless
1t evidently we at beyond the issue.
Mr.. BRApLEY. Ask if the witness knows Don
Jose Antonio Barragan, of San Luis Potosi?
Ans. He does.
Ques Did he hold an Office in that government
from the year 1876 to l649?
Mr.. FENDALL. What on earth has that to do
with this case?
The CouRr. l cannot tell; but suppose the
counsel have some proper object in view.
Mr.. CARLISLE. Are we to tell the prosecution
what our object ia in every question which we ask!
Why, sir, it would be the strangest thing in the
world to imagine If We to be called upon at
every step TO explain ourselves and expose our Case
we might veil give up all cross ex animation At
once and let the statement of the witness be taken
for just what it il worth, and then take the same
course with Witnesses and let il be fpul Dick,
pull Devil" Certainly something 10 due to the
court, we'll a. to the gentlemen Of the bar-some
little LATITUDE, oven when your honor yourself can
not see precSey how the question may 90. II 10
enough for me to know that in this very court, in
the indictment for the forgery of these papers,
that indictment found on the testimony of this
same Barragan. He 10 the head and front of this
prosecution, and that is enough to satisfy your
honor that We are not going beyond legitimate
bounds in the question We ask.
Mr. EeNDAII Rnt we ~.