The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1853-03-26
THE GARDINER CASE.
CRIMINAL COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA

r.
CRIMINAL COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA.
[REPoRrED ron THE RxpuBL1c.l
The United States us George A. Gardiner, (indict-
cd Ior Iaise swearing, in order to procure an
award from the late Mexican Board OF Commits.
sioners:l Messrs. Philip R. Fendall, United
states district Attorney. and Henry May, Ios tne
United States; and Messrs. Joseph d bradley,
James M. Carlisle, and B. F. Perry, OF South
Carolina, for the defendant. ass-
TWELFTH Day Thausday. March "a.
Judge CaAwroRp, in Difference to the wishes of
other parties connected with the court, ordered
that the court would not sit to morrow.
The DISTRICT ATTORNEY proposed to call the
Hon. George Evans, one of the Board of Commits
misscners, to identify certain papers as having
been filed BY the defendant in support of his
claim, before the filing Of the papers given in ey
dence on the 2lst instant stating that they should
offer those papers in evidence as false papers.
tending TO show the guilty knowledge of the de.
PENDANT IN taking the oath. He hoped the witness
would be permitted to identify the papers now. as
he was anxious to leave the city. -. ~
mr.; BRADLEY objected, but after explanation
withdrew the objection and
non: George Eoans ,Oas recalled.-He identified
paper marked t'No. g." and purporting to be
the declaration of John c Gardiner, as having
oeen before the board said he recollected that
paper very we'll. No. 4. (affidavits of Juan Soto,
s sn;'h SMarlno, w p Johnson, James Boswell
MI
purported to be evidence taken in ls49. Il was
certhed to by Mr.. Slemmon. He had no doubt
that tnat paper was before them he recollected
very wen tnere were papers of that description be-
were in Spanish. ~
They were translated, and he presumed tho
transiations shown him (paper No. s. were correct
ne identned them as having been before the board;
SAID tney were the hrst, or nearly the first, series
OF dispositions that were taken. They were acted
upon by the board; also recollected the book with
RED cover, numbered $685." Ga copy of the de-
AM oook OF mining accounts and operatons
also the book numbered on the inside "33;'' the
ia'ter appeared to be translation of the former;
mad no doubt that it was the same book which was
before the board. It contained weekly statements
OF the operations of the mines. They examined it
with great deal of particularly, and many times.
All of those papers and books before the board
when they adjudged this claim, as the papers of
the board as such. The red book was not an orr
ginal book. II was copy of the original It an,
peared the board to be copy, being all written
IN the same hand, and with too great uniformity
to De daily minutes; and they interroeated Dr.
GARDNER respecting it, and he said it was a copy
BY MIR. BRADLEY. / find a number of pencil
marks in the translation. Have you any recoIlec.
Ans. have no recollection of any pencil marks
being in the book at that time. lam quite conf
dent they were not in them.
CUES. (After examining the book with witness.)
you can identify the book?
Ans. Yes; it is under the date of 10th March
1916. remember it because asked some expla-
nations about it.
CUES. understand you to SAY that when these
books were before the board, DR.. Gardiner was
present, and you asked him questions respecting
them?
CUES. You have spoken of his examination be-
fore the board particular occasion; do you re.
member bis having been before the board at any
other times
Ans. No other time.
Cues. Do you remember the Signature of the
Mexican Minister, Rosas?
dns do His signature, or what purported to
be his signature, was before the board ia several
cases. cine book marked No. 80 was again shown
to witness, who said he remembered the signature
purporting to be that OF Rcsas. 1t was on at the
time the book was before tn em)
Mr.. BRADLEY. put you a question! with some
hesitation, not knowing how far your answer may
be evidence. wish you to state the action of the
board upon TINS claim; to say whether it was tho
roughly examined and adjudicated after mature
elaboration, and their mode of proceeding.
Mr. MAY That we object to.
The Court. That has already been proved by
two or three witnesses. Mr. Evans himself testi.
ned 10 it on his examination in chief; also Colonel
Payne.
MIR. BRADLEY. My object is to show that the
commissioners had an opportunity to state here,
under oath, their action upon this claim, and the
mode By which they arrived at the result As
understand Mr.. Evans is about to leave the city
and do not know that he will return, / wish him
TO state their mode of proceeding, and the reasons
for their action.
Mr.. MAY. Your honor will see that here is a
collateral question started which NAV run to a
great length. What more than the fact that he
presented a memorial for a claim, and that they
allowed bis claim, ia necessary? Of what conse-
quence ls it to have what third parties thought and
said about this claim? The very ground upon
which the prosecution proceeds here is, that the
commissioners appointed under the treaty of G ua-
dalupe Hidalgo were imposed upon. What can it
signify, then, what Mr. Evans, Mr.. Smith, or
Colonel Payne did, acting upon these papers?
The CoURT. believe this point has been test
fed to before.
Mr.: FssDALL. 1t has, by Mr.. Evans and Colo
mel Payne.
Mr.. BRADLEY contended that the evidence now
sought might tend to show the guilt or innocence
OF the accused, and was therefore pertinent Evil
dence had also been given by previous witnesses
upon the very point about which it was now pro-
posed to lnterrogate MIR. Evans. This mode of
examination had been opened by the prosecution,
and 1t came with bad grace from them to object |
TO it now
Mr.. MAY rejoined. The counsel for defendant
had presented the question on different ground |
IL q as now proposed 10 allow the jury to draw in.
terenees in regard to the guilt or Innocence of the
accused from the action of the board; course,
however, which he considered wholly uniustifia- |
bic. While the old English rules of evidence had |
been broken down, and the greatest latitude was
allowed in some of the States there had been no |
change here. The laws of this district remain the
'e1io 20 Wei nltJ years ana al teen
nicalities OF the law are yet preserved. As the |
other side seemed to insist these technicaties,
the prosecution would have to do the same
The acts OF the commissioners which all took |
place after the fling of this memorial could not be
as in any way forming part of the res
gesiR.
The CoURr said the evidence proposed is pre-
ciseiy what has been before the court before. Mr..
Evans spoke of it; Colonel Payne spoke of it on
cross examination, and more fully than Evans
That 10 before the jury; ! cannot retract that.
think that that it ia too late for e to shut the
door. ] would if it were original question. But
the United States have done the same thing; they
proved the examination of DR.. Gardiner there, and
the pains taken by the board.
Mr. FENDALL contended that the testimony re.
ferred to by the court was all introduced fer the
purpose of Identifying the papers, and not to show
the action of the board.
The CoURT. The quo amino of the examination
! have nothing to do with. The witnesses did
make the statements. I cannot allow examination
upon sde and close the doors to the other eide
1t must be equally open to all
Mr.. BRADLEY. can modify the question. By
referring to your examination in chief, find that
you stated DR.. Gardiner was before the board;
what he said and how the commissioners acted
In relation to his claim, SC. Now will YOU be GOOD
enough to state, 30 far as you can recoilect what
was the action Of the board upon his claim from
she hrst time it was brought 10 their notice?
Witness The fret thing, as stated the other
Il