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

TIL b REP UBLIC.
THE GARDINER CASE.
CRIMINAL COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA.
[aEPoRrED FOB THE REpuBLIc.]
TWENTY-SECONDD AY--Wednssday, April 6.
On the opening of the court this morning the
witness Aguilar was asked in regard to two typo
graphicaI errors in our report of Monday's pro.
ceedlngs-nrst where he ia represented as saying
court Of the frat instance is court from which
there 10 s'no' appeal, instead of am appeal; and
secondly, whether the bars of silver were marked
10 regard TO their chemical quantity" instead OF
their chemical equality"
Mr.. BRADLEY said that the translator certainly
said chemical Quantity for be had it upon bis
notes, and he remembered what he supposed TO be
mistake on the part of the translator at the time.
stood him correctly in saying that the only duty
paid to the federal government was coming duty,
or An assay duty, or which? - +
Ans. What he has said, and with respect to
which there ia an error in the paper, the Repub-
lic.) is that the silver pays assay duties of
per cent, and besides this coming duty and
mining duty. which mining duty is ~ cents on
each mark, SO that this mining duty belongs only
to the government, and is not included in the coin
ing duty.
Mr.. CARLISLE. Three per cent. ia the assay duty
and l2z cents the mining duty; and besides this
there is coin ge duty.
Ans. He says there is coinage duty, the
amount of which he does not know
Mr.. MAY. He was not understood the other day.
The Court. He certainly did say what is report.
ed. have the very same answer in my notes.
MIR. CARLISLE. And that ia exactly what he said
in the original, for remember Mr.. Bowes trans
lating the very word He did not mention any
mining duty whatever.
The Couar. He did not speak of mining duties
at all.
Mr.. MAY. He was not understood as he desired
to be.
The COURT That is certainly what he said.
Mr.. MAY. l will ask him whether he referred to
the seventy-second page of the eighth article of the
second title? $3.50
Ans. No; he referred to the seventy second page
of the eighth article of the sixth title
Cues. In describing the mining tribunals which
existed in San Luis Potos and other places, did he
say that there was one at Durasno?
Ans No: it was at Charcas.
By Mr.. FENDALL. The witness has spoken of
lists of mines which filed for the information
of the government. Ask him if these lists are of
the character of that paper? "a paper was hand
ed to witness)
Ans. He has not said that these lists are made
out by n
MIR. BRADLEY, (interrupting.) Let US under
stand. Are these lists kept by the project or by the
Ans. This paper, which he has in bis hand, is
table which the government forms every three
years to present to Congress-. e., table similar
to this.
Mr.. BRADLEY. Ask him if he did not say that
this was paper made out by the cub prefecture?
Ans. 1t is in form, but not in substance.
CUES. What does he mean by "form." That the
lists are made out in columns like that
Ans. What he means to say is, that it is paper
drawn off in this way with note on the top. That
it is report of mines existing in the prefecture.
The CouRr. What he means to say, suppose, 10
that these reports are made in the offices OF the
subprefects, and are eventually transmitted to the
General Congress.
Mr.. MAY. Ask him if he has seen that report in
the State of San Luis Potosi?
Ans. (After examining it.) This is the official
report published by public authority in the State
of San Luis Potosi in the year l649; the same as
has been presented by the Governor to Congress.
have seen it in the State of San Luis Potosi before
seeing it here.
Mr.. MAY. We now renew the offer of that paper
to the jury. The objection taken to it the other
day was, that it was not authenticated; that there
authorization of the paper, ouch az our
laws require, to authorize it to be offered in evil
dence. We have proved by this witness that
this is original which has been presented by the
Governor to the Congress of that State in the year
l849; that the witness is acquainted with the paper
and with it's public character, from having SEEM
in the State Of San Luis Potosi. On these grounds
we think we now bring home to the court certain
knowledge of the identity of the paper, because,
although it is printed copy, it is supposed to be
the original public document. 1t purports to be
an authentic list of the mines then existing-both
those which were being worked and those which
have been abandoned.
Mr.. CARLISLE. The court will recollect that the
objection taken to this paper was twofold: first,
that the paper was not authenticated; and, second
ly, that if it were ever so well authenticated, it
could not be received evidence being the mer est
heassay in the world
MIR. FENDALL. The court took into considera-
ton both of these objections. The first one we have
obvated by proving the authenticity of the paper,
and offer this witness person learned in the
law to show that this official paper. Then,
the other point, the court says after noticing
the difficulty in regard to the authorization of the
papers.
1.-THE opinion of the court of March 81 was read.
That opinion of the court goes upon the idea
and very proper one-that public documents are
not offered as evidence in proof OF the facts which
they contain which can impcate defendant.
And we do not offer this document on that ground,
but merely to show that the executive branch OF
the government of San Luis Potos, whose duty it
lature in regard to the mineral resources of that
country, as well az other matters, did make such
a report; and that in that report they made Ger
tain statements about mines. We offer to show
what the government did, just the court decides
here in relation to the election Of an officer The
court, presume, does not mean whether the sub- |
ject matter of inquiry is that particular thing but
that if the inquiry came up in the course of any
to say that it would be evidence to show the fact
that such communication was made, and that GER |
tain topics were introduced in it, will refer the
court to l6 Peters,p %, in the case of Watkins
v,. Holman; and also to the case of Brigham ps |
Cabot ct al, s Dallas, p. 10.
The CouRr. That is subject to the competency |
of the evidence in other respects.
Mr.. FENDALL. We propose to offer the evidence |
simply on the ground that report was made, and
that it treated Of mines. We propose to show that
this public authority of San Luis PotcsjOin the dis
charge of his public functions, did make this com.
munication in regard to mines and we say that |
that is fact which should go to the jury for what
it is worth. The defendant says he has mine in
given place. We have to prove the negative Of
that fact; and your honor 10 we'll aware that the
proof of a negative aiways depends upon series
Of facts and circumstances, which to go to the
jury, on which they are to form their opinion
One of these facts going to make up this mass of
testimony is this; We say here is public docu |
ment made by one of the branches of the govern |
ment of San Luis Potosi. We think it is compe- |
tent and conclusive evidence; and it is for the |
gentlemen on the other side to show, if they can, |
that this report is not entitled to credit. we
merely offer 1t to chow that the man whoee bust
ness it was to furnish this information with re-
gard to mines did 90. i.se.rt,stss.5 ~, 5sas
The CouRT. Can you distinguish this offer from
that which unade the other daV? The only |