The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1853-05-08

strued by the surrounding circumstances testified 10 on
paro proof BY extrnsic facts mere e question solely
for The Jury. and the court must submit the Writings 10
their consideration. (Bank OF New England Us the
United States Bank. Phillips on Evidence, So SIT
The whole Of these letters must go together. II would
not do TO select part OF them His Honor given To
that the offer OF The letters, With the proof OF
the handwog went along WIN Tue oner 10 prove lhal
they were delivered into the hands OF The commissioners
OF The Senate OF the United States by the person 10
whom they were addressed and all al the time
would seem due the Taverser that II OF the letters
inns obtained should be offered in evidence all should
because they were parts oil the entire whole The
facts mentioned in were referred to and explained
in others They were The writings OF one man, and
about one common object Undoubtedly get the true
construction and meaning OF those ettersbeng thus Ink
ed together BY the subject about which they were written
by the fact of their having been written by the per-
son. and addressed 10 the same person-hey must be
taken together. That the rule of the law made on
account OF tenderness TO the parties implicated by
them-tha letter might be selected which might re-
fleet harshly his motives; because, perhaps when
construed by which followed preceded it il might
have relation 10 any subject about which guilt might
be either implied discovered. The learned counsel
cited 4th Phillips on Evidence notes page SIT; 81 Tyler;
and The decisions OF judges OF courts IN this District
Now, these letters substantive evidence against
George A. Gardiner, because, rst they the jecara.
tons OF accomplish. Second II they not the de-
caratons OF an accomplish they are The declarations OF
an agent.
II he could show that the writer of them either an
accomplish agent, the contents must go IN, and as
substantive evidence An accomplish, as he hnlef'
stood it, associated in guilt with another
We allowed 10 prove that he an accompllce,
only by direct proof, but by crcunsanai or coat
era evidence. Every within the whole scope and
region OF the law OF evidence at their command TO
prove that he accomplce. Lord Mansfield,
in before referred TO. decided that you might
prove a TO be accomplce by collateral eVi.
dence The learned counsel cited Isl Sarke page 32i
The King against Parsons, lst Backsiones reports and
the Queens case, last edition oil Roscoe, 4l3.
All the read by his colleague showed mat cir-
cumslantia evidence competent 70 prove conspra-
cy as well any other fact. And they iuither showed
that very slight evidence proper 20 TO the consd
/ .ratiou oy tbp iuryp IN suc
read and commented on these cases mol one oil those
presented the number OF facts, from which
the conspiracy could be fairly inferred the al bar
The conspiracy lies IN The mind or intention OF the
parties 10 il. in the unlawful purpose. But as
this intention ana cannot be SEEM must be inferred
IRON the acts aud conduct OF those engaged IN H. IN
doubedy the traveIser and the witness must be con-
neced in the common purpose-ihere must be prlVity
established between them But ysu may prove The con
spracy rs and The connexon afterwards or Ue versa
THE counsel referred TO Roscoe, Safkie, and several
other cases.l This is. then. the welseed law on the
subject of conspiracy and the measure OF evidence sum
cent 10 establish it.
Do the facts OF this case bring within these princ
pes'
l. He is the brother of the traverser This fact OF it.
self would prove nothing OF guilty connexon; but cou-
pied with other facts OF conspiracy, serves TO strengthen
the inieences, from the known natural ties which draw
closely The confidence and intercourse OF that relation
g. They dwelt together IN the city OF Mexico, aud al
MlchoacaD, and were associated In lhelE small mining
scheme Moreha.
| 8 They dwelt together in Washington, al the same
house, while the claim being prepared, and when II
was before the board OF commissioners. The witness
aided and assisted hls brother about IT. lie spoke 10 nf
Johnson and stated he Interested IN the clam Of ms
broher, and offered him so 600 or $50 600 he, John
son, would gel Mr. Evans 10 take up and quickly decide
4. He was a witness 10 support that claim, and gave
his deposition in Ills favor.
S. He received $40 900, part oil the award IN that
| case, from his brother.
g. He returned to Mexico to obtain proofs to support
oil au.l his Ia a ned
presenting petition 10 the Judge Chayes, (Which he has
admitted, in which he says he acting for his brother.
r. He returns, and goes again 10 Mexico with the same
object and returns with new proofs which he delivers
TO the counsel of his brother and which they use on Tins
ral-the mining tile. &c &c, Was this dsintefested
! service Who paid the heavy expenses OF IT.
i S. We find him corresponding with Verastegui, the
author OF the Red Book OF Accounts, and whose false
certificates accredited the claim All these letters are ad-
/ dressed 10 him.
o. Refer 10 the internal evidence OF these letters show
4 ing knowledge of all the papers filed by his
brother 10 support the claim compare the daies names,
and facts throughout and you an equal knowledge 81
the whole affair in lis most intricate snd special points
| Read the deposition OF Pando." (ano,her accom-.
pice drawn by the hand OF John Charles Gardiner and
you the whole OF the brother presented 10 the
i board.
4 (The counsel here examined the letters and compared
their contents with the original papers filed by the brother
10. Such knowledge could only have been obtained
from most careful examination OF, and possessing mem
oranda or copies oil, them.
IL And finally we see the uayerser using and adopt
ing not only the written proofs obtained By his brother,
but using and adopting him his witness here upon the
stand and this II must be presumed, with a iull
knowledge, under all the circumstances, OF his lull COM
plicity-thus attempting a fraud; and. 10 use the
words OF the honest Mexican Judge, attempting sur
prise upon the judicial authority and 10 make Il an &C
! complce in so fraudulent a defence.
Is the authority and every useful sanction oil this court
TO be thus tuet with, and the means OF exposing such
bold and wicked conspator IN the very face OF the court
to be denied Can this court be brought TO sustain such
witness IN his effort 10 overthrow the admlnlstra-
ton OF its usce' Do not all these points oil evidence,
taken together. tend TO prove conspiracy, and that the
witness 10 accomplish Cannot the jury, according
10 the ordinary principles Of human reason, infer iron
all these facts such completely II so, then these let
tiers must be read 10 them II - the law upon this sub
ect that the declarations OF accompce or conspnior
always evidence against his associates ~ The crime
The counsel here read from Starke, Roscoe's Criminal
i Evidence. and other books These letters were written
in pursuance OF the objects OF the conspiracy, while il
was being done" dan ftTUd opus These are not mar
rsves OF past occurrences but propose present and fu
gong suggest plan OF disseminating the agents
! OF government who sent 10 investigate this
atrocious fraud The common purpose" then existed,
and now up TO this hour exists II is get the money,
part of which, fortunately the has found and
enoined 10 the amount n $4,000 and also to free bis
brother and himself from the mssBes OF the law These
the objects Of the conspiracy; and TO promote these
this offered evidence constructed. Every word and
line of these letters, taken together, show this obect
the fraudulent evidence thus conrlvej ~ now here
and relied to acqu this uaveissr II is utterly absurd
To say the conspiracy ended when these letters were
written. II was, and - now, IN lull operation
q These letters contain the declarations OF an agent
off accompce) The counsel read the law oil agency
and cited the Supreme Court reports.
/ l.. .-..s.. L. 49, al. IL