The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1853-05-10

they got US in this cal de sac, as they think and come
down upon US with overwhelming forces Ii is moi fair
towards u.s.
I Now if il please The court, word as 10 the char
acler OF tbis proof We told that no man with an
unpeludced eye look at it without seeing that il Is
uller destruction 10 the defendants case. would like
10 kAow where our friends the other side are 10 nd
unprejudiced eye TO which exhibit it, All the ey
dence OF the United Staes-and many things am sorry
to say, which are not evidence, and the nature
oil things could be evidence has been pubsbed-not Sc
et'dera arfsni, but when rejected by this court
and then they exclam in the unprejuaesd ear, 'proo
as strong as Holy Writ" But, sir has been the good
fortune OF OF the counsel for the defence exhibit
these papers to gentleman OF acknowledged candor
and OF some talent and when he read them over. he
replied that he dd net see any harm IN them. "Whal
SAID ne, rs 1t all about see nothing here which
agent might not have written in perfect good faith ?
There are some old Spanish proverbs be found here
and there but nothing that should start man from his
proprety" Whether they have found an unprejudiced
man cannot say but we having seen one must take
ISSUE and say that unless these papers read through
The medium with which the United States, and every
body else connected with the prosecution, have looked
at them, they will bear construction widely diHeren,
from that pui upon them by the counsel for the United
States.
Having disposed OF some of these preminaries great
deal more II IS rue might be SAID and the proper time
may be said shall proceed examine the whole ques-
lion before the court, which admit be one of great
interest. II will be best TO give general outline OF
The state OF the question: in order TO proper under
standing The United States had offered all the evidence
which they deemed necessary prove the allegations in
their Indictment 10 wit that The statements made by the
defendant in his memorial were false and that he knew
them to be false at the time that he made them. The
defence had closed its testimony and on the cross exam
natlon oil the last witness the part oil the defence the
United States presented TO him certain papers and asked
htm whether or not they were in his Handwriting. With
one exception. he did no, admit that they were did
ne positively deny that they Both sides had closed
Their case One OF these letteIs-the one admed-was
read to the jury Then there letter marked No $.
which was not read-a letter from San Luis Potosi,
dated 9Th November, which he said he thought was in
Now, your honor will connect with these letters the
act-hre that the wRess has testified that he obtained
this deed IN La2unas on ne 10th OF November cerl-
ned the day OF The date OF the certificate, that he
saw the alcaide sign and, second that he not
interested IN the prosecution of the claim OF his brother
and thirdly that he did not suggest or advise that
The title which he brought from Lagunllas should
be made up or fabricated did he assist in fahrcang
T. hese are The three points As 10 The admission or
denial OF the letters, will come 10 that in a different
part of The case The United States then put upon the
stand Col Thomas Gas febutting testimony who proves
that IN his Judgment all these papers the band
wnling of The witnesss The defence, before
aiming the Witness have right to examine these pal
and, alter examination OF them, they object their ad
missblliy That's the true state OF the case:
IL is maintained on the part OF the United States that
these papers are substantive proof primarily Oae OF The
gentlemen says that these papers evidence in chiefs
the other says that they are evidence in one OF these
shapes-being the statements OF confederate agent
OF The defendant and therefore evidence Of the fact
tanned IN them secondly they not evidence oi The
facts contained IN lhem still they competent TO TO
The jury 10 impeach the witness They contend tina! they
are admissible other OF these grounds. Now,
is material tor US 10 ascertain what the witness did say
IN regard TO these papers The United States have offered
evidence OF the interest OF The witness the and
they rely upon the proof OF Philip C. Johnson and Ben
lamln Green For the purpose OF the argument admit
that they have proved that the witness interested in
The case and aso for the purpose that they have
shown hm TO be confederate oconspiraio with the
defendant. Taking, then, this view OF the question:
undertake TO demonstrate, far legal proposition
can be demonstrated which is not subject OF mahema
zeal proof, that these papers not admissible. Mr.
Bradley here read the evidence OF the United States 10
that relied upon 10 show that he confederate, and
proceeded thus j Now, add 10 that the papers now Of
feIed IN evidence, and you have the whole proof upon
which The government rely 10 show the agency or con-
iederacy and then bear IN mind that this proof the
possession oil the before they open their
he only two other things which they rely are, hst
that be IS now brought here witness 10 prove copy
OF The deed; and secondly, 10 prove opposhcn to their
ad that he was IN those places at the same time that they
aege his brother am admitting now, Tor the sake OF
the Argument the strongest view OF this question taken by
the United States Is there any rule then, may please
The court better settled than that the statements and dec
aaion oil accomplce and confederate in the common
design, and for the iurtherance OF the common object
having reference to u, are evidence against party ac
eused, although that confederate is not himself party
accused.
The Court Whether the confederate is indicted or no,
does not make any difference.
Mr.. Bradley. Then, sir, the United States have labor
ed Tor four or i've hours 10 show 10 your honor that they
have proved-no that they are going TO prove by this
witness, but that they hs0e proved-hat be was con.
iederaie aud agent WHAT - the consequence They
bound by every rule of practice TO have produced
that evidence in chief They cannot escape from that
conceding, for the sake OF argument, that these let
tiers Will further demonstrate all that they say they have
proved Then show TO your honor, by the statements
OF the United States IL court and the production of the
papers, that they in the possession o the prosecution
before the commencement OF the trial OF this that
the evidence not brought out by the deepce that they
the statements declarations OF accompice, (ac
cording their grounds,) which statements and decara
tioas evidence in chef
Now come TO the application OF the rule oi "com
mon sense" "Oh !" they say. "t is monstrous MOI
L.. I.,,o .ltt IN nlr
pockets, Let the defendant make out bis case, and not
permit 10 to the crownng point-ihe elimination
OF the arch We have built an arcb and got IT completed
all but the keystone and to be allowed to pu, IN
that What shut out from the view OF the Jury that
evidence which Is strong that man who reads II
doubt that the witness accomplce IL speaks
in every part and says and my brother; ps have
done this and you Mr.. Verasegui look 10 1t you have
been united with you have assisted 10 accomplish
this fraud You stand as pillar TO support the edhce,
and il you fall down comes the whole fsbnc, and
that fall will be great and deep that the hand oil re-
dempion shall never reach IT y"
This is the which the United States suppose they
have made out and they say ths, " common sense"
teaches that such evidence should net be excluded
from the consideration OF the jury That man Is 10
go free is mons,rous when we have such overwhelming
proof behind !" Well gentlemen, all we have TO say Is,
that you should have brought out your proof al ihe prop
er time.
Bot, may IL please the court common sense" teaches
something else II teaches that so soon az courts
begin depart unser pressure from any
quserI not what from the highes, junction
ary in the land the poorest and leas, influential c-
Zenl say when courts under any pressure begin IN
great depart from long ablsbed rules the
small will be in very great danger OF beng drawn
within the precedent thus established Common sense