The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1853-05-18


Qx<s. Was itss much as ten days ago?
/ns. It was some time last week.
Qsse. Was it time enough to have teiegraphed
to d. Louis or New Orleans. and to have rsceiy ed
= copy Of the record if It were there %
Ans. Yes, cir.
Mr.. MAY. Do you remember saving to me that
the record would probably be at San Antonio,
Texasf
Ans. / do not; perhaps ! may have told YOU it
might be at the department head quarters.
Mr.. BRADLEY. ] understand you to say that the
returns of inferior courts martial would be at d.
vision headquarters'
Ans. Yes, sir; under the order of 1885
Mr.. MAY. Do you know whether there il or in
not telegraph to San Antonio?
Ans. think that Mr.. May, as he suggests, did
ask me where the records of inferior courts mar.
tial were kept; and not knowing whether there had
be in fact any court-martial, not seeing anv in
dication Of it, did not examine where those re
cords ought to BE- and probably told him that they
told him that they were at San Antonio.
Cues. Have you spoken to Graham, winship, or
Nav. as to where the records ought to be?
Ans. No, sir could have ascerained if had
given the subject attention.
Mr.. BRADLEY here explained the diagram on
which were marked the routes taken by the com.
missioners of the Senate and Captain Barry in
passing from Laguiniilas to the river Carrasa
The court then took short recess
The court having reasaembled-
Mr.. BRApLEY. do not know that we have any
other testimony to offer; but believe that Mr.. John
Charles Gardiner desires to make an explanation,
if he is here.
Mr.. C. Gardiner being present, the letters of
the sixth, ninth. tenth, and thirteenth of No
vember, 1851, and one or two others, the dates of
which were in evidence, were shown to him. He
stated that when he was called TO the stand the
other day. he was unable to say whether these let
tiers were written by him, but he was now conf
dent that they never were written by him. On the
9th and 10th of November he was at Laguinias.
Mr.. BRADLEY Can you state whether you have
in, yrtnP npo5o IN {h4
any body else strongly resembling yours that
you could not recognise ii?
Mr.. FENDALL objected that this was not rebut-
ting evidence
must be rebu.ting evidence. $50.
Mr.. BRADLEY. He has right to state to your
honor whether he has any papers in his possession
in the handwriting of any else so like his own
hand writing az to make him doubt it. | propose
merely to suggest that to him, and to LEI MIN go
on and make his own statement.
The CoUar. He can do no more than give
fer his doubts
doubts and offer to show these papers as confirm.
atory of his reason.
Mr.. CARLISLE. The counsel for the prosec ution
need not look at these papers unless they choose.
Mr.. BRADLEY. l will 60 further, and ask him to
look at the body of the petition which he exhibited
the other day, and say in whose hand writing it is
The CouRr. cannot see how that is rcbutting
evidence.
Mr.. BRADLEY They have brought COL Thomas
for the express purpose Of proving it, and he den
the handwriting of Charles Gardiner.
The CoURr. That certainly would be rebutting
proof
Mr.. MAY. He took the paper in his hand at the
time and read 1t, and he cannot reafhrm any thin
he has said.
Mr.. BRADLEY. offer now to show that these
papers are in the handwriting of Vincent Veras-
tegui, the nephew of Manuel Verastegui.
Mr.. May. That is an argument to the jury.
Mr.. BRADLEY. The witness on the stand was
asked whether certain papers were in his hand
writing. The first one l think he did not admit;
the second one was the paper he now holds in his
hand. Letters were then produced to him. which
he neither admitted nor denied, but said they
sembled his handwriting; but, on examining
them, be would not admit them, because he did
not recognise their contents.
Then they called Colonel Thomas rebutting
proof to show that these papers were in the hand
writing of the witness. We now offer to show
that they not in the handwriting of the wit.
ness, but in the handwriting Of Vincent Veraste.
gui. The witness, taken by surprise not 10 king
at the papers, yet seeing resemblance to his own
handwriting, examines the papers, and finds the
letters of Vincent Verastegui addressed to him on
the subject of the mining title. He certainly,
therefore, can look at these papers, and say whe
Their not they are in his handwriting This
evidence is said to be the most important evidence
in the The United States did not hesitate to
Say that upon the admission rejection of these
letters depended the success or failure of their
case. They have produced letters said to have
been written by Vincent Verastegui, and the de-
fence have to believe that these letters
in his handwriting. Since October last we find
this Manuel Verastegu allied to the United States,
producing papers for them Calculating what they
say is the most material point in their case. We
offer here to chow that they produce VIVA t
they allege to be correspondence of Manuel
Verastegui, and GEEK to connect him with the
defendant. Having, produced this corresPon-
dence and exhibited it to the witness, the wit
ness neither admits denies the handwrit-
ing, and gives a reason that he cannot recol-
lect the contents of the papers. They put upon
the stand another Witness Who says It is the hand
writing OF certain person. Now, ia it compe.
tent for witness to say in whose handwriting these
letters are? Is it competent for him to say that
these letters in the hand writing of the clerk Of
the very man who furnished these letters?
Mr.. FENpAIL. If this evidence ia admitted
there will be no limit to the testimony. The wit
has stated what is equivalent to denial of his
handwriting when he says that he neither admits
nor denies the handwriting of these papers.
Mr.. BRADLEY, He was taken utterly by sur
prize.
Mr.. CARLIsLE 1 submit that the evidence now
offered on the part of the defence is strictly com
petent; that il 10 within the strict rules Of law.
Let Us see what the question Is. 1t is touching
10Th of November. and of the 9Th of May, and the
petition to the alcalde Of Rio Verde These papers
are in evidence 10 certain e1tent-i. so far as
relates 10 tnelr dates ana Certain passage Wn1Cn
the court considered rebutting proof, going to
discredit the witness. When did these papers
become evidence for the purpose intimated; be
cause on that question depends entirely the ques-
ton whether they are rebutting evidence or not?
That ia the whole matter. These letters were not
evidence in this case at the conclusion of the
examination and cross examination Of Charles
Gardiner. That cannot be disputed. While
he under examination he was confronted
with these letters. The United States then com
mence their rebutting testimony, and for the
| first time make these letters evidence. On what
! ground was it that these letters were got In
evidence for any purpose pt as rebuttipg proof
| They were adduced by the defence to prove new
| facts, and it is not competent to meet this new
state of facts by other evidence. II ia alleged tina
these letters in the handwriting Of John Charles
| Gardiner; and that statement is made on the un-
supported opinion of single witness who has seer
him write. Would it or not, then, be competen
| for in this stage of the proceedings to produce
other witnesses who might express contrary opin
| ion? Most assuredly it would And if it be com
| petent for to bring other witnesses to express
contrary opinion--to bring the very person himsel
| in whose handwriting they allege these papers Il
bei think it is. The prosecution say that tht
proper time to have done this was when the witness
| was examined before. But the fact which we now
offer to rebut was not then in evidence. Sir, it ha
| been written, printed, and published that thi
| young man could not tell his own handwriting.
desire that the jury may see these papers, in orde
that they may Judge for themselves whether or no
he Justified in his hesitaion--that he may Civ
| them an opportunity of seeing that this was
mere trick-a mere piece of bravado. He hest