The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1853-05-19

Fillmore himself. And from wh,m did the promo
siuon emanate that the defendant should return &c
toe United States and stand his trial? You are
we'll aware, gentlemen, that by the extraditiou
treaty between England and the United States nc
provision is made for the surrendering of persons
charged with perjury. There were no compulsory
means, therefore OF obtaining the presence Of the
defendant. The government of England could
not be compelled under the treaty to surrender
him. His coming here. therefore, was voluntary
act, and am perfectly willing that he should have
the full benefit of that act; and when come 10
that part of the case in which IL will be proper 10
treat of that act shall speak of it. But from
whom did this prosecution come? From the Gov
ernmenH No, gentlemen, from me defenoant
himself, by and through his counsel You recol.
ect the letter of one of his counsel which was read
to you.
fMr Fendall here read considerable portion
of Mr. Carsle's letter to the President, which has
already been published
You see from this that the proposition came from
the defendant himself, by bis counsel He came
here stand bis trial upon conditions. These con-
ditions were complied with. BY an unheard of no.
velty in Ia proceedings, this conspring Govern
ment of the United States actually did what,
in substance, made them the bail of the United
States. They had this fund-all of it, at least,
which bad not come into the defendants posses
sion; they held in their hands 5 800 900 of the
amount awarded him, and agreed that a portion
of IT should be applied to his bail; 80 that the
Government actually became bis bail-an unheard
OF thing; and whatever may be said of that al
ledgment-for no one can doubt the authority OF
the President to make such an arrangement-no
human being say that it looked like oppres-
zion. Well, gentlemen, he came back under this
Arrangement, and q second indictment was
found against him. And look at the terms
OF that letter The indictment found on the
18th of July, and the letter was written on the
30th of July, 1851. The proposition was that he
should come here and answer the indictment found
against him. He came here, and no sooner did he
come here-there being no witnesses present on
I he art of tbe nit tod han ha beca me
clamorous for his trial, and the Government be
came in the position of defendant fighting Oft
his trial. According to The theory Of the prosecu
ton, there was fraud concerted in distant land
which required the concerted action of numerous
agents. fraud which had taken much time, and
LABOR, and acuteness to fabricate. Evidence was
to be sought out In this foreign county, coun-
try which had but recently sustained hostile rela
uons to the United States which had produced a
state OF feeling and circumstances very unfavor-
able to acquiring prompt evidence there, which
was necessary should be had by the prosecution. Ii
vas necessary for the Government TO ascertain
whatfacts 1t could prove, and not that II should go
there bindtoded and bring A, B, and here at
an enormous expense, and afterwards discover
that they could prove nothing. Ii was necessary
to send out commission ascertain what could
be proved That commission was sent out. No
time was lost as soon the indictment was found.
The committee OF the Senate acted with prompti-
tude.
The commission made its return and then il
ONNAAsso
ecessary, the attendance of witnesses TO sustain
the prosecution. You well aware, gentlemen.
that we had no power to compel the attendance o.
witnesses from Mexico, or from any foreign coun-
try. They could only be got here by persuasion,
by appeals to their OF justice, and by
ances that they should sustain no loss by leaving
their own business and attending here. After
some delay and difficulty, witnesses were obtained.
They came here in the month of July, 1851
[ls52.l and when they came here the Govern
ment was ready to try the case which you are
trying. But then the defendant, who bad been
always ready before, suddenly became unready,
and be would not try it, and got the case contin
ued Ii was found that some of these witnesses
who came here, upon having submitted to their
lnspectfon some OF the papers filed in support of
ms claim pronounced these papers to be forgeries
We knew before that If the claim a false one
the apers must have been either for ged or fabri-
Gated; or that if they were genuine papers thew had
been purchased or obtained from oome official; but
We did not know what particular kind of fraud il
vas and therefore, when the matter first came be-
lore the grand jury, the question of fraud con-
nned 10 the false swearing. Some of the witnesses
however, positively ascertaned that they were
forgeries and they were sent before the grand Jury
and a bill for forgery was found against the d e.
tendant. This the year 1852 And now
and then complaint was made that he was held to
oai-that the prosecuting officer required bail to
the amount Of $4,000 or Sl0O, 0O) and that the
Judge, in his humanity, had reduced il TO $40 0OO
do not now remember whether the bail / asked
AoA
latter sum would not have been too much, ath ugh
It was reduced by the court TO $40 900.
The Couar. The bail applied for know was
s 100. 900, or more.
Mr.. CARLISLE. The bail demanded was 8 1 sc, 600
Mr.. MAY. The largest amount of bail was re-
Iuired In order to secure the defendant.
Mr.. FEspALL. do not remember exactly now
q bat the bail was; tut am content TO say that il
vas 100000 In demanding that amou OF acted
lpon my own responsibility; but the court think
ng differently reduced the amount, and we did
Tot complain. Bot the application made to
how that the court should take no bail at all. The
ourt in holding him to bail overruled the matter
md said 1t was not the same, transactions; and an
appeal was made to the United States and a letter
vas read to show you that il was not the same
This agreement, said to have been
made with him, was referred to by his counsel, and
you had this letter, said TO have been written by
Jerk in the State Department.; but sir that letter
vas written by the Acting Secretary of State Il is
lot expected by the people of this country that the
President of the United States is to have time-if
there were no other Objectionable correspond di-
-ectly with every one who has public business He
acts through the Executive Departments; and that
"a the reason why they may exercise certain func-
hons which upon the whole belong to the President
Of the United States.
The President then says, "No gentlemen il il
not the same transaction; it is another matter and
the defendant must be held to bail" The same
Ii is, indeed, connected with the
same Transaction, but II is no more part of the
same transaction in the sense in which the gentle
men consider it than if be had committed murder
in order to complete it. II was a distinct and sep
srate offence; a nd therefore Mr.. Fillmore very pro
perly said, "Let the law ia ke its course Hold him
TO bail " And De was held TO very moderate bail,
it was thought.
But, gentlemen, this act of holding him TO bail,
be it good or bad. defensibie or indefensible was
the act OF MIR Fillmore, because he approved and
ratified the act. He sustained the principle on
which it was done, and that being So what be-
comes Of the hollow praises which the counsel on
he other side showered upon Mr.. Fillmore? He
Toes not desire them. He is willing to take his
full share--nay indeed, the whole responsibility
of this transaction, and would have been witness
for the prosecution, at one time it was thou ght
ne would be. So much, then, for the Executive
branch Of this Government on the subject oil this
Now let us look at the other branch of IT, Do
you md any thing in the conduct Of the Senate
committee, or that of the House Of Representatives.
to show that they were conspirng against this de-
fendant The Senate committee having the con-
tingent und OF that body at their disposal offered
TO send the defendant to Mexico to al him in get
ting up bis defence if he had any defence to make
You all have seen how these efforts resulted, and
we shall comment on them hereafter; but you have
all that when it to the final pinch he fell
upon the inadmissible claim that he had the right
OF nominating the agents who were TO go there,
and that he should exercise a sort Of veto power
to who should go there; that this Government
should not have the right of saying whom it would
trust with this mission, but that the whole matter
must be acceded to by the defendant before he
would go, That, say, is a fact-that he insisted