The American. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1857-1857, 1857-08-26
them. When they returned 70 the place Of voting,

them. When they returned to the place of voting,
this Irish legion still large, and they divided
themselves some one way and some the other.
The greater part of them stationed themselves out
in the street facing the polls. Then we are told
they no longer remained quiet. What did they
doS According to the testimony for the United
States without reference to the testimony called
for the defence What did they do? They be-
gan to holloa, and to make noise. NOW we all
know that on election days good deal of liberty
and license s allowed, but if every man were Jerked
up and prosecuted because he haloed and shouted,
the whole time of the Court would be occupied
with election cases. In my section OF country cleo
ton day is'considered free day, and have often
Witnessed on that day " free fight" but never
knew prosecution arise out of II. A man has a
right to halloo, take il, f1 his candidate or his
party; right if you choose to be boisterous.
| English judges concede 1t in England; much
more will his Honor concede IL in this city. In
times past suspect his Honor had some acquain-
lance with these election matters; he will now be
better prepared to tolerate these little irregnlari
ties, although he has put aside his political asso-
Citations and assumed the ermne Of justice. But
say that, according to the proof, when those
parties returned to this precinct, all that they
committed was little bye-play in the street.
Some of them were drunk it is said some were
hollooing, and some were little disordery, wrest-
ling with each other, and occasionally there was
cry Of fight" or sham fight as one witness said,
and looking at the scene through the dsordered
medium Of their jaundiced vision, they imagined
that this was an attempt on the part Of those per
sons to produce the appearance of a fight in the
street, in order to give their comrades better
opportunity to rush upon the Irish. Now, a.
more far fetched supposton never entered the
mind of any rational person Why, Mr.. Goddard
was alone the active man to stop it. and il this
crowd desired to rush in, how could he rcpel t?|
: Was lac Sampson? Had he the jawbone of an ass
, with which he was to STAY all the Phlistnes
And vet he tells us upon the stand, as a witness
under oath, that he believed it was the purpose of
those parties to make feint Of a disturbance in
the street. in order to attract his attention there,
so that an opportunity might be got to rush upon
the polls. | take it, gentlemen, from Mr.. God
f dard's own account that there was nothing very
+ uncommon transporting in the street. parcel of
IS strangers from Baltimore, interminged with some
the citizens of your own city, laughing, talking
r shouting hallooing, tusseng with each other, and
n some calling ont ga fight when in point of fact
d there was no fight. What did Goddard do? Did
/ he do what an impartial officer would have done
j. Did he do what is proved to you that respectable
/ and impartial officer there then did Did he look
y on quietly and composedy, and treat the matter
as all such matters deserve to be treated, suffering
k it to pass unnoticed? No, Mr.. Justice, policeman
t Goddard was a candidate for votes, partizan in
!; the contest. He was interested in the of
particular party, and his interest overthrow his
Judgment and pushed him on to action. He Went
: out amongst those parties in the street. One Of
the Z. s. witnesses represented him as seen with his
i hands up pushing them; some represent him as GO
ing into the crowd and collarng fellow and swing
t ing him round, then selling another and doing the
s same. What right had he TO seize any party thus
i rudely by the throat? If he finds man breaking
the peace, he has right to take him into custody
and carry him before justice, but he has no right
to treat men the testimony shows he treated men
IL, I,, ntyl hn cd
if upon the person so rudely seized. When they
?. came towards the sidewalk he stood there pushing
It them off, doing what all will agree, under the cir
cunlstances of the case if he wanted to excite an
l. ahray, was the best possible mode of doing it..
- About this time, and during this time, words of
i. badinage were passing in the crowd One man,
= it is proved, addressing an Irishman enquired
e whether he had his papers with him? What was
al the answer " He had brick in his poke t.
l. Another was seen to produce knife, and in a
If moment conflict ensues, stones and sticks were
@ thrown and pistols fired. g.
y Now, there is one thing that mpresses me as an
impartial observer for though am counsel in the
d case, do not admit that am incompetent TO take
an impartial view of it-and il must have struck
the jury if they are impartial and every other i'm
partial man, to the prejudice Of the United States
witnesses who are called TO testify in regard TO that
afiray-that no one Of them voluntarily told that
any person took part ia the ARRAY, but those who
are called the assaants They so shaped their
testimony in giving account of this ARRAY as to
leave the impression that the assault committed
BY one party without resistance from the other
2 side. | say that struck me, gentlemen, ne some.
thing most unfavorable TO those witnesses We
3 put them through a course Of crossexamination.
s 1t might have been an omission, casual omission
: We called their attention to il. We put the ques-
= ton; but we could not elicit from any one Of them
/; an admission that pistol was fired by any Of the
L Al. 4
# cast, or blow struck. And they sought TO pro-
duce the impression on this court and this jury,
a that those who were assaulted and their friends,
positively submitted TO the assault without reBis-
y tence could not believe them, nor can this jury
r believe them. / do not charge them with wifully
;; swearing falsely make great allowance for JUS
tice Donn for that special challenger and for police
/ Justice Goddard, and would extend the mantle
|, Of charity over them. will not follow the exam
pie of my worthy friend the District Attorney and
consciously impute crime to error; but still say
| cannot credit this statement, and in my judgment
: an impartial jury cannot credit it. There stood
e | a column of near a hundred Irshmen, outnumber-
ing the assailants and they not alone, they
| were not unsupported; Of course not. As the
contest partook of party character il necessarily
involved in its consequences individuals Of that
party in whose interests those Irish were brought
to vote is II then to be believed that under cir
cumstances like these, in crowd of persons thus
promscuously assembled of both parties, this as
sault could have been made and not be resisted
that blows on one side did not produce blows on
the other. Credulity itself must reject it. The
testimony on the part of the defence in here
and proves what every man of rational mind would
expect to have occuTed-that this rush upon the
Irish column produced fight, blows were given
as well as received, in point Of fact fight in which
policeman Baggott, the Chief Of Police, is proved
if not to have fired the first shot, certainly TO have
fired the two that followed the first shot Blows
were dealt on both sides, missiles flew both ways,
il was free fight, ending il is true in the route Of
the Irish. They had not muskets with bayonets
at the point charged with ball cartridge and three
buck.shot to shoot into the unarmed crowd; and
they ram Now, gentlemen of the jury, that was
the head and front OF the first offending -
The District Attorney says it was riot, l
say it was an ARRAY. It was an Irish shindy.