New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1858-05-03


Zeeuers. who conveyed them to Paris Ihose
sheus were in tao pieces, but a. to the numoer 'oa
az to the number Of holes in them there VI" sg'css
discrepancy among the witnesses. Zeguers DID MOI
see any holes, Giore saw emily FIVE or SIX In eacn
sheu, and vas With great difficulty pressed TO ad-
NIT that there might be a. many a. hf1een' ino
waiter testified that the halves appeared to De OF
three different kinds, and that some OF them nao
twenty or twenty Eye holes but be would not swesr
to 90 many a. fifteen The other witness soon ai'er
seeing them had made sketch or drawing from
memory which showed only seven holes. The VIE
of this last witness swore to having counted the
hcle., and that there were twenty-four or twenty
FIVE; but this witness was not brought from brus'
sells till the failure to identity the shells by the o1her
witnesses was apparent. The witnesses also differ
ed considerably as to the size and shape Of the
shells as compared with the specimen produced AZ
the trial-a discrepancy which twas contended lett
the identity Of those shells much open to dispute
az If no evidence had been given to establishit.
As to tie revovers, there was no dispute thal
Bernard sent them to France. II was admitted
that Orsini was collecting arms for political move
ment, and that Bernard was assisting him. but
there was 10 proof that Bernard seat these pistols
with view to their being used sganst the person
of the Emperor. II was also proved that Bernard
Induced Rudio to join Orsu in Paris but the witness
Rudios wife, knew nothing and testified to nothing
o. to the purpose for which he went The theory
of the Government was that being poor man he
Wac hired by Bernard for the purpose of this par
tcular murder. But that must be proved, and il it
we're the fact, it might BE- proved by the testimony
of Rudio himself, whose life had been spared, and
WHO might have been sent over to testify. Suppose
Orsini had written to Bernard 10 send Rudio over
to assist him in the general purpose of the pro-
posed Instruction; in that case there would be
nothing in Demands sending him over to sustain
the present charge, ard the Government were not
oply bound to sustain their own theory but to pro-
duce evidence enough to exclude every other.
In different sort of case these objections to
the evidence might not have gone for much. But
there were things in this prosecution to Incline the
Jury to every possible construction in the prisoners
favor. The charge which at first had been for con-
spracy only had been converted into murder on the
strength of a statute, never intended, so it was
argued to apply to case of this kind, but which
it was thought might by legalngenuity be stretched
to cover it. The appeal to the jury, not to suffer
them selves to be used as means, not Of vindi:at
ing English law but of perverting that law to graf
ify foreign despot was well put and proved quite
irresistible. Had the Attorney General stuck to
the original charge of conspiracy, he would have
been much more likely to have got verdict. That
Indictment is still pending, and perhaps the prose-
cution will now fall back upon it, though with
much diminished chance Of success.
So far as Napoleon is concerned, he certainly
does not take much BY this proceeding. He was
on trial, no less than Bernard. The counsel for
the prisoner sneeringly contrasted the five hun
dred ard sixteen wounds inflicted by the bursting
of the shells with the acts of Napoleon in seizing
ard sending to prison the members of the National
Assembly, breaking up the Court Of Cessation
when assembled to try him for treason, letting
loose drunken soldiery on an unresistng and de-
fenseess multitude, sending all who opposed him
to French prison, the deserts of Algeria or the
me raises of Cayenne, and erecting throne for
himself on the ruins of his cOuntry's freedom. SO
far as this trial il concerned it leaves the ques-
ton Of the Eng sh law as applying to acts done
shioad in precisely as much doubt as before 1t
is still open to those who opposed to the pas
sage of any new act for Napoleon's benefit to
nsintain that the law, as it stands, is sufficient
and that the prosecution against Bernard. failed
only from defect of proof.