The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1859-04-09

| He did not know the facts in the case He wo,
under the impression that these parties were moi
summoned In this affair." but in another affair which
should be nameless. There was no proof that these
parties had been used in any case affecting the
life and liberty of Daniel E. Sickles Neither die
the fact that man delivered himself up in compa
ny with friend, make that friend government
witness; if it did, it would be in the power of every
criminal to manufacture evidence in his own be-
nall. He therefore thought neither of these wit
nesses ought to be put upon the stand as govern
ment witnesses, against the wishes of the prosecu-
ting attorneys.
Mr.. Magruder thought the motion on their side
was one IN furtherance of the principles of Justice
which did not tolerate the picking and choosing of
witnesses to transaction, and to say whom the
government could call and whom they could not
Inc doctrine has been well settled-on principles
of justice and enlightened humapity-tbat II il the
duty OF government to summon every witness of the
transaction; in this way the accused has the benefit
OF the cross-examination of all the witnesses He
read extracts from Russell on Crimes vol q in re-
atlon to the examination of witnesses in support of
the motion. Several English cases were cited in
that work, to which he called attention LAYING
down the principle that witnesses whose names
were not on the indictment, but who were cogni-
zaht OF the transaction, ought to be called Mr. NJ
argued that Butterworth occupied similar no.
slton; 1T has been proved by the testimony already
taken, that he was present at the transaction and
why was he not called as a witness? Is the Dis
trict Attorney to call the witnesses and ascer-
tam who Is for the prisoner and who against him
and select from them accordingly? The Govern
ment IS supposed to be in pursuit of Justice, and
not hunting down victim to be offered unon the
altar of passion prejudice.
woodbridge gave evidence before the Grand jury,
Delng sent for and summoned by their process in
the name and by the power of the United States;
they near his testimony and make presentment
upon which this indictment is based If his testi
mony was true then, is he now to be regarded as a
man OF straw, to be set aside? and has not the
government availed itself of his testimony? Are
we competed to answer to an indictment based in
part on the testimony of Woodbridge, without hav-
ing an opportunity to confront him and examine
his evidence? Some of these English cases re-
terred to exactly cover the ground of the present
case; ana upon every principle as we'll of authority
as OF reason and Justice were the defence entitled
TO have the motion granted which they have sub
mitted. "'
=, Mr.; Carlisle replied. 1t seemed to be based on
the IDEA that unless it is granted some lust rights
Will be denied to the prisoner What pTacticaI Of
feet can the decision have except perhaps to copspn
Mr. ButterwOrth to the tender mercies of cross
NATION by the defence, and relieve him from any
cross-eXamlnatiOn by the government He stood by
andlooked on quietly, and when the transaction was
over he took the arm of the prisoner and walked
away tie did not understand that Butterworth had
MADE an oath charging Sickles with the crime of
murder for which he is now on trial His charpe is
merely of the ''kilng;" it does not follow that ba
was therefore to be made witness for the prosecu
uon. suppose murderer was taken while standing
over the dead body of his victim and his confeder-
nun anu lne COnIeuefate should testify in
such manner before the coroner's iuuuest AZ to
satisfy everybody that he was a confederate:
yet according to the principle avowed on the
other side, the government bound to take
that confederate as one of its witnesses This
rule upon which they RELY was founded upon
reason, and according to the well known principle
--cessdne ratione Ter. This was amatter en-
tlrely within the discretion of the Court and the
cases cited were simply instances in which that dis
erection had been exercised. Then we are to inquire
whether this was calling for the exercise of
that discretion. He saw nothing to induce the
court to grant that discretion for the admirable
patience OF the learned counsel on the other side
seemed already to have been exhausted BY the fire.
quen repetition of substantially the same facts He
had not passed through such an extensive practice
IN the Criminal Court to reach that height of EN-
inence claimed by Mr. Ratclfe but so far as the ca
was concerned in which he had been engaged fb o
OF Edwards, it not at all like the one now be-
fore the Court. He stated the points of difference
lhese strumpets were crOss-examined by Mr. Rat
chile; and, SAID Mr. e., more tender cross-exami
nation, and more compliant witness have never
on tie stand.
Let the motion be granted or denied, solely with
view to the public Justice.
me Court had never gone further than in Ed
wards case the women had been held in iail as wit
nesses and sent before the Grand Jury In that
case the Court thought it proper exercise of dis
cretlon to order them to appear and testify But
terWorth being before the Coroner does not enttle
he defence to have him called by the United States
The inquest was held two hours after death With
out any consultation with the United States But
terworth was summoned to appear and give evil
dence The evidence was that Butterworth and
Slckies walked off together; the affidavit But
terworth made at the Jail was a friendly
act. This was singularly like Gardeners case; that
u.s. ne was an associate of the prisoners and as far
as the Court could JUDGES the friend of the prisoner
There was no evidence that either Walker or Wool
rdge were present. and the motion is therefore re-
Jected. When they went before the Grand Jury, it
may have been to testify on some other matter
The Court declines to grant the motion.
Mr.. Brady said that he understood that the evil
dence in chief had closed
Mr.. Ould assented.
Mr. Brady nodded his head and sat down.
The Court said the time of adjournment was
passed; he would therefore remand the prisoner
and place the jury in the hands of the bailifs.
The Court then adjourned.