Daily national Republican. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1862-1866, 1866-01-29
Trial Of Lafayette Q. Baker.
les simssy ofmsry E.walksr,n.D
THE EyWEk oE-eLosEDI...
PRAYERS for the Prosecution and Defence,

show that the proceedings ofIthe military court
have been set aside. That 10 the main qoestlon
sir, and we are being led Oh By these other
yudgs, Fisher: That is the question now under
Mr.. Bradley road ist sreeuisaf, peetion s76.
aud stated whatever hts own private opinisn
might be, II was his duty here TO stand up for
militsry commission a. expounded ~ me isw
ofhcers Of the Government, who had decided ihnt
a military court had power to amx The deaih
penalty aud Of course, they had Jurisdiction over
ali minor offences. Standing as he did repre-
| senting the Government, he must maintain that
the authority Of a military court was complete
Mr. Riddle argued that IIine had been dis:
missed the service, sfter which be had been tried
by military commission not Known 70 me avs
have been tried by court martial, and his con,
yietion by military commission could not seal
bh mouth as q witness, "A witne's to be ais
qualified mast DO fouad guilty on Indictment.
Cen. Rosecrans had no authority to dismiss the
ofheer. He was an officer, and should have been
| tried by court martial.
Jhdge Fisher said he did not feel disposed to
admit The evidence, not being satisfied that 1t was
q court Of competent Jurisdiction. He attached
no Importance TO the sentence OF the military
commission. They had no authority to seal the
conviction by such court. 1t neither added to
\ the competency or1ncompetency Of the witness.
Mr.. Stanton said they had no other Witnesses
to sxamipe, but would now offer some docu-
provstbs oaheiai cbsraoier OF Gen. Baker. We
now havsthe papers,
Judge Hughes said he objeeted to their admis-
sion One Of the papers was Bakers resignation
| as n nolenal, and tho other was letter from the
Secretary of War, notifying Baker that he was
appointed as brigadisr general. Every ofheer
| holds q commission signed by the President. The
Secretary OF War could not give q commission or
| make an officer. He denied the right Of any
bsigadier general colonel to arrest any citizen.
| II did not appear that Baker was commander Of
| INT al n dat lVo
| Mr.. Stanton also read the order from the War
Department, mastering Baker out Of the service
ass brlgadier general, Mr., 8. stated that they
| offered the papers only TO show that Baker was
Mr. Hughes withdrew hts objection. E.m
The papers were admitted as evidence to the
M. Stanton announced that the defence had
REsvrriSo rrsriNoxY.
Mr., Bradley here offered in evidence the
origiDal petition Of Howell, with the endorse
ment Of the President thereon. Also, the en-
dorsement Of Mr.. Pleasants, the pardon clerk.
Mr. Hughes stated their object was 10 prove
now that the pardon was obtained through the
Nj. Eradiey here read the endorsement Of she
President on the back Of the petition AS follows
'The Attorney General win issue pardon in
this case. The party, as I am informed, is now
In the city. ANDREW JOHNSON, President.
Sent to the President by order Of the Attorney
=
NoyENDER Q, 1895. Pardon Clerk.
Mr. Bradley also offered in evidence the par
don obiained by Mrs. Cobb for Howell, and the
receipt Of Mrs. Cobb for the money.
The papers were all admitted as evidence.
Doctre,s Mary 3. Walker, for the prosecution,
having been sworn, testified that she was In the
service Of the Government for the hrst three
years, attending the wounded and disabled sol.
diers was Afterwards In the service rs ,contri ct
surgeon In the regular army. Net s. s. Jones on
several occasions; came FROM New York In the
same car with him several days ago. ..
no. Did he state to you that he was not under
| Gen. Baker, but under the War Department?
objected to by defence. on the ground that II
| was collateral matter. 4. -.
ness (Jonss) who had stated on the stand that he
was in the employ Of Gen. Baker and received
As per month.
Knew Mrs. Cobb Knew her associates and
AcquAintances. Never heard her character for
truth and veraeity questioned Among those
| with whom witness was acquainted Mrs. Cobb's
character for truth aud veracity was good.
Mr.. Bradley announced that they had but one
Iother witness, who would be iu court In u few
minutes. They proposed to prove. by him a
| number Of publications emAnAting from the de-
PENDANT, to show most malicious motive on the
part Of tho defendant towards this defendant,
and that he had declared openly that he would
not rest until he had broke her down. tar
Mr.. Stanton objected. What he said about
Mrs. Cobb WAS not testimony. Anything he said
about this transaction would be testimony.
|
no light upon the issues In this case.
The prosecution here announced they would
close the evidence, when District Attorney tar
rington stated he had some instructions which
he desired the conrt to give to tho Jury.
Mr.. Stanton said, before reading the prayers,
no desired to state that his associate, Mr. Riddle,
was necessarily absent, and would prefer that
the reading be postponed until the return ofhr.
Riddle. -s.r-r.- .. .,.
The court waited half an hour. Mr. Riddle
not having returned, Mr.. Darlington read the
II the Jury believe from the whole evidence
that the defendant, through one OF his agents, by
the payment Of the money mentioned In the In
d'ctment, induced Mrs. Lucy Cobb to present
false petition, she at the time believing IL to be
true aud presenting It In good faith for the par.
don OF one Clarencs J. Howell to the President Of
tho United States, and that after the pardon was
obtained, the defendant, without warrant or or
der from the President, by color Of his once, be-
ing at the time general and detective OF the War
Department, arrested or caused to be arrested, or
imprl,oned, or detained In custody, the said
Mrs. Cobb, and without her consent took posses
sion Of the money paid TO her as Aforesaid, they
should md him guilty as indicted.
Mr.. Stanton; for defence, argued there was no
ing some prayers which he would ask Of the court
when he hadthe completed. He argued that
procuring the pardon was fraud. No such man as
Clarence J. Howell existed, and no such crime as
set forth in his petition had ever been CO. united
Gen. Baker had no Intention To defraud any one.
II was hts Intention to show to the President the
fraud that was being practced upon MIN. He
argued the prayer which they asked did not meet
the case. ..'
MT. Bradley, jr., said that the practice OF the
Court was to take all the prayers, both for the
prosecution and defence, aud after argument on
them to instruct the Jury.
The Court stated that Mr. Stanton would be
| allowed q reasonable time to reduce his propo-
| sitions to writing when he could read them, and
they would all be argued, after short time.
Mr.. Stanton offered the following prayers:
!. II the Jury hnd that tie prosecutrix yolun-
tarily went with the defendant to his headquar-
ters without any restraint OF her person, but on
! the simple request Of the defendant, then he Is
not guilty Of false imprisonment
2. II the jury mud that the defendant ex-
pressly diselaimed making an arrest OF tho par
ties, and the proseeutrix voluntarily went with
the defendant to his headq farters and remained
there without any actual restraint OF her person,
then he is not guilty OF false imprisonment
g. 1.-THE defendant demanded the money men
TONED In the indictment as his own Individual
property, aud not by virtue OF his ONCE aud the
authority thereof, then he Is not guilty Of ex-
tortion even though the money was given up on
account Of measures used by u defendant
1. II the defendant belisSSd the money was
rghtfully his own, and demanded IL OF the pros.
ecutrix under that belief, and II he used threats
In order TO induce the prosecution TO give IL up,
then he is guilty Of a mere trespass, and not OF
extortion. .-'
o s. II, when the defendant plseed the money in
the hands Of Captain Hine, he did not intend to
part with the ownership OF Il, then the title to
the money did mot pass away from the defendant,
and he had right TO recover the same.
o. The business Of obtaining pardons from the
!, Executive by the use Of money and OF personal
influences Is immoral, and any contract made In
Pursuance 81 said business is illegal and void.