Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1866-01-26
LOCAL NEWS.
TRIAL OF GEN. L. c. BAKER.
The Pardon Brokerage Case.
COURT, JUDGE FISHER

NisAhiN Al SolhIs -
This morning the trial OF Lafayette G.. Baker
on an Indictment charging him with false i'm
prisonment and extortion, was resumed, when
there was quite large attendance Of speeta-
tors
Hon. James Hughes. of Indiana appeared
this morning as counsel for the prosecution.
Mr.. Hughes said that he had not subordi-
mated TINS case 10 another; that on the day pre-
yiously set for the trial he was here and tie
prosecution was ready, but at that time the
Judge on the bench declined 10 try the case
ana ne was compelled to attend to other en-
gagements In the meantime.
when
Mr.. Bradley, Jr., stated that Yesterday a en-.
pona datces had been served on Mr. Wright the
principal clerk Of the Bureau Of Military JUS
tce, for the record OF the yiction of the wit
ness, which had been returned with an answer
"that such record was not on file in that Of
fee" He had obtained information as to
where the record was, and this NOR ming q
messenger had been sent for it, The District
Attorney would also send for the record He
hoped That under the circumstances the Court
would allow the record to be received.
Mr.. Stanton said he would be glad If the re-
cord was produced, for the proceedings have
been annulled.
Mr.. Hughes inquired by what officer.
The Court suggested that the witness be al
lowed to proceed, and when the record is re-
covered ii could be determined as to whether
the jury should receive his evidence
Mr.. Hughes remarked that the prosecution
did not seem TO have the same access to secrets
OF State as the other side, and he preferred The
record should be in court.
Mr.. Stanton said the defense had the same
opportunities IN the premises as the prosecu-
uon, and no others. v--F
Mr.. Hughes said there was only one power
70 pardon, and that was the Executive.
Mr.. Stanton answered that there was no
conviction and consequently no necessity for
pardon. .--
Mr. Bradley remarked that he had been in
formed that the papers We're in the hands of
Col. Burnham.
Mr. stanton said to show that the defense
had TO better opportunity to get at the records
Of the Department, he would like to read a let
ter from Col. Burnham declining to produce
the papers except on the regular summons OF
the court He stated also that the proceedings
at ST. Louis having been nullity, court mar
tial had been ordered at Alexandra TO try the
case, and 1t was owing probably to Col. Burn.
ham being about to try the case that he had the
papers.
Mr. Hughes stated that he thought the chief
detective of the War Department had access to
the papers of the Department
Mr. Stanton.-No more than you.
Mr.. Hughes-When he stood here as a GRIM
inal he had counsel furnished by the Depart
ment, and it might be 30 in this case.
Mr.. Stanton said it was then a strange aspect
the Government paying counsel TO defend the
accused, when the other side were paid by the
same Government TO prosecute him.
The Court remarked that this was a queer
way to argue the case to the jury.
r. Samuel 3. JoneS.-Witness knows Mrs. Cobb
The prosecution objected.
Mr.. Stanton proposed to show that this wit
ness introduced Capt Hine to Mrs. Cobb, and
to prove her character.
The admissibility was discussed at consider
able length, during which the counsel for the
prosecution called the attention of the Court to
the fact that il was unfair for the counsel to
state what could not be offered in evidence; il
was unfair thus TO attempt 70 b,acken the char
The Court remar ked that he had decided to
admit testimony only in references to the con-
uadietion of the prosecuting witness.
Mr.. Hughes asked il IL WAS proposed to omen
a school for scandal here. 1t was the defend
ant on trial, not the prosecuting witness.
The Court said If Gen. Baker proposed TO
produce it, or rest on the merits of the case. He
cannot put in any evidence except as to this
particular pardon. Hr ..E.a b
Mr., Stanton spoke of the pardon business as
The Court said that even il this was a degra-
ding business, IL there was no law against it,
she was prosecuting an illegitimate business.
Mr.. stanton said that Baker regarding this
business as one which should not be pros
ecuted, he resolved to show up the business.
he reeorted to strataRem, not for any pri-
yate business, nor for the prosecution Of this
woman, but for the purpose Of exposing a
public wrong. The purpose was to show up
tempted to bring in evidence any discreditable
transactions, had he not understood that the
doors Were thrown open. In order for a proper
defense Of Gen. Baker, he thought he had a
right to show the whole case in all Of its ram
ifcatione. -.l.-l4.
The Court remarked that it would be easy
to determine what is evidence If they
would reflect on the issues In the case The
charge 10 false imprisonment and extortion
and they should show whether there was or
was not an imprisonment or q lawful Impris-
onment. The defense may put in evidence as
to the pardon mentioned, but not others, uu-
less they could shsw some authority from the
President, or under some common authority.
Mr. Stanton said they did rely upon any or
der of the President, but upon proof and fact
The Court-Suppose the means used were
the worst Baker should have some right nm
der the statute or warrant Of the President
Mr.. Stanton excepted 70 the ruling and said
he proposed to make proof OF the declarations
OF Ms. Cobb as 70 how she could procure par