New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1866-03-14
CORRUPTION ON
TRIAL.
STRONG ACT. BENNETT.


We observe. by The Brooklyn Times, that
this already somewhat famous action for libel
came up for trial, for the fourth time, before
Judge Scrugbam on Monday last The defend
ant was ready with his counsel aud between
thirty and forty witnesses from all parts OF the
State-to say nothing Of two from South Car
DINA; but the plaintiff was not ready. He was
indeed in Court with his counsel, the Hon. II.
G. Murphy and Mr. .Iencks; and for aught We
know, Judge Reynolds, Mr. Huntley and Mr..
Murphy, IT,, his attorney. Yet an application,
upon afidavits, was made Oh his part to post
pone the trial, on the ground that Mr. Fisher,
one of his witnesses, was absent in South Caro-
lima, and that the plaintiff desired the attend
ance Of Senator Folgcr, and several other
members of the Legislature; but had not sub
penaed them, having been advised by bis
counsel-which of them did not appcar-that
legislators are privileged from attendance a.
witnesses. To meet this, the defendant showed
that the aforesaid Fisher had come on all
the way from South Carolina 10 give tesii-
mony for the defendant and that lie was
in or about the Courtroom, and would be forth
coming whenever Tie plaintiff might require
him. He also showed the statute from which
il was clear-and so the Court decldcd-that
legislators are in no wise exempt, and that their
attendance as witnesses can be compelled in all
respects as that of other citizens. He suggested
that, as to the members Of the Legislature de
sired by the plaintiff rs witnesses, their attend
ance could easily be procured before they would
be required, as the whole case lay with the de-
tense, and the plaintiff had nothing to prove
save in rebuttal Of the defendants testimony,
which it would require several days TO give.
The Court expressed the opinion that the post
ponement should be granted whereupon the de-
PENDANTS counsel suggested that such ostpone-
ment would be a very great hardship upon the
defendant, as well rs his witnesses; many of
whom had come from great distance, at great
personal cost and Inconvenience; and he Of
iercd If the cause could go on, that the
defendant wOuld undertake 10 procure, and
have in attendance, at his own expense.
every one OF the plaintiffs witnesses, by
the time their testimony would be required.
The Court, however, refused to accept
the proposal, and put over the cause to the
next Circuit.
| We do not understand that any reason for
this decision was assigned by the Court and,
while We incline to repudiate any unchartable
suggestion, we cannot but improve this oppor-
tunity 10 again express our deep and ever
deepening adherence of our present system of
electing Judges. No lawyer-and We think,
no man Of sense-will read the foregoing state
ment without inquiring, How long before the
Judges term expires n "Of what party, and
how powerful in political circles, is the counsel
in whose favor such postpOnemcnt was
granted :" II is hard TO belieye--indeed, We
will not permit ourselves to be forced to believe
that q Judge can have any sympathy with
legislative corruption, or with the crimes with
which the plaintiff in this cause is charged, and
to prove which forty witnesses were called from
all parts and quarters of the State. Yet we re-
member O case--or rather we remember TO have
read Of ELSEWHERE legislative corruption was
charged, and, when the defendant called his
witnesses to prove it, the Judge excluded every
syllable that proved or tended to prove
the truth Of the charge 1t is true
universal Reproduction of mankind-judges
p9d au-and We had confidently hoped ihpi no