The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1867-05-28

on oven III the present term expired white u was fu
progress The other objecton--tne absence Of w.t.
nesses-was, therefore, the only 10 DO met and he
would suggest postponement for ten days or two
weeks BY which time the witnesses would be got here
The Court said II clear that the first objection Of
the District Attorney obvated by the law which had
been referred To- and hs now proposed 70 have The
were here and who here, with view o. fixing
some time for the trial. II II should appear tho coun-
sci for the prosecution 10 not ready 70 day.
Mr.. Pierrepont suggested that to-day two weeks be
fixed for the trial The witnesses could got here he
thought, by that time.
Mr. Bradley, ST., said he desired 70 know the Wit.
nesses heretofore alluded TO all that the prosec
ton were waiting for He begged 10 suggest that
said the trial would continue beyond that time the
time intervening had better be probably employ ed in
the examination Of witnesses who hcre As 70 the
the prosecution, Il hoped that he would be here in
time TO be used for the defence The defence had made
the witness Would BE- here 10 tie next steamer from Co
forna The defence had used all diligence and was now
ready and ne for one would thai the
already gone into the Az che witnesses from
Maryland, New York and elsewhere the defence know
nothing about them Il the prosecution would give
prove BY Thorn, tho defence would probably enter
into some arrangement whereby their evidence could DO
witnesses could not be got hero Tho United Sates
had ample time and the amplest 70 get witnesses
here from any point this side the Rocky Aounains the
defence In anticipation OF the trial taking place oday
had brought witness from the most remote portion
Texas and IL the defence couddo that with the limited
means their command the United States could GER
tainy do much with all its resources Before post
ponement granted, therefore, It should be distinctly
stated what diligence tho prosecution he'd used and
whether the witnesses referred to had been subpenaed
These repeated posponements only wearing out
the sender OF the prisoner but are wearing out
his very existence and no has right TO speedy trial.
The government stands on higher grounds than the
criminal accused OF heinous offence hut stands also
under the law and IL subject TO the Judgment and dis
erection or the Court and II is therefore, the right of the
defendant to know clearly and distinctly what diligence
the government has used He would therefore, like
no advised whether all the witnesses referred TO had
been subpWnaed. Mr.. Bradley made point that
tue names Of the Witnesses for the prosecution
known TO the defence. and discussion ensuod relative
to the right OF counsel for the defence to demand and
the duty OF tho prosecuting ocer TO give tho OF
the W theses.
District Attorney Darlington commended that it nad
never been the practice to do Mr. Bradley suggested
The argument had no particular bearing upon the SUBJ
ject at ISSUE
Mr. pcrrepont said ho could not speak for tho District
Attorney 10 what diligence had been exercised but he
understood that the proper exertions had been made
He did not know what tho practice here but in ali
other where he had practised when the district
Attorney asserted that he had used due diligence and
stated that would be two weeks longer before he would
be ready TO proceed 70 trial. he knew that any
thing further needed. The statement was always
deemed sufficient unless the Court discovered that the
and had not made duo diligence He did not SUPPOSE
that an affidavit would be required OF Officer Of the
court.
Mr. Bradley said he did not ask for an afadayit. Hs
p~naodf
Tho Court asked Mr. Darlington IL he had exercised
due diligence 70 secure tho attendance Of the witnesses
referred tor
Mr. Darlington said he was anxious to proceed 70 the
trial OF tho case. but he could not safely do 80 now
Ho had been guarded in his staements.as 70 the di.
gence used because he much engaged In court
DILIGENCE had been ussd aud that the witnesses had
no. only been subp@naed, but officers after
them
After some further discussion on this point Mr.. Car
rngon said he did not doom 70 DO his duty disclose
the fact he expected 70 provo or TO furnish the
Mr. Merrick said that among the witnesses summoned
by the prosecution stated there was one who
was expected % testify to what no had testified on
former; trial Did that knowledge just como 70 tho
minds OF the attorneys for the prosecutonf II not
they have had two years wherein 70 secure the witness
Judge FISHER sad tho Court understood that due
efforts had been made, and that certain witnesses we're
mot nov present whose knowledgs Of certain important
nad recently been brought to the notice
Mr. Darlington replied that no was anxious to 60 70
trial, bus that be was not ready. He ID
from his assistant, Mr. Wilson, that all due diligence
had been exercised sN
Mr. wilson. Assistant District Attorney. came into
witnesses who're attendance had mot beeo procured but
who were daily expected. One Of these witnesses was
=. IN Ne. 99s and h. WILSON, had
advertised for her the daily papers That witness had
vet been found Another q do witnesses was SOL
only been found after dgent search Of the records Of
tho Adutant Generals Office; and although every oxer
ton being made he had not yet been found Every
effort had been made 10 get ready for the trial. and In
some instances two subpDnas had been Tor one
witness II account OF the absence these wit
that the prosecution not At this mo pre-
Jared
Judge Fisher sad that in view Of this statement ana
under the circumstances, no did not that anything
could be done other than postpone the case until TO-
day two weeks, which would DO the 10Th OF June and
he would accord lngiy postpone u till that time.
Mr. Bradley made suggestion as To the payment OF
witnesses for the Defence and the Court ordered that
they should be paid and that the expense OF bringing
Others should also be met
Tho prisoner then rcmanded 10 the custody OF the
Marshal, and was taken back 70 Jail