Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1868-10-31

. a diatribe upon the conduct of our courts
in enforcing them.
/ appre6end that q dispassiopate and
healthy toned public wifi take quite as
much interest in seeing an innocent man,
accused of crime. discharged, as they will
. In hearing any speeches that are made for
their edification.
thank God that in the discharge of a
professional duty have been taught to-
k1sop only, my client, and to avoid, in GRIM
inai prosecution, all appeals, either to the
intelligence, Ignorance, sympathy, or fren-
" of the public. If ever again [ should
be :ome so infatuated as to imagine that the
public have any anxiety to hear from me,
, | will address them at the west front of the
State House or in the Rink; and will not
attempt TO inject stump speech into a
forensic argument.
the case.
The Government call but two witnesses,
the firss of whom is James Smith, who is
the person to whom the accused is charged
with having given the certificate of citi
zenship in question.
VINO is this James Smith? By his own
sloOrn admissions he first came to the UDited
States from Canada in the spring of 1868,
and uoted for VdlldndighGns, at the fall cleo
ti0n of that year, before he had been q resi-
dent of this country sic months. By his own
seoorn admission he returned to Canada
again that same year, and soon returned
TO Columbus, bringing backsw with him let
ters from Toronto, certifying that he was
a British subject. The particular period of
time (tbe time OF the draft) which hese-
Elected in which to go to Canada and re-
turn with such testimonials, is, to say the
least, quite significant and suggestive. By
his own SloOrn admission he voted at the
last election upon the very certificate of
| naturalization, on the evidence OF which
/ he now seeks to accuse the defendent. By
his s,oorn admission he became alarmed af-
/ ter having so voted, and thereupon mutila-
ted the certificate by changing its date.
/ Now, if the testimony of this witness
| even went so far as to make out pretty
| clear case against the accused, l am sure
/ your Honor would hesitate before holding
/ the defendant to answer; for It. is the testi-
nsony of a aoitness, aofto By his oton s,oorn ad
missions, is neat to Infamous. "A witess
/ may be exempt as to answering to his
own legal or moral guilt, yet he may ans
wer, or the fact may incidentally appear
in some other way in the course of the
investigation. And although he may still
be allowed as a competent witness, it is
lawful to urge the fact so far as it may be
calculated to shake his credit. Sometimes
it must destroy all reliance upon his testi-
mony, &C., &C., &C., See Phillips on Ev.
| p 942, (note). But the testimony even of
this witness fails to make out the shadow
OF case against the accused. His testi-
| mony only shows-what we admit
that on the evening of October
the 18th, he went to Duffy's Hall
and received the certificate of his citizen
| ship at the hands of the accused. 1t cannot
| be pretended that his testimony shows
any more than this to implicate John
Duffy. 1t cannot be pretended that his tes-
timony shows that the accused had any
knowledge of or completely with the certi-
| ficate until he received it from Judge Pugh
| to deliver to Smith. On the contrary, the
testimony of this witness shows conclu-
subject, and that Duffy probably die. not
know him at all. Even the inadnsissible
evidence of the conversation which Smith
alleges he had with McGill is not traced to
the knowledge of Duffy, and he cannot be
legally affected by it. According to
Smiths own testimony, he himself was the
party who was committing fraud upon
the Government for he cswears that he
knew he had to make proof of citizenship
before taking out his papers.
The only other witness called by. the
Government is Frederick H. Croughton,
brother-in-law of Smith, and he only con-
firms the admitted statement that Smith did
get the certificate ofcitizenship from Duffy,
upon his claiming it as his o,on and asserting
that IL ,oas Intended for him.. q,
I Now l appeal to your Honor II L have
not fairly stated all the material facts of the
evidence which the Government has intro
duced? VIII this Court for one moment
entertain the thought of holding the accus-
ed to answer upon such euidefaceY on f5lT
l am constrained and concerned to say
that, if he should be bound over to answer
upon this evidence, no man is safe in this
community; and no citizen will feel that he
canrrely upon the protection OF the law, at
period when passiousis in the ascendants
and when appeals are made by counsel,
| al Il. 81, rE- 70 Ns,sE
| When we come, however, to look into the
evidence introduced by the defendant, his
Innocence becomes as clear as the sun light.
| He proves, first, that the certificate or
IIcitzenship in question was issued, in due
form, by the Judge of the Probate Courtof
IIthis county. That is that the certifeate
Itself was In due form, signed by the Pro-
bate Judge or by his deputy for him. This
Il is no time to comment upon the conduct of
1.-THE Probate Court or the testimony upon
which the certificate was issued, for it is
not pertinent to this case. would despise
my self as a1awy er, if1 Travelled out of this
case, at this time, to make any such COM
ment. Second, He proves that the certifi-
cate was handed to- him by the Probate
| Judge. with other certificates, to be deliv-'
cred to James Smith. Third. He proves
that, he did deliver it to Smith, the prose-
cutting witness, aoho claimed to be the person
| for ,ohone it ,ods Intended Now it is the in
Duffy had given the certificate to the aorong
person. under the belief that be was giving
| it to the right person, he cannot be nvict-
| ed of disposing of the certificate contrary
to law. But 1 need hardly add that there
| is no such proof, aud that this suggested is
really unnecessary. And fourth, he proves
that he had no connection whatever with
the certificate or the transaction, and knew
nothirlg about it until it was placed in his
hands by Judge Pugh to be delivered to
Smith.
1t further appears from the evidence that
Levi Wilson, our City Clerk, who was
there 10 attend meeting on that evenings,
was about to take the certificates from
Duffy's hands, call out the names and de-
| liver them, because he thought Duffy did
not call loud enough. If it be true that
Duffy was committing a heinous and in
famous crime on that occasion, then Levi
Wilson little knew upon what fearful
precipice he was about to place his uncon-
! scious and inexperienced feet. fNNE3
May it please your Honor, am not con-
scious of having concealed, misstated or
perverted a single material fact in making
| this brief comment upon the testimony in
this case. And / VIII now close by ex-
pressing my confidence that, Duffy will
| leave this room, not only discharged by
your Honor, but with his character vindi-
| AS to anything that has been said or may
| be uttered for the ear of the public, the.
| parties thus addressed are welcome to give
whatever verdict they choose; but am
sure your Honor will not feel authorized
| to deliver Judgment thereon.
GEO. L. CoNvERsE's ARGUMENT.
It seems to me that this case is much
! smaller than the counsel for the United
| States would have us believe. L UNDER
stood Mr.. Metcalf, he claimed that this pa
| per was not a certificate of naturalization,
haaai,s q tie ents of the w ware