New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1868-08-02

whether he is interested in the suit or net,
yet it is well known that he was deeply
interested in holding lands of Daniel
Clark, with several millions fradulently
conveyed to him by Chew & Relf and his
entire testimony is shaped to cover this
fraud.
In answering the twelfth interrogatory
he says in reference to Daniel Clark in
Philadelphia Il do not recollect with
whom he stayed" and in answer to the
twenty-seventh he says, ION all of Mr..
Clarks visits to Philadelphia he had room
at my house." This discrepancy shows
that the recollection of the witness, after a
lapse of :hirty-fve years, and being very
largely interested in the suit, was liable to
gross errors if nothing worse. And when
he says in the early part of the year 1902"
the lady presented herself to me with let
ter from Daniel Clark, etc., he declines to
furnish said letter on the ground that it
was burnt at the burning of his store in
1906.
Is it not strange that this particular let
ter, upon which so much depended, should
be burnt when SO many Others from Clark
written in 1902 as well as previously and
subsequently, are on hand? The core usiOn
is irresistible that he was grossly mistaken
in reference to the letter of introduction !;
be has no proof of it: but, on the contrary,
there exists ample proof that his assertion
was imaginary, or dictated solely by a
desire to defeat Mrs. Gaines, lest his lille
gal and fraudulent settlement with Chew
and Relf would be exposed.
The above facts In reference to the i'm
mense interest of Cox were unfortunately
omitted or overlooked by Mrs. Gaines
counsel in the argument before the Su-
preme Court of the United States, and
hence the structures Of the Court on tie
lady in question:
The lady was Madame De Oranges.
Mr.. Coke discharged the trust confded
to him. His testimony concerning it is
circumstantially full. The babe was sent
away to be nursed. Funds for her main
tenance came from her father. She was
comfortably reared, grew to womanhood,
married respectfully, and afterward ap-
peared as party in interest in one of the
many phases OF the most remarkable"
Gaines case.
Judge Catron was the steady opponent,
as Judge Wayne was the faithful friend, of
Mrs. Gaines and her claims. Upon this tes-
timony of Mr.. Coke, as showing the appar-
ent motive of the visit to Philadelphia, he
dwelt with terrible severity in his opinion.
He declared that the wife fled from her huS-
bands companionship to conceal her dis,
honor, and not to seek for proofs of his big.
amy. He accepted Mr.. Coxe's statements
that these events occurred in 1902 and that
in 1903, when Despair testified the wedding
took place, Clark was not in Philadelphia
at all.
more Madam Despair testified that
the wedding took place in 1902 or 1882
and that chad itnot been for the interested
Wiekedness of Mr.. Cox, in assuring her,
Zulime, and employing counsel to aid him
in disappearing to her that her marriage
with Mr., Clark was illegal, she never
would have married Mr. Gardette." Judge
Catron, having ouoe had an unsuccessful
lawsuit with General Gaines, who charged
him with fraud, it is presumed favored the
testimony of Cox, and diseredited that of
Madam Despair, she not being certain after
the lapse of SO many years whether the
marriage of Clark and her sister took place
in 1902 or 1901
Still, Mr.. Coke may readily bave been
right in his narration Of circumstances and
wrong in his dates. Or there is nothing,
indeed, to show that though Madame Des-
pau did not apparently tell all that &C.
CURED during their. Northern visit, what
she testified to was true as far as it went,
and the wedding did take place.
Right or wrong, it is useless now to spec
ulate. Presumption must be upon the side
of virtue. The daughter Of Zulime has
crowned her lifetime struggle with sue
cess, and part Of that success is the vindi-
cation of her mothers fame, as well as the
assertion Of her own despoiled right.
More than that, her theory is the theory
of the highest courts in the land.
We 60 back to New Orleans. After the
marriage, says Madame Despair, her sister
and herself hurried home on the receipt of
intelligence that the French wife of De
Oranges had made her appearance, and
claimed her rights.
Other witnesses afterward testified that
they remembered some scandal of this
sort.
And then, it is said, De Oranges was
regularly prosecuted. The evidence of
his bigamy was fully established. He was
convicted and imprisoned. Zulime had
been waiting impatiently for this. No ac-
acknowledgement of her marriage had vet
been published by Clark, and though they
lived in the most intimate relations. she
did not occupy his house. But with the
judicial proof Of De Oranges bigamy she
anticipated her justification before the
world, and her accession to her proper
rank in society as the wife of such bus
band as Clark,
Foul accident! Just at this moment.
when so much of happiness depended,
De Oranges escaped from his prison.
Treachery inside the walls had assisted
him. The Spanish Governor himself was
charged with connivance. He was hurried
down the Mississippi, placed upon a ship \
lying in the Pass, just ready TO sail, and
fed to France, never to return.
Zulime was not acknowledged. She
was never known to the world as the wife
Of Daniel Clark, during his lifetime.
Aftefward, this prosecution and eonvic-
ton were questioned by the opponents of
Mrs. Gaines. They produced in court the
record Of an ecclesiastical court proceed
ing, In which q certain jerome De Oranges
was charged with bigamy, but where the
evidences failed to show bis guilt, and be