New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1870-03-14
THE FULLERTON TRIAL.

q
,,,ea on saturday I'm presence OF unusual array vi
i,vers Gathered TO witness the legal tournament pe
tween District. Attorney Piercpont ana MT L. W
Stoughton as To the admssiblity OF c'r'''" io'o,
written by Bclknap. which there Is mchon maui VI
Mr. Fucrton's ullcgcd) completely with hun IN ce'''"
Matchmaking operations carried on against ceI'"" ~
cers OF the Internal Revenue Department
AEGUMINr OF UNITED STATES DIsfbtrAIlo"N'
rERREroNr
Mr. Picrrcpout offered the letter Of Belknap OF SIN
Jupc lscs TO which Mr. stoughton objected anu s"u'
l snnposc II your Honors please, after having gwen
This letter some consideration. before was oheteu %
bc,cvor bc attention OF the Court was properly oaIeu
20 what this letter was and to the condition OF 'e o'
that the Court must come to the conclusion Una. nS
Ter Is admissible a. original evidence thlhA wiz 10
able in short time TO present IT. that your hono'
will coincide with me IN these views unless the eane"
o,,ns shall. lr n, some argument which shall snow th"t
t,osc ,ics arc u>ouud offer this as legitimate eN-
eence TO go to the jury, of the origin oil the eonpns
aud | call your Houors' attention to TINS u"'o
6rst-dat,d June Is, 1868. and this / deem very
important in the consideration OF TINS queSuon'
1onr yopor will remember. without stoppin cto read me
evidence tina lust prior to the writing OF TINS ettcr pit
Osborn cyd to Mr. Fulertons Once. whers ne ,o
Eelknau with Fullerton, and where they had general
conversation d consultation on the subject %l issuipS
Ntar1anf. and % subject OF ISSUING tlcin WIN
sccresy and o IN" subject Of the power which MT Os.
',, trT md to Is>,,e warrants aud the question Of
whether he could warrants without allowing the
sttct Attorney know the fact that he had Issued
tbcm and whether he had the power TO depuize per
sun po ,crrc ,, " grants place Of the Marshal. Now
All these sur ., we're discussed between these parties
tno- to ilc writing ~ this letter, ana lmmeda,ey I1
lowing these this letter Was written Now let
JSdsc "W".rY-The Court have read the letter and
arc Quite familiar with its contents.
MI T,mcpou,-I viii not read it, but will simply refer
y y, Mi rmem1sr What is said in this letter. in rels
lion 10 Kou- and the desire TO have him report 10
Eckualc writer Of tins letter ana not report TO MT
Tracy the District Attorney. Weneed not comment upon
tISsc coUrc stIons in which the plan laid, and the
suggestions made the information elected. as to the
,.-I .l srould he
the knowledge Of the pislretAtt9rney without th t
being made lnhc and without the Ur Sne
Of get ting the reports made y hU VSda M
DisirctAtoruey Tracy, aud then further goes on TO
saw that he hopes the will be done tins case as
o a@29Sr know T Rha seed hGs report PoSS
and act under my distractions" and then says further,
that the control Of these important movements Whlcn
viii eliminate in few days. must be confded TO one
hS5d er %f To eliminate Tn in few daysi Why Mr. Osborn
las told Won what these movements were that were 10
fo GItnp n9 he lad bushels OF aGdavits" In THIS
conversation, the reason given 10 Mr. OSBORN ior
had not the confidence OF the secretary OF the Treasury
rather he had no & m ts t y0n boSe heard
and shall occasion, in the progress OF TINS case 10
Trrasrv given Yesterday When you take that in con
necton with this interview with Mr. Osborn the plan
there suggested the reason there given when Is proved
not TO true, aud then tins letter Immediately follow
lug submit TO your H0nors that this Is proper
80 TO the jury upon the question OF tle eoi,spFacy
Now to that the law on the subject very
caviar as in which ChefJ Justice Savage gave the opn-
lon-te ca Of Jones ag Baker There had been dls-
position Of the the question OF conspiracy ana on
lie admission of evidence and the decision OF the Court
Savage says: "As to actual proof OF
,pracy in the Of King ag Cope ct ais reported IN
LIST srang l tine proof was that the husband VIE ana
0rs apprentices put grease into the paste and thus
spoi HE cards The prosecutor card maker There
Mas no eridence Of communication. Defendants were
also carrnakers and had by turns given money which
cy In tins case" he says, think the Judge erred in
recurring further evidence OF conspiracy The cTcum
shown were sufficient to Justify the nndlng An
actual conspiracy can seldom be proved except by CIR
Now in this case of the cardmakers there was evil
dence whatever that either of these parties had ever said
H S e at all Here the naked facts
shat the apprentices had received from
money put grease into the paste; evidence that
had gych money to the apprentices TO put grease into
deneo whatever that either OF these three had ever
spoken With each other on the subject
You for tine trial of this before this Conr
4G aSssa mare or not nc &ono no.
doubt Iusty-hat you have the power grant IL, and
TO the apprentices of the card maker Yes Then you
TO prove that anS % he dd no, Ae sow but
ie we cannot prove that he knew it, Well can that DO
received in evidenced Why, my learned friends the
ory is correct it cannot be received in evidence
Well. them what did cannot be received IN evidence
snd cannot convicted, because you cannot prove
The separate and distinct acts OF each as facts IN ey
dence which the jury are to decide whether they
were in combination. Having separated the trial. you
ted by order Of the Court There is nothing to go to the
Jury upOn and that ends bis case. Now we have two
, "s much SSi as AZ The Court says certaniy and
gives Il separate trial Well, We can prove
nut 1' sssG no V the paste But what Of tpt Unless
j. IT, for cannot cOnspire alone. The
counsel says that you cannot prove what did unless
shown 70 have been cognlzant OF It, Therefore Bis
acquitted. That end OF him, by order Of the Court
Then stands alone and he acquitted surely because
You cannot have cOnspiratOr So that separate the
trial. III Of conspiracy, and that is the end OF the
each. All that you have to do, is to separate the
trial and then YOU cannot prove by the circumstances
making his demand for separate trial. each having
Same right before the law no matter what the con.
splracy s TO Inc winds by the separation
OF the trial. aud by the exclusion Of the evidence of the
Now let it. call your Honors' attention to
case. which those who are familiar with criminal trials
burning Of the Shays in Ireland where the agent OF
the landlord with his son, his daughernlaw and her
child. were burned III their own house by cOnspraOrs
coming IN the Dlght closing the DOORS and fastening
the house ana burning them all TO death, except the
little child, which the mother held In tub Of water until
ZINE What dad they need to dol now come TO an 10
IustratOn rather than TO the facts Of the
WAS ncedfu TO fire 10 the matched roof Of the house
20 commit the horrd crime Of revenge A, b, and
snd for committing II, and they indicted by the
Grand Jury. Then you come TO the trial, and my
paTse @ We come ten to try the cause and we
nner TO prove thst long pole was spced together by
roof that was the one who got the poles spced by
was found by the side OF that house. aud that
It's top turpentne for the purpose OF
got the pole, and my learned friend says you cannot
prove the fact that got the pole and that 1t fonnd
have proved nothing about AS connection with the pole
You cannot get 1t III evidence Would your HOnors say
sol Would you, sitting criminal magistrates where
crime Of that nature had been committed, where the
proof That b, OF the parties indicted did
long pole be sphced together and that at It's end
tefal placed for the purpose OF setting fire To the