The New York herald., 1870-03-03
TIE BAILEY WHISKEY RAID.
ABLE ARGUMENT OF COUNSEL
Opinion Of the Court to be Rendered on
Saturday Next

OooA Cutudnutsu AZ mlorcst yesterday, ~ befn0
known that counsel for the defence and prosecution
would each sum up, and at the same time give some
striking evidences Of The powers Of eloquence with
which both are accredited. The court room was
crowded IN every part from its opening to Ia close.
ARGUMENT OF Mr. GARTER.
Mr.. Carter on rising said that according 70 the
order OF proceedings II devolved on him to now
ADDRESS the Court. II was a most diricult task a.
there was really nothing for him 70 say. Nothing
had been proved against the accused but full and,
perfect explanation had been made on every
branch OF the case by the testimony Of
witnesses, who had not been contraoicted In
the slightest degree Whatever point therefore,
may be touched upon by hun must be point raised
merely by conjecture. II left to his discretion
he would not say word but, possibly, his client,
II ne remained silent, might think he had not fuily
discharged his duties In this particular He would,
therefore, have to say something, and he would
begin by reminding his Honor, he had done at the
outset on moving To dismiss the case that there
certain rules BY which his Honor must bc bound IN
this investigation One OF these rules was that IL
must appear that some onepce has been committed.
He did not mean to say that there must
be clear proof OF the fact tnat an offence
had been committed that an offence must he
proved BY overwhelming evidence Dut 1t must
appear by satisfactory evidence that offence has
question, WHAT Is the extent Of the probable cause,
ana what connection mas the defendant WIN the
alleged oifencef less grade or PROOF Is necessary,
anu . smaller measure Of evidence Ii required to
satisfy your Honor upon that point. The general
proposition would MOI De disputed. he would now
Yecur to Inc tue government has been eudea-
voring to estaosn II here. Inc nrst observauon TO
be made was whether the government had esap-
isneu anytniDg more throughout the case .han had
been established ~ the very outset lhe sole evidence
Of the government CONSISTS of declarations OILY.
First, the decarauon oil harrington, icund aar0ng
The papers 0l tne nIu. o Gordon, Fellows AcMian,
anu therefore, the government claims Gordon,
Fellows, Mcmillan Il Cook, the special defendants,
here are bound by. Inc nrst declaration was tnat
THESE l33 barrels contained 64z5 gallons OF spirits.
That was u mere acciaratlOn on paper. Inc other
plecc 0r evidence was OF the same character. 1t
ueciaraLon Vi ono Of the members OF tie nrm found
On,tne books Of Lno frm, tnat lSS parreis 0f E. AND
D. whisaey dld contain 6,4lS gallons VI spirits But
these decaraons not such evidences Of any fact
Tbefe0le tue entire case Oi the government consists
OF these TWO deciarAtlonn winch your Honor thinks
and the government ciainis III evidence 70 bind the
members OF @ firm. That Will De admiIted TIL the
mater Nexpained, and IN order to explain them we
must show what the actual transaction was and then
compare the actual transaction with these decmra-
lions. rhe government hau no rgnt TO cal upon
the defence 10 explain the matter, but al we were
called upon 10 do 30 We dlo II thoroughly and COM
pietey. Cuunse then proceeded TO review the evi-
dence very iuily ahd eaDvratey, contenulnQ, iron
the testimony 0I the various witnesses on tie
ol the prosecution. well as that the defence,
that no charge mad been ana raL even
NO prooaDie cause for senulng the TO another
tribunal had been shown. and, concluding SAID That
II his HonOrs mind was constructed as some minus
stances oi mere suspclon aud vas impregnaDe TO
proof he might 20 further into argument ot the
case. II hs uonvrs mind was, as ne believed ~
WAS, OF that legal ludiciuus nasure that Is guided
only by legal rules OF evnence and law, and wnlcn
suOinLs lIseif ~ the testimony OF Witnesses whose
truth ana velaclty has not been aud cannot
lWpeoched. he was convinced that his Honor would
dismss the Charge AZ once and therefore, there WAS
no reason why ne snOad Iur lher take up the OF
lhe Court. IL, On Inc otner hand. tne Court would
be guided by the rules laid Gown by the prosecution,
there " as no Occasion Tor him lcounse commenting
witnesses VINO mad So thoroughly anu satisfactorily
explained everything having tae appearance OF sus
picion against the defendants. human testimony
means something or IL means nothing. Peopie
to be neld for the commission OF crime on mere
suspicion tnat may arse he distorted
ageinst them, or that may nave previously
existed against them. is TINS 10 be so, or before
We condemn shall we not take The Testimony
OF faithful wtnesse5S " must be either
the one course or the o.ner. We, ny our Witnesses
On the other SIDE you have not the testimony OF \
single witness W single fact. You have only their
decaratOns and deClaratlOns only, and these decs-
ratiohs themselves are explained Dy the very parties
wno made tlem or procured them 70 pe MADE.
Ine act and precise meaning oi these declarations
have been luiiy ana satisfactorily explained py
ana their meaning and intended application and
force pointed our. With regard 70 the lsS oarrels
lnarked h. d., high wine, four witnesses nave sworn
upper lot, and that when gagged they
the government gauge Tnis fact has besn
testified to Dy four Witnesses whose testimony
stanos uDimpeacheI. He would say, in concln-
SON. that tnere WAS no circumstance, even OF suspI
clon, 70 throw upon the traDSActons VI this nrm
connection with This case, although the government
has nAd possesslOn OF their books for nve or SIX
weeks. Ii his honor's mind was to be operated
upon BY mere suspicion some theory OF suspicion
may be tortured out Of AL The surrounding circulu
stances OF the case ana II from this II hnprex.
nane 10 PROOF then all examination, all tesLl-
a9ny s,iH. aai saGumena WAS utterly ials ana futile
testimony adduced-tne testimony OF iour most
spectabe, unlmocached witne5ses-wouid be ac-
cepaole ny The Court ~ faithful and ~eliaole Laere
coud DC no hesitation IN arriving at q just cOncu-
SION IN tue case especially wnen that testimony and
MI the surrounding proofs, facts and circumstances
are c0Inpareo Win the feeble attempt the part
Of the government TO criminate us. lie relied with
confidence on the justice OF the Commission
ers for prompt dismissal OF the charge.
ARGUMENT OF DISTRICT ATTORNEY PIERREpoAr.
Ex-JudRc Pierrep0nt on rising said.-May 1t please
people dealing IN whskey, or drinking wnisKcy L
nave no prejudice. Ihaye no more objection TO the
merchant VINO deals IN whlskey than nave To tne
merchant wno deals III moiasses, or TO the man VINO
drinks whiskey tnan Ihe man VINO drinks none.
AL contend ior as .rSyr government o.ilcer
IN wnlskey nor the man VINO drinks 1t shah
In their dealings or arinkngs delraud tho govern
ment lie mao, therefore, no prejudice against the
defendants In this case. One OF them, Mr. Fellows,
he nad known az client on former times. He had
no idea that Mr.. Fellows would willingly cheay or
deflaud q customer OF his who was trusting to his
honor and reputation as merchant But ne would
take the present occasion 10 state from the short
experience he had IN hls present oilco OF District
Attorney he had discovered that men were
wiling, and even women were ready and
customs isi and revenue '1 returns. Men 'aSd ana
women VINO In every otner transaction were
honorable and pure and above reprOach would come
from abroad and cheat the government, II they
could, OF the customs revenue. Merchants iL tho
highest standing In this community. ana honorable
In every other transaction Qnd branch OF Business
VIII DO the same thing. Every week that passed
they were making Developments or tns attempt aI
fraud on tho Internal Revenue Department by
persons connected with the wnskey business. That
there are temptations u cheat Ia consequence
OF the high rate Of duty was trne II was more
an d.
ing among their Iellow men would attempt TO de-
fraud the government than TO cheat q customer OF q
single cent. The cnarge here ID one That requires
The closest scrutiny ana the most patient Inyestiga
on. WHAT IS tue duty OF the oilccrs OF Inc govern
nent the Court In tha casef ltia their duty To
make an investigation for the purpose OF ascertain
ing from the evidence whether there Is probable