The New York herald., 1872-11-30

conclusion ever reached. He referred to Judge
Robinson's opinion and several other authorities.
laying down the respective duties OF referees and
witnesses. They could never discover beforehand
What . man would say. lie wished to hear
Mr. Travers was too largo a man to be brought
within the scope OF It's provisions. The question
was one OF the fairness or unfaIness OF this order
o. arrest, and Mr.. Travers had not shown that
readiness and rankness that seemed to HIM to re-
guire the defendant to waive any right. Mr.
Trayers was safe IN the referees Office. and oil they
MIR. M'FARLAND ON THE MATTER.
AT the conclusion OF Mr.. Fields argument Mr..
ers He Insisted @ H that 0adSe'S he m Interpretation m
given to the statute under which the ex-
animation OF Mr.. Travers was asked, and
the manner p opposed for the conduct OF the ex-
animation, were derogative OF the rights OF the
citizen. According to this Interpretation anyone
,1s hcs m DC caea 70 MAKE an aldaVt ln case eos 20
sble nte cst. The law rightly interpreted intended
TO place around the citizen every possible safeguard
wished to conduct this examination made. II
nothing more nor less than general inquistiMon. on
aa not intend to tine 81 S9e
contemplated. he urged would lead to the grossest
DANGEROUS INFRINGEMENT OF PRIVATE RIGHTS.
In applying for an afiidavit it should be known
what fact or facts it was sought to establish.
There should be some well-de1ned idea OF some
material fact. He submitted that there must be
refusal first to make an AFFIDAVIT which. he alleges.
was not the case in the present instance. In this
ss ss sy aid no intend Be @ o
them upon any pretencc put forth by Mr..
Gould. They proposed to- ask no such layors
ing the merits Of the controversy all he had to say
was that they would be attended to when the
time It would us w ae
he claimed, had nothing to do with the suit OF the
Erie Railway Company to recover some ten mil
lion dollars from Jay Gould. 1t was no matter
to the present inquiry who formed the Wall
street pool. The object OF his clients was SIMPLY
to recover the millions OF which they had been
robbed. He perfectly understood the object OF the
other side. II was smpya
GENERAL LATITUDINARY FISHING EXCURSION.
II would not help the matter as regarded the pres.
ent suit to ascertain whether Mr.. TMvers was
largely short or not OF Northwestern stock. He
claimed that they were entitled to the Order OF ar
about Travers they cared nothing. Their object was
to prosecute their honest right They did not care
who made money and who not. The evident object
stock speculation. That would not do; the time
for such things had gone by-gOne by he hoped for
ever AS to the alleged release obtained by Gould,
this
NOTORIOUS SCOUNDREL
attempted to cheat justice. He regarded It no
more than so much waste paper. II was not pre-
tended that Mr.. Travers knew anything about the
release All they wanted on the other side was to
find out who were interested in late operations In
MR.. BEACH AGAIN.
Mr. Beach said they were not to excuse or defend
Mr. Gould from the charge OF robbery preferred
against him. The time would come when they
would be prepared 70 meet that issue. Their 90
tained by parties in a manner which, when the
whole facts came to be known, would receive the
severest condemnation OF the Court. It was not
proper to denOunce his client in the language used
until the end of the trial iusriying such statement.
Mr.. Mcfarland said he had no excuse to make.
Judge Fancher put an end to further Observa-
tiOns by stating that he would take the papers,
aud give the matter his earliest consideration with
view to an early decision.