The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1873-02-17
SCHUYLER oOLFAx's DEFENCE.
His Pleas of Innocence Put to the Test
Overwhelming Proof of his Guilt-An
Analysis OF the Testimony.

Correspondence OF the New York SUM-
WARRINGTON, February IL.
There was great deal of comment to-day
on Colfa1's defence last night. There was
but one opinion expressed, and that in sub.
stance was stated by one of the ablest lawyers
10 the House. This gentleman said, when
asked what he thought of Colfax's statement,
that the fairest way of testing 1t was to put
supposable case: "For instance, suppose Mr..
Colfax had claimed that Ames had cheated
him 10 his Credit Mobilier transaction and
alleged that he had never received the $1,000.
the proceeds of the so per cent. dividend;
that to enforce bis rights he had brought suit
to recover of Ames this $1,000, and Ames set
up the defence that the money had been paid
at the time the dividend was declared; that
Mr.. Colfax on the trial Of the cause swore
positively that be had never received 1t, and
here rested mis- case; that Mr.. Ames then pro-
duced sworn COPY of bis memoranda of ac-
count, made at the time OF the transaction,
which showed that he had on the 10th OF
June, 1868,
PAID MR.. OOLFAx $1,000;
that In support of this he produced also the
books of his banker with the original checks
drawn during The period covering these
transactions with Colfax that the books Of
his banker showed that on the 2lst OF June,
1868, check drawn by Ames In favor of 8. G.
for $1,000 was paid; that the check being
dated the goth o: June, 1858, was also pro-
duced and exhibited in evidence; that then
the books of the bunk at which the plaintiff
(Colfax) transacted his business were com
I1elled 10 be produced, and these establlsh
that Oh the 22d of June, 1858, Mr.. Colfax de-
posted 81, ,968 that the deposit ticket which
accompanied this had also been produced.
showing that this deposit was made In several
items, one of which was exactly $1,000 In
United States billie. Suppose, also, that Mr..
CoIfaX's attorney demanded that Instead OF
The sworn COPY of memoranda of account, The
defendant (Amee) be compelled 10 produce
his original book Of entries, that the Court so
ordered, and that lhereupon the memoran-
dunn book In which these original entries
were made was produced, and was found, on
examination by the court and jury, to corre-
spond exactly In all material points with The
sworn CODY, and 10 substantiate In every par
tlcu,sr the testimony of the defendant. This
constitutes, we will suppose, Mr.. Ames's de-
fence.
ooLFAx's CASE.
But the court allows Mr.. Colfax, the plain
tiff, 10 make another statement and to pro-
duce other witnesses to corroborate his slate
ment By rather unsurpassable case, but one
that will answer our purpose. The statement
of the plaintiff is simply reiteration OF hls
former testimony, with an attempt 10 rebut
the presumplive evidence against him al.
forded by the deposit ticket and the BOOKS OF
his bank. he sels up as an explanation OF the
$1,000 deposited In greenoscks q story about
his receiving from his father-in-law, some
lime In the summer Of 1858 he thinks in
June, but does not tx the date with any Ger.
tainty-$ 5000 in greenbacks In payment OF o
loan. He also AYERS that about the same Time,
without being any more definite as to dates he
received from o casual acquaintance 10 New
York CITY letter, " hich he opened at his break
fast table. and found therein $1,000 green
back, which the donor said was 10 be used fol
campaign purposes. He calls the attention o
| the members of his family 10 the munihcen
| gilt, and various commrnts are made thereon
| The man who was 80 liberal Ia dead.
The letter accompanying the one-thousand
dollar note has been lost or destroyed, ant
neither can he produce either TO FIX the date
| or corroborate any part OF his story. But n'
brings up the members of bis family, Wn(
swear that they have distinct recollectlon
| seeing him open letter and exhibit one
thousand-dolar note, and relate some OF the
remarks that were made. They do not hx tht
| QuIe Oh Lulb UTcdhldbL tdOlO 100 Guy idSA
definite than the plaintiff does. They are very
confident, however, that it was some time II
June, 1868, about The middle OF that month
but give no particular circumstance on which
they base their recollection. This is the case
OF the plaintiff.
TIE VERDICT.
Now, was there ever jury 80 stupid as to
hesitate In case OF this kind 4? Is there
court ln the world that would not instruct the
Jury to 1nd Tor The defendant on the ground
| that the plaintiff had not made out his case
Then suppose that the defendant, incensed a.
| the conduct of the plaintiff, caused him to bt
Indicted ior perjury, and as the chief witness
on the part of the commonwealth gave tnt
same testimony against him that he did ir
defending his case. and Mr.. Coliax's defenct
| was precisely the same as that adduced before
Judge Poland's committee last night, Is there
the slightest doubt as TO what the verdict O.
| the Jury would be? There certainly could bt
no other from q fair and honest jury thar
"Guilty, as he stands indicted"