National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1874-11-07
DISTRICT SAFE BURGLARY.

:
brother Samuel remained in Washington, and
was here upon the 10th of April-MOnday, the
2Oih-the same day that Mike Hayes sWears that
Nettleship parted with him, square above Vesey
street, 10 have an interview with "Dick;'' that
Mr.. Samuel N. Harrington remained here and
was here on the 10th until noon; that he Their
parted with his brother in the city of Washing
ton; and that Mr.. Richard Harrington, therefore,
could not have been in New York upon the 10th:
that interview with "Dick" in any wise imported
either Nj. Harrington or his presence in New
York in connection with Nettleship, that it is
wholly improved. And we get rid, gentlemen, oil
that portion Of the evidence.
There is another part-cOnsisting, 1t is true,
wholly OF the declaration Of Nettleship to Hayes,
and therefore, gentlemen, under the principle OF
law and the rules for the regulation and applica-
ton Of testimony is not at ell to be considered BY
you IN forming your Judgment; ior nothing that
quence in the world, unless the parties are con-
nected-in which Mr.. Hayes undertakes to state
that on two occasions late at night of the 22d,
there was a conversation between him and Net
tleship, in which Nettleship said that he would
get the combination Of the lock Of that safe; that
he went into Welcker's, came out again and said
it was "tOO bad and went back again into the
clubhouse and again returned and did not hnd
Mr.. Harrington there. Now, while it is totally
immateTial in relation TO US whether that CONVEX
satiOn took place, inasmuch as under the rules OF
law the declarations Of different individuals,
other than those who are connected in the con-
spiraey and connected by the testimony, are ut
terly unreceiYable, yet we will, in the course Of
the argument, call your attention to the fact, as
TebuttiDg that. that by the evidence OF Mr.. Bull
lard and by the books Of the Owen house it ap-
pears Nettleship left before the time when this
conference is said to have taken place. Now 1 say
to you, therefore, that while II is OF no earthly
consequence so far as we are concerned, these
declara tiOns Of Nettleship and Hayes or the con-
VersatiOn between them, yet still further in rela-
why it was that he,ante-dated his prior testimony,
when he located the first interview upon the I'D,
and located it subsequently on the 10th, which we
show is untrue, because we will prove the position
Of Mr.. Harrington at q different place; yet, as
giving color, and as being enabled to inteTlect
the declarations Of Nettleship, we see fit, even
although il is Of no consequence whatever, to call
the attention Of the jury IN reply to the fact that
the books Of the Owen house and the testimony
OF Billiard show that NettleshiP mad let. Now,
gentlemen, further, l say that want to get rid
Of all these points and statements with which
Michael Hayes is connected, so as finally to dis
miss him from the case. The witness Hayes
swears that he had an interview in jail
with Harrington. What took place at
that interview, there being no person present
except Mr.. Harrington and the witness, is, OF
course, impossible for human testimony to reveal.
Mr.. Harrington is on trial and cannot speak.
This manufacturing gentleman is, therefore, left
entirely 10 construct and fabriCate q tale from
any materials that he sees proper to select, and
we are therefore driven, in regard TO that state
ment, to rely first upon the inherent rOttenness
Of the character Of Hayes: second, upon the fact
that multitudnOusly he will be shown to have
fasiied in other particulars; thirdly, the charac-
ter Of the defendant himself and fOurthly, the
inherent defect which is in the statement ITSELF
Now, what was it? Mr.. Harrington says-here
is his statement, which, in some respects, we eX-
pect to CONFERENCE.-The his visit to Hayes was
Tor the purpose Of ascertaining a description of
ZirTuth, and that he carried back with HIM piece
Of paper 10 ClaTvOe having upon it certain state
ments in relation 10 Zirruth. Hays says that the
conversation with Mr.. Harrington in that Jail,
was that he would soon get him out; that the
offence was an exceedingly light one; that it was
a light offence to be atOned by small pecuniary
fine, and that he was in no great danger after ALL
Now, gentlemen, is that statement possible, com
ing from the District Attorney; familiar with the
not nj hn hat pfRTnn
if not principal and accessory before the fact
and puDlsha bic in some WHy2 We will call your
attention to these when we come to the argu-
ment, as presenting in itself an indubItable evil
dence OF the weakness Of the tale: that it is
mainly the coinage OF Mike Hayes brain, and
that no such conversation could, by any posi-
S;ility lave taken place.
These, believe, gentlemen, are all the connec-
tiOns with Mr. Harrington in this case. even by
the testimony Of other people and Nettleship's
declarations, and all that are put before this jury
in any wise But ps ! said to yOu before gentle
men, the character, the credbility OF a witness is
matter for the consideration Of the Jury anterior
10 the consideration OF his testimony at all. You
are to Judge concerning the character and credit
which you choose to give and attach to them.
ne ordinary modes Of disproying them are, first,
by general Impeachment Of his character-im-
peaC bment OF his character: secondly, by proving
any specific things to which his atten Ion has
been called and with reference to which he has
been Intercepted; to impeach his credIbility,
not by general reputation only, but by showing
that in the specific acts he has spoken falsely;
and we expect to apply that test to him 70 enable
you to determine how much reliance is to he
placed upon any statement which he has made,
Now, in relation to those my colleague will call
your HOnOr,s attention to the specific cOntradic-
tiORs-hOW that Hayes, in March last, approached
William H. Reed to ask him to assist in putting
up Job on Nettleship: he denied it, and we oX-
pect to prove il. Second, that Zirruth and Hayes
together were in Newark in the month of March,
1874 You remember that he swore that anterior
TO meeting Zirruth in the city of Washington, who
was then unknown to him, or known to him as
VIII he tod ov0A
unCeT the name Of MillCr-tkat anterior to that
time he did not know him. Now. we expect to
prove to you by testimony that Hayes and Zir-
ruth were not only unacquainted with one another
before, but that they had met and were in famil-
lar intercourse with each other in Newark in the
month OF March, 1874,
thing.
HT. Smithers. Ny learned'friend suggests to
me that ZirrUth sWOre to the same thing, so that
these gentlemen, whom We may call, may be
taken in the light Of double baTreled gun, and
expect TO knock both birds by the same testimo-
nv There is another fact, gentlemen, in which
We expect to contradict him. You remember
that Hayes swOre, that upon the occasion Of his
visit to the house Of NettleshiD in Newark, when
Nettleships child was dead, that Nettleship
gave him h!ty dollars for the purpose Of going
away and not coming TO Washington. Now, we
will prove on the contrary by two, not only most
TesUeCtable, but unimpeachable witnesses. that
instead Of Nifty dollars being given to him not to
cone to Washington, it was given to him by Net
tleshlp-twenty- I'VE dollars Of his own and twen-
lA-LNe collars OF which ne DOTrOWeQ. DelleVe,
from Mr.. COyle-with specific instructions to 90
directly TO Washington: the difficulty being
and the difference being, not that Hayes did not
get fifty dollars, because Nettleshp gave him
fVentv-fye and borrowed TWENTY-FIVE from Mr.
CUyle 10 supplement the nifty, but as to what
NettleEhip said and the purpose for which he
gave it to him; Mike Hayes Insisting that Net
tleShip gave il to him to go away with and not to
come TO Washington. while we will prove to you
on the contrary. by the most indisputable and
iTrelutabe evidence, that he gave 1t to him with
CrfpF fp I'M n nEh-
inRtOn before the committee.
Again. Hayes sWeaTs that on the It'll Of May
he went to Ncttleship's house, and on that Occa-
sion he carried his friend and companion, one OF
these Siamese twins that he has linked with him
IN order to pipe him, and that when he went
there he had an interview with Nettleship, and
that this gentleman stood out on the other side
Of the street. Now. we expect to prove to you,
gentlemen. by unimpeGCbable evidence again,
that on the whole Of that evening Nettleship was
bout four miles from Newark, at the house Of
Mr.. Samuel MOrTill-Mr. Morrill, being a mem
Der Of the bar-and that they had certain bust
ness transactions between them which rendered
il impossible that Mr.. Nettleship could have
been at home at the time when the witness indi-
Gates. We expect further, gentlemen, TO prove,
in direct and specific contradiction Of the Witness
that upon being asked on his examination whether
he had not said to Lewis DelOmeT and Isaac
Steinberger that he intended TO swear that Har-
riDgton had given him the combination Of the
safe be denied it, We will prove that he did tell
them he would swear to that.
Another specific contradiction which we intend
10 put before you, as am instructed, is an inter
view in the Jail, which took place between the
witness and Mr. Madge. That in that converse
ton he distinctly informed Mr.. Madge that he
knew nothing Of Harrington in connection with
this matter, and that the talk about the counter
felt money, with which he introduced the subject
upon both occasions in his office, was a mere trick
to enable him to take notice Of the Office and its
approaches. Hayes denies il. ! am instructed
that by Mr.. Madge we will be enabled to prove
as true that which Hayes denies.
Finally, gentlemen, as am instructed byny
friends, we expect TO call before you witnesses as
10 the general reputation and character Of Nike
Hayes, showing what manner Of man he is: his
conversation; how he demeans himself in the
world; what occupation he is engaged in, and to
show to you that from the general reputation
he lives he is utterly unworthy OF credit, and
finally, gentlemen, these things see to be IN
necessary, and yet in the performance Of our duty
We feel ourselves compelled, from a sense OF duty
70 you and 10 those gentlemen who are implicated
by his testimony, to the extent TO which such
testimony can duplicate anybody in the way he
delivers it. From his testimony alone he stands
before yOu confessed, in and by himself, to be
such an one as that you cannot rely on him, for
We Will adduce &c these facts in his testimony
that ne had sent an innocent man to the peniten-
tiaTy; that he had taken an oath to an afidayit
presented 70 him by Mr.. SomerviIle after having
objected to If: and that he swOre to IT, stating thai
II was false, and swearing TO il when he did mot
know what alterations had been made BY Soner-
Vile In i-When II was not read over to him: that
he would not have sworn to II If he had NOT got
SEQ, and when the notary asked him If he knew
what was in il and whether il was true, he said
ayes, sir"
Now, gentlemen, how is it possible to deal with
the character of a man like THAR To stand uvov