Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1874-11-17
THE SAFE BUR GLARY
TRIAL FOR COZ .sp,p.cx
me Tea MsImsnsf fhe Hayes Case
His Reie 1emphreys Orders


bis argument for the prosecution after recess
He called the attention of the jury 70 barring
tons conduct at his interview with Madge and
Governor Shepherd, at the Arlington hotel,
where he Was perfectly Indifferent "a to the
protfered assistance of Garter, and to his earn
estness and anxiety to have Mad &c keep Carter
employed. even If he (HsTriDgton) had to fur
nish the money. What was the cause of this
change in Hsrringt0n's demeanor towards Car
ter? 1t was because Carter had called again on
Madse and informed him that this was a con-
sptTacy TO iDjCre Columbus Alexander, and
Harrington was then afraid Carter would tell
the whole story unless he was silenccd, and the
best way TO silence him was to employ him.
Harrington's visit TO SOmervil q in Phila lei
phia was next commented upon, and Mr. Hill
SAID Mr.. Smithers promised, as in the opening,
that SOmerv1lle should be here; but why was he
not brought here If he could have explained All
these things satisfactorily?
ML. Dayidge linterrupting.)-" Why didn't
YCu bring him heTe2U
Mr. Hiil-'.It was not our duty to bring your
witnesses here"
Mr. David ge.-"He y as your witness. and not
ours; his name Was on the indictment"
Mr.. Hi 1--WE tiled our side OF the case"
Skaters evidence was next sitted, and SIR.
mn Claimed that . was shown from Bsufeld's
te'egTams and directors concerning the How
ard case that neither Nettleship nor Smaller
b I'D anything to do with the Howard case until
the list OF April; Just about the time this con-
splracy eliminated, and long sitter some Of
these kilograms passed between the parties
The motive for this deed was next discussed.
and Mr.. Hill cited several instances to show
lar less inducement than that which haa &C
tuated the parties in this case. Harrington
Was secretary of the District government and
an investigation was then going on into the
management of the affairs OF that government,
and II would appear from what afterwards
transIlTed the tide of eviderCs was turning
against this District government. Harrington
was a jealous partisan, and here was an oppor-
tune moment for him to show his zeal. If this
burglary could be successfully carried out il
mlght arrest the feeling OF prejudice against
"
memOTlaliSts. To serve his friends whose cOu-
duct as being Investigated, he agreed to carry
OUT TINS burglary, and therein lies the motive.
In whitley case there was q ire to serve his
t1peTioTs and ard them, and who could tell how
lar II might lead 20 a promotion or a long con-
Hnqsnce III once 6y securing the influence of
actuated by the same feeling, and tie double
hcentive or aiding and thereby retaining the
favor OF his chief, Whitley.
Mr.. Hill closed with 6n earnest appeal TO the
Jury to bring in verdict of guilty, as lie be-
lieyed all the allegations had been fully proved,
To.day's Proceedings.
This morning, on the opening of the court,
the jury were directed 70 leave the courtroom.
Judge Humphreys then inquired il Hayes was
III court.
Mir. Riddle. believe he returned to New
York on Saturday night last.
Judge Humphreys said that he had considered
the subject deliberately, and the course taken
In the matter was, to say the least, singular
he had written out his conclusions and an order
which he read, As follows:
ORDER OF TIE COURT IN THE CASE OF HAYES.
On Friday last this court WIS adjourned by
consent OF the government and the defence tiii
MONDAY. During the recess, a witness for the
government In this case, whose evidence has
gone 20 the jury, and which evidence the Jury
Will have TO consider; even before the case has
been submitted the iury-but after the evil
dence has all been closed and before argument
OF counsel and charge OF the court in shIcb
Argument and charge would necessarily be IN
vowed the Character and eject OF tue testimony
OF that witness, this witness Is arrested by a
committing magistrate, on the affidavit or q
party defendant in the case on trial, on a
charge OF perjury alleged 70 have been COM
mltted IA the very case being heard. TIE court
trying the case had heard ali the testimony. ana
would have jurisdiction 10 have committed the
witness II apparent perjury had been commit
tei-and furtner, would have entire juTi- fiction
to discharge the accG-ed even after the cJm-
Hltnent, having appellate jurisdiction of the
committing magistrate. The committing off,
Ger could not have acted without al examlua-
uCn CT the facts, except by waiver by the
accused. But the court before whom the
whole case had been tried, had, of course
heard all the evidence, and wOuid not have
rehesrd II either on an application TO commit or
on ha5sas corpus. During the tendency OF the
.rial ana while the very question was to be
tired by the jury what credit was due = the
witness, the attempt is made to transfer the
nearing thereof to a tribunal from whose action
Greet appeal lay TO the very court having
charge OF the whole subject, and before which
Tie -se vas being tricd. There could scarcely
DC conceived more direct attempt Al a IA yless
at.2
iniatuation by which organized justice W.s uI-
dertaken To be INSTRUCTED. OF course, il can
not be overlooked that Immediately after the
AcuoD OF 'he tribunal undertaking TO commit,
an appeal would lie and was actually taken TO
the court trying the original case and A differ
EFT JCdge OF the same court from the one hold
lLg ne court dld release the witness o. bail, |
anu WITHOUT nearing the facts. The case OF the |
Nitness was one for the original jurisdiction Of |
the court trying the cause, and charge of per
jury could only be tried III that court. Con |
nrIy 2Varza ffgv, g.
shd country IS all exhibited in the prOceeiiny
Let Us look little further to the mat
yer involved. IT judge hearing upon !
tGbeGs corpus was OF opinion that the u lrtv /
ought not 10 be held. He would, even after me |
case was AL decided, in which the alleged per
Jury lad been committed, be at liberty to die
charge that party. Even after a grand iurv
had found bill of indictment the fudge could |
orOer an investigation OF the facts u d.
termlne the amount OF bail, AMI alwsys
before the nndlng by the grand Jury the Judge
may dlscharge. Even after g verdict of con-
vlction by jury the judge may grant a new
trial' ard even admit TO bail on ca pita charge
In the case of the witness arrested anl taken
rom the jurisdiction OF this court, having en-
tire control over him, the whole evidence had
been heard, and II could not be heard by any
Utner ulDGnal without an examination of All
tie witnesses. These considerations are stated
10 show the utter absurdiCy of undertaking 70
interfere with the course OF the trial and these
matters exhibit something OF an epormity sell
dem, ID ever, witnessed during q trial. \ trial
on charge Of perjury against any
witness IN this case, either for the
prosecution or the defence would in
justice 20 that witness, require the whole case
TO be re-nvestigsted, all the facts TO be detaief
and charge TO the jury based upon these facts.
his - too grave matter Tor a committing
n agistrate 10 undertake to wrest from the ONLY
TRIBUNAL within this jurisdiction that is sur
f9uiced by common law; time -houOrtd and An.
cleht rules bulTaTks OF liberty and order, that
jurisdiction mat Il uDquesUOn5d; and bv its
Sctcn OF committal force 8 rehearing upon the
court that has already fully heard the ease. Ii
VIII De time enough for the court 70 consider
the proprlety Of re-orening the evidence when
a grand jury sOlem1ly and deliberately deter.
MINES 10 send for witnesses and uaDers ana
make formal pre2entLaent of an indictment
viii, III accordance with these yieWs an ! as
resulting therefrOm, treat as q nulIitY the ar
res OF Michael Hayes on the charge OF periury
n MS evidence during this trial, order AS
discharge and that or his bail, ana that the
whole proceeding before the Police Court Dc
belc Tor nCught, and that the record be maze
showing TINS disposition OF the III after in this
court. Thus | wipe ont this attempt At the OBJ
ulcuon or the Que course OF ascertaining the
uUth I'D TINS case. What may take place or
occur alter the nnai Adjournment OF this term
cannot tel, and any action hat m ay occur viii
pc governed by the court 10 succeed the
question OF contempt in the issuance and Dro-
cufeInent OF the process Will be Considered on
the return OF the notice issued,
after the reading, the Jurors were brouob.
INTO court.
PRAYERS FOR INsTRrcTro~s