, 1877-10-12
COOK COUNTY CROOKS.
Yesterdays Proceedings in the Trial
Of the Indicted Commis.
BioneTs.
lrrnmepts Of Counsel Over the Al.
instability Of Carpenters
Little BOOK.
The Court Takes the Question
Under AdVise1nent.e

r, ths Criminal Court yesterday morning,
aim argument on the nilmtssbtlIty OF Carpen-
sst,s little book was continued, the confession |
~ sxcetzcr being also Involved.
" IT,. atorrs addressed himself to tho question
,wh.ther statement made by party upon his
s.,mInatton before Grand Jury co,,l'i be used |
IL -videncc against him, even although no aecu.
s,,lon was directly lcycleI ngafnst him. pro-
,,Je1 tho subject matter concerning which |
hs VA. examined was The satnc upon
~h,cl, hc was indicted. lie quoted au-
thor,tlcs to show that such statements
rcrc competent evidence, tho only limitation
hs,nn II the witness wcrc compelled 70 answer
sftsr service Of the subpnna, tho answer thus
a.tei aeivci eonli not io used as evidence against
lin The evidence offered was not In thu M
t"Tc of confession, but the statement OF wit
ness made before quasi: judicial Investigation,
- witness who At tIat TING va IN not aeeassetl, si,
tInction, Carpenter was not threatened with
isn,nrlsuntncnt II he didn't prounca tho book;
Thcrc was ,,o hint TINT hc wo'Ila bo Committed
for contempt. And nothing was said about M Pre-, ,
isea developed BY Ills own statement. Even II
BE- nnsso,,,ssIon naa 0eo q tic Jook was not con'.
pultory. l. was not necessary 70 cantpn tana,
hat It was sathcr tho BUSINESS ri tho parties
having his examination iu charge To keep thclF
rnoutbs shut, Tho fact that l.c answered
question was taken a: evidence that tllo answer
s,naiI TO answer. Tho effort was to put Ia CYL
dence tncmorandum-book. Did It speak Tho
TRUTH The prosecution relied, As characterize
fng TINT book, not necessarily upon m tno aesGsp FTP
imt upon his declarations to Dcardsscy that he
I'D sticli book,-that II ras book OF short
svts maie By him. There ras free, lncon"
.iuea statement 9! az iapehhdfea,t 5 If tfss H.
ross Of tho testimony was
TO PRODUCE THE nooK 1T3ElY
IN which Car1entcr's conversation With Boards
lev related. WAers was tho concciyablo chance
tSiat that hook told an untru.hf Tho character
of the influence used npoti prfsoncr WAS left
1y the books-to tho discretion Of tic Judge, to
Determine whether Tho threats or promises
were such ~ would leetima,cly Induce a ln TO to
claiped. established these propoattons:
i. That the statement of q Witntss under
oath before u Grand Jury vas admissible IN csi-
dcnce against hItu when 10 ls upon his trial co.,-
etrning the very satno subject matter upon
which he was examined.
i That the more fnrt tilat the party himsclf
suspected TINT he Wns suspected, or tint tho
mere fact that fle was suspected, does not rem
Il That the fact that he did not decline to m.
.wsr The o.1cstious put to him, and TINT he did
not assert bis privilege, was cyidence that tue
eau be tilraahel Of sbat fact except bis refusal
ant, lerl1nntion to answer, md that no was
compelled 10 answer after such decE!natlon.
Tho defense nsked that Nh c1 post facto effect be
nro,tte was not made until after tue disclosure
II tho existence Of tho book. There could bc
Lnt ono objection to the Introduction Of tho
book. that Ii was ohtaiacd by comt,uislon' bnt
tbst pretsnso. lir. storrs cltc.1 cases
where fhe statements Of witnesses before Grant!
Juries, Coroncrs' inaucsta, etc., hati been used
ngaIust them IN trial. which resulted IN their
SssG 1tnars s"f fs Sn question s sS "a M e Soo
forced from Carpenter by the i'attery Of bope
or by the torture of fcarl i WaS absurd to ton
tend that it was; yet eyen u 1t were, the book
not derive lis existence from tho statcments 0,
confessions Of Carpenter, nor was It's integrity
Of fasity Affected in the slichtcst degree, ''ain
tanned, or destroyed BY any ALLEGED statement.
or c,nfeestons which lit had made. 1t "as no'
descriptive
STATEMENT MADK nr CARPENTER
under oath TINT tho prosecution sought to intro
lluce, but fart, having existence whether Car
petcr had testified Or not. Itc hook wa t.
which 1t was procured, but tts delivery 10 Ill
colt was voluntary Aet. -.-
statc's-Attorncy M'lla said the question Tn
one Of xrcat tmrorta1se and tru,'ca n1at ~ III
alteration Ut all tho polnts presented. Modern
.s,,,rt. appreciated tho fact tint tho truth mus
be ret n, and unless promise Ut threat,
some soine force or torturc, bad been used to e1
tort m untruthful statement lilo statc9ach
M. swctt asked to bo allowed to recall Car
peutes In order to ask hin soI,1 question:, bll
the CURT would not permit It, bceausa the j.
irnsc lssl lad full opportunity wednesday,
sir. snItb, in reply to Mr. Storrs, sail tina
she Grand Jury WAS not Investigating an
epecitIc crime, hut wore scaEcliiug for ON
'tnrtr inquiries were directed as Pcrout, yet !,
,Was used as Witness. In hIt way to gct I'll
}aook ho was assured by one OF tho Grand 1uro1
4lalrott}, in order u caltp h!s fears, that !
you'll not liz harmed, that IL was lottnnai
thing TINT he kept the book. and by tcstItyln
III relation to 1t ho would be' forever cxenl
from l1artn.
III. Hlorrs {sotto vocc)-That Is utterly falls
Mr. Slhith wcnt on with his argument, a.kt1
II there was any evidence ot the existence
Tho book heyonl tic statement u Carpcnsc
He quoted decisions to stl0w that
PRIVATE PAFxRs wHNh SACRED.
Wherever, he GoAtenatd, q man could pc cot
PEELED to produce evidence against himself
wherever Papers Of memoranda wcro obtaln'
by holding out Inducements 70 the party as WI
u through tue fundamentally OK PROCESS
soaa ns9st ss CO. 5 @ H. sa aa
tho book, and It VIVA utterly worthless, 60
'Ile pEctehbe that there WHs a distinction
tween the u1slMu1anda mud oral testimony y
siulp!y . fraud. tue Bul Of KtctA throwing
protecting TEis over both. Tho ruIu, ~ ia
down aua reiterated, .,, xaa directly to tho pol
slr. SWEET followed, discussing the applicatt
OF lega! prtnc,plcs to tha particular circu
stances 0f tho case, aud dutning tile legal r.
lions Of Ca1pentcr'4 going betvro tbo Uru
jury as witness. Ths ru!e waa 10 excludy &
trssions II any Influence lsal been exertel up
the niutl III ths party to tlMluru him to tcsti
Applying that test, he inquired whethof tl,t
was anyt!,lnr which led Carpenter to ti,Ink
would be benefited By producing tho book d
giving testimony Regarding IT, l!e
~ 10 an induecmeut. Tho o
statement was part Of the confession. i
book Of tikelt amounted u uuthing. A ma
wi couli moi bu separsted and called m tu
pet,.ltut fatt. Eit!cr tue cntire teatimony '
ulmIssiplc or nnln Of It. The worda spos
wyru Tic ,stx gesit of the act. Would the Co
permit the prosecution 10 uso the book ~ an
ienng wc,!gc to do Indirectly what they CO
not do directlyt -.....,,.,..
Mr. Rer,l si,uke upon Tho question whet
The confession was voluntary or co1npnlso
cIaituiur that the facts ahowcu Il to be tbs
7.is i,s1L Lt.4rf, ,1nI1t IN