The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1878-06-30
.,ouy sHFRMiN ON Trial.
,.,,cr before mn Impartial Court. with
w" mn Int eIIIKeni Jury.

| - In
.,,s ycr, lucid charge OF Judge FAIRnRoTI-
20 in tie High Court of Truth and Justice
',,,ercd to the jury impancllcd to try tho
.nc nf the gcnulncncss OF the celebrated
.urrN,N hotter. The facts submitted To
,c Jury sufficiently appear from the
,,d,c'- charge, which was given with great
.imnsrmlity. Tie verdict OF the jury will
surprise 40 one:
JUDGE TAIRBRoTHLR's CHARGE.
GrNril MEN OF THE JURl: You have been inn
.,anellcd and sworn to try the following issue:
whether or not JoHS SHERMAN. the defendant.
rrote or signed certain letter OF which tie
Glowing purports to b. u copy
NV OKt,Ss. Nov 20 1875
s1 'S,,ncf H r P . @ysiG lie scaS IL, en- WHO
,,nPs ,i or t V" Mn have nlaeed no sSculd
,sU arm in the position you have taken From
J, .i,ecd ~ s.snninS re.nonsblht, Tor pros.es made
aud ~ .uatanee that ga siul T.. provided tor a. 500,
S % s cSlsc s sS S to ssye GSu ss
.icaid VOC deem II necessary Very truly yours,
Nrp wrRrr and JAsrs = ASnrRsos
Theoriginal letter II there was an original.
ma. not been produced. Tho prosecution have
undertaken to prove the contents Of an original
letter by proving copy of II. aud by account
ing Tor the non-production OF the original.
This is perfectly legitimate mode OF proof n
4, tho contents Of the letter. but II Is my duty to
;nstrurl YOU that the burden Of proof rect. with
The prosecution both as 10 the contents Of the
Letter and a. 10 the signature OF tho defendant
IT lis incumbent on the prosecution 10 satisfy
you. beyond reasonable doubt. that there was
an original letter 10 which the genuine sigma
sure Of the defendant wns attached; that this
Original cttor WAS addressed to and was dcliv-
cred ~ NrnEn and ANDERSON. or one Of them.
q the prosecution were IN possession Of "a let
Yer which they claim to bee the original a COM
garrison Of handwriting would eas!!s show
whether the body of the letter, or the signatuyc.
yyas written by the defendant But ia tie eb-
CONGO ot the original the prosecution m Ist
STOW 20 YOUR reasonable satisfaction that what
shNy produce ~ a copy is. ne 10 tho body Of the
ge'ter substantial copy Of the original; that
uM original was signed 10y JoHN SHERMAN
with his own proper sign manual; and that the
original is lost. Or is beyond their reach.
The IRA, question for your consideration.
therefore. Is. whether the prosecution have sat
is!sctorily accounted Tor the nOu-prOductiou Of
al original letter: and this includes the pre-
tinlnnry inquiry whether there il. or was nm
OF ginal letter. with the genuine signature Of
thsdefcnlant. addrossedto III, two men WEBER
aul ANprnsoN. In determining this prclimi-
nary question. YOU will take into consideration
al tho facts aud circumstances proved In the
evidence and will decide whether the defend
ant did. over his own proper signature address
g. wrpEH and ANDERSON letter Of which the
substantial contents were The same as those Of
rho copy which has been sworn 10 by ANDEE-
soS a. a copy Of the orgina letter which he
saw and read. This is the vital question IN the
case and YOU will consider 1t with great care.
drawing such inierence- from all the facts rs
~ a a.
Weighing moral probabilities nothing eNtonu-
n'ing aud setting down naught in malice.
The situation appears, from all tho evidence.
T. have been this; In the autumn Of 1876 there
had been a popular election in Louisiana Tor
tie choice If Presidential electors. The popu-
Lar votes were TO be- counted 10y the Returning
Board OF the State. Great interest and great
suspicion attached throughout the country 10
the action of this board because It was supposed
that the electoral votes Of Louisiana would OF
NJ CHI determine who was 10 be the next Prcsi-
dent OF the United States. The defendant. q
person occupying leading position in one al
the political parties. and an intimate friend o
! tlp Republican candidate for the Presidency
went 90 New Orleans tor the purpose ~ secinl
cha, the Returning Board made "A fair count
- the popular vote for electors. Other lcadinl
H.puhcan- went on the same Grand: but the
SUPPOSED Likelihood 10 become a Cabinet Minis
iei under Mr.. HAYES 10 have been the pcrsoI
among all the so-called visiting statesmen
n,-t able TO make political promises or engage
mont- iu tho name Of the Republican candidate
And here ought. In justice 10 the defendant
O. say go You that occasions might arise ol
which IL would be perfectly Legitimate
i1r Nh" defendant. a. person likely
g. have great influence with an incVm
ins Administration, Ia make political prom
i-es Jr engagements Tor honest and hon
nrAOle Iut poses AMI II he went to New Or.ealu
wtl tAo intent Ia enter only into such honor
nbe' uud proper engagements with individuals
w.om bee might meet there. or merely Ia se
tlHf un wrong was done hy the Rcurnin!
A.nrl o. ans other persons, aud he adhered Il
ih.- uurr.-'. you are 90 give him tho benefit @
tn' 90. sumption But the question which Vol
hWoi' Zee ernine j. thi' whether the defend
Ant wtile AZ New Orean-. learned that WEBgl
snt 4 pGR>oN were engaged in, or PARTIAL
n,li.i'ird o.. a conspiracy with certain mem
h"r- ~ ~ Returning Board or other persons
i'rr. 'ue" 4 falls" count ~ tho popular votes O
'rr'a.. inr shes OF which they WEBER and As
I. Sous 80 .re the local clo 'tiun officers wheth"
W.. rHu' ANDERSON. ol "thcr Of them. mad
h....i. "A tic defendant for Il written guaran
4'"nI .n.iti7l pr"frrmeri IN case they shoul
f'vl.t' Nas required Of them in carrying on
.d .Hriapi conspiracy: and whether the de
fuilnt bon RESPONSE a. this claim wrote o
reiri 81 letter Of which the one produced b
~ '..i.nN i-a cpuy
On e -iinrirk lh'so ule-'ions. nrst Of th
gnne ,h,Wl'dSe Of the defendant a. to TIA
prn..i, ga wnioh WrBEG and ASDERsoi
''n' '' i' advance a promise ~ protection an
if"' rA.utW A,s haads bfr written guarantee