Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1881-01-22

The defendant Doyle is connected with
this paper, by his own testimony, and his
own testimony alone. The defendant Doyle
testi6es that McQuiddy gave the paper to
him the day before-on the l0th-and re-
quested him to mako some addition to It. he
says he did nos like it very well, although he
saw nothing very bad in it, and did not do
anything that night, but the next morning he
tells you that McQaiddy came there and
asked him if he had got the paper, and if he
had added anything to it. He told him he
had not. McQuiddy manifested some impa-
thence, and told him that the Marshal had
gone out to BradeH's and Storer's, as he sup
posed, and that Crow and Hart had also
gone that it was time for haste, and he hur-
ried him up, and therefore he took it and
added what followed /; he added the reasons
to it:
ave present the following facts: First
These lands were never granted to the South
ern Pacific Railroad Company" "a fact
which had been determined to the contrary
by the Courts, aud determined for all time,
unless that Judgment should be reversed. SO
far as that case is concerned. Second-We
have certain equities that must be respected,
and shall be respected" And again, "we,
as American citizens, cannot and viii not re-
spect them" That is the rights of the South
ern Pacific Railroad.
Now, he knew, because McQuiddy told
him, that the Marshal had gone with the
writ to put Crow in possession of Storer's and
Brewers land. He was urged to haste. He
dictated this addition he said, in answer to
a question from the Court, that it was not
dictated by McQuiddy; it was his own diota-
tion-it was his own language. Now, then,
when he wrote that language he
had reason to believe from the con-
versation, whether he did so believe or
not, that it was to be used-to be delivered
to the Marshal. The conversation, McQuid-
dy's anxiety and hurry to get off, his impa-
thence to hurry him up, indicated sll this. 1t
was addressed to the Marshal he read it,
and by appendipg this addition to it he
adopted the whole of it. When he appended
McQuiddy, with this appendage, having
signed it. "By order of the League" or By
authority Of the League" he adopted the
whole OF it. He conferred with McQuiddy
in preparing this for the Marshal, and when
he delivered it TO McQuiddy, that was a
commendation of and concurrence in those
acts between the two, and tends to show that
there was conspiracy, at least between those
two. 1t is addressed to the Marshal; it is
the language of threat, and the testimony
tends to show that he knew it was to be used
for that purpose, ard he, at least, affirmed.
that it was By authority of the League"
Now there have been several other papers
put in evidence here, purporting to have been
by authority of the League, but none can be
traced to the League, and it is denied that
they came from the League. It is said that
Doyle consulted no meeting of the League,
because there was nc meeting; but concediDg
it to be SO, he, at least, affrfns that this was
by authority of the League, and McQuiddy
confirms it by adopting it and delivering it to
the Marshal. with that appended to it. They
two act in concert in reference TO the prepara-
ton Of this document, and for the purpose of
delivering it to the Marshal, as the testimony
tends to show whether it shows this satiz-
factorily or not is question Cor you to con-
slider.
Then the testimony shows that McQuiddY
Immediately rods off from the house that
he went by one direction and Doyle went by
another, and they both arrived at Storer and
Brewers at about the same time, or not far
apart and the testimony tends to identify
them all as being upon the ground during
some portion of those proceedings.
Now, that tends to show preconcert of
purposc-of action-on the part of these
two men at least; and if you believe that
they did thus act in concert with reference to
that, then there was a conspiracy to do the
thing which the document purports to; and
ii there was conspiracy, the act of Nc
Quiddy is the act of Doyle, even although the
latter was not on the ground-because the
acts Of enc of the conspirators, when the con-
spiracy is once established Ia carrying for
ward the objects of the conspiracy, are the
acts of all the conspirators.
Gentlemen, il these acts occurred in the
way that l have indicated here, there was o
continuance of the resistance OF the Marshal,
which was begun on the first meeting on the
ground of those parties. Now, from all this
testimony, gentlemen, from the acts IF the
parfiap ynt, Iptarrnira yphether nj
there was a concert Of action and common
purpose. That there was q concert in going
there, the testimony shows, because they
agreed upon it. There was q concert upon
some purpose. The question Is to what that
purpose was. Was that the purpose indi.
Gated by the acts which they did in fact per-
form Immediately upon getting on the ground
in great haste, without even waiting to con-
suit with Storer and Brewer, or was that the
purpose which they now, after the act say
was their purpose-a mere matter of persua-
sion, mere matter of protecting Brewer in
case he should be assaulted with an intent to
murder him?
You are to determine this case, gentle.
men, from all these circumstances, and make
up your minds: First, was there con
spiracy? If there was conspiracy, who
were guilty of that conspiracy, and then,
also, was there an actual resistance. If there
WAS VIM hOlC SlilAtJ Va tLob dSbudl ICoISL-
ance? If there was a conspiracy on the part
of some, and not upon the part of others,
then who are those that are guilty of con-
spring ?-because if Doyle is guilty of con-
spring with McQuiddy, he is guilty.
Although McQuiddy is not on trial, he is in
dicted, and it is no matter that he is not on
trial. Ii Doyle conspired with McQuiddy,
as it is alleged in the indictment that he did,
or with anybody else he is guilty of every
act of resistance within the objects of the
conspiracy that was performed by any Of the
conspirators he is guilty with the others
who carried the object out, even if he did
not get there in time to assist personally in
the matter.
Gentlemen, as to the credibility Of the tes-
timony you are the sole judges, and as to
what it proves. l have pointed out the bear
ing of the testimony [ will say further, as
to what actually took place. what was actu-
ally done there, there is scarcely substantial
conflict in the testimony. The conflict not
so much as to what the acts were there may
be some little as to some points of it. You
will recolect what those points are. The
conflict is not SO much as to what acts were
actually performed by the various parties
there, as it is in regard to the purpose for
which those acts were performed.
The great conflict is as to whether the pur-
pose is what the defendants, long subsequent
to the event, and after these larnentable oc-
eurreuces have taken place, now say was
their purpose, or whether that purpose which
is indicated by their acts-which is made
manifest by their works-Was their real pur-
pose and you are the proper parties to deter
mine whether that purpose which these acts
indicate was the real purpose, or whether
that which they now gay was their purpose,
and which they did not in fact accomplish,
was the real purpose.
Gentlemen, you are the judges of the credi-
biEty of the witnesses, too, and You are to
take into consideration their situation in ref
erence to this transaction. Many of these
witnesses are defendants to this charge, who
under the law as it now stands. and think
wisely, are permitted to testify bnt, gentle
men, you should scrutinize their testimony
with care. They are deeply interested in this
matter. Seven lives have been lost in this
transaction, and they are now at the bar of
Justice here charged with the offense Of con-
spring to resist the United States Marshal,
and of having actually resisted him. They
stand here subject, if found guilty, in the
discretion of the Court, to imprisonment and
fine. Now, what effect this situation may
have upon their testimony is q question for
you determine. And so the witnesses on the
other side-you are to consider their relation
to the transaction, and upon tie whole come
| to such conclusion as you think the evidence
justifes.
am free to say that several of these de.
| PENDANTS, in my judgment, testified with