National Republican., 1884-02-25
THE STROBACH CASE.

Letters OF Strobach's Counsel and OF tho
Foreman OF the Jury Which Acquitted
Him.
The following letters were written in answer
to letter of Attorney General Brewster. which
was published in the Montgomery (Ala.) Ad-
rertiSer three weeks ago, and which has been
since copied in several northern papers:
MONTGOMERY, ALA, Feb. T. 1ss4.-PAuL
STRoBACn, ESQ, UNITED STATES MARSHAL
Sir: Yours of the second instant was re-
ceived by us, in which you refer to the paper
printed in the Montgomery 4Aduertiser of the
first instant over the signature of Hon. Ben
jamin Harris Brewster, attorney general of
the United States, directing the nolle pros .
of the indictments against you in
the United States circuit court for
tho middle district of Alabama in
which he gives his reasons therefor
which reasons consist in q review by him of
the trial which occurred last June on five or
six indictments, resulting in verdict in your
favor, and also in review by him of the re-
naming indictments as to which he directs
nolle pros. to be entered.
You also refer in this ettor to the fact that
you feel that the matters set forth in this
paper by the attorney general do you, as we'll
as the jury who tried your case, great inius-
tlce, and you appeal to us as your counsel,
who took part in that trial, heard all the evil
dence of the witnesses both for and against
you, and argued the case upon the law rs well
as the facts, to give you statement respect
ing the facts and matters involved in that
trial upon which these comments of the
attorney general have been made
We, each OF US, read this paper purporting
to have been signed by the attorney general
and issued by his authority at the time it
appeared in the Montgomery AdleHiSer. We,
each of u.s. were your counsel in that trial.
We heard all the testimony of tho witnesses
both for and against you. The trial
before the jury was an exceedingly lenghthy
one, lasting for two weeks.
This paper of tho attorney general, assert
ing that the verdict in that case was contrary
to the evidence, does indeed do you, as well
as the jury who rendered that verdict, gross
injustice.
flicting upon every material point involved
in the case. Two of the principal
witnesses for the government upon whose
testimony the prosecution mainly depended
were openly inpeached before the jury by
number of highly respectable citizens, who
testified that they would not believe them on
oath. There was stenographer Mr. Lind
say-who reported most Of the evidence, and
he was followed by Mr.. Coolidge, another
stenographer, who reported the balance of it.
We have not read all the evidence critically
rs reported by these stentographers, but we
have no doubt that they reported it
substantially correct. At the same time
they did not and could not report
the manner and bearing of witnesses before
the Jury while testifying under direct and
cross-examination. No proposition of law is
better established than that the manner and
bearing of the witness while testilying under
direct and cross examination is of the highest
Importance in arriving at the weight which
is to be accorded his testimony. And this
rule of law Is one which is in accord with the
experience Of all persons who have witnessed