National Republican., 1885-06-06

tract, that is. that they had running I
contracts with those parties for medicines |
yoir ahetyear You iosoliect when ] caino TO i
cross eNaniliiJ thGm aDunt IT, that is DE- Blood |
good and Mr. Joyce that thorc was quito |
conflict In their evidence, with respect 70 one
matter which / shall call your attention TO.
But both OF them agreed, that, closing mp the
books, they could not toll whether or not one |
Of shOso articles or any article was bought ~
the year iSs. asked Mr. Joyce to Try aud
remember II he could state TO the court ana
jury, independent of the books, that they
brought here, one article that was delivered
at the laboratory In the year 1888. He said he
could not 1 asked DR.. Boodgood tho Same
thing and he could not. DR.. BloodgoOd is
gentleman who intends 20 be fur, but he has
apparently Eol this official habit OF pretending
TO know what he does not. lie Is an ohcer
who has matters reported to him by his subor-
dnates aud has educated himself In the be-
lief that he personally knows what his subot-
dlnates do. l asked him ifhe knew personally
anything about the goods that came to tho
department, whether he handled them or
whether II was his business to receive reports
about them and simply look at tho books. He
| Joyce went on the stand asked him II Dr.
Bloodgood or his other superior officers knew
Of all goods, personnlly, that came into Che
| know further than he reported II 70 him. NOW,
| Joyce was the only witness in the laboratory
who really pretended to know anything
there, and Mr. joyce was asked to state
TO the Jury, after closing up tho
| books, one single article OF property OF any
| kind or character that came To that labora-
| tory In 1883. and he said he could not. Now,
| suppose that the gentleman should contend
| that II was the ordinary course of business to
| send property to tho laboratory such as this,
| could you on that evidence nnd that 1t did not
| gct therc2 do not care whether 1t wont TO
tho laboratory or not, but that Is their theory
| OF tho case that Il should have gone to the
laboratory and when they arc insisting upon
! n certain theory Of the case to you have
right to ask you to analyzo and determine
| what evidence they have that 1t did not go to
| the laboratory, IL that was the usual course OF
business II that was the destiny OF this medi-
| cine you have right then to consider what
| evidence there is that that medicine did not
| reach that place. Now, then suppose that you
| had Mr. Joyce here to determine that fact
| alone, and he swOre he could not Tecollect IT,
How much evidence is that that they did not
| go to the laboratory? But let me show you
| how conclusiyoly by proof, they could have,
presented that II they had chosen to present
| II, If their theory is truo2 They say that they
have n contract with certain parties in New
| York to deliver these medicines in 1888. Now,
| we asked them particularly whether thoy de-
lvered anything in 1883, whether that firm
| delivered anything in 1888. Why did they not
| produce the contract covering that period?
! Mr.. Worthington and my engaging friend,
| Mr. Coyle, havo u great many things TO say
will come 10 that after awhile, but why does
| not tho government produce the contract with
these parties, If 1t had binding force iu 1855,
after we had pressed them coneerningit. !. why
| did they not have IL here2 Another thing, II
they had bought any such medicine as this
from this party they had the bill If they did
not keep any property books. DID they nave
bills2 bid they offer bill from these parties
In New York of the shipment OF any goods OF
any kind or character in 1883? is there be.
fore you, gentlemen, one particle OF evidence,
either contradiCted or uncOntradicted, that the
laboratory received 81 worth OF goods from any
source whatever? Not particle. The gov
ernment needed medicine in 1888. The gov.
ernment appears upon these papers, which 1t
furnished here, to have bought medicine in
1859. II does not show you that IL purchased
medicine of anybody else In 1883. IL does not
show you any bills or prove the shipment OF
any goods from anybody else in 1888. They
only stand here and pretend To say to you that
they DO not believe these goods ever went to
the laboratory. Now, while l nm on that l
! want TO call your attention to the value of such
evidence because in all 1 have TO say esti-
mate this case according to the rules OF law,
suppose you have two men of equal intelli-
gence, equal honesty come before you as wit
nesscs One of them swears positively that he
saw a Transaction, and the other swears that
he did not see it. In your mind you would
naturally prefer Il man who swears he saw IL
to a man who did not see II.
Now the rules of law are only made up OF
the rules Of the human mind. These rules of
evidence are simply the conclusions whien
the minds of civilized society have reached
aud established as principles 70 govern judi
cial investigations That is all. There is
, nothing mysterious about the law; the law is
plain and simple. Aud when 1t establishes n
principle 1t does so alter the human mind has
given honest assent to It, and that rule is the
/ most clear to determine judicial controversies
that YOU can have. Now, here Is positive
evidence, and here is negative evidence. And
inusmuch rs the governments case, as VIII
show, rests entirely upon negative evidence,
every single witness that they have brought
here Is II negative witness US distinguished
from the witnesses which We have brought
. here, aud inasmuch as that is the character OF
! the evidence desire TO show you in tho out
set how the law treats s1cn evidence, ana then
5 ask you to treat 1t in the same way. ON this
subject this Is what the supreme Court OF the
( United States has said:
That II Is a rule OF presumptions that or
! dinarlly witness who testities 10 an ntiirma'
tive is to be preferred TO one who testihes TO a
negative. The court below so instructed the
, jury. The court above say that we are of
, opinion that the charge was Il sound eN-
position OF recognized rule Of evidence OF ire
r quont application"
I So that placing this case upon the canons
4 Of evidence, which are established and recOg-
/ nized as controlling Judicial controversies,
r you are committed under your oath 10 decide
{ | according to those canOns, and you must, as
( | say as you feel in your minds that aiiirma'
tive evidence OF q fact Is more satisfactory
I than negative evidence concerning the same.
/ suppose we were remltted then 10 the verbal
! evidence that these goods were not bought.
4 | We have the evidence in Mr.. Drew's estab
!, llshment OF witnesses who appear 10 be cred
II table. whose appearance on tho stand Is
) | pleasant and honest, whose words have not
/, been contradiclGd by any of the methods
o known TO the law, who swear first that order,
u
: those orders and sent memorandum bills tC
< the shipper Now, what was done with the
n goods after they reached their destination
n Then, you strike this evidence, this negative
q evidence Of the government that they did MOI
q see them. MIR, Shaw says that he did no
d see them; they did not show Mr.. Shaw thi
}. bill. asked him If he had anything to dc
IS with the purchase Of the goods OF the de
N fendant aud he said he did not. He neve
ir was called upon to look at this bill; and ye
h he sworo that he, did not see the porter wht
il swear he did not SEQ him and examine wha
10 he brought and the porter did not bring these
n Aud the government brought Mr.. Clarke
e Il venerable old gentleman of 81 years of age
le who has not been permitted to buy anything
10 for the department for three or four years.
n suppose, Of course, he has not lately beci
e troubled with much labor, because he ha
10 reached that year in life when he cannot b
ot trusted TO transact much business. He swear
that he did not see the porter. is that all tn
r. evidence on the subject The evidence istha
* ceiyed them. Hero is the written state
Il Incnt OF Mr.. Carrgan that he did an'
g. appended to this written statement is the Gel
Of tidCate of Mr. Wales that the public exigencie
is required the delivery Of the articlesmentione
o. in the bill, and that they were therefore pui
IS chased. Is that Dr. Waleis SIGNATURE Tw
1 of the government witnesses swear posltivel
[ that II is Dr.. Wales does not deny 1t. SUI
T. pose they brush away the consequences of tina
being his signature, and you were charged alon
N to inquire whether II IL his signature; wht
OF wouldyou say on the evidence? You woul
% be bound to say that ii is his signature The
u ernment itself has proved that II is his sign
or turc but they undertake 10 destroy tho force
that by saying that IL Was procured from d
,f- Wales by some sort OF device or fraud. Let 1
ne sec what evidence there Is OF that Is thei
CT any witness who swears that DR., Wales WI
D? deceived By any representation concerning thi
NJ, paper when he signed Il? No. Does he hin
IA self swear that any statements were made
in him when he signed IL? NUtat all. How do,
as he undertake to impress you that deception
~ were practiced on him concerning his sign
49, tuIet ny anSInlhs lhal no IecoileeIs hDOl
)t. ltY MOI ny all II anybody Drought mere WI
OF does rocollect anything about it2 No on
lis How, then, are you 10 lind, gentlemen, as
m IN alacrlolsness, that Dr wales was deceived
N Ihat IL tue governments halyallon' III yo