Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1896-01-28

tanning severe structures on this court with
regard to the conduct of the case, but
respondents counsel vehemently opposed
it's introduction and the court ruled
it out. Why was this done, if respondent
was innocent and courted fair, full and
honest Investigation?
"The respondent stands before the
court not as an ordinary person.
''He is learned in the Inv, and is far IN
advance of the ordinary lawyer in the
practice of his profession, and in such
matters he we'll knows that his conduct
is attributable to his supposed knowledge
that the truth would initiate against him.
The suppression or fabrication of evidence
always raises presumption against the
accused, in matters of fact before a jury,
and the maxim, omnia praesumentur
contra spoliatorem, applies here with
great force. l Green. Ev. 81. u
"There were some questions which arose
during the progress of the trial which ]
deem of sufficient Importance, in the due
administration of justice, to notice here,
and from which l dissented from the
views of the maj ority of the court at the
time, but, owing to the necessity for a
speedy hearing, the members of the
court could not then express their views
in writing.
81 was of the opinion then, and am still
of the opinion, that all evidence offered
tending to show comphcity of respond
ent in any way to intimidate or influence
witnesses on the hearing, or in the publi-
cation OF newspaper article or articles
rejecting upon the court or any member
of it in connection with this hearing then
pending before it, should have been ad-
mitted. The committee charged with the
prosecution stated that they expected to
connect the respondent with these acts.
The evidence was admissible upon the
plainest and most fundamental principles
of evidence. That is, that all acts done
for the fabrication or suppression OF
evidence, for the intimidation of wit
nesses, jurors or courts are acts evincing
IA consciousness of guilt, and therefore
admissible. Innocence trusts to truth,
and relies on legal methods to have the
truth shown, and the Judgment of the
court rendered according to the demands
of justice. Nothing was shown which
should have changed the rule on this
hearing. All the facts should have been
permitted to see the light of day. The
rules of evidence are not intended for the
suppression of facts, if these facts tend
to aid in the determination of the issues
involved, and so should they have been
applied. 1t is not necessary to cite
authorities to establish the principle for
the admissibility of this evidence.
know of nothing whatever which would
justify its exclusion.
81 do not believe that an attorney is au-
thorized to visit and talk to witnesses
who are expected to testify on the op-
posite side of the case, and learn from
them what they know and are expected
to swear to in that case; and l am sure
they should not do so under any circum-
stances after the witness has once testi-
fed in the case. This principal is strong
" illustrated in the Borrego trial, in the
case Of the witness Max Knodt, whose
testimony on the preliminary hearing
was very damaging to the clients of re-
spodent, but as soon as he received the
pass through the influence of the re-
spondent his memory failed him and hii
| testimony became valueless to the prose
cution, and, il 80 far as the testimony OF
that witness was pertinent, the due ad
ministration of justice was defeated.
know Of no code of moral or legal ethicl
which would warrant any attorney in suct
conduct, and think the attorney who
permits himself to do SO steps clear be
yond the bounds of his duties and re
sponsibilities in the legal profession, ant
becomes guilty of a moral delinq
at least, and subjects himself to disbar
ment. The legal profession needs ne
code of rules for Its guidance; it is com
posed of too many honorable and illus
trious men to require any such restraints
"The profession is composed of Law
makers as we'll as administrators of the
law, and the only rule that know of TO
their guidance in their profession is
clear and distinct knowledge of the scop,
of their professional duties, and con
scientious belief in the right, franknes
and honesty in their acts"
Mr.. Associate Justice Miller's clea
Language regarding the duty of judges
lawyers and other ministers of justice
wherein it ia held that lawyer who con