Arizona republican., 1899-09-15

reading the conclusion of Mir Ed=
 munds, and thereupon turned stke
 whole case ever to the attorney gen
 eral, who is also 10 pass upon wlletlteT
 the eviderce was correctly used.
 The evidence referred to was q mass
 of papers which Garter claimed to be
 his perScHal private property, and his
 counsel claimed that they were seized | by the government and ussd to his | detrimeEis, when the gGvernmerit had
 no right to take them. This plea was put forward so frequently during the
 trial that the judge advocate, Col.
 Barr. in his bIief devoted consider able attention to refuting the charges When Wayne AIacNedgh, Carter's new counsel. put in his celebrated re ply to Col. Barr he again harped upon this illegal evidence. and Col Barr, in
 ar argument recently made to the at
 torney general, in answer. again took Ulp t.his feature of tIge case.
 COL. BARR'S CONTENTION.
 Tt is denied" sli! Col. Barr. 'lthat [
 there is amy basic fact re0n which to rest the contention that the so-calied private papers ever were lllegaliy seiZttl' An ingenious and persis,ing harping on the subject during anu since ths trial, and peIPetCated in tire brief unde1. confederation. has left an impression in the nrind Of some peo pie t..Cui there was such seizure Elf fort. too. is made to confuse the re tai-led vouchers of the accused with the books and papers taken from the government file case. chasing alem fogetE@r as private papers The re tained vouchers were left by the ac- cIl5ed on file in the engineers office i1, Savannah when he was relieved from duty in the distcict-a fact heretofore commented on.
 The books andlI lIdpers were stored ia a:i expensive file case belonging to the g6vern1neIgt but which when it was purchased ulIe accused Cd rot, as the law requires, enter upon the returns nf puhlic property for which he was ac- counta'ble ard which he had appro p1iated to his own use.
 This case was crated ready fer ship memt and stored ill an office room. fCl. which rent was paid by the govern ment- The key was properly in tIe custody of Cagbain Gillette, and tha office could in no stl-lse be conceded the sancity Of q private room in the lawful possession of tine accused
 When the beard of engineers ar rived in Savannah. it was informed Of this crH5e1 file case. The senior Of ficer (Col. GiIIeSpie) gave instructions to have the crati1g removed and the case transferred to the board roont. It was done and the key to 1t given to that officer by the accused. wj5h per mission for the board to exan.ire i-s contents. as the following extract from q letter written Dy him to 4cle board shows:
 - have such confidence in the members of the examining board tha t l lpareserTedly place mysslf fn your hands and shall ibe glad to deliver to you the keys to the only case which | believe is locked. and I give you full authority privately to open it and ex- anime all fine contents. If there be things there which. in your judgment, | need eXipl3naIion, please request such. |
 This action on the part of the ac- cIsed GivGsted these I;apers of the character of secrecy. He submitted | them to a qudSf-officiaI board, which | made q partial basis for it's official 1 and then transferred them. | as it was its bounden duty to do to the officer designated lby the president to ! prosecute tle accused
 There had been no reply from the | b@hfd to inc IetjeI- of the accused and ! no agreement as to what papers should ! be examined and what a0t to Be ex- aniEed. Nor was there any agree | ment entered into to IsiTrn tae books ! and papers at any tfIne Had there feen it could not have changed their status before the court The facts as ! above recited are established by in d1Ibital}le proof. The contention Is made, however, tlaat no matter hcw the books and, papers came into the possession of line judge advocate, the court could not take cognizance Of | how they were obtained, lawfully CT unlaWfully. If the constitutional | lights of the accused had been vio- l4.csd he had his remedy against those
 
 Nl0 had violated them. The rule, as stated above. was laid down n Eng iand as early as 1739 in the case of Jordan vs Lewis, and followed in the case of LeggeJt vs To-lervey (14 East. 3002) and in subsequent decisions, in the United States the same question came before the supreme court of |,