Albuquerque evening herald. [volume] (Albuquerque, New Mexico) 1911-1914, 1913-07-26
COMMITTEE F|NDS
!. NO DISCRIMINATING
EVIDENCE
Attorneys in Garcia Trial En-
tirely ExOnerated Of lamp
ering with Exhibit in the
Case.
UNABLE TO TELL WHO
CHANGED STAMPS



Especial Correspv.denrc ~ the Termldl
Santa RE, q. a.. duly z6.--The at
turnVys 10 the recently concluded rass.
at Garcia vs. Garcia Iva the federal
court have been fully eXoncrntcd OF
tnmpcring with an exhibit IN the case.
by a report OF the committee ap.
pointed by Judge Pope to investigate
charges and counter chnrRee 90 the
effect that some attorney had chang
ed the stamps on an envelope con.
taiuinR q most important letter used
as evidence In the ease.
The report Of the committee which
entirely fails to east suspicion on any
attorney in the case. On us foiiowsi
Ia the United states District Court for
the District uf New Mexico.
To Honorable william "a. Pope.
United states District Judge
for the District Of Sew Mexico:
We, the committee, appointed hy
the above entitled court TO investigate
the alleged alteration OF on exhibit
No. ifi-a. introduced on the trial of
the case of Florence Lillian Garcia.
etc, ~. Petra Garcia, etc. No. 202, re-
spectfully report az follows.
Your committee met at Santa Fc,
July ~. 1918. and spent the greater
part 81 the day leo the inN set igatiou.
All at the members of the committee
were present and in addition tat @
were present Earl g. ldcn, o. \. Ma e.
ron. ~ a. Mann, John Ne1able. James
W. Chayes. Antonio Garcia and *. NJ.
Chapman. an at whom made state
ments before as = further meeting
VAS held az santa re, July 2ath, az
which time We heard statements from
Francis a. wood and g.. T.. Linuty
We Inspected the exhibit in question:
as well as other exhibits introduced in
the cuse. and also considered the tesii-
mony given on the trial of the case
nearing upon the change 90 this eN-
hibn. as we'll as certain other portions
OF the testimony.
We are unanimously Of the opinion
that there has been "a change in the
postage stamps upon piainufs exhibit
40. ifsaa, since the time when the
same was mailed This IL obvious
from the fact that "A portion of the
cancellation now appears on the en-
velope underneath the lower postage
stamp.
There are indications that tho upper
postage stamp has been changed, but
We do not md whether or not this u
the fact. The evidence tending 20
show such a change Is that underneath
the upper postage stamp tnerc appears
"a thin aim. apparently torn from the
lower portion of q postage stamp
Whether this nlm was torn from the
postage stamp which now appears up-
on the envelope or from another post
age stamp. ana IN the latter eveu'
whether such postage stamp Was Of q
nup-ccut or a tWo-cent denomination,
SIC are unable 20 ascertain.
We are OF the opiuion that tho two
one-oent postage stamps now ON the
envelope were not taken from the
same sheet of stamps. An lspection
shows difference in the shading al
tine stamps and difference ~ 'he
space between the white perforated
margin and tho green portion uf M"
stamp. which Ia not of the same width
bon each stamp. Had the stamps go SCI
from the same sheet We assume mat
the mixing would have been practi 'ol-
ly identical and the space also espec-
tally ~ the two stamps had been neat
to each other in the sheet.
Having found that there has been q
change in the exhibit. we understand
that the next step IN FOR ms To deter
mine whether that change was made
prior 10 the Introduction OF the ex-
hlbit IN evidence, or after such intro
duction ana during the progress 0f the
trial Ia determining this question we
are not in any was aided by the eX-
hlhit hself. there oeinp nothing m con-
nection with the exhibit 10 show when
the change WAS made, excepting that
portion Of the envelope underneath
The lower postage stamp now appears
Co be somewhat whittier than the re-
manning portion of the envelope, but,
owing To- the fact that this exhibit has
been constantly handled since III IN
PRODUCTION, this condition does not en-
Ian a. saI
time during which the stamp has been
upon the envelope
In the consideration Of the question
of when this changc was made, SIC are,
therefore. RENTED entirely 90 CON
slderation of verbal testimony. This
testimony De- so conHicting that We are
unable to ind or report definitely as
b 80 the time Of change.
40 proof Was presented Go us. and
sen far az We know NOM is available
ln any way tending "a show hy whom
the change of stamps WAS made.
There Be- no evidence presented 20 u'
which would Justify ms iu nnding any
unprofcssionai or improper conduct oi
The part of any of the ATTORNEYS en-
gnged in the trial OF the Garcia ease
on of the officials connected with the
court.
la tho absence therefore. of th'
discovery of additional evidence bear
ing upon this matter. We believe tina
no further action should nc taken.
complete record of the statement
made before the committee was KEEP
hy Mr. lden. tho court stenographei
and We attach 10 this report com
plote transcript
Respectfully submitted,
(slmedl s. n. DAVIS, Jr
(Signcdl r. X WRIGHT,
(signedl LOREN G.. COLLINS.