Newspaper Page Text
THE COUNTRYMAN. W
toitousfflourishes of official performance,
while ray client was going from the win-
dow to the door of the room in which he
was first seen—a distance that ciuld not
have exceeded ten feet, and probably not
more than five, or six. And while he was
running over this great distance, Walker
bad time to get off of his horse, get in the
yard, and run round to the end door.
Well, gentlemen, don’t you call this slow
running, on the part of the accused ? I
have heard of a snail’s gallop. But this
was just a little of the slowest running
that you, or I, ever saw, read, heard, or
dreamed of.
If the accused had been trying to run
away, why did he not make for the back
door of the house T Why did he go to
the front door, right into Fitts’ arms ?
The back doer to the passage, or entry,
was open—so you were told, when Stur
divant testified that there could be passing
in and out, without disturbing the rest of
the family. Why did not the accused
run out of that back door, which was
not guarded? What did he go to the
front door.-where Fitts stood, for? This
looks like trying to get away—very much
like it! Gentlemen, it is useless for me
te argue this point farther. You do not
believe the accused tried to run away.
The witnesses do not say so. But the
prosecution endeavor to produce that im
pression on your minds. They have most
signally failed.
But my client was 4 scared,’ and there
fore he burned Dr. Adams’s house. Well,
gentlemen, I wouldn't be surprised if he
was 4 scared ’ a little, and he had enough
to scare him. He was pitched into, fore
and aft—Fitts in front, and Walker in the
rear. My client no doubt accosted Mr.
Fitts with a civil ‘good day,’ and Fitts,
instead of returning the salutation, grab
bed him by the shoulders, and Walker
came in upon him, from behind. It would
agitate almost any of us, to be treated in
fills way.
But if being agitated is good ground to
convict my client of arson, I don’t know
but that you will have to convict the
sheriffs, too; for most of the agitation
seems to have been on their side. They
were agitated themselves, and they thought
it was their prisoner who was agitated.
They were like men who wear green
spectacles—everything looked green to
them. They were like drunken men, who,
being drunk themselves, think everybody
else so. It seems that Walker jumped
dewn eff of bis horse, got into the yard,
and round at the end door, before my client
could run just as fast as he could go, from
the window to the door be was in. What
enabled your deputy sheriff to perform
■ueb a remarkable feat of agility, I am at
a loss to know, unless it was spasmodic
action of the joints, and sinews, caused
by agitation. Walker tells you that the
accused was arreeted at the door that led
from the room, where he was first seen,
into the passage. Fitts tells you that he
arrested him at the front door. What
could have caused this discrepancy, I know
Dot, unless the wits of the sheriffs were
confuted by agitation. What caused the
witnesses to think the accused was trying
to run away, when he omitted to rush out
Of the back door, which was open, and
unguarded, and go to the front door,
which was open, so that he could have
a full view of the man that was after him,
and run right into the arms of the high
sheriff, commanding, of Putnam county,
I know not, unless it was agitation. What
caused Fitts to grab the prisoner by the
shoulders, when he went to the door to
meet him, in a civil way, as one gentleman
meets another, could have been nothing
but agitation. What caused Fitts not to
know a long, narrow passage, with its
walls standing close together, and frown
ing down upon him, right, and left, could
have been nothing but agitation. And
what caused so high a functionary as your
sheriff, not to know the difference between
a passage, and a room, or a porch, and a
passage, was obliged to have been agita
tion. And what prevented his knowing
wnether he went in the house, or not,
must have been agitation. And what pre
vented both of the arresting officers from
knowing that the accused was poking fun
at them, laughing in his sleeve, when be
told them he thought they were going to
kill him, was nothing in the world but
agitation. So I think, gentlemen, that
your two sheriffs had so much agitation
on their own side of the house, at the ar
rest, that there was very little of the artic
le left for the prisoner—at least not enough
lo make sufficient foundation to build a
verdict against him.
The prosecution seem to think that be
cause the accused said, upon his arrest,
‘ I never done it,’ this is good evidence
that he is guilty of arson. They argue
that nobody had accused him of arson, and
straightway he began to deny it, when
no one had brought an accusation. And
it was here that my brother Foster quoted
the proverb, ‘ The wicked flee when no
man pursueth.’ Says he, nobody accused
Ashfield of the burning, and yet he denied
having committed it, thus affording good
evidence of his guilt. There is no force
in the reasoning. If my client had said,
4 1 didn’t burn Dr. Adams’s bouse,’ then it
would be for you, under the law I shall
presently read you, to say whether it was
good ground of suspicion against him.
But he said no such thing. According to
the witness, he merely said, 4 I never
done it.’ And what right have the prose
cution to make this refer to the burning
of Dr. Adams’s house? Why not just
as well make it refer to the last murder in
the county—the last homicide—the last
assault and battery—the last larceny—
the last crime, misdemeanor, or offence
which happened in the county, as to make
it refer to the burning of Dr. Adams’s
house? The prisoner says, ‘I never done
it;’ and the imaginations of the prosecu
tion supply the balance, just as they do
throughout this testimony, and make it
refer to the burning of Dr. Adams’s house.
I say this they have no right to do. No
legitimate construction can make it apply
to burning Dr. Adams’s house. And, in
saying ‘ I never done it,’ he meant only
that he had not committed the offence for
which be waa arrested, whatever that of
fence might be. And if he made use on
ly of the expressibn he is sa d to have
used, it is very good’evidence, to my mind,
either that he did not know what hb vas
arrested for, or that what he said w : as ut
tered in response to something about tn
burning. Suppose that he had known
what he was arrested for: instead of say
ing, 4 1 never done it,’ he would have said,
‘ I didn’t burn it,’ or ‘I didn’t burn Lr.
Adams’s house.’ Let not the prosecution
say he would have omitted the worf
4 burned,’ lest it might lead to his dc e -
tion; for, according to them, what he d;
*ny, answers just as well as that identical
word would have done. And if he were
guilty, and had too much sense to say ‘ l
didn’t burn Dr. Adams’s house,’ when no
body accused him of it, lest it might Lad
to his detection, he would have had too
much sense to say 4 1 never done it.’ To
say, ‘ 1 never done it,’ was an unnatural
way of expressing himself, unless an accu
sation had first been made. He would
rather have said, 4 1 didn't burn Dr. Ad
ams’s house,’ and then he would have
shown what it was he was denying. To
say, ‘I never done it,’ without any re •
mark from the sheriff, or himself, to ex
plain to what he referred, would leave ev
erything in the dark, and not answer the
exculpation for which the negation was
designed. Bat, gentlemen, as the accuse
ed made the remark which»he did, it is al
most conclusive evidence that it was made
in reply to something which was said to
him by Fitts, or Walker. I have shown
that it is not a remark to stand by itself—
that if it had been made independently of*
any accusation, it would have been in a
different form. The phraseology of the
denial points with all the certainty of the
needle to the polb, to some other remark,
to which my client’s was made in’reply
When arrested, the accused said, ‘ W nat
does all this m'e^tl t He wanted to kno w
what Fitts and Walker meant, bv jumping
off their horses, one charging to one door,
and the other to another; one grabbing
him by the shoulders, in front, and the
other making up to him, in the rear. He
very naturally asked, ‘ What does all this
mean?’ Fitts’s testimony is, that he told
him to go to town, and he would find out.
But I would almost wager my salvation
that Fitts did, either by word of moutb,
or by manner, make the accusation, ex
press, or implied, that my client burned
Dr. Adams’s bouse ; and, in reply to the
accusation, the accused said, 4 1 never done
it.’
Gentlemen, T am reasoning from effect,
back to cause, in order to detect cause.
There must have been some cause to pro
duce the remark of the accused, ‘ I never
done it.’ The prosecution sav that caus&
was a consciousness of his guilt, by the
accused—that he wished to deny to the
sheriffs that he burned Dr. Adams’s
house. If so, he would have made the
denial in explicit terms. He would have
said, 4 1 didn’t burn Dr. Adams’s house ;’
and then the denial would have been full
and complete; it would have stood by it
self, independent of anything that pre
ceded, or followed it; it would have re
quired nothing to explain it, or tell its
meaning; at least it would bare required