|
384 APPENDIX.
I omitted to remark the manner in which I make the y. I make
y:-y, y, y, y, Y, y, y, Y; W A B, C, D E F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N,
O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z; small letters,-a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h,
i,
j, k 1, m, n o p, q, r, s, t, u, V, w, x, y, Z.
I should think you might etermine to a certainty whether I wrote
that Civis letter, or Webster, from the above. Perhaps it would be as
well to re-write some of those words in that letter. I have not a copy
of that letter with me.
Dr. Parkman-East Cambridge-Cragie's Bridge,-cellars-neces-
saries-cut in small pieces-put in a stout bag-firing of cannon-make
the body rise, &c., &c., &c.
I am not certain but I wrote that letter in a back-handed style, thus:--
Dr. Parkman-East Cambridge-Cragie's Bridge-cellars-necessaries
-cut in small pieces-put in a stout bag-firing of cannon-make the
body rise, &c., &c. Boston, Nov. 1849, Francis Tukey. Dear Sir-Mass.
[The above in a back hand.]
The great mistake that Mr. Gould, Mr. Smith, the engraver, and others
made, most convincingly shows the utter fallibility of human testimony,
judgment, inference, &c. When I wrote that letter, I did not think so
much notice would be taken of it, as the result proves. I was in the
hope that my suggestions would assist the authorities in their .search.
I hope you will show this letter to Marshal Tukey and others, and
compare it with my handwriting in the Civis letter.
CIVIS.
It will be noticed from the report of Mr. Gould's evidence, ante, p. 727',
that he testi-
fied immediately after the opening of the Court on Wednesday morning, March
27th. The
above letter is dated of that day, but not postmarked till the 28th. The
prisoner's coun-
sel were at first led to believe that the letter could not have been
written or dropped into
the post-offic• by him, through any opportunity afforded for the purpose
after Mr. Gould
had testified, and before the reception of the letter Thursday morning. But
its resem-
blance to the first Civis letter was so complete, and the general style of
the writing so
similar to the e mmon hand of the prisoner's, that they did not deem it
advisable to
attempt to introduce it in evidence. We take the liberty to state, that Mr.
Gould's
opinion, to whom it has been submitted since the trial, is very strong that
it is in the
handwriting of Professor Webster; and that it bears stronger points of
resemblance to
his general style, than even the first letter subs,,ribed with the
signature Civis.
We copy also from a contemporary report of the trial, in the Boston Daily
Bee, an
account of Professor Webster's remarks to some friends in regard to his
counsel's
receiving the letter -REP.
"At eleven o'clock [this was on Friday the 29th] a recess of fifteen
minutes was granted, during which the friends of Professor Webster
crowded around the dock, and engaged in earnest conversation with him.
It finally took the form of a discussion, apparently between the prisoner
and his friends, when officer Jones interfered and checked the proceed-
ing. Professor Webster appeared to be very much excited and pleased
by what had been communicated to him. He called officer Jones in a
moment after, and.said, very earnestly, `Did you hear what they said
of that letter? ' ` No; what letter do you mean? ' was the reply and
query of the officer, in the same breath. `Why, the " Civis " letter;
they say they have received a letter, in the same handwriting, from the
man who wrote it,' responded Professor Webster, with an air of triumph.
" The reporter would add that he has no knowledge of the receipt of
any such letter. If one has been received, it will undoubtedly be intro-
duced in argument."
|
