|
86
P: mqanrtotiursue him. Aa early aR the first convernation whleh he had
with` his brother-in=law. fiir. Shaw, P. was
mach excited against hiu;. and from that hour, never ceased until it became
more and more aggravating. We
'have the testimony of Mr. Pette, s man coming from Dr. P.t who stated that
he s>as disappointed and chagrino' as
he stated to Shaw ;-3haw had endeavored to calm his mead. Both of
thegentlemen occupying the stations in
reffrrence to pecuniary means-this fact was well understood by the
community. It was not the amount due
from Webster to P. for the amount could never iqjure P.-but there were
other circumstances. Parkman was
disappointed and chagrined at the want of success in his applicationfor
money to Dr, W.; yet he, never called in force
or forbore the purposes which be had on his mind to enforce from Dr. W. the
payment of the debt, not by
seeking the aid of the law, but be exact with his debtor to obtain thus
much. Accordingly, we find his pursuit con-
stant and his jiurposea unchanged. He sent by Pette a message, which if
taken to Prof. W. could not but have
excited him. AŽ early as Sunday evening after the sad scene of the 23d
there was something exciting. He must
have gratified his feelings soon by using harsh language, and in common
parlance harsh epithets were used, show-
ingthere was a bad state of feeling existing between the parties Again, as
early as Monday evening, there we
find that Dr. P. on a late hour in the day in the laboratory, where W. was
toiling for his daily bread, readifg
,chemical books and making preparations for his next day's business-we find
Dr. P, that night saying, In
a state of excitement, and addressing Dr. Webster, '1T o-morrow, something
must be done." Professor
Webster wrote a note to Doctor Psrkmen ; and I wish you, gentiemen, here to
take particular notice
of this fact. Webster says that Dr. P. came to his place with a paper in
his hand, which he found in his pocket-
book on the evening of his arrest, and actually read. During that week we
find Dr. P. watching the highway to
prevent Professor W. approaching the College. We also find him again at
Cambridge Bridge, where he asked the
toll man after the passengers who had passed by. He procured a conveyance
and rode out to Cambridge, and
inquired near his piaco of business-that was Thursday-and then we find that
after this, the next day, they
met and quarrelled. Th state of feeling., generated byheir whole course of
dealing was constant and pressing
Thgy met by appointment, and is it strange, gent,'lemen, that men meeting
under such circumstances should get
into a wrangle? Ia it strange, 1 would ask, when a man coming and pursuing
his debtor with this degree of unre-
lenting cruelty that, It the period whout hey met, angry'worda should
ensue, and next, personal collision-the con-
eeqnencea of which were to be death to one of them?
I am arguing no probabilities; there is in morals as well as in passion a
necessary connection between both, pa~
Sion has its way as well as morals; mind operates according to its laws as
regular as the planets move in .the~r
spheres; it is as rational that men, feeling under such circumstances, and
meeting, that blows should follow and
terminate in death, as that cause sould produce its effect; the parties met
in a state of excitement; this is all we
know; the creditor pressing with a firm and hard hand the debtor resting;
justice may seem sometimes to ex-
aCtiug in its requisitions and its claims to be urged too far; the party
returns to him who seems to him
to be the aggressor, word for word, blow for blow; what would seem moat
likely to occur after such
an altercation, bringing the parties to combat; the combat to the death of
one of them, or that Profeesf
Webster could have made the cold, fearful calculation for a scene like
this-that he prepared' the weapon that
he Reduced-that he led him on to the toil and there deliberately slew him.
Now, Gentlemen of the Jury, tht
amnaJ's of crlme tell no such 'story as this-that a manlike Prof. W., of
such a character and with such a position,
at once by a single stroke, with all the influences of his education and
social life, could perpetrate the worst crime
which a man can commit against his fellow and yet Gentlemen, with these
amazing probabilities, you are asked
to believe that this crime was deliberately committed. Not that among these
parties hate existed from former
altercations, or that after the excitement they should have-been led into
contest. Gentlemen, there is noalterna-
t19e. You are to judge-you are not to go beyond this period of time-what
had transpired between these parties
before this time; what occurred afterwards could not change the nature of
the act which was then
somplete. and I leave it to you as rational men who are called upon herel
to decide the facts that are
presented to you, whether you will tot gather from the circumstances
surrounding the parties here,
'beyond all reasonale doubt that death come-on not from premeditation but
from the suddenness of anger when
there was a fearful heat and blood between these parties, when t4ey were
exasperated We are not at liberty .to
ge'beyond this period of time to ascertain the character of the act, Can
you go beyond and gather evidence it only to consider, we should have,
perhaps we would expect, that the parties-as stated first-came to combat
and, from combat went onto death. We should hope that after having slain
his victim we should find him exclaim.
ing: " God have mercy upon me; I have slain my fellow-man; I was rash and
gave him hard words; I retorted
upon Man, and pressed upon him in the heat of passion, until I smote him to
the earth, and left him a blooding
warpee " But gentlemen, do you believe we would Ali do so? Consider,
gentlemen, Professor Webster was a
nssa of standing in society, and he had a family and yrffe dependent upon
him for support Lot us assume
that in a moment of temptation, while yet his blood was hot and passion
high, he committed such a rash act before
his blood cools, surrounded as he was by the walls of that College, from
which every human eye was shut out.-
°tetptation came over him. and he slew his victim. From that moment,
gentlemen, he expected time Ito enable him
to prevent disclosure and all its consequences-that after the first false
step.,-after slaying his fellow man, he at.
teuapted to conceal the fact, and having succeeded in getting himself free
from the probability of all public diaelo-
ture-he then adopts measures to prevent such disclosure-he attempts to
conceal, and after one step comes the
temptation to conceal and destroy--he temptation still comes upon him to
ward off suspicion, and to shut out
all proof. 1f then, gentlemen, he jave out these false reports-if he wrote
these anonymous letters to avert suspicion, it
would have been only the natural consequence of that false step by [which
he first shut himselfup from public
dibolosure, by concealing and covel ing up the crime; but still, if the
concealment of the body was commenced In
his room, it must be seen, in other circiomstances, that it is for him to
give an explation of his conduct subse-
quently. In connection with the act, then, gentlemen, examine this
testimony in its various parts. These pro-
babilities do not establish that the crime was premeditated murder, and
therefore of a lesser character, that of
manslaughter.
`I pass now to the consideration of another point; yet before I enter upon
it. I have to ask your attention to
that defence suggested by the Counsel associated with me. First, as to the
indictment-Its avermente from the
date of the offence. The first and second counts in the indictment are
substantially the same, for all the purposes
connected with the indictment. The charge against the defendant is, that,
with a certain knife, he made an
assault upon George Parkman, and stabbed him in the left aide. The second
count, is, that with
a certain hammer which he had in his hands he hit him upon the head. Now
these two counts distinctly charge
two specific acts-if the crime was committed with a knife all the evidence
required to satisfy the prosecution should
apply to the knife, and also to the hammer, as the proof to suppose that.
and no other. The third count charges
that he made the assault upon George arkman and struck him with his hands
upon the face. The fourth
ohstges that the defendant in some way or manner; and by some means, caused
°the death of George Parkman.
Now, we claim that under this accusation the 0overnpent are bound in a
charge of murder to set out their:
charge. We claim that the law distinctly presents formalities; that the law
distinctly prescribes the manner.
We claim that the Government, in compliance with the requirements of Law,
do not set out distinctly and pre.
cisely the means of death.
My associate has called the attention of the court to such legal
authorities which we have doemod it neces:
sa:y to introduce in support of our argument. It is not for me to repeat
the arguments only in general terms;
and here lot me add that we are not bound to answer with respect to this
fourth count, and 1 trust thht in this po-
sition we will'. be sustained by the Court; that it is not necessary to
introduce evidence because it does not aver any
i$ing bylpoisoning or by drowning, or in some way, or manner, a party, if
so accused, could prepare for his de-
fence, if by fire, by poison, or the knife. If by either of these means he
is accused for taking life, he has a right
|
