Bemis Report of the Webster Trial, 1850 [1897], Image No: 202   Enlarge and print image (72K)           << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space


 

Bemis Report of the Webster Trial, 1850 [1897], Image No: 202   Enlarge and print image (72K)           << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
202 TRIAL OP JOHN W. WEBSTER. There is one instance of direct saving, which the evidence of the Government enables me to point out to your attention. On the 14th of November, Mr. Pettee paid to Dr. Webster $195. The following day, the books of the Charles River Bank show a deposit of only $150. The bal- ance of $45 was reserved, and went into the little mass of savings, which were being prepared for the payment to Dr. Parkman. I know that the Attorney General has stated to you, that Dr. Webster has formerly given an account, differing from this, as to the source from which he derived this money; that he stated that it came from the sale of the tickets to the students, for their attendance upon the course of his chemical lectures. Tlie only evidence to sustain this assertion is to be found in the testimony of Mr. Brown, the toll-keeper. Mr. Brown met Dr. Webster in Cambridge street as he was returning from the Col- lege, and they walked together to the bridge; and undoubtedly Dr. Web- ster made some incidental remark on this, in connection with their conversation upon another and wholly different subject. An Irishman had a short time before passed to Mr. Brown, a twenty-dollar bill in payment for a one-cent toll. The circumstance was thought strange, and excited the suspicion that he might have forcibly obtained it from Dr. Parkman. The bill was retained by the toll-man in order that it might, if possible, be identified. He now asked Dr. Webster, to whom it had been shown if he could recognize it. The answer was that he could not; and Mr. Brown understood Dr. Webster to say in addition, that the money paid Dr Parkman came from the students. But surely Dr. Webster could not have intended to convey the idea, that all, but that only a part, of it came from that source. This must be apparent from the fact, that he had received a considerable portion of the money at a much earlier date and that a large share of it was at once distributed. Two hundred and fifty dollars was paid immediately by Mr. Pettee to Dr. Bigelow. The one hundred and ninety-five dollars was received after- wards; and of the latter sum, one hundred and fifty dollars was the next day deposited at Cambridge;, as the testimony of Mr. Pettee and the records of the bank books show. It is therefore perfectly obvious, that the idea which Dr. Webster meant to convey to Mr. Brown related to his inability to recognize the various bills, rather than to any indication of the precise source from which they were derived. But I do not think you can, or that you ought to, attribute any importance to this casual conversation. You will not suppose that the toll-keeper is a man to whom Dr. Webster would have been likely to state his pecuniary affairs with much particularity. Besides, if he did not intend to speak with entire precision and exactnegs,-arid there can be no pretence for saying that there was any occasion to do so,-the payment of the One-Hundred Dollar Bill of the New England Bank, and the forty-five dollars which was reserved from the deposit of the 15th November, both of which sums did, in fact, come from the students, would be quite sufficient to explain his meaning in this casual, short, and unimportant conversation. But the Attorney General apprised us, before the evidence was closed, that he should insist that Dr. Wesbter had no right to the two notes which were found in his possession, because, even after the alleged pay- ment of $483.64, there would still remain due upon one of them a sum not far from $512. There is no evidence in the case, except the papers themselves, which has any particular bearing upon this question. W e must take everything as we find it. The notes were found in the possession of Dr. Webster; and that bare fact of possession would, under ordinary cir- cumstances, create a presumption that he was entitled to hold them. The contrary, if it be insisted on, must be proved. The possession is suffi- cient title until it is rendered at least doubtful proof. Dr. Webster does not pretend, and he never has pretended, that Dr. Parkman went to the College to receive any other than the sum of $483.64; neither more nor less than that. Everything else was arranged between them. The mem-