|
270 TRIAL OF JOHN W. WEBSTER.
was executed during the last century for another crime, at the commis-
sion of which by a man of his character and in his position the whole
civilized world held up its hands with horror. And yet he confessed
it all.
But we need not cross the ocean or the century to obtain such
Instances. Take the case of Colt, in New York, for the murder of Adams.
There was an indebtedness, and the victim was beguiled by an appoint-
ment into the place of business of his murderer, and slain for a paltry
debt.
The case in New Jersey, of Robinson,-who killed his creditor, Mr.
Suydam, and concealed his remains in his cellar, and who by a strange
concurrence of circumstances was detected, tried, and convicted, and
then confessed and was executed,-is another instance.
Take the case of another educated man, Dr. Coolidge, of Maine. What
was there to prompt him, any more than the unhappy prisoner here, to
crime?
No, Gentlemen it is not in any consideration derived from such cases
as those cited by the defence, that you are to look for the exculpation of
this prisoner, or to allow the weight of this evidence to be impaired in
the least degree. Reputation is one thing, character another. A man
who could do what it is proved by the most incontestible evidence the
prisoner has done, cannot come here and stand before a jury and put
himself upon his character, and nothing else, without asking them first
to obliterate all moral discriminations, and to surrender to a prejudice
the real convictions which the facts must force upon their minds.
Now Gentlemen, consider the facts which tend to show that Dr. Web-
ster was concerned in the death of Dr. Parkman. I think I have shown
hitherto, that Dr. Parkman never left that building after he went into
the College; that all the evidence of his having been seen that afternoon
.is really of no account; that he could not have been slain by any other
person and that he could not especially have been slain by Mr. Little-
field. And now we come to the consideration of this great question,-
Was he slain by the prisoner at the bar?
First, let us consider the relation which Dr. Webster bore to Dr.
Parkman. I do not know that. I care to have a better description of that
than was given to you by my learned friend who closed this defence.
He expressed it in connection with the proposition, that, if he did com-
mit the act it was manslaughter and not murder. He described the
relations of the two to each other and I adopt the description, so far as
it shows that Dr. Webster, the debtor, who his creditor believed had
done him a fraudulent wrong, was evading, and that Dr. Parkm4n, the
deceived creditor, acting upon that belief, was urging the payment of
his debt. There is no difficulty in understanding their relations, when
you take into account the fact that Dr. Webster had promised Dr. Park-
man, from month to month and from week to week, and from day to
day, up to the time of that fatal Friday, that he should have his money
from the proceeds of the sale of the lecture-tickets. Add to this, that
all the proceeds of those tickets were appropriated to other objects; that
he could not pay him from them; that Dr. Parkman held a mortgage on
his household furniture; that, on the 9th of November, two days after
the lectures commenced, he called upon Dr. Webster personally at the
Medical College; that on the 12th and 14th, he called on the collector,
Mr. Pettee; that, on Monday the 19th, he called on Dr. Webster again
(an important fact ignored by Dr. Wbster); that afterwards Dr. Web-
ster sent a note to him, which the counsel regretted could not be here
(I join in that regret; every possible search has been made for it; he
doubtless had it in his pocket when he was murdered); that that note is
followed up by Dr. Parkman's visit to Cambridge on Thursday; and
then the toll-gatherer tells you that he came down to the bridge, about
that period, more than once, inquiring for Dr. Webster; when you take
|
