|
50
not desiring to disturb them, turned round to come out, and saw Dr. P.
coming up the stairs,
toward the laboratories; I recognized him and passed out of the College, up
to Court street; at
three o'clock, P. M., I returned to the College, to see the student named
Coffran; I met Mr.
Littlefield at the door, and asked him if he knew a student, of the name of
Coffran ; he said he
was in the dissecting room; I told him to go and call him; he, Littlefield,
replied that he was
by himself, and that as I knew where the dissecting room was to go up
myself; went up and saw
Coffran ; did some business with him and afterward left the College; went
to South Boston and
stopped at the house of my brother-in-law, Rev. Mr. Bosworth; I went to the
College to pay
Coffran some money I had borrowed of him a short time before; saw an
account of the disap-
pearance of Dr. P. the neat day, Saturday, in a paper I purchased at the
rail-road depot, where
I was with the intention of going home that day; I was first warned that my
attendance was
required here as a witness in this case, yesterday forenoon, at eleven
o'clock, while at Grafton.
Cross -egamina,tion of this witness declined.
At this point the Attorney General rose and said that the Prosecution had
put in all the evi-
dence in the case which the Governxdent had been able to procure, and he
proposed, as prosecut-
ing officer, to rest the case there; but as it was possible that
more-evidence might be procured for
the Government, he would claim the indulgence of the Court to be allowed to
introduce furtlier
testimony if any should turn up
The Court here adjourned till 3~ o'clock.
OPENING ARGUMENT FOR THE DEFENCE.
At 20 minutes before 4 o'clock, E. D. Sohier, Esq, junior counsel,
commenced the closing argument for
the defence, with fifteen folumes of law drawn up in formidable array on
the table before him.
Upon rising to address the jury, he said it was usual, and perbaps
considered imperative, in eases like the
present, for counsel to call their attention to the situation of the
client; but he should not do this. He
could not do it. He would not trust himself to permit his attention to
wander from the cause to the party-
from the record to the dock. There he should see one whom he had known from
youth ; who was known
to many within the court room ; one who, for a quarter of a century was a
respected professor of the neigh-
boring university, which was the pride of our commonwealth. There he should
see such a man struggling
for his life-struggling to avert infamy from himself and from his family.
If he allowed himself to thinkof
these things, he should wander f: om is case, and the task he had assigned
himself. The task was to pre-
sent the grounds of the defence, in doing which he should endeavor, though
he was aware it would be at
a great distance, to follow the ootsteps of the learned attorney-general,
and keep within the case, with-
out regard to the accidental circumstances of the parties whose names would
be most frequently mentioned.
It must have been noticed from the outset that one great question to be
discussed, was that of circumstan-
tial evidence. Connected therewith, would arise the greater question of
wheter the life of Professor
Webster shall be taken ; and the question to be asked of the jury was,
whether the jury would be found
prepared to take it, unless it bad been proved beyond a reasonable dout
that he bad been guilty of one of
the greatest offences known in the black record of crime.
The question was, whether he was to be restored to that family, of which he
was the centre of the purest
and holiest affections, even the object of their idolatry ; or whether he
should go forth to fall upon an igno-
minous tree ; whether he should again make happy his own hearth-stone,
surrounded by smiling faces ; or
that all those hopes should be turned to ashes. This was the question wich
the law devolved on the jury
to determine. If they made an error, the prisoner and his family were to be
offered upon the altar of error.
But if they erred upon the other side, they would err in safety ; no
orphans tears, no widow's groan would
follow their judgment. In this, the position of the jury was more fortunate
than that of the counsel. If
the latter erred, it could only be in one direction. If they erred, nothing
could save them from their own
self-accusations, from their awful accountability to the family, or from
the judgment of a scrutinizing and
exacting profession.
He said, it would ill become them, by management or chicanery, to attempt
to get a verdict in their ease.
It was not a case for the display of tose qualities. It was their dty to
bring forth prominently, and with
whatever energy they could command, the principles of law involved in the
ease,and to press them upon the
attention of the jury. And the duty of he jury was to hold themselves free
to hear, and regard that law with
all its fullness, and with all its distinctions and qualifications. The
first principle that stood for the defence
mas,tbat it was the duty of the jury to regard themselves in the light of
counsel for the defendant. They were
to see that he had the benefit of every doubt ; to see that he had the
benefit of every view of the case
favorable to him which couldbetaken. In the language of the oath they bad
taken, they literally bad
him in charge ; his life in charge. Tire,- would commence the examination
of this case by an examination
of their own minds ; they would dispos,-a::s themselves of everything like
prejudice, if possible. This was
"king much; more perhaps than a knowledge of human nature would justify the
expectation of. But the
jury would atempt it. But could they say they were really free from
prejudice before they entered upon
the case I It was hardly possible in the nature of things. But it was the
defendants right to have his case
tried by unbiased minds. Nay more at the present stage of the case after
eight days passed in taking tes-
timony against him, the prisoner bad a right to have them unprejudiced upon
entering upon the conaader-
stion of such matters of law and fact, which he might present in his
defence. He could hardly hope for that
degree of freedom from prejudice which the law presumed. There was danger
that it existed unperceived
in the mind, and was silently pursuing its work, unconsciously to the
person who was possessed with it.-
Even if it existed in the veiled form in only one mind, there was danger of
its affecting others. It would
insensibly flow from mind to nqind-fly from eye to eye, and manifest itself
in the tone of voice and manner.
He could not believe that any one of the panel would be controlled by
prejudice. All that was appre-
hended was the operation of a bias while considering facts which might not
be presented promptly, but the
oversight of which, or an erroneous judgment upon them, might be fatal. The
excitement which the case
originally produce, could not be forgotten by the counsel, nor its effects
be disregarded at this critical
juncture. Nothing could exceed the exciiementwben it was bruited about that
Dr. Parkman had disap-
peared, and was probably murdered. It was an excitement honorable to Boston
~ but most damning for the
defendant. Indignationwas levelled against the Medical College, and against
F Professor Webster.
|
