|
199
So he did. How does that connect Dr. Webster with this murder,
or anything in relation to it? Why, it may be argued, that it is a
box in which the remains ,could have been put. But was the box
made for that purpose ? Did the Doctor say anything which indi-
cated that it was to be made for that purpose ? The Doctor said no
such thing. Where were the remains ? - and where was the box to
go ? The remains were at the Medical College. Was the box to go
there ? The box was to go to Cambridge.
Mr. Clifford. No, sir !
Judge Merrick. It was to go out of town, to be filled.
Mr. Clifford. It was the witness' own construction.
Judge 'Merrick. It was what he said. Now see the position in
which the Government was placed. Dr. Webster calls at Mr. Water-
man's, orders a box; and is asked what it is for, and he tells. He is
asked where it is to go, and he tells. The Government ask you to
think that that is a lie. The Government say that it was a good
thing to put the thorax and the thigh in ; and, therefore, conclude
that it was so. Gentlemen, you are to be satisfied beyond reasonable
doubt; not what is probable ; not what is likely. And yet, Gentlemen,
seriously, the life of Dr. Webster is dependent upon this very thing.
Suppose that the case were so balanced that the Jury should say,
We are satisfied, if it is proved that this box was made for this purpose.
The Government say they can prove it. They call in Mr. Water-
man, who says, " The Doctor said it was to put small things in, and
to be sent out of town to be filled." All you can say is, that that is
not true. That is to say, there is no proof, one way or the other, as
to the object to which it was to be applied. And yet, this cause is
V t as much to be proved as you are to be satisfied beyond reasona-
ies doubt of the murder itself. Every fact which the Government
present makes an issue; and if it is disputed, then that fact is to be
established by proof, and not by conjecture. And if the proof falls
short, then that fact is to be laid out of the case. It is to have no
influence, because it is not proved. That is the whole argument with
respect to the tin box.
I have only to say to you, with respect to this, and the fish-hooks,
that Dr. Webster had ideas of his own upon this subject. We can-
not prove it by what he said to his wife, or children, or anybody else.
He cannot get up in Court and testify to it. He does say that they
bad nothing to do with it, and puts the Government upon proof.
Standing in a land of law, he has a right to say that they are not
proved.
With regard to the fish-hooks, the Government say, probably, that
they were to be made into a grapple. Where have they the proof?
Will they take the statement of Dr. Webster as to what he intended to
do with it? No, they will not. And if they will not take that state-
ment from him, take you none from them. " Prove all things, and
hold fast that which is good."
Now, then, I say that the Government, with reference to this, have
given no more than a possibility, not an application ; and they must
show the application, or the intent to apply these articles, or they
can have no effect.
At one time, another matter seemed likely to cause perplexity. I
refer to the bag of tan which was brought to the College by Sawin.
|
