The Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1837-1845, 1841-10-16

'he afhoasiti because Mr. Sluimpy WAS unworthy oil
credit that he went TO another magistrate by whom
| the affidavit taken and sent on
Lott says that he resides in Lottsyilc-that the re-
putalion of the witness Quimby while resident there
was very bad that he was no, to be believed oath
and that in informing the prisoners counsel of his
character be [Mr L) had no private motives OF re-
venge or malice TO crafty Now ii 10 said, and il is
true that ordinarily witness to invaldate the testi-
mony Of another should be called from the neighbor-
hood But you are the arbiters Of this question, and
The evidence Of Seth Human for whatever il is
worth, Is also before you. When examined before he
said Mcleod was not by him that morning-he
now says that he was You will give this the credit
| you deem II deserves.
| Justice F. T. Stephens is then called and sworn -
tie tes'lhes that he present the night in ques
lion, and that he three boats 90 and return
and he distinctly and positively swears that he saw
Mcleod disembark at the beacon-lght.
That Is a statement which is not corroborated by
other witnesses and is the contrary hostile TO the
statements of all the other witnesses both sides
II cannot be true. He was dismissed from the stand
without cross examination. He has testified to a
deliberate fasehood-a fasehood for which the pallia
ting plea of the probability of mistake be
| offered.
Leonard Arson is the next witness He swears
that he Mcleod the bar in Davis tavern that
there were others there who took part in the exped
ton against the Caroline, each Boosting as to who
had committed the greatest crime that there he
saw Mcleod draw out his pistol aud declare that he
had killed id Yankee, and that he pointed out
the blood on the stock OF the pistol.
This, is contended the part of the prisoner Is
improbable story--that he could have the
blood on the pistol. And other considerations have
been submitted you in relation the testimony of
this individual which is unnecessary for me to dwell
upon now You are the judges of their weight and
the attention which should be given them.
These are believe the only witnesses belonging to
the first class of evidence against the prisoner That
IS, these the only witnesses who testify OF their
own knowledge TO facts unalied with confessions,
Which 60 to connect Mcleod with this enterprise.
And the prisoners counsel contends that some OF
these witnesses have been mpeached and that others
have appeared in very doubtful circumstances that
the darkness OF the night was good reason why ne
very great confidence should be placed in the state
men,s Of those esying SO positively that they recog-
nized Mcleod with such certainty, and that what
they have thus proved is enough TO throw shade
OF suspicion the whole. That is the view taken OF
II by the prisoners counsel.
Whilst on the other hand the counsel for the prose-
cuon insist that il il q mass OF testimony which you
believe, and which believing you cannot doubt
the fact OF the prisoners guilt. II Is your province to
criticise all this and pass upon it.
The other branch Of the evidence is that contained
in the confessions Of the prisoner; and there is a
principle of law applicable TO that description of evil
dence, to which the counsel of the prisoner has d.
rected your attention. that confessions are IN them
selves the most suspicious kind of esidence-easily
fabrcated-and difficult TO be disproved liable to be
and unless coroborated by other testimony the rule
adopted by the elementary writers, and sanctioned by
the most distinguished urists is, that they the
most unsafe description of testimony.
Nevertheless they competent to be weighed
judged Of and passed upon like all the other evidence
in the case therefore, gentlemen call your aiten-
ton to the evidence of
Henry Myers; and would admonish you tina, one
rule by which you to test the declaration of wit
nesses is that you are to whether they proba-
hla--Iik w hat m n lk ~ q would do
The last is that occasion whilst he passed
Niagara Falls he stopped at tavern and saw Mcleod
with number Of others-that Mcleod was accosted
by by another of the partylhat he boosted that
he compelled the witness TO " treat" the party.
You will judge of the credbility Of this witness
story but there is thing he said which has not
been noticed by any of the counsel, and what may
that he marked the features Of Mcleod WELL he de-
termned to him in similar manner if he
got him on this side of the frontier.
The next witness is Calvin Wilson. He is the
keeper of ferry at Youngstown, in Canada, and he
says that few days after the destruction of the Ca
roline he went over tc Canat a-went into a house
" here person by the name Of Rayncock, Nc
Leod, and others whom he named, who had been ac-
tors in that transaction, and that Mcleod said of
the id rebels got shot on the wharf
This witness has been amned at last and
confessed that though poor man with family, he
had given two hundred dollars to the patriot"
cause, and declined answering whether or not he had
harbored the notorious Lett 10 rebuke his testimony,
a respectable inhabi,ant Of the town Of Niagara,
named Hamilton, was produced and testified that he
well knew Rayncock, and that that individual was alb
sent in England at the time specified by Wilson.
The next witness worthy Of notice is Timothy
Wheaton. He was called by permission after prose-
cuon rested, the Attorney General supposng that
there had been reservation in favor of this witness
He deposes that about year before he had gone
from Whitby, Canada, where he lived, to Niagara
was near the ferry saw Mcleod coming up from the
water sde-and the witness remarked to him that the
sentines had hard time Of it that they then talked
OF the Navy Islanders, and about their number that
Mcleod said they would have the Caroline there
again, and added that he the second or third man
who boarded her. and then person. stranger to
witness, interrupted the conversation by taking Nc
Leod of-that he the witness turned from the ferry,
recollectng he had not pass and went back to the
town
Gentlemen, you carefully to examine this evil
dence, and decide according to your conscientious
vcton of the truth, really is II you believe this
evidence, notwithstanding some objections TO it, and
some deductions which are to be
made--if you believe that it does, after all present
to you an amount of evidence which is sufficient to
cali up the prisoner to answer, then you take
into consideration the defence opened before you And
it is undenablc that, IN looking at this of evil
dence there is much that appears questionable, and
much of it remains that is not powerfully attacked,
and that does bear very hard the question of the
prisoners guilt But passing from this, you then
to look the prisoners eide because is the right of
every put on trial here to present his witnesses
have them examined, and if he succeed in establishing
a defence, to have the full benefit of it,
That defence, gentlemen, is what is called an abb
1t is in other words, that he had part lot no
sort of participation in this enterprise and this, after
the disposal of the first question already passed upon
is the only other ground of defence that exists. And
in my judgment degree of suspicion should attao b
to it original defence, because il IS jus, said
the only defence that for the prisoner at the
bar. Ii he were in truth upon that expedition, then
he is guilty, and SO you must pronounce HIM. But,
gentlemen II he was at that time five, six,
miles dis ant if he had no pa tcipation in that en-
terprse, then the same great principles of justice
nure that YOU ahnnll nrnnnnnce him innnccnt