Boon's Lick times. [volume] (Fayette, Mo.) 1840-1848, 1841-11-06


would have the Caroline there again, and
added that he was the second or third man
who boarded her, and then some person, a
stranger to witness, interrupted the con.
versuion by taking Mcleod off:-lhat he,
the witness, turned from the ferry, recol-
ecting he had not pass, and vent back to
the town.
Gentlemen, you are carefully to examine
this evidence. and decide according to your
conscientious conviction Of the truth, as it
really Isl Ii you believe this evidence, not
withstanding some objections to il, and not.
withslanding some deductions which are to
be made--iI you believe that it does, after
all, present To YOU an amount of evidence
which is sufficient to call up the prisoner to
answer, then you are to take into consider
alton the defence opened before you. And
it is undeniabe that in looking at this mass
Of evidence there is much that appears
questionable, and much OF itremans that is
not powerfully attacked, and that does bear
very hard on the question of the prisoners
guilt. But, passing from this, you are then
to look at the prisoners side, because it is
the right Of every man put on trial here to
present his witnesses, have them examined
and if he succeed in establishing defence,
to have the full benefit of it.
That defence, gentlemen, is what is called
an aibi 1t is, in other words, that he had
no part or 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 ex.
lists. And in my judgment no degree of
| m mir chOnIn att tn n n mir nl
defence, because it is, as Just said, the
Only defence that remains for the prisoner
at the bar. If he were in truth upon that
expedition, then he is guilty, and so you
must pronounce him. But, gentlemen, if
he was at that time five, or six, or seven
miles distant, if he had no participation in
that enterprise, then the same great princi-
pies of justice require Il at you should pro-
nounce him innocent.
The evidence sustaining this defence con-
sIsts Of the dispositions of individuals avow-
eddy participating in the EXPEDITION, and
secondly of the oral testimony of several
individuals showing or tending to show,
that Mcleod was, during the execution of
this enterprise, at distant spoi-in ano-
Their town.
First, then, with regard to the evidence
OF the commissions. The prisoners coun-
sci is right in telling you that evidence taken
in this way, is. and should be, less satISfac-
tory than that given personally before you.
But so far as the deposition themselves 90
to describe the individuals testifying, you
may desire some information respecting the
standing and character of those individuals.
Some of them are Iawvers-some Of them
mariners-and some officers in her Males.
tvs service, and by their descriptions they
should all be men of character and respon-
sibility.
1t has been said that this commission was
a growing commisslon''--that witnesses
were examined whose names had not been
returned. But there was in the spirit Of
IIiberaIty, and by consent, a stipulation made
that more witnesses than those named ght
examined. 1t was also limited that some
suspicion shuold attach to the manner in
which the commissions were executed, and
showed that no suspicion could properly
rest upon them. He then proceeded.
| The Attorney General has noticed the testi-
mony OF these deponents with great min.
uteness, and equally great ability. He has
pointed out where the witnesses have con-
tradcted each other or the truth.
For instance, some saving that resistance
was made on board the boat, whereas it has
been shown that there was no resistance.
If the witness swore so knowing that they
were swearing falsely. that will of course
detract much from their credbilitv. But
Wells himself testliies that he heard the
sounds of fighting, and that in the darkness
of the night and confusion of the melee, the
attacking party had mistaken each other for
the occupants OF the boat, and they fought
together. 1t that were true, then it would
not follow that in :estltying as to resistance
encountered on board the boat, they were
not false in the corrupt sense OF the term.
Passing from this, there is this other con-
sideration, which must strike you in the
outset. If, when Alexander Mcleod sued
out this commission, and directed the com
msSlOners to examine persons who had
been in each Of the boats, and if in truth
he had been present there himself, he must
I've bold man indeed. Because he must
have supposed that the commissioners
would either have taken only those who
could not see in the dark whether he was
there or not, or tina: the men would have
been so corrupt as to swear falsely to extrl.
cate him from the punishment of his crime.
But this is no further evidence than as it is
a portion of the history of the transaction,
and with these views you are to take up
the testimony and ascertain, after solemn
inquiry, how much credit you should give
these witnesses.
| It's mechanically trne gentIemen that