The New York herald., 1850-04-06
Tne webster We, dsss.

ACTUAL Ku1V OY IHNVVcuVt. % fOtxy -
my stery hangs over the affair that question can b
accurately decided BY God alone But the qses-
ton. whether a jury Of Am-ricans have been guuv
ot conds inning their telow.man TO death, upon
wholly Inadequate proof Us one upon wnen we arc
in the least, II DR.. Webster were tomorrow 10
confess hIs guilt. Aguilty man may be condemned
Insufficient testimony to-day, but the next VIC
TIM may be an innocent one.
II Boston lury, guided by their pejudices, or
any other unworthy iDfiueuce, have doae tins, II -
proper and Il is important that those who have the
happiness not 10 live in Boston, should express
their opinions publicly and emphatically Such q
verdict IL a stain upon US AZ nation; aud It is
important that we should. II possible, remove any
share Of the disgrace from ourselves, and conceo-
trste il upon the litte spot where Il belongs IL 10
important that we should let the world, and tho
Bos,onans themselves, know that there IL no
place 10 the country but Boston, where such Q
verdict could have been got hrmiy believe, and
am proud to have such belief, tnat 1t Attorney
GtneSsl Clifford and Chief Justice Shaw had been
allowed to pick out from the whole people OF the
city OF New York, twelve men whom they might
think best suited 10 the purpose, they could not
have found among US twelve men. who, whatever
their private oplnIons, would, under juryman's
oath, have rendered such a verdict, upon such
evidence.
The case, as made out by the government, was SO
weak, that, without calling any witnesses tor the
defence, the Jury was bound 10 acquit hun. The
character Of the government testimony, on many
Of the important points which they tired to prove,
and were bound TO prove, was doubtful and incon-
sistent.
First they had to prove the man was dead, or
there was no murder. All the evidence but the
dentists, towards the identification Of the body,
was worthless. No man could probably recognize
much less that Of a relative. They identified the
body only by the faiec seetn and the plate auached
TO them. They identified the body by a thing that
was actually NO part of the body. The dentist
sweare that he recognized these teeth and plate as
his own work, after they had been exposed to fre
and heat. Another dentlst, equal to HIM, for all
that appears in intelligence asd skill, swears that
work under the circumstances Two OF the gov
erpment's own witnesses swore that the plate
might have been warped by heat into its then
shape doubt expressed by one professional
man on such point, though twenty OF his bre-
thern might differ with him thus matter of mere
opinion, was enough TO show that Dr. Keep could
not swear, and ought not To have sworn, with ab-
.soute certainty. Thevery positiveness with which
DR.. Keep swore Ia matter, about which all will
admit there might be some doubt, ought to make
against the value OF his testimony But to iden-
tfy the body, Dr. Keep must recognize the teeth
Dot only as his own work, but as the very teeth
and plate which he fixed In DIR. Parkman's mouth
To do this, he chief relied the peculiar for
nation OF Dr. Parkmnn's jaw, SO singular that TO
none but 1t would this plate ft. Yet another dem
tIst produced before the eyes OF the jury mould,
from among his own stock on hand, to which, In
their presence he fitted thls same singular plate.
Now, this was no matter OF professional oP nion;
II was fact, proved To the jury by their own
senses-a tact that completely destroyed the one
only point on which the identhc alton rested. 10
come ciion with this, let US remember that the
Attorney General, near the close Of the trial, Of
tered to prove that, on the atsrsoon OF the murder,
Ii mysterious double Of Dr.. Psrkman made HIS
appearance IN Boston, for that day only, and SO
like HIM that tive or Six persons went up and
spoke tn hm. Now, this singular conformation
OF DR. Parkman's jaw must have shown Itself
oulwsroiy as well as inwardly; and indeed II Is
..l.. "A, trnf hi hsfp iDatS uepp nj
named ''chn" This strange individual, then,
must have had, of course, the same kind OF jaw;
such being the case, the Attorney General himself
offered to prove that DR.; Parknan's jaw, was not
singular. YetQn the singulsnty Of the jaw and
that alone, rests the Identification.
Second..The prosecution tined to bring
home TO DOCTOR Webster, the three letters
ousbsd bssd . hand yery Ths %Ss II X: ssi hs.
weak this testimony was. Nevertheless the evl,,
dence was before the jury, and no doubt had
great influence with them. Dr. Webster, In his
speech, shows that ne felt how heavily this would
weigh against him with the jury. II was an Inn.
porraBt point IL proved, IL was the strongest and
most unsnswerable proof of guilt presented. To
prove that these were his, they produced writing
master They produced him as an expert that
rs, as nun whose practice and experience
IN his daily business has been such and so
great in the particular which he testIfes,
as TO render him, IN that matter, best qualified
10 pronounce decision on difficult point. Is
wntmg master an EXPERT In the matter on which
he was called TO testify Surely not. There - no
practice IN his business ogiye him skill 10 detecting
the handwriting of an individual. His acqualn-
tsnce is not with the already formed handwriungs
of men. His business Is to form their handwriting.
HIS Familiarity is with the rude, uniformed writings
of boys and others, before tEe writing has become
characteristic. He has one model OF handwriting,
on which he attempts TO form tnat Of all his pupils.
He maintains no correspondence In his business;
he sees very itle of the writing OF grown up men
IN the natural course Of business. What rs WIT
ten by his pupils is written under the restraint OF
hIs presence and hls rules. The handwriting that
he sees must be, IN every case, constantly chang
ing-for the object OF al his efforts Is 10 change
and improve IL. OF the indlvidualized, liked char
acter ot handwriting, that results onlv when his
pupils apply what they have learned with HIM to
actual use in their business, he sees nothing.
There In nothing In his business 10 make II his III
tertst TO guard against forged hand or TO identify
a genuine one. A merchant, or a merchants clerk,
who is receiving letiers daily from many dIffe..
rent persons, whose aDdwntlng II as diversified
az the individuals are numerous, and who
knows, before he opens letter, from what
one OF hrs many correspondents II comes, Is
a much better qualified expert. A bank clerk,
who pays checks from a hundred, nay thousand
different persons, every day, and who, as we know,
IL gu .ded ~ much by the handwriting in which
more Of an expert OF all persons who have much
10 do with wriupg, wriung master IL probably
the lesst qualified for such purpose, BY pro-
ouclpg on this point such inferior testimony, by
purpose, the prosecution laid themselves open TO
the fair inference that they could not prove IL by
good testimony, that they dared not produce the
best testimony. Bot this witness was not
even familiar with Dr. Webster's handwriting;
he had seen him write only his signature
TO dIpomss he had not held a correspondence
with him. He had only been shown some Of the
handwriting a Dr. Webster, said TO be genuine,
and his brief acquaintance with this, he under
took TO detect his handwriting when purposely dls-
ruised, and even when written with stick. The
positveness Of this witness, also, in a matter
which could not be reduced TO certainty, was suf-
fic,spt to overthrow his testimony. Why did not
the prosecution produce really competent witness
on this poInti A really experienced and skilful
man would not have sworn 90 positively. II is the
ignorant, the unskfu man, who, in assuming to
be what he knows he 10 not, Is always the most
positive. lsnot the attempt TO prove this point by
such testimony Indication Of an undue desire to
cunvict the accusedf
Third. The important fact, that these remains
were really found concealed in the vault OF Dr.
Mebsiers privy, was proved by only one witness.
That they were there before the hole was made