The New York herald., 1850-04-06

acts. True, Il was not their fault. but !, vas ,he&r
misf0Ttuse. Ii was their m,nlertu.s sh.s ,hs-
could not prove this almpossans iacs ty more ihss
one wttneeo. IL was their misfortune thai shs,r
wi'nesss With ample time for dellberaioo. had 40
acted, Vrom thoughtlessncss. n you will thst ,h.
most important fact in his testimony coa,d MOI 10
conhrmed 'lt was their misfortune. that his con.
Duct would allow the inference that he was mr.
posely alone At the discovery. II ~ not a mecca
saTy inference, but the prisoner s entitled to douhs
Fourth. A word as TO Dr Webster's explanstion
Of hls having saved up ths moeey BY putting 1t into
a trunk until u amounted 10 the requisite cum IL
10 Just the course which weak, IrresOlute man
who had no confidence IN his own 6rmness of
purpose, would be likely to pursue. Haviag de-
termlned to pay this debt by saving enough, and
knowing his own weakness, he seeks to srrrugthca
his resolution, TO ensure his being earned out bv
adopting some unusual and ouof the-way course
He actually puts aside what he can save from uns
to time. He puts II aside IN some particular
place. He vows to himself that whatever be once
places there shall never, come what wtli be taken
out again but for the one purpose he Will hold
that sacred. IL is by just such means that weak
men strengthen their resolutions. IL IS pFocisely
in that way that we see children and women saving
money for particular purpose. Ii Is not sufficient
Tor them 10 Set aside 80 much In their mnd, bat
they must actually set il aside by putting Il la some
particular place. Ii Is precisely the plan oftea
adopted by poor persons, who, knowing they must
have much money ready by certain time, (te
pay their rent, for instance,) and being close
pressed for daily means TO live, every day or every
week, put certain amount in a particular drawer,
and vow never to touch that. DR.. Webster was q
weak. nervous man; he knew his owa irresOluti0n
IN money matters, and he resorts 10 this plan-a
plan commonly adopted by other weak people.
(weak from nature or poverty, ito secure, 1t pos
sible, the result. As to his oank account. that
does not appear ever to have been kept u very
busne sslike manner and il was not al all strange
that he did not conduct all his money matters
through that. There are many mrn like him in
thcse things. II man Is ~ be hung tor being
careless or queer in the management o' his every
day money matters, candidates tor the galiows are
abroad IN thousands.
If Webster was not convicted upon sufficient
proof, he was convicted on prejudice Can we
reasonably account for the existence OF such pre-
judice? The suppression of the eyidence takea BY
the coroner had Vt itself sufficient tendency to
create blind and, 10 the accused, fatal prejudice
This testimony was withheld from the pubic, pre-
fesedly to avoid their being prejcdlced. The act
itself had 60 clearly contrary tendency, tnat the
profe ssi0ns suspicious. Would the suppression
OF the testimony prevent people from thinking?
People in this country (thank GodD do think and
will think. The coroner and the prosecuting
officer instead of afiording them light to thlnk by,
leave them TO think in the dark. Does prejudice
result from knowledge or ignorance! The caarge
was not ppressed-Webster was in prison, puo-
licly charged with murder. 1t was his right,
was the right Of the public, that the evidence on
which the charge rested should be equally kaowa.
People could not help thinking Of the affair, and
as the facts 10 guide their thoughts were wltaned
from them, their thoughts were most likely 10 20
wrong. Rumors of all kinds were abroad ia
the Dewspapers-the facts were concealed
The attempt Of the prosecution toprove tDe ap-
pearance OF what may be called miraculous
stranger, was indicative Of splrlt, in the prose-
cuting officer, unworthy Of his position. Il would
be easier to believe that the ghost of the murdered
man walktd dsthe Streets than TO believe that 90
that evenfuI afternoon, and at other time, this
strange being should have appeared. Ii such
man lived in Boston, he would have been seen be-
fore and after that day; he could have been hunt
ed up and known. Nay. he could not have exist
ed In Boston and borne SO striking a resemblance
TO man so well known as DIR. Parkman, without
its being notorious We are to believe, then, tnat
he came and went that afternoon; that he strange
w appeared, for the purpose, for that day eaiy So
bad was this testimony, so unfair. that the Judge
who delivered the charge would not admit IL.
And what ehail we say OF the charge! IL there
such charge 10 be found else where IN our crimi-
nal annals! ls there one single sugge stion or
word on the prisoners side? Does he even tell
the jury that their doubts are the prisoners pro-
perty! Try the charge by this test Read II and
imagine il to be the summing up Vt the prosecute
ing counsel. Read In this way. IL fs up the fuD
measure OF prosecuting counsePs duty.
The evidence produced by ths prisoner, though
It showed but few facts, was throughout Of uaex-
ceptionable character There was no attempt to
introduce bad testimony. Seven witnesses sworo
TO having seen DIR. Parkmsn alta tine incoa sisteut
with the theory OF the case presented by the 90
vernment. The prosecution did not pets cd o. iai-
peach them. They did not charge them with be-
ing near-sighted, nor weak sighted, Dor weak
minded, nor deficient IN memory, nor deficient N
character, nor connected with the defend iat py
blood, nor IN any way partial towards him. Sevra
witnesses 10 one fact, and that a tact which was
tested by the direct evidence OF their senses, IL
elsew here considered pretty siroag proof IA Bss-
ton II 10 easily got over. Now tnls, tie all
important evidence for the prisoner, was not al.
lowed to go 10 the Jury. Tor what II was
worth. The evidence which the prosecution
could not impeech, the Judge undertook
nesses was not considered proved, because no
more witnesses were called To swear TO the same.
IL was argued away by disIngcnuous reasons. Ii
these seven saw him, great many other people
must have seen him; why not these other y,ee-
pie all herel great many other people were in
the streets, and did not see him, therefore those
seven did not see him. II requires not only ones
own eyes TO see people with, but the eyes Of all
ones neighbors. great many other people may
have seen him, and yet the prisoner not be able to
produce them. He could not hunt up every mau
who saw him, except by questioning all the people
OF Boston individually. A great many other people
may have seen him, and not been able to remem-
Der afterwards the precise day.
II the prisoner had attempted TO introduce on
his side any such questionable evidence as did the
prosecution, (the writing master, for instance D
had he offered 10 prove anything strange as tho
miraculous appearance OF DIR. Psrkman's double,
u would have been successfully urged against
him as damnngproof that he had weak case, and
was gully. why should not the same rule apply
10 The prosecution
IL matters not whether DR. Webster be actually
guilty. or and allowing all the force of the sus-
plclous circumstances brought IN evidence against
him, n is, nevertheless, impossible to deny
i. That II was Unfair and cruel to suppress the
coroner's evidence, and thereby to allow the pub
lie mind TO run beyond the facts.
That the identity Of the body (and, conse-
quently, the proof Of a murder at all,) rested on
but one point, and that point one IN its very ma
ture, full OF doubt No part of the body Itself was
Identified
3. That the evidesce for the prosecution was in
many respects doubtful, suspicious, and weak and
that worse was offered
4. That what evidence was produced in favor Of
the prisoner, was, good in Its character, positive.
and unmpcsched.
3. That seven persons swore, on the direct evi.
cence OF their senses, to tact Inconsistent with
the case presented against the prisoner.
That the prosecution, n Il proved anything
proved, by circumstantiel evidence only. that the
man was murdered at a certain time-the defence
proved, by positive evidence, that the man wss
alive after hat