Herald of the times. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1849-1856, 1850-04-11

NORM AmeTlcan, one VI 'He ieuu'"e ""u
most influential parers in the country It's
arguments are uranswerable, aud It's con-
clusions irresistible. We shall publish
second article on this subject, from the
same paper, tomorrow.
The WEBSTER TRrAL.- Reflection and
deliberate re-eXamina,ion Oi all the cir
cums,ances connected with it, have On'y
strengthened us 10 the opinion, already
EXPRESSED, that the verdict of the jury find
ing Professor Webster guilty of the mur-
der of DR.. Parkman, is in all respects on
extraordinary. perhaps, in some sense,
wrongful and unjustifable one. AT this
distance rom the scene Of crime and trial,
ihout a knowledge of ersons or syn pa
thy for parties, He fancy we can trace in
this result the operation Of fcauses-ieeling,
prrjudices, fixed belief and foregone con
spot, although apparently extending TO and
affecting almos, every per-on-jndge, jury,
an witnesses, the counsel for the proscc -
tion, and the counsel for the accused-en-
gagged on the trial. Every body seems To
have taken il for granted that DR.. Webster
was guilty even his own legal friends, the
insuficency of whose efiois and The i, dis
cretion of whose virtual admissions Of guilt
could not but have been counted as tesii-
mony against him Every worl from
them, in this clse, about manslaughter was
an argument on the side uf murder but
we cannot perceive how, with even this
additional weight thrown upon the prison
er, humane and conscientious jury could
find a verdict against him, in The face Of
evidence, which, to our apprehension from
first to last, expressed but the one mean
ing, and produced bu, the one result
doubl-doubt-ever and consistently doubt
nothing but doubt Every ;hing was
DOUBT here but here, IN This remarkable
trial, we find the first instance, Of what
appears to us to have been. universal
disposition to deny the accused the right to
it, benefit. Court an jury, prosecution
anl defence, all seemed equally unwilling 10
allow The prisoner the protection of that
refuge, which the Law, itself oidains as
the shield inicrposed by mercy between hu.
man life and the possible injustice of human
error.
We do no, say that Professor Webster
was not gully of the murder OF DIR. Park
man hut it does appear TO us that he WAS
not proceed guilty. And the more we pom
der on the testimony, the more we are
struck with its utter inadequacy either
to establish the crime CT to identify the
crimina'. That strong very strong-cig-
cums,ances were hrough, against the ac-
cused is undeniable but, in our calm ju 2
ment, they prove n'thlng against him
absolutely no hing. They iall in ever
lhng, essential To establish case OF muir
der with that precision which the law Gc-
mands, and ought to dcmard. They do
not prove that DR., Parkman is dead they
do not prove that he was murdered they
do not prove that Prof. Webster murdered
him. All that results from the evidence is
a simple probability. 1t is probable, from
This evidence, that Dr. Palkman is dead
probable that he was killed probable that
Prof. Webster killed him. But can a man
be found guilty of murder upon proba-
biliy' What is probable is also doubtful
1t is something new in the world, or in This
county, to adjudse man to death upon
a doubtful probability.
Everyt ing, in this trial, turns upon the
ldentifcatn Of the remains found in and
under Prof. Web>ter's !aboi a,ory for, if
they were not identified as the remains Of
Dt. arkman, then was there no proof of
DIR. Parkman's death or murder. Now
the id 'nilfcation e these remains was only
probable, not positive, 1t was far from
being conc'usively established that those
calcined fragments of jaw, and those fire.
altered ia'se teeth, The only parts serious
ly pretended to be iier titled, ever belonged
to Dr. Parkm1n. 1t is only probable they
were but it is also doubtful. And if the
Identification had been even po>ilive-had
1t been actually certain that those were
parts Oft the body of DR.. Parkman, all that
could have followed, as logical or legal
sequence, would have been a probability
not certainty, that Prof Webster killed
him. The very cornerstone of this edifce
Of crime is wanting. A gallows has been
built, which rests upon nohing better than
a supposi,ion.
IS there no Importance whatever to be
attached 10 the evidence of those witnesses
who swore that they saw DR.. Parknan in
the streets after the allotted momen, Of
mu der Was this evidence rebul,ed
Was i! dlsproved Was it any other way
met or counleracled than by a mere theory
and the unsupported assertions of the pros
ecut.on Did not ali circumstances show
that II DIR. Parkman was murdered by tho
prisoner, ii must have been before = o.
c'ock And was it not a fact-speak-
rig trumpet-tongued, that # he was seen
alive after that hour, he could not have