New-York daily tribune., 1851-09-29

I fa UtfEffy
vert TO Michigan Centre 10 see the deienasi.Is-
They knew that Eltch was not there but at Lansing
/ They say that Mrs. Pulley sad Fi!iey was absent
! but thf5 DO not SOY shc tod them where ne Wa
/ Co.~In, MseTs Barrett. n Is. Penfel1 ard numerous
o,hers of the defendants then lived az Michigan
Ceu,rs and II Its vicinity. They neither iooAei hV
inquired 'or them Iley went ou, oi tLei' i- ~
/ = Iue 20 LeOnl 20 see ine ceiencan's WLo IeslleI
ihffe The, neither found nor searched FOR any ot
rheIn although Williams BOARDED IN CryKeh1dl
I house. when they say The! stopped dhd woThe1
,se b. Beslde. t-ey saW Charles I y kendall lhe
On instead Of John CaykCakah, TIE iaiber, "ho
st,- ina. nc was standing upon the slOOp' anu r.
oeiyeo Phelps on the occasion when his horse ran
away. Chafes CuSsen0a4l = not Drought 10 sustain
/ tbelf subterfuge Bu; Phelps and Lake swear tnat
the die not that occasion. see elfher Mr aiik-
| uer Nr Toll. or Mr. Luce ~ John Cuykfn'ali, or
| Nr Kellogg that is 10 say, they aLege they saw
! person who was not there ana deny that lhej "a"
I'VE persons who swear they saw Phelps there on the
| only occasion when hls horse ran away, Lake Says
| that for aught he can rene nOer they "ehl Hpioe
without nner but Phelps on urgent necesslty remeW-
bers that they obtained retire shments not al Cl} ken
dalis when dinner was on the table, 0ut az Haooat
| grocery below Their journey was therefore iih-
out an object and without results. Ihey Kept QlafS
OF their Journeys and aDOrs IN me service OF 'he
| COMPANY They gave lis contents fuiiy on heohec'
| examination. This Journey, when, ACCORDING 10
| thor account. the horse ran away was forgotten
altogether and not put down IN the diary, ana u
IS ony remembered low. because II becomes neceS
sary TO explain and re5ut the testimony OF me oe,
PENDANTS Unfortunately moreover for the credit OF
| the invention, Phelps mad Denied on ms previous
cross examnai. that his horse had ever run away
with him al all m Lson Ana "lat Is sun more VIZ
fortunate VIM II. Hudson testified, before this
question arose and when could not De expected 70
| be material, that the night Of April H. al FL
ley's tavern Phelps told Ftcn hGf ms morse h0d run
aray that day, ami spike # as an occrr'nce that
| has hoppened that rery day dnd nerer before
Permit me to recall now, gentlemen. what mas we
| trust. thus far been demonstrated.
l. That no such conspiracy a. is alleged ever ex-
| isted.
9 That the question Of such a conspiracy IS an i'm
material and false issue.
3 That the cause rests upon the evidence Ot d0ns-
| Sons proved by Phelps ana Lake only.
| d. That This evidence Of admissions must DC false
| First, because the pretended match was humDug'
and could not have been used 10 fire the depot al De-
tro secOnd because The matches uere made not bV me
deftnddnfS bit rere faJracofed by Phelps and Lake
third. because the matches prOdced here Uere not re-
ceirfd from the defendaDfS, alleged bv Phelps and
Lake. buf were frand,nfv yIqced by Phelps and Lake
IN The depositOrleS uhe IS pTfended beu veTe f9vad
| These points thus establish conclusive defense
against the prosecution. Neyerhele to remove all
doubt and 10 enable you 10 satisfy the pubic that he
verdict aCqutta which YOU are 10 render VIII be
night and lust shall first proceed to show that the
admissions proved der're no support Prom oo1afsrGtc"
c,fn,sanceS secondly, that they are rendered un-
worthy of credit first. by the depro'1fv OF the W.T.
ncsses secondly, by internal evidences OF Jatsty {"
her naUarss and nordiy, by c0nf'o' r'fh fdcfS m
| confeStibiV established.
FIRST there rs a total want of corrOboTalng CIR
cumstances. You Will necessarily inquire whether
the Depot at Detroit was burned by an lncenday at
|
proved. The prosecution have undertaken to prove
i and have failed The balance Of proof Is that the
fire was the result Of casualty Alparts OF the build
| ing except IT'S outer walls were Of cOmbustlble ma
terais ii was eight hundred feet long by one hun
dred feet wide, with wooden roof and foors when
were pierced with mnumerable hatchways, and the
roof was surmounted by three cupolas, with open
I windows, and more than hundred Indictments or
Scuttlcs II say that the mineral paint upon the
roof and the mortar between the floors were a Sc
curity against accidental fire. answer that the buid-
I'M arfn
| rendered extra hazardous by machinery winch, al
though II may have been properly constructed lSnot
| proved to have been examined or oiled on the day
| before the FIRE Workmen had been employ ed with
! lights that night from seven ultl eleven O'Clock III
the wheat bins and II IS PROVED that the wheat BINS
| were lighted with taow candles placed III narrow,
shallow TIN sconces. suspended against unsm0othed
posts II proved moreover, that candles had been
known to be taken from the Sconces and 10 be Sc
cured only by being placed IN oeo OF tao" melted
fer ttat purpose upon the OF the bun IL Is proved
that conbustlbe merchandise such trunks opened,
ana bags OF cotton, were deposited III the building
under the cupola and there may wen nave been, IN
the great variety of commodities stored there matter
| that would have taken FIRE by spontaneous combus-
| ton at least there abundant food for ire when
once admitted That Is proved by tie rapldlty of the
flames The building stood upon the wharf, and was
liable to take fire from the sparks OF steamers arrW'
ing and departing by day and by night. II was ex-
| posed to fire also fron within, to be communicated
by engines which arrived aud departed at all hours
| OF the day and night The cupoa attachments and
Dormant windows served TO create currents of air by
which burning clnderS would be drawn lnwdrds ana
| upwards and when eNtingulShed would be deposited
| IN heaps IN the cupoa and below. II YOU say that
the engines OF steamboats, and locomotives were fur
nlshed with spark 'caichers, | answer that spark
catchors not sure preyenalVeS. III perfect, thty
| al least wear out. Three several cases have ap-
| ptared IN proof during this tral, of buildings wood
and forests burned by passing engines, although they
| were provided with the same means OF prevention
| ou have heard Mr. Smith declare tnat his mills IN
| Clinton were burned by machinery, Just like what
was IN tie Depot. IRE occurred scarcely ten DAYS
| ago at Chicago, having IN Storehouse scam-en-
gine guarded usl as the stationary engine here was
| secured and II lS supposed 10 have taken fire ffom
the engine room. Ten acres OF the site OF tins city,
including the ground which stand. wcre burned
| over by yagrant Spark from passing steamboat,
which was provided with Spafk-cacher for all that
| we know.
| In regard to the place where the fire originated,
half dozen witnesses declare with confidence, that
they arrived eaIy al the COnnagraIon, and that the
fire broke out, not through the ScutteS IN the roof
bu, IN the cupoa. These witnesses are Capt. Turn,
| eT Patrick Rowland, b. +. Bush, w. II. Green and
| {. Davnac But these Witnesses are opposed by as
| many to Wit r. Jones, Mr. Johnson, VIM. Harsha,
| {. W SIMS, Mr.. Tut!e and John Campbell. each OF
| whom declares that from some commanding position
he discovered the IRE immediately after appeared.
and that broke out through the scu'teS IN the root
| or the north side, half way between the caves and
thd cupOla, before appeared IN the cupoa. one OF
the plaintiff witnesses saws he asceided the stairs
and found the FIRE burning the interior below before
i burst through the cupola; and that then It had
rescheo only half way TO the dome or roof Of the Gu
| poia. Criticisms may be made Oh the testimony of
each OF these witnesses but the result would be that
| all equally truthful. and owing to the peculiar
circumstances OF the occasion all equally liable 10
| mistake concerning the subject upon which they have
teslhed. As II Is not proved how the ire originated
| 50 II now and Will forever remain uncertain In
| what part OF the building II was first discovered.
But the prosecution must make out their side that
the hre originated IN the cupola. What Is not proved
be, ond reasonable doubt IN criminal case Is not
proved all and therefore YOU viii assume that not
onl, is II not proved otherwise than BY the admission
that the depot as burned by an ncendary, but that
II not proved that the hre broke out IN the cupOa.
| But, gentlemen If the FIRE dd occur III the cupoa,
what then IL does not aid the peoples case The
| fire would have originated there more likely than
elsew here II II had arisen from burning clnderS dis
charged BY an engine OF BY steamboat or even from
| heated elevators and would have been seen there
as likely elsewhere If II had arisen from Self-con