The true Democrat., 1854-07-12

when she parted with him at the door, she thought she was sending her son on errand of blood mis- sion of revenge! The idea is too horrible to contem plate Neither the father nor mother expected the least difficulty with Butler, though the prudent ap prehensons of the latter suggested that there might possibly be some Interference the part of sturgus respect for each other.
 We'll. they left the house-Wiie going along to get his books and Robert, at the instance of his mo- ther What was the conversation on the ways It may tend to throw some light the question at issue. The testimony of Robert Ward, gentlemen, may re- qulre hereafter more attention than give it at thls point But for the present, it Is sufficient to state that he did not know that his brother armed and that he had not the least expectation of difficulty On the way, Matt tells hm-t was not all detailed here but this was evidently the burden of the satlon: am going to seek explanation and apology for an injury done to brother Willie did not want you with me; you are young and nasty; you do not know the circumstances of the case and you might act indiscreetly. apprebend no difficulty-Butler Is gentleman and will do what is right, and de- sire you not to have word to say" It was as much as to say, " would you were at home, Robert but now you here do not interfere by word or deed But little Willie, who has heard this injunction, says: " An, brother but Mir. Sturgus is there.'-not But Ter, but Sturgus and you know he has big stick'' Matt replies: Why, I shall have nothing to do with Sturgus-my application is to Butler" Then he turns to Robert, and adds If however Sturgus and Butler both attack me, you may interfere" He conectured the possibility of this only to soothe the feelings of the little boy. He had already made Ro- bert passive: but listening to the suggestion must excite his anxious and brohery apprehension there fore he said: |" If such thing does occur-which I do not eXpect-yOu nady keep off Sturgus.'
 Does this look like an intention to commit murder? On the contrary do not all these circumstances go to exclude the idea of any hostile feeling, any malignant purpose. or any design to attack or do an unlawful act on the part the accused! Farther prove that there Is possibility of malice, have shown you now he had been making preparations for several days, and even on that very morning, to depart for hls plantation in Arkansas. His mind was not bent on mischief but engaged in legitimate and proper channel. All the facts go to negative the presump- non of malice; or of any wicked purpose.
 But he had been told, and he knew before, that Sturgus was his enemy. He knew that by some re- mote possibility the visit might lead to collision and combat with him. He was very weak-utterly unable to resist any attack that might be made upon him; and therefore 1t was right for him to himself. Is IL to De inferred because man purchases pistol, and puts It ln his pocket, that he intends to commit murder unless ltis indicated by subsequent act? ou are often III town perhaps, and if you purchase arife there, will that fact subject you to any susp- cons But ln town the procuring of pistols neither more remarkable nor more improper It is true that when he buys pistols nay do it with an inten- ton to commit murder: yet when he does which may be accounted for lawfully in a thousand ways, but by possibility may be improper and unlawful, Is It right for us to conclude that he must be actuaed by the worst possible motives that can be coniectured In such case. we would be accusing spirits indeed
 What would be the condition of human society," what the relations of man to man, this doctrine carried out.
 A man may arm himself for a case of probable danger; he may do it with view to no specific occur renee. and he may do it in self-defense Who can object to it The Constitution guarantees to every one the right to bear arms. No law takes 1t away and none ever can. The right of self fdefense is an nher ent one given by Cop, toma It is our own natural right. and as Blackstone says. no human legislation can ever take 1t from us But how nugatory and vain you render this right, if when in pursuance of the laws of hls country, arms himself for any possible contingency. and remote danger, you impute to him unlawful motives, and subject him to every sort of imputation of murderous intent.
 This precaution on the part of my client, indicated no intention of violence. It may have indicated purpose defend himself in of attack; but noth- ing more. Will you cast aside the thousand other natural constructions, and adhere to that irrational and unsupported one, which makes him crmnal!- That were alike unreasonable and nhuman But take all the circumstances, and weigh them carefully and you will see the motive clearly you see the act itsef and you will no design to take fe violate the laws of the land.
 Then what the remainder of the conversation on the way! They met young lady in Bloomer costume and talked of the peculiar nature and fash ion of that dress. What subject for the conversa- tion of man within few steps of the point where he intends to commit malicious and cold -blooded murder
 One of the gentlemen who addressed you for the prosecution. announced, in the course of his argu- ment, his disbelief that the accused purchased the pistols with the design to commit murder, or went to the school house for that purpose. If he did not he had nocrimina intentions. But within half an hour afer the gentleman, becoming more deeply engaged says, with violent gesticuations '' Ward purchased those pistols with the intent to murder Butler Thus he assumes contrary positions, and both of these declarations are made by the author, l suppose have right to receive which l please. 1 will choose the one, then. that believe takes the only reasonable and truthful ground-that he had no such intent. But will go no further on this point 1 think 1t fully established that the purpose for which my client visited the school house. was proper and lawful one. So far, then, we find offence when he entered the door he free from all malice and all criminaity. Did any thing occur there which made him murderer! This is the next question for you to consider.
 You have heard the testimony as to what transpred at the school-hOuSe No one was there, except Matt Robert, and the pupils. Willie was in the room but so engaged, that he knew nothing of the interview. To prove the nature of that interview, thirteen boys have been introduced here by the Commonwealth = Now gentlemen, before say word to the testimony of these pupils, wish have my position clearly un- derstood. The counsel on the other side, with tr- umphant air. have come forward and volunteered defense of the truthfulness and veracity of these boys But their services have been in advance of any occasion for them-they have only defended what is not attacked at all. Not of the counsel for the defense has ever intended or sought to impeach the character of these witnesses It may be asked then what circumstances justify us in the ground we as sume, to their testimony? It must be remembered they but set of boys and that they are testify ing in regard to circumstance in which their teacher was killed. They must have been under the infu- ence of excitement and fright. The time which the accused spent in the school-room was at most not more than five or ten minutes. When he entered they engaged in their studies and twas contrary to explicit regulation of the school to turn around and look up, when strangers came in. And when, so unexpectedly like flame from the earth, this fear u broke out in the stiffness of that school room, what must have been the panic of these boys! You can imagine well as l. Itwould have startled men-the calmest and frmest in this jury box or this court room. Benedict think gives very just idea of the condition of all of them. He says" |" was so much frightened, that couldn't think of any thing, or see any thing hardly" And whatever the gentlemen may contend, believe this the state of all the boys in the room.' They may have seen Butler and Ward during the conversation in the early part of the interview but this was all they clear ly One fact alone is sufficient to diminish the weight of their testimony. Not one of them heard all the conversation perfectly. Though one or two con- fdent that they did, they contradicted by the others, who heard words and sentences which never reached their No two of them give the same account of it; but the contrary, there is much in consistency and contradiction. It is evident that no one of them all the acts or heard all the conver- saon that passed and this in addition to the general panic that agitated their minds, and confused their