The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1859-11-02

nff md
tne,r honof nntarnished, and the renuta ion
OF the commonwealth for Jus tice. marnanimi
W, aud chiralry unstained
mr; Griswoid closed his speech by saving
on pehaii OF MS client, that he had NO aycar
uon TO take To particle of the evidence ~
on On me triai, but he deemed it a wonder nnder
.he circumst stances, that the trnth sbonia ~
oeen as US lu,ly developed as it has been. H.
ssptS'''!i5 pore honorable testimony Ia tho
conduct OF Capt. Sinn. who votna,nss; W .I'e
doing Justice ~ ~ '''o p"i pose oI
MF. Chiiton spoke of the embarrassment
WIN winch he undertook the rase ua ia
tended TO do his duty faithfuIiy ond ~. -. ~
~ ~ u,ai , "i'h the prisoner, not as Cant. Rrown
tne leauer OF this foray, bat sirnpiv as nrisnn:
81 under me charge of violating the law. If
sbnni, "a " uia not warrant his conviction he
n"uiu ee e,luca'or 10 make that appear to the iu-
~, SUI ne would say he had no symptihy
Win the prisoner. His birth and residence
uhui lew years past, had been in VIRGINIA
a. a1to GonaeS'ion with the institution of slavery
ai.hough now resident of the District Of
cotumbla he had returned to his native Stare
20 spend the remainder of his DAYS. and min
Sie ms uust with her soil. No other motive
1pelalto on him than that of discharging n
disihleTested duty faithfully. He rerretfed
only me excitement respecting the case Ue
was gi2o To hear the Judge say on Saturday
tnat ne desired TO try this case precisely like
otneTs. lie desired, the whole State and the
whole South desired, that the trial should hp
iaiF one 1T had been fair; circumstances
hau interrupted its progress Counsel were
nere Witnout proper preparation; but indul-
S1nve S1 nag ppeh granite and they made no com
piHhh ihey should do the best thew could
uhCer the circumstances, and couId not com
piaih OF The excitement. 1t was natural hut
ne hoped 1t would not interfere with the
course OF 1ustice, or cast a stain on the honor
OF the State. The jury had been sworn that
they We're unbiased, and he presumed they
would hrmIy discharge their oaths and render
verdict IN accordance with the evidence.
nj nf3ars u
address OF the prosecution. on Whist eround
these charges against the prisoner were Al
tempted to he sus tained. The Common wealth.s
attorney had lnduig iged III strain o.f abuse of
the prisoner and pronounced sentence on him
without waiting for the vedIct of the iury
thus usurp!ng the place of the Judge There
were three distinct charges-first Of treason
This was an offence at common law The
Wora IS derived from French word. signify
Ing betrayal. Treason means BETRAYAL of trust
or confidence. The violation of fidelity or al
legiance to the Common wealth. He maintains
lhat treason could not be committed against
The Common wealth except by Il citizen thereof
In the present case, the whole proof shows
this prisoner is not a citizen of Virginia and
therefore cannot be fonnd guilty of treason.
The indictment charges The prisoners with
committing every act comprising treason.-
They are charged with levying war against the
Stare and exciting slaves TO iusurrection, but
there is no proof that they committed these
acts as charged. There was no proof that
thtN It9iSttG any process iSoutu against lhtm
as NlolatOTS. Hence. under the authority OF
the Commonwealth, they were rather guilty
OF resisting cotLeo which was resistance Oi
the Federal Government. and notof the Com
mon wealth.
lie had read carefully the prepared Proyi-
SIonal Constitution, aud he regarded it as RI
GlcUlouS nonsense a wild chimeriCal produc-
ton, which could only be produced bV men OF
unsound minds. IL defines territory over
which it is intended to operate and says that
we that is the signers OF the document not
al citizens Of the L United States. ''do establish
The following Provisional Goyernment'-
" hat IS Ii 1t is an association o-partner-
ship. they are TO own property in common,
and regulate its terms. II did not contemplate
a government, but merely Il voluntary asSO-
citation to abolish slavery. 1t did not even un-
dertahe TO levy taxes, which is an essential to
any government. 1t does not appear that this
association WAS to be established in Virginia
or where ii was 10 60 into effect. This was not
treason. Is 1t the adoption of q Constitution
and the establishment of Il government BY
no means. These parties had mere imaginary
government to govern themselves and nobody
else iust like rules goyerninga military cam-
pany or debating society. Even il they in
tended to set up 4 government over others
they did not do it.
There WIS a general principle that every
piece of evidence was 10 be construed most
tavorabiy to the accused, who should always
have the benefit of every doubt. In consider
ing evidence, We must consider the whole of
il. We must take the declaration of the prs-
oner in his own favor as well as against him
self Now, look at the i6th article OF lhis Pro-
yisional Constitution. which expressly de-
ciareS that the foregoing articles shall not be
construed as to encourage the overthrow
of any State Government or the General
Government, and looks 10 no dissolution of
the Union, but simply amendment and repeal.
This was in evidence before the Jury, being
submitted by the prosecution.
Again. the prisoner is charged with conspir-
ing with slaves TO make an inSurrec ton. No
proof had been shown that the slaves had
entered into conspiracy, and unless that
was the case, where was the conspiracy =
One party cannot conspire alone. Each
charge is 10 be considered alone by the Jury
II they believe the evidence does not warrant
conviction on the charge of treason, they
must consider the charge of conspiracy Just
as ii no charge of treason had been made
One count Ill the Indictment was not to be
brought in to aid another. He considered
that the prisoner had n right to be tried on
one charge NJ time, and entirely disconnect-
ed with any other. The Court had however
Overruied the motion made on Saturday, and
hence the importance OF making this point
clear to the jury, so that they might not con-
fuse the various Offences and the evidence re-
lating to each.
Next as TO the charge of murder 1t was
very singular way of doing business. BY the
dictmen five prisoners are charged with the
mnr3er of four men. That they might have
Jointly done it, he could unders tand. But they
could not severally have done il. lie declared
1t was almost impossible for the prisoner to
make n defence against such a charge. 1t waS too
loose and vague. BY the laws of Virginia there
was but one specific grade of murder punish
able with death, and that was deliberate, pre-
meditated murder. The prosecution charge the
prisoner with murder in the first degree, but
he argued that the evidence in this case does
not sustain that charge. The prisoners con-
duct in the engine house showed that there
was no malice, according to the testimony OF
Col. Washington and Mr. Alstadt. However
ridiculous his project, which, il would seem
could never have entered the mind of Il sane
man, he might still have believed he could
carry ont that project without bioodshed. At
any rate no sane man could suppose he expect
ed, with q handful of men, to accomplish the
object by force and it is but fair to take his de-
ciarations, especially when coupled with his
acts. that he did not intend 10 shed blood eX-
cept in self-Getence unless you should believe.
beyond the slightest doubt, that these declara-
tions were untrue and the prisoper actuated
by malice in taking the lives of those who never
did him HARM and against whom there was
no cause for malice As 10 Haywood there was
no troof how he met his death or who killed
him. or what cause. And, ms his colleague had
remarked, the prisoner had no motive TO kill
negroes
life hut the prisoner endeavored TO avoid that
conflict for the purpose of saving life, and,
therefore. could not have been actuated by
malice which is necessary to constitute mur
der in the first degree. Even if the prisoner
was guilty of murder in the second degree or
manslaughter yet that was not a capital crime
and not the crime charged in the indictment.
He did not know but that Captain Brown WAS
justified in returning fire, when he was fired
upon under such circumstances. 1t was a
sort of self-deience; and very probably had
little more time been allowed, these men could
have been taken into custody without loss OF
life. He charged the jury TO look on this case
as far as the law would allow, with al eye
favorable to the prisoner; and when their
verdict should be- returned, no matter what IL
might be, he trusted every man in this commu-
Bity would acquiesce in it. Unless the majesty
of the law was supported, dissolution OF the