, 1860-12-14

"'n! Nfftcn, N1thQHt tfAf, ~llQ1tf I fhtuEHf |
Ths t@s .ss1cSne aor Ionc Tsaats: shsa thon
IT. y III sse soss .ins L
And turn thee how,ia= n unpiiied paia.
s!"ss e is9ssse
& g eysc fesHs5 e nha
aeS x y a a1yss f9T s stes w2nd e,e as
And thy soul we!ter in lis iddrous crust
es
AMI when thou faln woa!d'et weary Heaven with
1eos = Y! sat,h,y y'st'ns "a .na sssrs..
Es.n worm. M % ..ii per- ss.sh ii On % ty ~ poisonous clay
Tx 4, H9asa nam ss sesy
And fostering ii the lnla1ny Of yeafs"
Gentlemen uf the jury THAT il the cflarac- !
tcr In which he stands before you. This would I
BE- his confession fcebly expressed Dare he
make It! Il there 4 community within the |
limits Of this broad land that would tolerate |
his presence for moment: Would he not,
from the moment OF this confession, he hunt |
cd Ikea wild beasts Docs it lie within the !
limits Of human impudcncc, Of human assnr |
cuce, thAt a man could survive such a confcs-
sion made here before you Unless you can
believe that IT this story were true, he would
rush-not rush. Why? II be would not
confess the truth, being guilty, then he would
swear to Ills innocence in any case, would he
not +. And II his testimony would he Just the
same, whether guilty or innocent, Of course il
cannot prove anything In reference to lis
.ai1t or Innocence.
Now, need say more about Stuarte Need
1tcll you that If tie oath of the seduccr is tn
be received, you will forever nulllfy this lawy
Need tell you that he can swear 10 this story
with perfect impunity? VIII the fear Of the
perjury deter him! uc is perfectly safe from
!hosc. In order 10 convict man Of perjury
YOU must have the testimony Of at leost one
witness who sWcars positively, Of his own
knowledge, that the statement hs Aas sworn to
is false Mrs. Burch is the only person on
earth who would ever swear to that, and when
Stuart mud Corning had once induced her to
testify to Stuart's Innocence and her own,
when Mrs. Burch has once been brought to
that point, when her conscience has once bt
come 70 bluntcd that -,sc could swear to her
own Innocence as we'll ~ 9tuart'e, it was per-
a'ctly safe for Stuart to do the same thing, and
| tt.el perfectly sure that her testimony would
| nevcr jcopardize him. So it will be In every
casc of adultery In every case ofadultcry, mi.
less proved TO have been committed In the sight
| Of OILERS, you may prove cscr 80 strong case;
| the adu]tercr can come in and testify against
| lae oath Of the accompllce In the crime, you
thereby uul;ify tho statute. You find Stuart
| standing here deeply interested, influenced by
all the motives that can be involved in Ills
casc, aud telling you that hc never took The
| slightest liberty with this woman, never tra,ls-
-
| Vow. take the whole mass of this evidence:
take the testimony Of Ma1garct O'Hara, Of
Mi$s Spalding, Of Miss Fannie Burc,l; take oil
this testimony. It shows the opinion that
Mary spalding entertained about tue eharac-
ter OF the intimacy. between these persons.
Take Duzrill's estimate Of what that intimacy
was. Take the fact that Mrs. Bnrcl, In three
months Intimacy with Boyd, indu1gcd with
him in all manner of Indecent liberties. Take
The fact that Stuart was ready on every oppor.
1rs.
and kiss Miss Fannie BuFch. Take what you
SIC Of his tendencies; take what you see Of
sirs. Burch's tendencies. Then take all these
.ycnings they Epcnt alone together; all these
opportunities they had, and Indications they
manifested, and then say whether you for one
that no impropriety ever took place between
them. Hc stands opposed to the whole mass
If this evidence. And, in order to credit his
statement. you must not only believe that the
uccoml,licc in adultery is to be credited, but
| hat ht 0lonc speaks the truth. There is no
way possible In which you can reconcile lis
testimony with the mass Of this evidence. Yon
must cisher discrcdit lin, or you must disbc.
Iieycthis whole evidence.
They say that Burrill supports Stuart Now
the only support That Burrill gives Him, il he
is, indeed, capable Of supporting anybody. is
'ay 20 much. They say that letter settles this
aslsr beyond all doubt. Now thai is not a new
1syice. have been considerably engaged in
The practice Of crllninal Inv for twenty years,
md there struck tue most forcihly, when thai
letter came up SUPPORTED hy the testimony o
Stuart aud Burrill, passage Of 1lnt Scripture
1 that most Of you probably have looked init
! from time to time, and which liavc OCCASION
alIy seen, s'T1ierc is nothing new under thu
,un." The preparation and production Of that
letter was as nearly like All occurrence thai
syanspircd in 4 suit had before tried, that il
immediately brought that passage ofSc7ipturt
to iuy mind. There is, indeed, nothing new
! under tue sun. Vill.iny llas been yi1lany al
! ways; and there is scarcely trick that a rogms
can play but some other rogue III Advance hui
played it. Neither Stuart nor Burrill could oh
lain patent for that trick. for could provs
that the same thing In substance had been dont
before. Now let us look ut it for moment
III the first place, I lave alluded 10 Burrilrf
position. Arc you goin. TO believe auythin+
Of Durrlll'e statement, or EiyeaDy consequence.
to it: There arc two views to take Of Burrill
! | 1u the first place, you may consider him, j
ynu please. M lgnorant, unsuspcctlns and I'LL
suspicious kind Of person that Stuart used n
: atool to accomplish his purpose, and that Bur
.hc best view that you could takc Of him. ant
, | would do pretty well if it was not for tue lac
that Mary SpauIdng Mt an carly day gave Aiu
+ iair notice OF the effect OF his conduct. Tia
| interview between her and him, no matter hnv
stupid Burrill may have been, If he were hon
| est would hare opened his eyes. will not III
Il que. for it must be perfectly evident to you
Il that d man who acts Us u gob.twceu, an agent
L. instrument, tool for the seducer to effect Iii
): purpose upon TIE vic ot any inan %hatesel
! - person capaoie OF 1he deepesI crime
known to the Inv. If you convict Burrill I
heihg 6ucn go-oet"cen, would searcclE u
!: worth While 10 notice hIs testimony or TINS lei
= tcr, because the letter IL lhc WORK OF Siual
= and Burflu. You VIII remember that nobnd
; has ever seen lhat letter, accofdinE 10 us o."
'' statement, but they two; the proof rests Il
:. TREY upon thelr statement that taere ever wa
u such !etfcf. ana upon tne'f statement nlon
r aud II buf1lll IS infamous and entirely unWo
K ;hy of rret!t, then that letter can add notA'!!
{ to the proof IN the case, bechuse 1t Is bFonsI
/" acre and offered ny stuart anu burfall. II q
1" 1ccomp!icc can support himeelt bv the tcei
~ ihons u M aecoMpliee, T. "ou!9 Always
Il perfectly easy 10 40 so. II would nave pee
y easy LOT STUART anu burf1l 10 manufacture LII
III letter At any time.
y. but WALL tel you "lat my coDcct.lFe ah"l
4! that letter H. l 10 not regard it as ni any COZ
U sequence either ~ay. Admit The lett
1t 10 bc genuine, and It is consistent Mi
II ihe 1act that they had committed II
st crime OF adultery aiy conjecture in r
d .;ard to the letter is this: that Stuart
+ :.clvcd some Kind ot 4 letter from Mis-. Hurc
a she told Fannie burell that she did deliver
II letter to stuart. and about ihat time; and II
= told Fannie burch that III tAat letter ehe y:
II ecnsurcd stuart 1or something. NOW take IL
~ transactions then occnrrlnE Mrs. Burc1 M
y stuart had had tins hason two years beioF
!: stuart hnd dcssted from visiting hef for SOU
r reason. II II undoubtedly true that for cig
10 tecn months prior ia the fall OF 1857, st'a