ing Dr. Webster was next talked of; I told them that a complaint must be made before a magistrate and Kinglsey volunteered to make it. We went to the jail and soon the officers came up with Dr. Webster, supporting him and placing him in an arm chair; he was much agitated and convulsed, and asked for water; he recognized me and called me by name, and also Dr. Gay; water was handed to him, but he could not hold the glass; he appeared in great distress, in regard to his separation from his family; begged him to be calm; told him of extraordinary discoveries made at the Medical College; that these discoveries required explanations which perhaps he could give; that I wished that he would go with the officers and see them opened; he said that he would go if he could; I told him that there was a coach at the door all ready to carry him; he wished to have Mr. Franklin Dexter or Mr. William H. Prescott, sent for; I told him that Mr. Dexter lived out of town; said that some of Mr. Dexter's family were at the Revere House. I told him that it was too late that night to notify the gentlemen he had named, but that they should have early notice the next morning. He spoke two or three times of the distress of his family, which induced me to remark that there was another family which had been in great distress for a week and that we owed duties to society as well as ourselves; I also said to him that there would be an opportunity afforded to him to make any explanation which he saw fit and that I hoped to God he would be able to explain the whole of it. When I left my house I was in he credulous of his guilt; at the jail I tried to soothe him all that I could, and I said to the officers that he was not to be interrogated. I did not accompany him, but rode down to the college before him, in another conveyance. While at the college I did not speak to him at all. John M. Cummings. Am watchman and turnkey at the jail; was present when Dr. Webster was first brought to the jail; assisted him down stairs into the lock-up; he could not walk and was in a very bad state; had to hoist him up into his berth and laid him in with his face downwards; he spoke of his family several times and wanted water. Later in the evening Mr. Samuel D. Parker and several other gentlemen came to see Dr. Webster; told him that I wanted him to come upstairs, that Mr. Parker wanted to see him; he did not take any notice of what I said; he appeared to be very much agitated and made the remark, I expected this; went upstairs and told Mr. Parker that he could not come up; then Dr. Gay, Mr. Leighton, Mr. Pratt, and Mr. Jones came down with me; Dr. Gay asked him if he could not get up and go upstairs. He made no answer; we took hold of him in his berth and he made a spring and grabbed his arm about Mr. Jones's neck, as if frightened; we brought him up into the back office and set him up in an arm chair. Mr. Leighton and I helped Dr. Webster into the carriage to go to the college; helped him out of the carriage and up the steps; he trembled and had a cold sweat on him; his face was quite wet; the wind blew at the time, and the weather was cold; we lifted him into the coach when we left the college; he could not help himself at all; he spoke of his family, again, as we rode back to the jail; had to carry him down to his cell; went down to see him twice, after this; at 1 and again at half-past two. He lay just as we left him, awake, but seeming to be in distress. Gustavus Andrews. Am keeper of the Leverett street jail; was at the jail when Dr. Webster arrived; first saw him at the college; a number of gentlemen came down the stairs; Mr. Parker called my attention to the furnace; saw fragments of bones; a piece of skull; when I turned round Dr. Webster was standing about three feet from the privy door in a state of very great excitementabout the time that the privy door was broken open; accompanied the party into the room where the remains were exhibited; when we went in Dr. Webster placed his feet down firm, as if to brace himself up, but as soon as the remains were brought up he commenced trembling again; I took upon myself to direct that he should be taken to the carriage again; found that Dr. Webster was unable to get in; his limbs were perfectly stiff; he could not bend his legs; I got in first and helped draw him in, as if his body was in one straight piece; we placed him on the back seat and he fell back as if faint and unable to support himself. The first thing he said was, Why don't they ask Littlefield? He can explain all this; he has the care of the dissecting room; they wanted me to explain, but they didn't ask me anything. He then said, Oh, dear! What will my family think of my absence? I said to him, I pity you and I am sorry for you, my dear sir. He replied, Do you pity me; are you sorry for me? What for? I said, To see you so excited; I hope you will be calmer. He said, Oh! that's it. We took him to the jail and put him into his cell; we lifted him in and left him lying upon his back with his head bolstered; had a lantern placed in his cell and watched him some time; seeing he did not move I left him for the night; visited him in the morning and found him just as we left him at midnight; don't think that he had moved an inch all night long; in the course of the forenoon he was able to sit up in a chair; during that morning (Saturday) Dr. Webster said, That is no more Dr. Parkman's body than it is mine, but how in the world it came there I don't know. He said, I never liked the looks of Littlefield, the janitor; I opposed his coming there all I could. The doctor was in such a state of perspiration the night before that I could feel the dampness upon his shoulder blades through his coat. Have a letter of prisoner's which came into my hands, as letters generally do, from those confined in the jail, by being brought to the office by the turnkey; the rule is that all letters shall be examined before they go out of or into the jail. This letter was brought up Tuesday morning, December 4th, open; cannot say who brought it up; the letter was detained and never sent; it was addressed to Miss Marianne Webster, Cambridge. Boston, Monday ev❜g. My Dearest Marianne. I wrote mamma yesterday and Mr. C., who was here this morning, told me he had sent it out. I had a good sleep last night and dreamt of you all. I got my clothes off for the first time, and woke in the morning quite hungry. It was a long time before my first breakfast from Parker's came, and it relished, I can assure you. At 1 o'clock I was notified that I must appear at the court room. All was arranged with great regard to my comfort and avoidance of publicity and this first ceremony went off better than I anticipated. On my return I had a bit of turkey and rice from Parker's. They send much more than I can eat and I have directed the steward to distribute the surplus to any poor ones here. If you will send me a small cannister of tea, I can make my own. A little pepper I may want some day, you can put it up to come with some bundle. I would send my dirty clothes, but they were taken to dry and have not been returned. I send a kind note I received today from Mr. Curtis. Professors Pierce and Horsford called today. Half a dozen Rochelle powders I should like. Tell mamma not to open the little bundle I gave her the other day, but to keep it just as she received it. Hope you will soon be cheered by receipt of letters from Fayal. With many kisses to you all. Good night. from Your aff't father. P. S. My tongue troubles me yet, very much, and I must have bitten it in my distress the other night; it is painful and swollen, affecting my speech somewhat. Had mamma better send for Nancy? I think so; or Aunt Amelia. Couple of colored neck hdkfs.; one madras. Francis Tukey (recalled). [Three letters were exhibited to witness-one inclosed in a yellow envelope, bearing a post mark of Boston, Nov. 26th; one in a red envelope, bearing the post mark, East Cambridge, Nov. 30th, and one bearing the post mark, like the last, of Boston, Nov. 30th, and he was asked when, if ever, and from what source he had received said letters.] post second The first of the letters I received through the Boston post office on the day of its mark, Nov. 26th; the from the hands of the East Cambridge postmaster on Nov. 30th, at about half-past twelve, and the third I took from the Boston post office on the same day. [The anonymous letters were now put in:] Mr. Tukey, Dear Sir, I. Boston, Nov'r 31, '49. I have been considerably interested in the recent affair of Dr. Parkman and I think I can recommend means, the adoption of which might result in bringing to light some of the mysteries connected with the disappearance of the aforementioned gentleman. In the first place, with regard to the searching of houses, etc., I would recommend that particular attention be paid to the appearance of cellar floors; do they present the appearance of having been recently dug into and covered up again; or might not the part of the cellar where he was buried have been covered by the piling of wood? Secondly, have the outhouses and necessaries been carefully examined; have they been raked sufficiently? Probably his body was cut up and placed in a stout bag, containing heavy weights, and thrown off one of the bridges-perhaps Craigie's. And I would recommend the firing of cannon from some of these bridges and from various parts of the harbor and river, in order to cause the parts of the body to rise to the surface of the water. This I think will be the last resort, and it should be done effectually. And I recommend that the cellars of the houses in East Cambridge be examined. Yours respectfully, Civis. 36 GOULD, NATHANIEL DUREN. (1781-1864.) Born Bedford, Mass. Musician and penman. Author of "History of Church Music." to fill out those diplomas for the college; have paid particular attention to the subject of penmanship, having practiced it in every way and instructed in it for some fifty years; have also published on the subject. Mr. Bemis. Look at the three letters produced by Mr. Tukey and state in whose handwriting they are; or by whom, in your opinion, they were written. Mr. Sohier. We object to this proof. No proper foundation has yet been laid by the government for the statement of the witness's opinion. The witness has never seen the prisoner write, nor heard him admit any writing to be his. CHIEF JUSTICE. He has had occasion, officially, to know his handwriting, for many years. Mr. Sohier. This kind of evidence, if admissible at all, belongs to a class of evidence exceedingly liable to error, and we do not intend to take the responsibility of permitting it to be introduced, without interposing an objection. We suppose that it is offered on the ground of the decision in the case of Moody v. Rowell, 17 Pick. 490. We do not mean to object to the authority of that decision, but trust that the court will not go beyond it. That case, as we undersand it, sustains three propositions. First, that genuine handwriting may be laid before the jury for the purpose of comparison with that alleged to be by the same person. Secondly, that an expert may determine and testify from knowledge gained by comparing such specimens, whether the handwriting in question is genuine or not; and Thirdly, that an expert may be permitted to give an opinion whether the imitation of another's handwriting is in a disguised or simulated hand. This case does not come under either of these propositions. The government do not now propose to prove that these letters are in the handwriting of the prisoner; but that though he wrote them, they are not in his ordinary handwriting and they call an expert with a view, doubtless, of instituting a comparison between the writings now in the case, or which may hereafter be put in, in order to enable him to form an opinion upon that point. The Attorney General. I think that the learned counsel misapprehends the ground upon which we offer this evidence. We do propose strictly to prove that these letters are in the handwriting of the defendant-using the term handwriting in its proper and enlarged sense. The gentleman's argument supposes that if a person's handwriting were generally uniform, but he were occasionally to vary it, that, evidence of the varied style would be incompetent, whereas, if it were always uniform we might have the opinion of the expert to prove or disprove it. Such a distinction cannot have any foundation in principle. It is conceded that the opinion of the expert is competent to prove a forgery by another. We seek here only to show that the defendant has been attempting to conceal or disguise his own style of writing. Upon principle, which is the more suitable subject for proof, by the expert? Plainly the latter; for the expert's opinion, then, is only |