that he never came out. The defendant admits that Dr. Parkman was there at the hour of half past one, and that he left the college. You see the position which the respective parties take. If the government will not take the admission of Dr. Webster that George Parkman was there at one and a half o'clock, but choose to take a different hour, that different hour is by them to be proved.

Now, gentlemen, I wish to call your attention particularly to the evidence bearing upon this question. I wish to do so, because involved in it is another consideration. The government claim that Dr. Parkman came to his death by Dr. Webster's hands. Dr. Webster denies that statement. The government claim that the remains which were found were those of the body of Dr. Parkman, and that they have proved that he came to his death by violence. This is neither admitted nor denied, in this state of the question, by Dr. Webster; but he says he knows nothing of it. We stand, then, gentlemen on that on that, as from the beginning. When Dr. Webster, on the morning of the 1st of December, after such a night as a man has scarcely ever passed, recovered partially the power of speech, he uttered, in simple but expressive language, his defence: "I do not think those remains are the remains of Dr. Parkman; but how in the world they came there, I am sure I don't know." His proposition, then, gentlemen, you perceive is, that by some way and means, and for some purpose or other, those remains were placed in that building, without his agency, and without his knowledge; and never has he professed to know what they mean. He cannot now profess to be able to explain them. This he says—“I am guiltless of my brother's blood." The evidence of the government, how summary soever it is, cannot and ought not to avail. I wish, then, gentlemen, to trace, as well as I can, the evidence of the government which bears upon these two propositions.

There are a few subjects which, it seems to me, can be disposed of now better than in any other stage of the cause; and I now propose to dispose of them, before going to the great propositions. The great circumstances which the government

rely on are, that Dr. Parkman entered the Medical College, and never went from it; that shortly after, the remains were found in such a manner as to imply that Dr. Webster must have known about them. There are several auxiliary circumstances

connected with it.

In the first place, I call your attention to these anonymous letters. Three letters were received by the Marshal. They are brought in here for the purpose of showing that Dr. Webster attempted to avert the attention of the police from the college. And it is said—the argument must be, that Dr. Webster, if conscious of innocence, if there was no occasion for diverting the attention from that college, could never have written such letters. The argument is strong, if the fact is established beyond all doubt. It would be difficult to assign a motive why Dr. Webster, as an innocent man, should have written such letters for any purpose, except to divert from himself the inquiry.

But, then, we are to consider, first,-is the fact proved, that these letters were written by Dr. Webster. That, gentlemen of the jury, is utterly denied. I mean to state it to you from him as strongly as I can;-it is utterly denied. And I mean to call your attention to the proofs in the case, for a moment or two.

I am sorry, gentlemen, it happened that these letters came so recently into my possession as they did,-that I should have had so little opportunity to make a personal examination, and to go abroad, and to see what examination could be there made, in relation to them. They were put in the last of the government's evidence. My engagements were of the most pressing character, and those of my associate, also. We were drawing towards the close of the trial, when we were to make preparation for this hour; and our attention could be less effectively given to these letters than it otherwise would. And yet I have seen sufficient of these letters, enough to satisfy me that the evidence is not such as to convince you that Dr. Webster wrote them.

The evidence that the government has is, first, the letters

themselves, and then the testimony of experts. Deacon Gould says he has, for a long time, known the hand-writing of Dr. Webster, and that he has some superior knowledge; but I think it cannot have escaped your attention, that it was presented on the ground that he has effective skill. Now, as to these letters, there is quite a difference between them. Mr. Smith, the engraver, sustains Mr. Gould about the "Civis" letter, but not about the others. That letter was dated on Monday; the others were dated the 30th. Indeed, one was dated the 31st, but post-marked the 30th. Now, it is these that Mr. Gould has expended his force upon; and if either of these is in the handwriting of Dr. Webster, the "Civis" letter is.

I have not had much time to examine this, but I wish to call your attention to some things which Mr. Gould states. He sees the resemblance in certain letters, in which he says they are precisely alike. Now, I have unpractised eyes. I claim no skill as an expert. Quite the reverse. But I think I have skill enough to discover that, in some of these particulars,— and I think you will decide in all,-this Mr. Gould is the merest visionary ever called upon to testify before a jury.

I am about to ask you, when you retire to your rooms for the last solemn decision, that you will take these letters. Remember that you are not to be governed by the opinions of Messrs. Gould and Smith; they are only opinions. And you are to consider whether it is proved, beyond all reasonable doubt, that these letters are in the hand-writing of that man. In connection with that opinion, you may have your own opinion, and exercise your own judgment. And from comparison of the same papers from which that witness has formed his opinion, I will show you a specimen. Among other things which the witness says were made alike, you will remember, were the figures 1, 3, and 9. You will find, in the "Civis" letter, that they are made different. Here is the date 1849,"the last shall be first, and the first last."-I wish you would look at that 9 and then look at those upon every one of the checks.

Believing, gentlemen, most confidently, that letter is not in

the hand-writing of Dr. Webster,-(it would take quite too long to go into particulars)-I have to say, generally, that I think the most careful scrutiny of it, in comparison with the real letters which have been produced, will show that the objection of Mr. Gould, upon this subject, is of such a character that no jury will feel safe to act upon it in unimportant matters-much less to be sufficient to justify them in acting at all upon any part of the evidence.

I know that I need not dilate upon this. I have stated my own convictions. The Court will state to you what the evidence is; the Court will state the law. And I will leave to you to form your judgment upon those letters, with the genuine papers in the case; and have no doubt, that when you have done that, though the government have been zealous and honest, have done no more than what is right and fit, in laying the evidence before the jury,—yet, you will come to the conclusion that you have no other right, and no other evidence in relation to that, than to lay it out of the case.

The govern

There are one or two other considerations. ment have introduced testimony here in relation to certain articles found in the possession of Dr. Webster. They have called testimony here, to show you that on Friday morning Dr. Webster ordered a tin box. So he did. How does that connect Dr. Webster with this murder, or anything in relation to it? Why, it may be argued, that it is a box in which the remains could have been put. But was the box made for that purpose? Did the Doctor say anything which indicated that it was to be made for that purpose? The Doctor said no such thing. Where were the remains?—and where was the box to go? The remains were at the Medical College. Was the box to go there? The box was to go to Cambridge. Now see the position in which the government was placed. Dr. Webster calls at Mr. Waterman's, orders a box; and is asked what it is for, and he tells. He is asked where it is to go, and he tells. The government ask you to think that that is a lie. The government say that it was a good thing to put the thorax and the thigh in; and, therefore, conclude that it was so. Gentlemen,

you are to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt; not what is probable; not what is likely. And yet, gentlemen, seriously, the life of Dr. Webster is dependent upon this very thing.

Suppose that the case were so balanced that the jury should say, We are satisfied, if it is proved that this box was made for this purpose. The government say they can prove it. They call in Mr. Waterman, who says, "The Doctor said it was to put small things in, and to be sent out of town to be filled." All you can say is, that that is not true. That is to say, there is no proof, one way or the other, as to the cause to which it was to be applied. And yet, this object is just as much to be proved as you are to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the murder itself. Every fact which the government present makes an issue; and if it is disputed, then that fact is to be established by proof, and not by conjecture. And if the proof falls short, then that fact is to be laid out of the case. It is to have no influence, because it is not proved. That is the whole argument with respect to the tin box.

I have only to say to you, with respect to this, and the fishhooks, that Dr. Webster had ideas of his own upon this subject. We cannot prove it by what he said to his wife, or children, or anybody else. He cannot get up in court and testify to it. He does say that they had nothing to do with it, and puts the government upon proof. Standing in a land of law, he has a right to say that they are not proved.

With regard to the fish-hooks, the government say, probably, that they were to be made into a grapple. Where have they the proof? Will they take the statement of Dr. Webster as to what he intended to do with it? No, they will not. And if they will not take that statement from him, take you none from them. "Prove all things, and hold fast that which is good."

Now, then, I say that the government, with reference to this, have given no more than a possibility, not an application; and they must show the application, or the intent to apply these articles, or they can have no effect.