are a scoundrel and a coward; you have disgraced my family; you have refused an explanation; and now you are a scoundrel and a coward yourself." What else could he have done? He either must have skulked from the presence of this puisant pedagogue, or returned the insult. He uses these words. Then he is seized, pushed back, driven back to the door, a poor, emaciated, bed-ridden, neuralgic, rheumatic invalid as he is, and he must be kicked out into the street, or do what he did.

We next come to the testimony of R. J. Ward, Jr. He says Matt. entered and took off his hat, holding his hat in his right hand at first, and then put it on his head. Knight thinks it was in his left hand, but still he was gesticulating with that hand. Where was the hat? Had he laid it on the floor, nigger fashion? Bob's statement explains it all. He held it in his right a part of the time, and then put it on. Bob and Knight agree in many things, and disagree only where Bob's statement is necessary for explanation. The shooting is explained the same way. If his hand was on his pistol, he would have fired before he did. Quiggly says he was pushed back as far as could be. This coincides with Bob's statement. Bob says Matt. drew his pistol and fired. Sturgus comes. Bob told him to stand off, as he says, to come on, as the boy says; I do not care which. Sturgus understood it to be off, for never was a man off quicker. And, by the way, why is not Sturgus here? Talk of our keeping William back, why do they keep Sturgus back? He cut a pretty figure in the Police Court, with Butler fainting on a settee in his room, when there was not a settee within fifty feet. Mr. Gibson. Is that in evidence here?

Mr. Marshall. It is in the papers where the case has been prosecuted for the last six months, where this man has been prosecuted, and where they are even now trying Your Honor.

The JUDGE. I do not like to have that referred to. It might affect my impartiality.

Mr. Harris. I understand the gentleman. He speaks to the jury, when he addresses the Judge.

Mr. Marshall. If you understand yourself when you come to speak, half as well as you do me, you will do well.

Mr. Gibson. The papers are not in evidence and the gentleman has no right to quote them.

Mr. Marshall. I may want to quote from the Bible, and it is not in evidence. Can I not have the privilege?

The JUDGE. This matter is not properly in evidence, and the gentleman better not refer to it.

Mr. Marshall. Bob is further confirmed by the testimony. He says Matt. asked the chestnut question. So do the boys. Bob says, "Butler puts his pencil in his pocket, buttons up his coat, and says he will not be interrogated." Campbell says, "Butler appeared to make a motion," and so throughout the whole testimony. Bob is confirmed by different boys. His testimony explains what theirs leaves dark, and is confirmed by Butler's dying words. He tells a plain, straightforward story, hit or miss, for or against himself. When Sturgus came, he says he drew his knife and told him to be off, and off he was. It was presto vido and he is off. Bob also says he did not go up the aisle. The prosecution were making out that he retreated. He says he did not. His testimony bears all the marks of truth, and is confirmed in every particular. After all this, Mr. Carpenter says he is perjured. Not content with building a gallows and placing him on it, for what is indeed a crime, but a gallant one, one which many a brave man sometimes commits, this Carpenter goes farther, and charges him with the dastardly crime of perjury. There is no marks of perjury about him. He made a bold, off-hand, gallant statement of the whole offense. The Commonwealth had proved beforehand all he testified; he added but little to our case. But since a charge of perjury has been made against him, it was my duty to make this defense of his character. This trial by juries, and having witnesses face to face, is a glorious institution. The eye, the countenance, every look and gesture, all speak in confirmation

or contradiction of the words. Never have I examined a witness who has been sustained by all these more completely than Bob.

The next witness is Barlow. What a joyful note Carpenter struck when he came to this man's testimony, and I thought I heard a low chuckle run through the crowd, showing the only trace of prejudice that I have seen in the place. He would insinuate perjury. He asks exultingly, "Didn't you say this was an aggravated murder? Didn't you say it was no use trying a rich man's son in Kentucky, if Ward was not punished?" The object is to prove that he lied in pretending to give Butler's dying words. He testified that he, in Harney's house, asked Butler how it happened; that Butler said, "Ward came there, called me a liar, I struck him, and he shot me." "This is a lie," says Carpenter.

But how is he confirmed? Dr. Caldwell says Butler said they were engaged; another witness says they were clenched; the boys say Butler sprang forward. They all confirm Barlow. But they say he is a liar, because he went and offered his testimony to Ward. Hear his explanation. In the Police Court it was proved that Ward struck Butler first. This was published all over the country, and was prejudicing the whole community against Ward. Barlow knew this was not true, and felt it his duty to go and tell the father of the prisoner the circumstance. But the question is, had Butler told him this? Two hours after the occurrence, he relates the same story to Mrs. Crenshaw. You remember her, with a voice clear as a bell, and soft as a lute. He told Mays the same story in the carpenter shop half an hour after he heard it. But he went to the jail and played cards with the prisoner. And what if, on some cold winter evenings, when the prisoner was in his lonely cell, listening to the shout of the mob seeking for his blood like Cuban bloodhounds, this witness did help him while away a weary hour in some pleasant amusement. But Matt. Ward associate with such a man! Now I had thought that a carpenter might be a gentleman. But here they beg the question, and mark the ingenuity, the infernal in

genuity of the process. R. J. Ward is a rich gentleman, and his son Matt. is a traveled, literary, refined man, and that low, mean, hellish hatred which some feel towards this class, is played upon to influence the jury, and they are told that the very fact that a mechanic is admitted to their company is proof that he is suborned.

This lawyer, Carpenter, came, I believe, from New Hampshire, but Barlow was born in Kentucky, where there are but two classes of people, gentlemen and slaves; and every man not a slave is a gentleman. Carpenter has brought with him notions not congenial to our soil. Poor and proud is the motto in Kentucky, and the poorer the prouder. If a man is rich, you can take some liberty with him; but if he is poor, keep clear of him, insult him with no bribe. I thought the gentleman lay in the heart itself, and that wealth was but the guinea's stamp. It is by no means strange that Barlow changed his opinion of Matt. Ward in forming his acquaintance. Since I have been here, I have learned that the noble, free, substantial farmers of Hardin have visited him in great numbers in his prison, and when, instead of finding the burly ruffian they imagined, they saw this pale, emaciated, neuralgic, rheumatic invalid, and in conversation have found him intelligent and refined, they have gone away in tears. There must be some powerful alchymy in his presence that thus turns all to friends. If becoming his friend is proof of subornation, it is not confined to Barlow, but half of the citizens of Hardin County have participated in the crime.

But Barlow is confirmed by Allen and Gudgel. Allen heard the shot, and they immediately went and asked the boys how it happened. The boys tell them just what Barlow says Butler told him. His story is also confirmed by his own acts. Barlow stands unimpeached, surrounded with every badge of truth. There is nothing strange in the cards-nothing strange in becoming the friend of Ward, after forming his acquaintance.

I think we have now got at the correct facts in the case. William Ward, fifteen years of age, on the first of last Novem

ber, is severely flogged by Prof. Butler, and flogged too in the public school, and called a liar. He goes home and tells his brother. His books are sent for and removed. Matt. Ward, in feeble, delicate health, goes to ask for an explanation, taking William with him, and Bob, at his mother's request; not anticipating a difficulty with Butler, but on account of Sturgus. He goes to the school house and politely and mildly asks an explanation. This is refused, haughtily refused. All satisfaction is denied; then he charges Butler with the same crime Butler charged his brother with. Then Butler collared him, bent him, bore him back to the door, and then, and not till then, Matt. fired.

Next, as to the relative strength of these men. It has been shown that Butler's hand was contracted. This did not prevent his striking. Patrick Joyce says he was remarkable for his strength in his arms; that on ship-board he could climb a rope, hand over hand, sailor-like; that he could perform feats in a gymnasium requiring great strength in his arms. Yet they say he could not strike; but Campbell knew he would strike, and could whip Matt. Matt. F. Ward, feeble and attenuated, with muscles shrunk and stiffened, a man whom even his wife could whip, as has been testified;-could such a man go there to assassinate Butler? As Kentuckians, interpreting criminal law as Kentuckians do, I ask you, is this coldblooded, premeditated, deliberate murder?

Having got a correct statement of the facts, as derived from the evidence, let us apply the law to them, and see if it is not clearly a case of self-defense. I read the following quotations from Blackstone, on personal security, and the redress of private wrongs.

"The right of personal security consists in a person's legal and uninterrupted enjoyment of his life, his limbs, his body, and his reputation.

"Both the life and limbs of a man are of such high value in the estimation of the law of England, that it pardons even homicide, if committed se defendo, or in order to preserve them. For whatever is done by a man to save either life or member, is looked upon as done upon the highest necessity and compulsion.

"Besides, those limbs and members that may be necessary to a