cumstantial evidence, but there is no proof connecting this box with the torpedo. The tube is of wrought iron, filled with gunpowder, and when exploded the consequences were terrible. It shattered the walls and ceiling, threw down a partition, blew the windows into the street, bursted out the panels of the doors, and is it probable that all this could have been done without marring one single board of the box. Why, if that box had been made of boiler iron, every plate of it would have been driven into the walls and shattered, but my client was unfortunately in Iowa, and he had no friend to pick up the splinters of what might have been the real box, which, in my opinion, was probably sent out of the windows, and scattered in a thousand fragments.

Had there been only one of the boards whole, it might have been set down as a Providential interference, but that all of the boards, save one, should be uninjured is utterly preposterous. Gentlemen of the jury, it is unreasonable to suppose that this is the box; how many boxes there were I don't know, but, gentlemen, either this is not the true torpedo box, or the torpedo was lifted out before it exploded; and if so, this starts a new theory, and that is, that Allison knew, or ought to have known more of the box by the mysterious third person who Mrs. Allison had no doubt was the author of the scheme and sent it. The only part damaged in the box is the top, and it is simply split; these, too, were trampled on for two or three days, and it is singular that by that alone, they were not damaged more, but the idea of the torpedo having exploded within this box is too preposterous to admit of argument. I say deeidedly that this is not the torpedo box, and if it is, the torpedo was taken out of it before it exploded. Had I been present during the investigation, and when the box was found, I should have suggested the impossibility of its being the box on account of its perfect state; and then I suppose that Marshal Ruffin would have hunted out some other box.

As to the old pistol that was handed to Captain Hoke by some Dutchman, now gone down the river, I have only to remark that there was no loop nail, or in fact anything, to bring about this explosion. The black color of the interior

of the box I do not pretend or deem it necessary to account for; but were I to admit that William Arrison procured this card and box, the identity of this man's guilt would then be a question for the jury to decide.

I now wish to speak a few words upon the subject of flight, which is referred to as a crowning evidence of his guilt, inasmuch as he left this city and concealed himself in Iowa. But he did not flee from the city. Before leaving, he went about, shook hands with his friends, and told everybody where he was going. When did the secrecy commence? Somewhere in St. Louis, and as Mr. Pruden will tell you, from guilt; but I say from motives of fear. He lay sick a week or two in that city, and then found that a Coroner's Jury had founded a charge of murder against him; that a reward of $500 had been offered for him, and that the bloodhounds were on his track; but that he meant to return and stand his trial is in evidence. There is not one word more in that document than Mr. French has testified upon the subject. He wished to know when it would be safe for him to return without becoming the victim of mob violence. If he could have a fair trial, and if he could pass through the streets without being lynched, he wanted to come with his brother, but was advised to wait. He was anxious, too, to know about the hard earnings which he had loaned Dr. Baker. He began to think that Mr. French had either pocketed the money or neglected his business. But his purpose was, after the excitement had passed, to face a jury and have an honorable acquittal. Is it always a sign of guilt that people secrete themselves when the bloodhounds are on their track? The greatest scoundrel in the United States was Dr. Gardiner, who cheated the government out of $500,000, and got safe to Europe; but when he found that a bill of indictment had been found against him he came back and deposited the money to the credit of the United States and then challenged an investigation, and at last furnished the most consclusive proof of his guilt by committing suicide. There is nothing strange in innocent people assuming new names, and hiding themselves when fleeing from danger.

You cannot predicate anything from his hiding. He had read the verdict of the Coroner's Jury, he had seen that there was $500 reward offered for his apprehension, and he had not then the courage to come back. How can reliance be placed upon appearance? It is impossible to discriminate between a sense of fear, of guilt, or of shame, especially when those sharp and lynx-eyed officers were after him, with full proof in their minds of his guilt. I am, now well-nigh through, and I know you feel glad of it. The last topic, therefore, I will speak of is in regard to the identity of his person-and here I will read my proposition, which is, that people are always liable to mistake where the attempt to identify is made by a stranger.

Now what are tests of identity? Identity is not only in the face. When I first saw his Honor, Judge Flinn, I was on the point of taking his hand, he was so like Dr. McCook, but when he spoke the likeness vanished. How often will one person meet another in the street and say, "Hoy d'ye do, Wiggins?" but when Wiggins opens his mouth to reply, the likeness fades away. A man's voice and a man's actions are part of his identity. I, myself, while pleading here, may look graceful and imposing, but place me in a parlor among ladies, and ten to one, that while bowing to one person, I'll jostle another over. The action, voice, motion, walk, etc., all go to make up a man's identity. You may swear to a man with his hat on, but when he comes to take it off, you behold, perhaps, a bald spot, which changes him entirely, and a man whom you have heard only speak once, to identify and hang him is too wicked an act to be thought of in this community.

Mr. True said that one of the causes by which he identified him was, because he talked of cholera in Quincy, and his conviction upon this that he was a medical man, and had practiced in that place. Why, he had never thought of practicing medicine while in Quincy, and his brother was surprised to find him practicing it here.

Marshal Ruffin had said when cross-exanimed, very snappishly, that when he first knew Arrison, he had but one eye

brow, for his hair met. I have since proven the error of this: that although Marshal Ruffin might swear the hair off my eyebrows, he cannot swear you to the belief that Arrison's eyebrows were not always separated.

I refer now to the testimony of the set of witnesses, the four carpenters. Hiveley swore positively as to the identity of Arrison, the three others could not swear positively. Now, there was something peculiar in Hiveley's ways and mannerssomething which denoted that he had at some time labored under aberration of mind; he swears partcularly about his dress, and that he wore a white Versailles waistcoat. Now, it takes much observation to swear so particularly about the articles of a man's dress. He swears, moreover, that he had no whiskers, that he had a white hat with a long fur, a frock coat and black pants, and that he was so dressed each time he saw him; that he was so dressed the morning he returned the box to be altered; but the other carpenters swear that Hiveley was not present that day. It was a hard thing to patch up the evidence of the carpenters. It was like Hand patching up his testimony by calling a witness aside in the court room, and that witness testifying on the stand as to what Hand told him three minutes before. It was a trick, but I don't attribute it to the prosecutor.

Mr. Pruden. It was your own witness, and therefore a trick of your own.

Mr. Johnson. There seems to be such a necessity for this man's blood that everything is disputed. It is remarkable that Hand testified so strongly as to the clothing found in the defendant's trunk answering to his previous description, and that McCullough should testify so differently. Kane swears he was present when the man ordered the box to be made and is certain that Hively was not in the shop, although Hiveley swears that he was. I recall the discrepancy of the evidence of the carpenters as to the clothing of the person who ordered the box made. Can it be possible that you will put a man to death-pour out your own brother's life blood upon the gallows-upon the testimony of four witnesses who

contradict themselves? I do not doubt the honesty of the witnesses, but it only goes to prove that men should be very cautious when they testify to the identity of a person whom they never saw before and who was a stranger to them. I am sensitive as to the case, and desire to go out of it with the reputation of having tried to tell the truth, and, therefore, shall only utter what the witnesses themselves stated on the stand. Both the journeymen carpenters swear that the man's hat was black, and that he wore a black coat and black pantaloons. The old man (Hand) swears his pantaloons were striped, and that he had often seen him wear them. Conklin said Hand had been in his office one hundred times on business. I have been a lawyer for five-and-twenty years, and in all my life never had a client to visit me one hundred times. Hand must have been one of the kind of men who sponge on young lawyers, get advice from them, and become some sort of lawyers themselves. I would advise every young lawyer to get up a mosquito-bar in his office to keep such things out. Ruffin said-and mark the peculiarity of the language that he believed Hand because he knew what he swore to was true. He swore to the hair between the eye-brows, and he was proven to be mistaken. I venture that, without going out of this court house, I could put a man in Arrison's seat, and let Arrison stand behind the post, and bring in Hiveley, and he would swear he was the man he made the box for, and could not be mistaken.

The dark man in the background, whom Allison knew committed the deed, would go down to the grave with his secret. We have not attempted to prove an alibi, for the allegations are that the prisoner was not present at the murder. He might have committed it and been hundreds of miles off; therefore an alibi was not necessary. It is true they had been unable to find any one who traveled with him; the defendant was an obscure young man; he had never been Judge, or a member of the Legislature, or Attorney General for a county, or even Governor; nobody addressed him by a title. He was poor and unknown. He had lost his money by the conduct of persons of respectability, and he was going home, with