Слике страница
PDF
ePub

Here Mr. Dexter said that Mr. Colman had had other interviews with Joseph, and might have derived the information from him at pre

these friends and advisers advised him best, and certain, also, that he had more knowledge of befriended him most. In the mean time, if this the position of the club than this-else how brother, the witness, be one of these advisers, could he have placed his hand on it so readily? and advised the retraction, he has, most em--and where else could he have obtained this phatically, the lives of his brothers resting knowledge, except from Frank? upon his evidence, and upon his conduct. Compare the situation of these two witnesses. Do you not see mighty motive enough on the one side, and want of all motive on the other? I would gladly find an apology for that witness, in his agonized feelings,-in his distressed situa-vious visits. Mr. Webster replied, that Mr. tion;-in the agitation of that hour, or of this. I would gladly impute it to error, or to want of recollection, to confusion of mind, or disturbance of feeling. I would gladly impute to any pardonable source, that which cannot be reconciled to facts and to truth; but, even in a case calling for so much sympathy, justice must yet prevail, and we must come to the conclusion, however reluctantly, which that demands from

us.

It is said, Phippen Knapp was probably correct, because he knew he should be called as a witness. Witness-to what? When he says there was no confession, what could he expect to bear witness of? But I do not put it on the ground that he did not hear; I am compelled to put it on the other ground-that he did hear, and does not now truly tell what he heard.

If Mr. Colman were out of the case, there are other reasons why the story of Phippen Knapp should not be believed. It has in it inherent improbabilities. It is unnatural and inconsistent with the accompanying circumstances. He tells you that they went "to the cell of Frank, to see if he had any objection to taking a trial, and suffering his brother to accept the offer of pardon:" in other words, to obtain Frank's consent to Joseph's making a confession; and in case this consent was not obtained, that the pardon would be offered to Frank, &c. Did they bandy about the chance of life, between these two, in this way? Did Mr. Colman, after having given this pledge to Joseph, after having received a disclosure from Joseph, go to the cell of Frank for such a purpose as this? It is impossible; it cannot be so.

Again: We know that Mr. Colman found the club the next day; that he went directly to the place of deposit, and found it at the first attempt, exactly where he says he had been informed it was. Now Phippen Knapp says, that Frank had stated nothing respecting the club, that it was not mentioned in that conversation. He says, also, that he was present in the cell of Joseph all the time that Mr. Colman was there, that he believes he heard all that was said in Joseph's cell; and that he did not himself know where the club was, and never had known where it was, until he heard it stated in court. Now, it is certain, that Mr. Colman says he did not learn the particular place of deposit of the club from Joseph; that he only learned from him that it was deposited under the steps of the Howard street meeting-house, without defining the particular steps. It is

Colman had testified that he learned nothing in relation to the club until this visit. Mr. Dexter denied there being any such testimony. Mr. Colman's evidence was then read from the notes of the judges, and several other persons, and Mr. Webster then proceeded:

My point is, to show that Phippen Knapp's story is not true, is not consistent with itself. That taking it for granted, as he says, that he heard all that was said to Mr. Colman in both cells, by Joseph, and by Frank; and that Joseph did not state particularly where the club was deposited; and that he knew as much out the place of deposit of the club, as Mr. Colman knew; why then, Mr. Colman must either have been miraculously informed respecting the club, or Phippen Knapp has not told you the whole truth. There is no reconciling this, without supposing Mr. Colman has misrepresented what took place in Joseph's cell, as well as what took place in Frank's cell.

Again: Phippen Knapp is directly contradicted by Mr. Wheatland. Mr. Wheatland tells the same story as coming from Phippen Knapp, as Mr. Colman now tells. Here there are two against one. Phippen Knapp says that Frank made no confessions, and that he said he had none to make. In this he is contradicted by Wheatland. He, Phippen Knapp, told Wheatland, that Mr. Colman did ask Frank some questions, and that Frank answered them. He told him also what these answers were. Wheatland does not recollect the questions or answers, but recollects his reply; which was, "Is not this premature? I think this answer is sufficient to make Frank a principal." Here Phippen Knapp opposes himself to Wheatland, as well as to Mr. Colman. Do you believe Phippen Knapp against these two respectable witnesses -or them against him?

Is not Mr. Colman's testimony credible, natural, and proper? To judge of this, you must go back to that scene.

The murder has been committed; the two Knapps were now arrested; four persons were already in jail supposed to be concerned in it-the Crowninshields and Selman and Chase. Another person at the eastward was supposed to be in the plot; it was important to learn the facts. To do this, some one of those suspected must be admitted to turn states' witness. The contest was, who should have this privilege? It was understood that it was about

always congruous, and agrees with itself. Every truth in the universe agrees with every other truth in the universe; whereas falsehoods not only disagree with truths, but usually quarrel among themselves. Surely Mr. Colman is influenced by no bias-no prejudice; he has no feelings to warp him-except now, he is contradicted, he may feel an interest to be believed. If you believe Mr. Colman, then the evidence is fairly in the case.

I shall now proceed on the ground that you do believe Mr. Colman.

When told that Joseph had determined to confess, the defendant said,-"It is hard, or unfair, that Joseph should have the benefit of confessing, since the thing was done for his benefit." What thing was done for his benefit? Does not this carry an implication of the guilt of the defendant? Does it not show that he had a knowledge of the object, and history of the murder?

to be offered to Palmer, then in Maine: there | was no good reason why he should have the preference. Mr. Colman felt interested for the family of the Knapps, and particularly for Joseph. He was a young man who had hitherto sustained a fair standing in society; he was a husband. Mr. Colman was particularly intimate with his family. With these views he went to the prison. He believed that he might safely converse with the prisoner, because he thought confessions made to a clergyman were sacred, and that he could not be called upon to disclose them. He went the first time, in the morning, and was requested to come again. He went again at three o'clock; and was requested to call again at five o'clock. In the mean time he saw the father and Phippen, and they wished he would not go again, because it would be said the prisoners were making confession. He said he had engaged to go again at five o'clock; but would not, if Phippen would excuse him to Joseph. Phippen engaged to do this, and to meet him at his office at five o'clock. Mr. Colman went to the office at the time, and waited; but as Phippen was not there, he walked down the street and saw him coming from the jail. He met him, and while in conversation, near the church, he saw Mrs. Beckford and Mrs. Knapp, going in a chaise towards the jail. He hastened to meet them, as he thought it not proper for them to go in at that time. While conversing with them near the jail, he received two distinct messages from Joseph, that he wished to see him. He thought it proper to go: he then He knew the daggers had been destroyed, and went to Joseph's cell, and while there it was he knew who committed the murder. How that the disclosures were made. Before Joseph could he have innocently known these facts? had finished his statement, Phippen came to Why, if by Richard's story, this shows him the door; he was soon after admitted. A short guilty of a knowledge of the murder, and of interval ensued, and they went together to the the conspiracy. More than all, he knew when cell of Frank. Mr. Colman went in by invita- the deed was done, and that he went home tion of Phippen; he had come directly from afterwards. This shows his participation in that the cell of Joseph, where he had for the first deed. "Went home afterwards"-home, from time learned the incidents of the tragedy. He what scene?-home, from what fact?-home, was incredulous as to some of the facts which from what transaction?-home, from what he had learned, they were so different from his place? This confirms the supposition that the previous impressions. He was desirous of know- prisoner was in Brown street for the purposes ing whether he could place confidence in what ascribed to him. These questions were directly Joseph had told him-he therefore put the ques-put, and directly answered. He does not intions to Frank, as he has testified before you; intimate that he received the information from answer to which, Frank Knapp informed him, another. Now, if he knows the time, and 1. "That the murder took place between ten and eleven o'clock."

2. "That Richard Crowninshield was alone in the house."

[ocr errors]

3. That he, Frank Knapp, went home afterwards."

4. "That the club was deposited under the steps of the Howard street meeting-house, and under the part nearest the burying ground, in a rat hole, &c."

5. "That the dagger or daggers had been worked up at the factory."

It is said that these five answers just fit the case; that they are just what was wanted, and neither more or less. True they are, but the reason is, because truth always fits; truth is

The defendant said, "he told Joseph when he proposed it, that it was a silly business, and would get us into trouble." He knew, then, what this business was,; he knew that Joseph proposed it, and that he agreed to it, else he could not get us into trouble; he understood its bearing, and its consequences. Thus much was said under circumstances that make it clearly evidence against him, before there is any pretence of an inducement held out. And does not this prove him to have had a knowledge of the conspiracy?

went home afterwards, and does not excuse
himself, is not this an admission that he had a
hand in this murder? Already proved to be a
conspirator in the murder, he now confesses
that he knew who did it-at what time it was
done, was himself out of his own house at the
time, and went home afterwards. Is not this
conclusive, if not explained? Then comes the
club. He told where it was.
session of stolen goods. He is charged with the
guilty knowledge of this concealment. He
must show, not say, how he came by this know-
ledge. If a man be found with stolen goods,
he must prove how he came by them. The
place of deposit of the club was premeditated
and selected, and he knew where it was.

This is like pos

Joseph Knapp was an accessory, and accessory only; he knew only what was told him. But the prisoner knew the particular spot in which the club might be found. This shows his knowledge something more than that of an

accessory.

This presumption must be rebutted by evidence, or it stands strong against him. He has too much knowledge of this transaction, to have come innocently by it. It must stand against him until he explains it.

Gentlemen, I have gone through with the evidence in this case, and have endeavored to state it plainly and fairly, before you. I think there are conclusions to be drawn from it, which you cannot doubt. I think you cannot doubt that there was a conspiracy formed for the purpose of committing this murder, and who the conspirators were.

That you cannot doubt, that the Crowninshields and the Knapps, were the parties in this conspiracy.

This testimony of Mr. Colman is represented That you cannot doubt, that the prisoner at as new matter, and therefore an attempt has the bar knew that the murder was to be done been made to excite a prejudice against it. It on the night of the 6th of April. is not so. How little is there in it, after all, that did not appear from other sources? It is mainly confirmatory. Compare what you learn from this confession, with what you before knew:

As to its being proposed by Joseph-was not that true?

As to Richard's being alone, &c., in the house -was not that true?

As to the daggers-was not that true?

As to the time of the murder-was not that true?

As to his being out that night-was not that true?

As to his returning afterwards-was not that true?

As to the club-was not that true? So this information confirms what was known before, and fully confirms it.

That you cannot doubt, that the murderers of Capt. White were the suspicious persons seen in and about Brown street on that night.

That you cannot doubt, that Richard Crowninshield was the perpetrator of that crime.

That you cannot doubt, that the prisoner at the bar was in Brown street on that night.

If there, then it must be by agreement-to countenance, to aid the perpetrator. And if so, then he is guilty as principal.

Gentlemen,-Your whole concern should be to do your duty, and leave consequences to take care of themselves. You will receive the law from the court. Your verdict, it is true, may endanger the prisoner's life; but then, it is to save other lives. If the prisoner's guilt has been shown and proved, beyond all reasonable doubt, you will convict him. If such reasonable doubts of guilt still remain, you will acquit him. You are the judges of the whole case. You owe a duty to the public, as well as to the prisoner at the bar. You cannot presume to be wiser than the law. Your duty is a plain, straightforward Doubtless, we would all judge him in mercy. Towards him, as an individual, the law inculcates no hostility; but towards him, if proved to be a murderer, the law, and the oaths you have taken, and public justice, demand that you do your duty.

one.

garded.

One word, as to the interview between Mr. Colman and Phippen Knapp on the turnpike. It is said that Mr. Colman's conduct in this matter, is inconsistent with his testimony. There does not appear to me to be any inconsistency. He tells you that his object was to save Joseph, and to hurt no one; and least of all the prisoner at the bar. He had, probably, told Mr. White, the substance of what he heard at the prison. He had probably told him that Frank confirmed what Joseph had confessed. With consciences satisfied with the discharge He was unwilling to be the instrument of harm of duty, no consequences can harm you. There to Frank. He therefore, at the request of is no evil that we cannot either face or fly Phippen Knapp, wrote a note to Mr. White, re-from, but the consciousness of duty disrequesting him to consider Joseph as authority for the information he had received. He tells you that this is the only thing he has to regret; as it may seem to be an evasion,- -as he doubts whether it was entirely correct. If it was an evasion, if it was a deviation, if it was an error, it was an error of mercy-an error of kindness; an error that proves he had no hostility to the prisoner at the bar. It does not in the least vary his testimony, or affect its correctness. Gentlemen, I look on the evidence of Mr. Colman as highly important; not as bringing into the cause new facts, but as confirming, in a very satisfactory manner, other evidence. It is incredible that he can be false, and that he is seeking the prisoner's life, through false swearing. If he is true, it is incredible that the prisoner can be innocent.

A sense of duty pursues us ever. It is omnipresent, like the Deity. If we take to ourselves the wings of the morning and dwell in the utmost parts of the seas, duty performed, or duty violated, is still with us, for our happiness, or our misery. If we say the darkness shall cover us, in the darkness as in the light our obligations are yet with us. We cannot escape their power, nor fly from their presence. They are with us in this life, will be with us at its close; and in that scene of inconceivable solemnity, which lies yet farther onward-we shall still find ourselves surrounded by the consciousness of duty, to pain us wherever it has been violated, and to console us so far as God may have given us grace to perform it.

JOSEPH STORY.

JOSEPH STORY was born at Marblehead, Massachusetts, on the eighteenth of September, 1779. He was educated at Harvard College, and upon leaving Cambridge returned to his native town, and commenced the study of law with Mr. Samuel Sewall, then an advocate of high rank, a member of Congress, and subsequently Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts. From some of his letters written about this time it is to be judged, that the profession which young Story had chosen was not entirely in accordance with his inclinations. "I have begun the study of law," he wrote to a friend, "and shall continue it with unremitting diligence; but a sigh of regret often accompanies my solitary moments,-—a sigh expressive of my ardent love of literary fame, and the impossibility of devoting all my attention to the object of my wishes. I candidly confess, that the hope of 'immortality' alone buoys me up, and if this hope should be destroyed, even should I remain unaffected by the meanness of mankind, all pleasure will have flown, and this world will appear a 'dreary waste, a wild without a flower.' But this feeling

of regret was of short duration. He soon acquired a love for the intricacies and subtleties of the law, and applied himself closely to study, for many months devoting fourteen hours a day to the office and to his legal books. In the midst of these labors he indulged quite freely in general reading, and composition; and on the occasion of the death of General Washington, he delivered a eulogy at the request of the citizens of Marblehead. During the same period he composed a poem, entitled The Power of Solitude.

Mr. Story left the office of Mr. Sewall in January, 1801, and entered that of Mr. Samuel Putnam, at Salem, where six months after he opened an office and commenced practice. His business seems to have been not very extensive during the first few years of his professional life. At this time he became an active politician, and embraced the cause of the republican or Jeffersonian party. In 1803 the station of naval officer of the port of Salem was tendered him, but he declined the appointment, both from professional considerations and motives of utility. During the following year he re-wrote his poem on the The Power of Solitude, and published it, with several fugitive pieces in verse. On the fourth of July, 1804, he pronounced an oration commemorative of the independence of the United States, and soon after published a Selection of Pleadings in Civil Actions. At this time his practice was daily increasing; "his position at the bar was prominent," says his son, "and he was engaged in nearly all the cases of importance. His manner to the jury was earnest and spirited; he managed his causes with tact, was ready in attack or defence, and had great eloquence of expression. As an advocate, he showed the same sagacity of perception, which no intricacy of detail could blind and no suddenness of attack confuse, which afterwards so distinguished him as a judge. In the preparation of cases he was cautious and scrupulous, patiently mastering the law and the facts before the trial, and never relying on first views and general knowledge.*

In 1805, Mr. Story was elected to the Massachusetts legislature, and at once took a prominent position in that body. In all the debates he appeared with the greatest readiness, and scarcely a

Life and Letters of Joseph Story, edited by his son.

committee of consequence was appointed during his term, of which he was not an active and principal member. After remaining in the legislature three sessions, he was elected to Congress, but served in that body for a few months only. On his return to Massachusetts, he was again chosen to the legislature, and continued in that position until January, 1812. During a portion of his legislative career, he occupied the speaker's chair. About this time he edited and published an edition of Chitty on Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes; Abbott on Shipping, and Lawes on Assumpsit, in addition to the duties of his profession.

In November, 1811, he was appointed by President Madison an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. At that time he was but thirty-two years of age, the youngest judge on the bench, and, with the single exception of Mr. Justice Buller, of the King's Bench, the youngest that ever had been elevated to a similar position. The spotless integrity of his character, the disinterestedness of his sentiments, and his acquirements as a lawyer, pre-eminently fitted him for the duties he was called upon to perform. Although many of his political opponents viewed his appointment with distrust and condemnation, their doubts were soon dissipated by the uprightness of his judicial course, and their condemnation turned to praise. After eighteen years of important and distinguished services on the bench, he added to the labors of his judgeship the equally onerous duties of a professor of law.

Through the munificence of Nathan Dane, the author of the Abridgment of American Law, a professorship of law was founded in Harvard College, with the express stipulation that Judge Story should be its first professor, and that the duties of the office should be so arranged, that they would not interfere with the performance of his labors as a member of the supreme bench. Judge Story assumed the professorship on the twenty-fifth of August, 1829, and soon after removed from Salem to Cambridge, where he established his permanent residence. From this period his time was spent at Washington during the sessions of the Supreme Court, on the first circuit of the New England States, and at Cambridge in the Law School. This latter institution became his favorite, and he always performed its duties with the greatest interest and zeal. His manner towards the students was affectionate and familiar. He was fond of designating them as "my boys," and without assuming any superiority, or exacting any formal respect, he participated so far as he was able in their success and failure, and extended beyond the narrow period of the school, far into active life, that interest in their behalf which he had contracted as their teacher. His lectures upon what are commonly considered the dry topics of the law, were delivered with enthusiasm, and illustrated with copious anecdotes from the storehouse of his memory and his experience, and filled with episodes which were suggested to his active mind at almost every step. His influence over the students was unbounded. His zeal was contagious, and awakened similar feelings in his auditors, and the enthusiasm of the speaker and audience acted and reacted upon each other. It is unnecessary, in this place, however, to enlarge upon the merits of his government, or to state the success with which his efforts were attended. Judge Story's literary labors were very extensive. In addition to the numerous valuable legal works he perfected, which now form no inconsiderable portion of the standard text-books of the profession, he prepared many occasional essays and orations, eulogistic and general, which for conciseness, eloquence, and purity of diction, will always command the admiration of the scholar as well as that of the general reader. He also contributed many articles to the American Jurist, as well as to the Encyclopædia Americana, which was prepared by his friend Dr. Lieber. In the latter work the articles on Common Law, Congress of the United States, Death Punishment, Evidence, Legislation, National Law, and several others are from his pen, and are written with his characteristic ability, and in his usual comprehensive style.

In reviewing the life of Judge Story, the amount of labor he performed seems almost incredible. "Its mere recapitulation," says his son, "is sufficient to appal an ordinary mind. The judgments delivered by him on his circuits comprehend thirteen volumes. The reports of the Supreme Court during his judical life occupy thirty-five volumes, of which he wrote a full share. His various treatises on legal subjects, cover thirteen volumes, besides a volume of Pleadings. He edited and annotated three different treatises, with copious notes, and published a volume of poems. He delivered and published eight discources on literary and scientific subjects, before

« ПретходнаНастави »