for you to make what deduction you may think proper, on this account, from the weight of his evidence. His conversation with Burns, if Burns is believed, shows two things; first, that he desired Burns not to mention it, if he had seen him on the night of the murder; second, that he wished to fix the charge of murder on Mr. Stephen White. Both of these prove his own guilt.

I think you will be of opinion, gentlemen, that Brown street was a probable place for the conspirators to assemble, and for an aid to be. If we knew their whole plan, and if we were skilled to judge in such a case, then we could perhaps determine on this point better. But it is a retired place, and still commands a full view of the house; -a lonely place, but still a place of observation. Not so lonely that a person would excite suspicion to be seen walking there in an ordinary manner;-not so public as to be noticed by many. It is near enough to the scene of action in point of law. It was their point of centrality. The club was found near the spot-in a place provided for it-in a place that had been previously hunted out-in a concerted place of concealment. Here was their point of rendezvous-Here might the lights be seen-Here might an aid be secreted-Here was he within call-Here might he be aroused by the sound of the whistle-Here might he carry the weapon-Here might he receive the murderer, after the murder.

Then, gentlemen, the general question occurs, is it satisfactorily proved, by all these facts and circumstances, that the defendant was in and about Brown street, on the night of the murder? Considering, that the murder was effected by a conspiracy;-considering, that he was one of the four conspirators;-considering, that two of the conspirators have accounted for themselves, on the night of the murder, and were not in Brown street;-considering that the prisoner does not account for himself, nor show where he was;-considering that Richard Crowninshield, the other conspirator, and the perpetrator, is not accounted for, nor shown to be elsewhere;-considering, that it is now past all doubt that two persons were seen in and about Brown street, at different times, lurking, avoiding observation, and exciting so much suspicion that the neighbours actually watched them;-considering, that if these persons, thus lurking in Brown street, at that hour, were not the murderers, it remains, to this day, wholly unknown who they were, or what their business was; considering the testimony of Miss Jaqueth, and that the club was afterwards found near this place;-considering, finally, that Webster and Southwick saw these persons, and then took one of them for the defendant, and that Southwick then told his wife so, and that Bray and Mirick examined them closely, and now swear to their belief that the prisoner was one of them; it is for you to say, putting these considerations together, whether you believe the prisoner was actually in Brown street, at the time of the murder.

By the counsel for the defendant, much stress has been laid upon the question, whether Brown street was a place in which aid could be given a place in which actual assistance could be rendered in this transaction? This must be mainly decided, by their own opinion who selected the place; by what they thought at the time, according to their plan of operation.

If it was agreed that the prisoner should be there to assist, it is enough. If they thought the place proper for their purpose, according to their plan, it is sufficient.

Suppose we could prove expressly, that they agreed that Frank should be there, and he was there; and you should think it not a well chosen place, for aiding and abetting, must he be acquitted? No!-it is not what I think, or you think, of the appropriateness of the place it is what they thought at the time.

If the prisoner was in Brown street, by appointment and agreement with the perpetrator, for the purpose of giving assistance, if assistance should be needed, it may safely be presumed that the place was suited to such assistance, as it was supposed by the parties might chance to become requisite.

If in Brown street, was he there by appointment? was he there to afd, if aid were necessary? was he there for, or against, the murderer? to concur, or to oppose? to favor or to thwart ? Did the perpetrator know he was there-there waiting? If so, then it follows, he was there by appointment. He was at the post, half an hour; he was waiting for somebody. This proves appointmentarrangement-previous agreement; then it follows, he was there to aid, to encourage,-to embolden the perpetrator, and that is enough. If he were in such a situation as to afford aid, or that he was relied upon for aid, then he was aiding and abetting. It is enough, that the conspirator desired to have him there. Besides, it may be well said, that he could afford just as much aid there, as if he had been in Essex street-as if he had been standing even at the gate, or at the window. It was not an act of power against power that was to be done,-it was a secret act, to be done by stealth. The aid was to be placed in a position secure from observation :It was important to the security of both, that he should be in a lonely place. Now, it is obvious, that there are many purposes for which he might be in Brown street.

1.

Richard Crowninshield might have been secreted in the garden, and waiting for a signal.

2. Or he might be in Brown street, to advise him as to the time of making his entry into the house.

3.

Or to favor his escape.

4. Or to see if the street was clear when he came out.

5.

Or to conceal the weapon or the clothes.

6. To be ready for any other unforeseen contingency.

Richard Crowninshield lived in Danvers-he would retire the most secret way. Brown street is that way; if you find him there, can you doubt, why he was there!

If, gentlemen, the prisoner went into Brown street, by appointment with the perpetrator, to render aid or encouragement, in any of these ways, he was present, in legal contemplation, aiding and abetting, in this murder. It is not necessary that he should have done anything; it is enough, that he was ready to act, and in a place If his being in Brown street, by appointment, at the time of the murder, emboldened the purpose, and encouraged the heart of the murderer, by the hope of instant aid, if aid should become neces

to act.

sary, then, without doubt, he was present, aiding and abetting, and was a principal in the murder.

I now proceed, gentlemen, to the consideration of the testimony of Mr. Colman. Although this evidence bears on every material part of the cause, I have purposely avoided every comment on it, till the present moment, when I have done with the other evidence in the case. As to the admission of this evidence, there has been a great struggle, and its importance demanded it. The general rule of law is, that confessions are to be received as evidence. They are entitled to great or to little consideration, according to the circumstances under which they are made. Voluntary, deliberate confessions are the most important and satisfactory evidence. But confessions, hastily made, or improperly obtained, are entitled to little or no consideration. It is always to be inquired, whether they were purely voluntary, or were made under any undue influence of hope or fear; for, in general, if any influence were exerted on the mind of the person confessing, such confessions are not to be submitted to a jury.

Who is Mr. Colman? He is an intelligent, accurate, and cautious witness. A gentleman of high and well known character; and of unquestionable veracity. As a clergyman, highly respectable; as a man, of fair name and fame.

Why was Mr. Colman with the prisoner? Joseph J. Knapp was his parishioner; he was the head of a family, and had been married by Mr. Colman. The interests of his family were dear to him. He felt for their afflictions, and was anxious to alleviate their sufferings. He went from the purest and best of motives to visit Joseph Knapp. He came to save, not to destroy; to rescue, not to take away life. In this family, he thought there might be a chance to save one. It is a misconstruction of Mr. Colman's motives, at once the most strange and the most uncharitable, a perversion of all just views of his conduct and intentions, the most unaccountable, to represent him as acting, on this occasion, in hostility to any one, or as desirous of injuring or endangering any one. He has stated his own motives, and his own conduct, in a manner to command universal belief, and universal respect. For intelligence, for consistency, for accuracy, for caution, for candor, never did witness acquit himself better, or stand fairer. In all that he did, as a man, and all he has said, as a witness, he has shown himself worthy of entire regard.

Now, gentlemen, very important confessions made by the prisoner, are sworn to by Mr. Colman. They were made in the prisoner's cell, where Mr. Colman had gone with the prisoner's brother, N. P. Knapp. Whatever conversation took place, was in the presence of N. P. Knapp. Now, on the part of the prisoner, two things are asserted; first, that such inducements were suggested to the prisoner, in this interview, that any confessions by him ought not to be received. Second, that, in point of fact, he made no such confessions, as Mr. Colman testifies to, nor, indeed, any confessions at all. These two propositions are attempted to be supported by the testimony of N. P. Knapp. These two witnesses, Mr. Colman and N. P. Knapp, differ entirely. There is no possibility of reconciling them. No charity can cover both. One or the other has sworn falsely. If N.

be called upon to account for himself.

If he had had no particular appointment, or business to attend to, he would have taken care to have been able so to have accounted, He would have been out of town, or in some good company. Has he accounted for himself on that night, to your satisfaction?

The prisoner has attempted to prove an alibi, in two ways. In the first place, by four young men with whom he says he was in company on the evening of the murder, from seven o'clock, till near ten o'clock; this depends upon the certainty of the night. In the second place, by his family, from ten o'clock afterwards; this depends upon the certainty of the time of the night. These two classes of proof have no connexion with each other. One may be true, and the other false, or they may both be true, or both, be false. I shall examine this testimony with some attention, because on a former trial, it made more impression on the minds of the court, than on my own mind. I think, when carefully sifted and compared, it will be found to have in it more of plausibility than reality.

Mr. Page testifies, that on the evening of the 6th of April, he was in company with Burchmore, Balch, and Forrester, and that he met the defendant about seven o'clock, near the Salem hotel; that he afterwards met him at Remond's, about nine o'clock, and that he was in company with him a considerable part of the evening. This young gentleman is a member of college, and says that he came in town the Saturday evening previous; that he is now able to say that it was the night of the murder, when he walked with Frank Knapp, from the recollection of the fact, that he called himself to an account, on the morning after the murder, as was natural for men to do when an extraordinary occurrence happens. Gentlemen, this kind of evidence is not satisfactory; general impressions as to time are not to be relied on. If I were called upon to state the particular day on which any witness testified in this cause, I could not do it.

Every man will notice the same thing in his own mind. There is no one of these young men that could give any account of himself for any other day in the month of April. They are made to remember the fact, and then they think they remember the time. He has no means of knowing it was Tuesday more than any other time. He did not know it at first, he could not know it afterwards. He says he called himself to an account; this has no more to do with the murder, than with the man in the moon. Such testimony is not worthy to be relied on, in any forty shilling cause. What occasion had he to call himself to an account?. Did he suppose, that he should be suspected? Had he any intimation of this conspiracy?

Suppose, gentlemen, you were either of you asked, where you were, or what you were doing, on the 15th day of June; you could not answer this question, without calling to mind some events to make it certain. Just as well may you remember on what you dined on, each day of the year past. Time is identical. Its subdivisions are all alike. No man knows one day from another, or one hour from another, but by some fact connected with it. Days and hours are not visible to the senses, nor to be apprehended and distinguis ed by the understanding. The flow of time is known only by something which makes it; and he who speaks of the date of occurrences

with nothing to guide his recollection, speaks at random, and is not to be relied on. This young gentleman remembers the facts, and occurrences--he knows nothing why they should not have happened on the evening of the sixth; but he knows no more. All the rest, is evidently conjecture or impression.

Mr. White informs you that he told him he could not tell what night it was. The first thoughts are all that are valuable in such case. They miss the mark by taking second aim.

Mr. Balch believes, but is not sure, that he was with Frank Knapp on the evening of the murder. He has given different accounts of the time. He has no means of making it certain. All he knows is, that it was some evening before Fast. But whether Monday, Tuesday or Saturday, he cannot tell.

Mr. Burchmore says, to the best of his belief, it was the evening of the murder. Afterwards he attempts to speak positively, from recollecting that he mentioned the circumstance to William Peirce, as he went to the Mineral Spring on Fast day. Last Monday morning, he told Col. Putnam he could not fix the time. This witness stands in a much worse plight than either of the others. It is difficult to reconcile all he has said, with any belief in the accuracy of his recollections.

Mr. Forrester does not speak with any certainty as to the night; and it is very certain, that he told Mr. Loring and others, that he did not know what night it was.

Now, what does the testimony of these four young men amount to? The only circumstance, by which they approximate to an identifying of the night is, that three of them say it was cloudy; they think their walk was either on Monday or Tuesday evening, and it is admitted that Monday evening was clear, whence they draw the inference that it must have been Tuesday.

But, fortunately, there is one fact disclosed in their testimony that settles the question. Balch says, that on the evening, whenever it was, that he saw the prisoner, the prisoner told him he was going out of town on horseback, for a distance of about twenty minutes ride, and that he was going to get a horse at Osborn's. This was about seven o'clock. At about nine, Balch says he saw the prisoner again, and was then told by him, that he had had his ride, and had returned. Now it appears by Osborn's books, that the prisoner had a saddle horse from his stable, not on Tuesday evening, the night of the murder, but on the Saturday evening previous. This fixes the time, about which these young men testify, and is a complete answer and refutation of the attempted alibi, on Tuesday evening. I come now to speak of the testimony adduced by the defendant to explain where he was after ten o'clock on the night of the murder. This comes chiefly from members of the family; from his father and brothers.

It is agreed that the affidavit of the prisoner, should be received as evidence of what his brother, Samuel H. Knapp, would testify, if present. S. H. Knapp says, that about ten minutes past ten o'clock, his brother F. Knapp, on his way to bed, opened his chamber door, made some remarks, closed the door, and went to his chamber; and that he did not hear him leave it afterwards. How is this witness