Argument of William H. Seward, in defence of Abel F. Fitch and others, under an indictment for arson, delivered at Detroit, on the 12th, 13th and 15th days of September, 1851.: Phonographically reported by T. C. Leland.

11
defedaaiits **-e engaged in it, and they suddenly, without the participation or knowleJge
of the other defendants. It was a desultory crime, and black and terrible as it was, was
nevertheless disconnected with any other transactions, whatever their character might be.
It not only furnishes no evidence of a conspiracy, but, as explained, repels the idea of
'h a conspiracy as is alleged ~~. B u Pti
such a conspiracy as is alleged. But this transaction of the Gazelle reappears in two
other versions.
First, there is an attempt to connect the defendant, Willard W. Champlin, with it. —Taylor produces a paper which he says was found sticking out from under some wood in
the culvert when the transaction occurred, which is marked, "The Price Boys Warning. i
That extraordinary paper is in these words:
Michigan Centre, Aug. 19, 1850.
Mr. PRicE-Sir-I want you to be at the mild stake, this side Leoni, on Monda night
at about half past 9 o'clock. We intend to run the cars somewheare's about there; be
sure and be there at the time.
By order of the Committee, W. CHAMPLAIN.
It was permitted to be read, upon the opinion expressed by Holmes that it was in the
hand writing of the defendant, Willard W. Champlin, but at a subsequent stage of the
trial, Holmes, who appears to be an honest and a truthful witness, came upon the stand
and declared that after farther examination of the writing, and comparison of it with
other known writings of the defendant, he was of opinion that it was not; that
he thought it resembled morethe hand writing of the witness Taylor, who produced it, which he knew well, than it did that of the defendant Champlin. Michael
Coy, who knows Willard Chamnplin, declares that it is not his, as indeed it manifestlyis
not, since the signature, which is without any affectation or disguise, differs both in style
of execution, and in the christian and surnames assumed. I do not press the testimony
of James Champlin on that point-he was evidently illiterate and imbecile. The paper, then, in the first place, is not in evidence, being disproved by the same witness
those testimony procured it to be admitted. Secondly, it is a forgery,and being such, is
pregnant with warning against yielding credit to the tales of venal and prostituetinformers It is needless to remark, that it is to be presumed that Champlin would have
been,himself present at the time appointed, if he fad, by order of a committee, or otherwiseesent this notice to the Prices; but Wolevar proves not only that Champlin was not
there at all, but that the proposition to throw the cars off was made to the Prices by
Fillyas a new one,not on the day before the transaction occurred,but on the same day,and
within an hour betore jit. But the throwing off of the Gazelle, in the language of these
spies, has furnished a basis to predicate a plot upot, and this has been artfully done by
Wescott and Lake. Wescott says, that on the Sunday when Sacrider had his duck pie
at Filly's, he nverheard Williams ask Filly for money, and Filly replied, "I thought the
Gazelle matter was settled." Williams made some reply not heard, whereupon Filly
said "Fitch has paid you $12, and I lave paid you 10, and I'll now give you 3, if that
will make it right;" and thereupon Filly, after obtaining from Wescott change for a $$
bill, paid Williams $3. Lake, at a far distant period, procures and offers confirmation by
saying that Williams gave him a history of the throwing off of the Gazelle; that he
said tlat "Fitch planned it; that Filly, Wolevar and Corwin executed it; that he, Williams, lent them the bar with which to break the chairs and remove the track, and then
went to bed so as to be able to swear that the Prices slept all that night with him.'A word or two will dispose of this joint invention. If Williams earned $25 by going to
bed and leaving others to commit the crime, how much were they to be paid who performed the labor and incurred the entire danger? Again, Wolevar, who was of the
party, excludes Fitch altogether from a knowledge of it, and excludes him as well as
Williams land Corwin from all agency in it, and says that he himself got the crowbar
which was used, and that he got it not from Williams, but from Penfield's mill', which was
impostible, if the history said to have been given by Williams was true.
Genlemen, the long discussion which I have bestowed upon this one of many incidents
on the history o,f this-pretended conspiracy will not be lost, if it shall serve as a caution
in the way of this prosecution has been traced by fraud and cast up by perjury.
I come now to one of-the most remarkable portions of this most extraordinary
trial that of the alleged delivery of pistols by the deceased defendant Fitch from his bedroom window. Joshua Wells testifies that he and Miner T. Lacock, one of the defend ants "received pistols from Fitch at his bedroom window, in the month of August 1850."
Thus, "it was just dark, and Fitch after delivering the pistols, went into a shed and
there delivered to the witness Caswell a rifle pistol and told them to go downeclose to the