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.

14
er still in masses, where a sense of individual responsibility is lost. But that consti tutes no justification. I sympathise in no hostility to the Michigan Central Railroad
-in no hostility to corporations-in no hostility to wealth. I rejoice in the comple tion of every new link in that chain of internal communication, upon which I rely to
bind together the ever-chaiging boundaries of this vast empire. I would indeed
hold corporations, as I would private citizens, to the practice of justice and modera tion; but 1 know of no legitimate redress, in a government of laws, but redress by
law and by constitutional change of laws. I regret that these aggressions remain
unpunished. I trust they will vet be punished, and that the majesty of the law will
yet receive its ample vindication. But it belongs not to you, nor to me to effect that
vindication. These aggressions were committed in a foreign jurisdiction. Our pre.
sent duty in regard to them is performed, when we have shown that the aggressions
which have been committed have no relation to the question under consideration
here.
The prosecution, Gentlemen, apprised you that, in addition to the overt acts of the
defendants, they would give in evidence the fact that numerous, even daily, unlawful
meetings were held by them, in which they framed the stupendous conspiracy which
is proclaimed to have existed,contrived how and when it should be executed; that in
those meetings they agreed upon the aggressions which should be committed, assigning to each defendant his part, and that in those meetings they resolved that if they
should fail to bring the company to their terms, by these aggressions, that they then
would effect that purpose by the burning of edifices and structures throughout the
whole length of the road. The proseeution alleged farther that in these meetings
solemn resolutions were adopted to defeat the administration-of justice, by combination, fraud and penrjury; and, finally, that in those same assemblies the defendants
severally contributed inventions and horrible machines for the work of desolation
and destruction in which they were engaged. This was the promise of the prosecution. Days and ev enweeks were spent in the attempt to fulfil it, and with what re
sult:?: I cannot descend into a minute examination of the shapeless mass of evidence
laid before you to redeem thiprqmise —but I shall call your attention to a few marked and distinct features of it; and upon these I shall challenge contradiction.
1. There was never a concerted nor even an appointed meeting of the defendants,
2. There was never an unlawful assemblage of the defendants.
3. There never was a meeting or gathering of all the.de fendants, nor of half of
them, nor even of a fourth of their numbers.
4. Those who came together at any one time were never the same persons who
came together on a previous or on a subsequent time. Whether the number who
came together was greater or less, they came together always in the most public
places. They came together in the bar-room, in the ninepin-alley, in the street, at
the post office, in the day time, and in the early hours of the evening.
5. They came together casually,on occasions of sheer broad publicity,on Christmas,
at shooting matches, on the arrival of the cars, at balls, at law-suits. They came together as accident determined, on their way to or from the mill, from the blacksm ithsho p, from the village store. Their assemblages, such as they were,were open to all
com ers, whether village gossips or travelers. There was no tyler at the door. It was
wide open. These modern'forty thieves' had no'open sesame' nor'close sesame'to
secure themselves against intrusion nor against detection. They were neighbors who
came together, sometimes two, sometimes three, four, six, or eight; most frequently in
the only village bar-room,and the traveler and the laboring man of the villagewhether
white or black, whether in the interest of the Railroad Company or against it, ihad
free admission. There never was a meeting organized, there never was a resolut on
adopted nor a debate opened. Joshua Wells gives you an idea of their conversa on
on the one subject of common and engrossing interest. "There was something aid
about the Railroad being a monopoly, that a feeling was getting up against the Railroad Company that would hold against them for a long time, because they hired help
very cheap and didn't pay wages enough, that it had a tendency to render wages
low. that he heard not much said about cattle being killed." They planned nothing