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.

26
and the witness added that Lemn said "this was right, the people would have their re venge." If indeed Lemn said all this [ grant that it was bad law, and bad morality, but it
was not arson. Dixon the wheat buyer, relates that Fitch told him that when Lemn went
up to the place where the Dexter had been run off, he slipped a knife into his sleeve. This
is hearsay. A verdict, gentlemen, for Napoleon B. Lemn.
Hiram Hay. Why he has gone too. I am losing all my clients. Hay was at Fillev's on
the night of April 11th-that mysterious night. But he did nothing-he said nothing, and
according to Phelps, Lake and Faulkner he was allowed to hear nothing. When John
Faulkner, "'the woodman," arrived at Jackson at sunrise on the morning of the 12th, he
looked around and saw a man mounted on a high white horse, and he thought the man was
Hay. But certainly it was not Hay, and probably the horse itself was only a grotesque and
fleecy passing cloud. A verdict then for Hiram Hay.
Grandison Filley. Phelps and some of the defendants attended a ball at the house os
Grandison Fillej in March last. But Filley is charged with doing nothing, and saying no thing there. Dr. Hahn says that in the cars when the prisoners were coming down under ar rest, G. Filley and another were sitting behind him, and that one of them said" If I could get
hold of that damn'd Hank Phelps, I would make mince moat of him. He has been about
all winter, pretending to be visiting, and now he has come out and exposed the whole mat ter." Which of these three pesons, gentlemen, shall we send to to the State prison for this
admission. Grandison Filley must be acquitted.
Benjamin F. Gleason. This defendant called at Fiich's house twice, and Westcott says
that Filley, speaking of those visits. said that "he," (Westcott,) "was a damn'd spy, and
he ought to have his throat cut." Wolliver says that has heard Gleason, among others, say
that the persons who committed depredations on the railroad could not be convicted, for
the reason thot they could get witnesses enough to swear them clear. I think, gentlemen
although there may be treason, yet that there is no arson in all this, and therefore I ask the
acquittal of Gleason.
John Palmer. Phelps alleges that Palmer remonstrated with Minor T. Laycock against
becoming a witness and a spy, for the railroad Company; but inasmuch as this testimony is
contradicted by Christie Blackman, who was present on that occasion, and is harmless if
true, you will at once discharge John Palmer from the indictment'
Lester Penfield. He was present at the dinner at John Palmer's. Wells says that he
asked Penfield if he was not afraid, inasmuch as his sled was shod with old railroad iron?
He replied, "' no! they never could prove any thing, they had tried several times and fail ed." Penfield, according to Mr. John Dowdle, when speaking of trespasses upon the rail road in Leoni, said" the people were contending for their rights. Undoubtedly they were.
gentlemen, but they were contending in a wrong way. Nevertheless. I thillkyou will re store Mr. Penfield to his mill. He is wanted there'
Abner Grant. He has neither done nor said any thing worthy of bonds. Barrett has on ly prosecuted the Railroad Company for his cow that was destroyed. It was a grievous
fault, but he has already grievously answered it.
Willard Champlin He did not write the "Price Boys Warning?." hlit,ps relates that
Champlin saidat Filley's. that he would like to have seen the depot at Detroit burn, with
Brooks in it. but Hart Holmes proves that Champlin was not at Filley's on that occasion.
Minor T. Lqycock did not fire at an engineer, even if he received loaded-oistols for that
purpose. Phelps says, that Fitch told him, that Laycock knew that $150 was paid for
burning the depot, but did not know to whom it was paid. This is mere heresay, and Lay cock must be acquitted.
E. J., and R. Price. Phelps informed us that Price, without distinguishing which of
these to defendants, admitted that he had contributed to the fund to burn the depot. We
cannot ascertain which one ought to be punished, and therefore I think you are bound to
acquit both.
Did the defendants hire and procure Gay to burn the Dep6t? The case on the
part of the people is that Geo. W. Gay burned the depot with a match which he lighted
at his own house near the Grand Circus, in the borders of the city, at 7 o'clock in the evening, carried in a I x through the streets in to the depot and there,in the presence of the
laborers, but unobserved by them, deposited in the cupola at eight o'clock, that it
burned with a slow flame until between the hours of two and three in the morning when
it communicated fire to the building and the depot was consumed; annd that the defend
ants now on trial furnished the match to Gay and paid him $150 for committing
the monstrous crime. The burning of the depot by an incendiary is what is called the
corpus delicti. The crime must be proved first and beyond a reasonable doubt before
you are at liberty to enter upon the question whether the defendants were accessories.
uIn regard to the crime then you will mark that no human eye saw G. W. Gay set fire to the
depot. The assumption that he committed the crime rests on the conceded truth that
the depot was consumed somehow; and on evidence of admissions and statements supposed to have been made by him and by the defendants. Such evidence is at once the
most uncertain and unsatisfactory of allitestimony. I dwell upon this because there is a