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.

35
bave be taken from that identical stick, though perhaps not immediately adjoiniag
the part now left. You will determine; but in doing so remember that it: is not necess ry to our case that the matches should have to be made with these identical augermsnor
from that identical billet of wood. The possession of an instrument and of any such
wood implies that the, same party could procure other instruments and similar lumber,
7. That Stow could not have seen Phelps at the manger through the window. Your
own experiments have satisfied you that Phelps could have beau seen there before the
corn in the intervening field grew up.
8. That Snow erred in stating that he saw a broken piece of cattle guard lying at Rey nold's crossing near Phelps' house, during the last summer. Answer. Timber for eattle
guards was laid at several crossings in that vicinity duriag the summer, and there is em
tire confusion among the witnesses in regard to the places where it lay and the titn
it remained there. That is an unimportant matter..
9, Tha; Fenn may have placed the piece of timber under the hay, and that you are
justified in assuming that he did because the defendant Burnet advised the search of
Phelps' premises. Reply. Burnet's remarks were the natural suggestions of a misd
conscious of innocence and knowinag the innocence of the defendants. Search ot the de
I:nhalantspremises had been repeatedly made and nothing had been found to accuse them
W y not search the premises of their accusers ~
Wail it is urged that the search was made too late, but it was made as soon at Phelps
and Lake had made their pretended disclosures on the trial; and until that time the dde
fendants were ignorant what they would have to answer. Burnet's remarks were openly
made, on Sunday,to his friends at the church door, when hewas allowed by the Railroad o.
to go home, and they indicated a reasonable suspicion of the fraud. But how could
Fenn or any other person procu're Bsuc a piece of lumber, and convey it unobserved by
night or by day, from any place where it could be found and deposit it in the manger
By what chemical process could it have been so effectually saturated and stained, iathe
short space it must have lain there, so as to have deceived and misled the intelligent
farmers who agreed thtat it must have been subjected to the operations of the decomposition of the hay and earth for a period of three months?
Once more. Is is said, that these farmers found it too early. I reply; they say that
they found it without alr indieation of place or order ofE search. If it had been found
later there Wonldaraebeet equal sutpi'di'on of fraudulent delay.
I,racpitiiate. We find no atches in the proce3sion of the defendants, no materials,
no implements nor traces of the manufacture. No one of tiem has ever spoken' of
matches. We find Phelps speaking'of m;tcties three months before any ar'e seen. We
find Lake employed by him. Lake is an engineer and skillful in working in wvood. We
find hsn, with -tools and materials, at work mysteriously. No match has ever been seen
by any person where Phelps was not h mself present, and did not personally prodceio it,
or indicate where it could be found. Phelps and Lake after procuring ots and materials and being seen at work produced the matches proposed, Those matches serve t4he
purposesof the plot -by Phelps and Lake. They are utterly ineffectual to serve amy.
purpose which the-defendahnts could ever hive conceived. Tilea canclusion then is that
the matcheas were made by Paelps and Lake, and thus is the engineer "hoist with his
own petard.' We have- then established a second complete, conclusive and independent
def'ne.'
IIl. Here is another, a third defence established with equal certainty which is alike in]
dependt,,it and eqalAtty conclusive, viz: Pielps ard L skie fraeJlertf, depos.ited' i' tpiley's house thel match which they pretend was deliveretdl to them on the 11th of April, by
Fitch ann,O,rwin. You will see at once that' ifthis posi3tion is-true, then, it mra be equally true and probab,y is true that they fraudutently deposited in Gay's house the match
found there. If their testimony is false in regard to the circurastances under which thematch was found at either place, then the whole fab,ic of their evidence, and of this
great- cause, ftIs t,o the ground. I recall your attentiona, brietfly,;to th.e narrative
given by Piielps and Lake concerning the manner in which they obtained the mathelat
Michigan Ceatre, April 11th. You will.,reineinber that on tIhe 8th and.th of April,
Phelps and Ltke had exhibited the match at Gay's house to Clark and VanAroaa,. Lake
says that it was determined th'en. at Detroit,oa cousulti lion with Clark'to go to Michigan
Oentre anil get a ma.tchthere. -Oa-the tenthi they arrived at Pauelps' house uOa thi 1ith
they went early in the mornilg othehet to Grass Lake. They proceeded the'ce by wa'y
ofager 0ady's honse.'They'wenta-sh'ort distance westward, then northff"rd to Miclh