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.

39
important testimony. Like the answers, given by the prosecution, to our exposure
ofthe humbug of the matches, it consists of the after thoughts or subterfug,es of this
brace of" miscreants." After a fierce struggle between the counsel and the witnes,
Peeler and Kellogg, that left their testimony undisturbed, and after the counsel found:
that they could not shake Gager Cady from the position that he was now, as he al ways had been under the impression that he saw such a bundle as he described ly ing on the bottom of Phelps' wagon, thev asked him whether it might not be somee
thing else as well as a box? He answered. vyes. "May it not have been a great,
coat?" "Yes, it might;" and then, after the lapse of a month,Lake appeared upon the
stand and a great coat, with pale red flannel lining, was laid before him. H e then
remembered that on April 1 Ith he took that great coat with him, that he laid it upon
the seat because, first, the weather was too warm to wear it; secondly, the coat
was inconvenie,tly small; and he supposed that the coat might have slipped from the
seat into the box unnoticed; but he still resolutely denied that he separated from Phelps,
or that they took a different route from that they had before described; and he stated,
also, that at no time that day or night did he wear the great coat, although he was
sick and was riding in an open wagon from 10 P. M. until midnight. When asked)
what became of the coat when he arrived at Filley's, he answered that if he took it from the wagon he hanged it up in Filley's bar room; that, if he did not take it from
the wagon, it remained therein; and so it must have been carried by Phelps to Grss
Lake and back again. Yet Phelps had no other recollection about the coat than
the fact that Lake took it with him in the morning, a fact stated for the first timne on.
his examination at the close of the case. Gentlemen, that coat with the red lining,
if it had reallv been Lake's great coat and worn on that occasion,would not have need ed an apology for its being too small! Peeler and Kelloggf would have suspected
no bogus money in the plaid lining of a traveler's old great coat, in the month of
April. Gager Cady could have no impression of a bundle tied up in a red hand kerchief, if what he had seen was only a great coat lying on the bottom of the wag on. Badly as the great coat fulfills its office thus far, it fails altogether to explaime:
how Phelps and Lake happened to; be coming up the Napoleon road, which they
swear they did n )t travel at all. Lake not only denies that he took the great coat
trom the wagon and carried it across the fields, but he denies that he left the wagon,
at all. Seacord was within a rod or two of the travelers and could not have mistaket
the coat for a bundle. Mr. Taylor could not have mistaken a coat with red lining for
a trunk tied up in a handkerchief, when it passed within three feet of him, anid was
changed from side to side; and certainly Lake could have had no such care for am,
old coat with red plaid lining as to have carried it across the fields on foot, when it
could have been carried by Phelps in the wagon, and it was too warm to wear the coat
when riding, nor could he have thought it necessary to lock it utip away from the
children, in Filley's store room. If he had been so careful of it,then he would have re
membered at first his taking the coat with him and placing it in its depository.
2 The prosecution alledge that a person standing in the places described by BR.
man and his son, could not have seen the arrival of Lake and Phelps under the s
Mafras tree, nor could they have seen Lake, alighting from the wagon and climbing:
over the fence and carrying such a bundle across the field. So confident were the
prosecution of this that they challenged us to give them a view, obliging us to do.
by declaring in the presence of the court that, no matter how many witnesses theu
might produce to prove these physical impossibilities, yet that the defence would
swear down the hills and swear up the vallies to contradict them. The view wane
granted, with what result you know. I think you are satisfied that, standing where those witnesses stood, they could not only see all that they described, but.
I had almost said that not}ing else could be seen there. You remember how.on re,
peated trials, under that pale, clear shining sky, we recognized the bundle which,.
looked provokingly red, and that we distinguished always the person who carried&;
it, and his dress, gait and walk, however he attempted to baffle us.
But, gentlemen, grantthatBeman and son were effectually discredited, there
would still remain undisturbed the testimony of Peeler, Kellogg, Cady, Secord.
Taylor, Arnold, Toll, Luce, Cozier, Cuykendall and Mrs. Toll. The testimony of ei