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.

41
1. That no such conspiracy as is alleged ever existed.
2 That the question of such a conspiracy is an immaterial and false issue.
3. That the cause rests upon the evidence of admissions proved by Phelps and
Lake only.
4. That this evidence of admissions must be false -first, because the pretended
match was a humbug and could not have been used to fire the depot at Detroit;-secondly, because the matches were made,not by the defendants,but werefabricated by Phelps
and Lake;-thirdly, because the matches produced here were not receivedfrom the defendants as alleged by Phelps and Lake, but werefraudulently placed by Phelps and Lake
in the depositories where it is pretended they were found.
These points establish three conclusive defences against the prosecution. Nevertheless, to remove all doubt and to enable you to satisfy the public that the verdict of
acquittal which you are to render will be right and just, I shall first proceed to
show that the admissions proved derive no support from collateral circumstances,secondly that they are rendered unworthy of credit; First by the depravity of the
witnesses; Secondly by internal evidences of falsity in their narratives; and Thirdly
by confict with facts incontestibly estal-lished.
First, there is a total want of corroborating circumstances. You will necessarily inquire whether the Depot at Detroit was burned by an incendiary at all. This is a circumstance indispensable tobe proved. The prosecution have undertaken to prove it
and have failed. The balance of proof is that the fire was the result of casualty. All
parts of the building except its outer walls were of combustible materials. It was eight
hundred feet long by one hundred feet wide, with wooden roof and floors which were
pierced with innumerable hatchways, and the roof was surmounted by three cupolas
with open windows and more than a hundred hatchments or scuttles. If you say
that the mineral paint upon the roof and the mortar between the floors were a security against accidental fire, I answer that the building was actually consumed by
that element. It was rendered extra hazardous by machinery which, although it
may have been properly constructed, is not proved to have been examined or oiled
on the day before the fire. Workmen had been employed with lights that
'ight from seven until eleven o'clock in the wheat bins, and it is proved that
the wheat bins were lighted with tallow candles placed in narrow, shallow til
sconces suspended against unsmoothed posts. It is proved moreover that can dles had been known to be taken from the sconces and to be secured only by being
placed in a bed of tallow, melted for that purpose upon the top of the bin. It is
proved that combustible merchandize such as trunks opened and bags ot cotton,
were deposited in the building under the cupola, and there may well have been in
the great variety of commodities stored there, matter that would have taken fire by
spontaneous combustion. At least there was abundant food for fire, when once ad mitted. That is proved by the rapidity of the flames. The building stood upon the
wharf and was liable to take fire from the sparks of steamers arriving and departing
by day and by night. It was exposed to fire also from within, to be communicated
by engines which arrived and departed at all hours of the day and night. The cu pola, hatchments and dormant windows served to create currents of air by whiclk
burning cinders would be drawn inwards and upwards, and when extinguished,would
be deposited in heaps in the cupola and below. If you say that the engines of steam boats and Locomotives were furnished with sparkcatchers, I answer that spark catch
ers are not sure preventives. If perfect, they at least wear out. Three several cases
have appeared in proof during this trial of buildings, wood and forests burned by
passing engines, although they were provided with the same means of prevention.
You have heard Mr. Smithi declare that his mills in Clinton were burned by ma ehinery just like what was ill the depot. A fire occurred scarcely ten days ago, at Chi.
eago in a storehouse having a steam engine guarded just as the stationary engine here
was secured, and it is supposed to have taken fire from the engine room. Ten acres
of the site of this city, including the ground on which we stand, were burned over
by a vagrant spark from a passing steam boat, which was provided with a spark
catcher for all that we know.
. 11. 1.:: -:,. I