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.

42
In regard to the place where the fire originated half a dozen witnesses declare,
with confidence, that they arrived early at the conflagration, and that the fiwlbroke
out, not through thee seu in the roof, but in the Cupola. These witneooi are
Capt. Turner, Patrick Rowland, B. F. Bush, W. H. Green and C. Davrinac But~
these witnesses are opposed by as many, to wit: R. Jones, Mr. Johnson, Wm. Har sha, C. W. Sims, Mr. Tuttle and John Campbell, each of whom declares that from
some commanding positioln he discovered the fire immediatelv after it appeared, and
that it broke out through the scuttles in the roof on the north side, half wayv between
the eaves and the Cupola before it appeared in the Cupola. One of the plaintiffs
witnesses says he ascended the stairs and found the fire burning the interior below,
before it burstthrough the Cupola, and that then it had reached only half Ad ay to the
dome or roof of the cupola. Criticisms may be made on the testimony of ecch of these
witnesses, but the result would boo that all were equally truthful, land owing to the pe culi.ar cir,.umstances of the occasion all equally liable to mistake concerning the sub ject upon which they have testified. As it is not proved how the fire originated, so it
is now and will forever remain uncertain in wi at part of the building it was first di'
covered. But the prosecution must n,akeout on theirside that the fire originated in the
Cupola. What is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal case is not prov ed at all, and therefore you will assume that not only is it not proved otherwise than
by the admissions that the depot was burned by an incendiary, but that it is not pr6 ted that the fire broke out in the Cupola.
But, Gentlemen, if the fire did occur in the Cupola, what then? It does not aid
the people's case. TI'he fire would have originated there more likely than elsewhere,
if it had arisen from burning cinders discharged by an engine or by a a steam boat, or
even from heated elevators; and it wou'd have been seen there as likely as elsewhere
if it had arisen from selfconsuming merchandize which was under the stairs lI ading
to the Cupola.
We have already noticed the impossibility of firing the building with such a match
as is described, and the impossibility of carrying it through the streets and the
bands of workmen in the depot. Gay was the last manl in the city or in the State
who could have performed such an act unobserved. He was equally profligate and
notorious. He could not have passe, in and out of the depot even in the day time,
with or without such a box as is described without having excited the most intense
suspicion. But the Counsel for the prosecution say that Gay confessed the burning,
and that he would not have confessed if not guilty. I reply, that the testimony
shows that Gay confessed he burned the depot for a reward of $150, and that he
had engaged to burn the new one fori$200, with the objects of screening one AL
eiate in crime and punishing another. The man who would burn a depot for $150
would also on a promise of impunityand with an inducement of $150, or even let confess such a crime that had never been committed, and charge others with being
accessories to crimes of which they had never heard. But we shall consider Gay's.
claim to credit hereafter. Thus it results: (1.) That it is not proved the depot was burned by the incendiary named, and
(2.) That it is not proved that the depot was burned by an incendiary at all, nor
what is equivalent, that the depot was fired by casuality.
The prosecution seized upon an alleged change of Gay's pecuniary condition ma a
ircumstance to corroborate the evidence which charged him with having burned the,
depot. Certainly, they proved that he was very poor before the depot was burned,
and they proved that after the fire he was found in possession of money and property
equal in value to $150. It devolves upon us, therefore, to show that Gay at tht
ime obtained that sum from another source. We have proved bv Samuel Mead,
that in the month of October, previous to the fire, he paid Gay fifty two dollars and a
Half and that he had two notes of $50 each, and we have proved by Erastus Gay and
by the People's witness, Cicott, that G. W. Gay received for these two notes $96,80,
making in the whole $149,30. This circumstance of Gay's improved fortunes thus
disappears, and the prosecution ia left without even a shadow of a circumstance to~
sipport the allegation that the depot was burned by the alleged incendiary.