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.

46
Gentlemen, you will be on your guard against the faIse issues raised to weaken
the force of this impeachment. Efforts were made in some instances to discredit the
witnesses themselves. Aliowall that was done in that way, and I think it amou'nts
to the facts, that one of them was indicted and convicted of an assault and battey
on a woman 11 years ago; an offence that I do not claim ought to be forgiven wif.
out deep penitence; that another was convicted of an assault and fined $10 withi a
shorter period; and that a third one suppressed a-fact whicii hefeared would exp6se
him to the hatred of Phelps.
You have been told, in the second place, that many witnesses did not recollect not
give the names of those from whom they had derived the character which they assig ed. Gentlemen,when a character is bad, notoriously bad, universally bad, it is the ex ception of favorable speech only that can be remembered. If you declare that a
season was wet, you may be able to specify the days of sunshine but not the days
of storm. But I think that before the impeachment closed, the prosecution found
the authorities given quite sufficient. It is certain that when the whole popu lation of the neighborhood came as one man, and united in confirming the testimony
of those who had come before, that the correctness of all was established.
It was insisted that the period within which the character of the witness was to
be proved should be limited to two years succeeding Phelps discharge from prisoand
anterior to the commencement of this prosecution. But, Gentlemen, you judge of
the soundness of a tree by inspecting not-the bark, nor-the exterior circles, but t,e
entire trunks If it be unsound throughout, you will find it hollow at the heart.
The argument that you shall not enquire as to Phelps character before he went to
prison assumes that punishment restored the character, forfeited by convietio. — 3ut this position is manifestly unsound. Again, the Counsel insist that you shall
exclude testimony of the character of the witness arising from discussions which
haveoccurred during this trial. But that is just the period in which his character
has been a subject of discussion. It is true that you must allow for the effect of
sympathy with the defendants in considering such, testimony. But these witnesses
have no such.sympathy. With one or two exceptions, no one of them is related to
any of the defendants. They live at distances of 10 or 12 miles and more from
them all. For the most part, they never had, nor have they now, an acquaintance
with the defendants. The excitement Qut of which this controversy arose never
disturbed the people of Sylvan nor the people of Washtenaw county. Those who
testify are neighbors of Phelps. The influence of this excitement tended to awa ken the sympathies of Phelp's neighbors in his own behalf, and to rouse them to
anger against th, defendants.
Again, the prosecution argue reformation of the witness, from the fact that du ring the two years, since he came from States Prison he is not proved to have com mitted new crimes. But you will remember that the form of inquiry prescribed by
the court forbide the defence to ask what was the general character of the witness
and limited us to enquire for his reputation for truth and veracity only. Neverthe less the recapitulation of reports as to his general character which transpired on the
cross-examnination is, I trust, sufficient to satisfy them and you on that point.
And now Gentlemen. how has this imnpeachment been answered? 118 persons
have been sworn to sustsin the general reputation of the witness for truth and veracity. Of these one says on cross-examination that his reputation is mixed, and
three that they do not know where Pheips lives. One that his reputation is divided.
One that he docs not know even one neighbor of Phelps. One that the majority of
neighbors say his character is very bad. One, Samuel Chadwick, says that he himself took his neighbors watch clandestinely, carried it to Detroit, and wore it until
its loss was advertised and-that then he delivered it up and demanded $1;,, upon
the false pretence that he had paid that money to reclaimr it from the thief. Sixteen
witnesses say that they know nothing ot' Phelps' reputation since 1l42, and that then
it was dubious; one that he does not know his reputation where he lives; one that
his reputation is bad where he lives, but good elsewhere; one that he does not
know Phelps; thirty say either that they do not know his neighbors or do not