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.

know his reputation among his neig)nbors; one that he is not competent to judge;
one that some say his character is good and some bad; one who lives thirty miles
from Phelps that he obtained his character by inquiries on a commission for that
purpose from the Railroad, and three that they do not know his character at a:ll.
All the witnesses without exception, declare as the grounds of their testimony
when favorable to Phelps' character, not that they have heard it discussed, and then
pronounced good, but simply that they have never heard it discussed at all, and all of
them who testify to a knowledge of his character in the neighborhood in which
he lived, rely upon the fact that they have not heard his neighbors discuss it and
yet they refer in that connection to the very neighbors who have already come
here and have pronounced his character bad.
Of these, so called, sustaining witnesses, fifteen came from Sylvan; eleven from
Sharon, an adjoining town; two from Manchester, distant five miles; twenty fromr
Lima, near where Phelps resided before going to State Prison; five from Freedom,
which I believe adjoines Sylvan; sixteen from Oakland Co., where he resided before going to the State Prison; two from Chelsea, six miles from where Phelps
resides; thirteen fromn Dexter, fifteen miles from his residence; eight from Ann-Arbor, twenty-five miles distant from his residence. You will judge at once of the extent and accuracy of their knowledge of the subject on which they testified when
Istate that eighteen described the distances at which they resided from Henry Phelps
and that the average of those distances was eleven and a half miles. The law, gentlemen, requires that the reputation whether good or bad which is given in evidence
shall be that which the witness sustains in the very neighborhood in which he lives, or among these persons with whomn he ordinarily transacts business affairs, and
that it shall be found by those only who live in that neighborhood, or who have other good opportunity to learn the character they describe. Thus while a more successful impeachment was never made, it is quite certain that no impeachment was ever
more unsuccessfully resisted. Such is the general character of Henry Phelps the
prosecutor, and such his reputation for truth and veracity in the neighborhood in
which he lives.
1 ask you now to consider the circumstances under which he appears. He testifies under the impulse of an overpowering necessity. A stipend of $40 a month
as an informer is his only resource for support. He is under arrest for conspiracy and
in instituting this prosecuti)n. His fortune involves two alternatives; one that he
carry the prosecution through a-nd cause these defendants to be sent to the state prison
and thus;establish a claimn to be restored to that social confidence which he so early
lost; the other that he shall be convicted of wilful and malicious conspiracy against
these defendants with perjury and subornation of perjury and return, after a guilty
respite of two years and six months, to the State Prison from whence he came.
"- HE that steeps his safety in trae blood
"Shall iad bLtl bloody safety and,: nttruoe."
Phelps testifies moreover under the impulse of a studiously concealed but malevolent and persevefing revenge against Abel F. Fitch, who was originally the chief
mark of this fearful prosecution. I lay aside the testimony of William Dyer on
that subject, which was struck out for want of certainty as to the person to whom
the words, which he had proved, reterred. I cheerfully lay aside the testimony of
John Hawley which he has confessed to be false. Trhe profession which Phelps
has led has exposed hiin to enemies among the associates and confederates whotn
he has denounced and betrayed. Many sutch persons have attempted to obtain retaliation-through this suit. Some of them imposed John liHawley (who of course
was unknown) upon the counsel for the defence. Others who offered tlheinselves
were discovered and rejected. Hawley's confession impl;cated no one of the defendants. He cotnnmmunicated his pretended knowledge to no defendant before he testified, nor did any reason exist for disbelieving thA facts he related or doubting "his
truthfulness. These supposed facts were in harmony with similar facts abundantly established. He was neither supported nor justified,nor attempted to be screened
after the falsehood was made known. We at once moved to strike out his testimony from the case and resigned him cheerfully to the punishment which he deserv
47