The trial of Prof. John W. Webster, indicted for the murder of Dr. George Parkman, at the Medical college (North Grove street) on the 23d of November, 1849 : Supreme judicial court, before Chief Justice Shaw, and Associate Justices Wilde, Dewey, and Metcalf. Counsel for the government, Attorney General J.H. Clifford, and George Bemis, esq. Counsel for the defence, Hon. Pliny Merrick, and E.D. Sohier, esq. / Reported for Boston journal.
- Webster, John White, 1793-1850
- Date:
- 1850
Licence: Public Domain Mark
Credit: The trial of Prof. John W. Webster, indicted for the murder of Dr. George Parkman, at the Medical college (North Grove street) on the 23d of November, 1849 : Supreme judicial court, before Chief Justice Shaw, and Associate Justices Wilde, Dewey, and Metcalf. Counsel for the government, Attorney General J.H. Clifford, and George Bemis, esq. Counsel for the defence, Hon. Pliny Merrick, and E.D. Sohier, esq. / Reported for Boston journal. Source: Wellcome Collection.
Provider: This material has been provided by the Francis A. Countway Library of Medicine, through the Medical Heritage Library. The original may be consulted at the Francis A. Countway Library of Medicine, Harvard Medical School.
59/68 (page 53)
![so unfortunately distorted against me, and establish my innoceuce. Actiug on tlie advice of my counsel, I have heretofore sealed, up my lips; but they have not seen titling to bring forward the evidence that had been ready prepared for them by me. This very silence has been construed to my prejudice,—my calmness urged as an argument against me,—and these things compel me to speak. As to the let- ter written by me to my daughter, (it was not, I think, the first -I had written two or three long ones before,) I can ouly say that, having seen in one of the daily pa- pers which are allowed to come into the prison—in one of these prints, I say, I saw a notice that I had bought a par- cel of oxalic acid; it instantly occurred to my mind that the same parcel could be produced. Mrs. AVebster want- ed some citric acid lor domestic purposes, and I had for- gotten to bring it so often that she laughed at me because of my forgetfulness. I went into Thayer's, opposite tlie Kevere Uouse, that afternoon, and talked to a party for sometime. I left with the bundle in my hand, and went home by the omnibus, when I gave it to my wife, saying, here is your parcel. This was what I referred to in the letter to my daughter; the bundle mentioned was the bundle I have told you of, and no reference was made to the notes whatever. I will just say one thing more, and that is regard- ing the search for the papers in my house. When the men came the first time, they say they did not find them After they had gone, Mr. Charles Cunningham came and instituted search in the same trunk in which they were found, and they were discovered there by him. He laid them on the top of the trunk—immediately where they were found. These papers had been overlooked by the oflicers when examining my house, and were in no bundle. In regard to Kev. Dr. Parkman, I think he did not do me justice. In ray conversation with him he certainly spoke to me of his brother's aberration of mind. [The prisoner accounted for the traces of nitrate of cop- per, by stating that at the lecture before his last he tried hai'd to show the nature of acids and their action on col- ors. He also accounted on the same ground for the fires in the furnace, and the little bits of copper.] Many things might have been mentioned had I had any thought of their being required; but I had none. I de- pended on the truth alone to prove my innocence. I did not anticipate that any more tlian the truth would be brought against me. I have put my trust in God alone. My counsel have told me to be calm, and that has been brought against me to prove my guilt, and my capability to commit crime. Some years ago I was accustomed to allow my students free access to my laboratory; but so many accidents oc- curred in consequence, that I latterly gave up the Ijractice altogether. Of late, also, I have been in the habit of preparing my own things for chemical use, and when en- gaged this way, would have the laboratory shut up. This is not at all an uncommon thing, as it has been said to be. On Friday I was proved to have been at home all the af- ternoon, and was not out, consequently I could not have been at the College. And as to Sanderson, that is a mis- take. He could not have seen me on the night when he says he did. On Friday when I left the College, I went to get the omnibus at Brattle street, and stepped into Brigham's and took a mutton-chop, and there I remained for a time, after which I went home. On Wednesday, after leaving the College, I had occa- sion to make a small present to a young lady of my ac- quaintance, and went into a store and made a purchase of a book—Humboldt's late work—after which I went into Brigham's again and got a cup of tea, when I chanced to leave a note and the parcel behind me. My counsel went there and got the book and the note; but, as it has been with me in various other respects, this has not been men- tioned by them. [Dr. Webster here sat down. He however, in an in- stant afterwards started up again, and resumed.] I Tiave one word more simply to say. J have felt more distressed by the producrion of these anonymous letters than auythliig else—and I call my God to witness—and if it should tje the last word I should speak—I never did write one of tliem ! My counsel have had a letter sent to them, by some one, saying that the letter signed Civis, was written by him. If he is here, (elevating his voice to a tiigh pitch, and using an animated gesture) 1 call un/inn, if he lias a spark of humanity in him, to come forward and say he lurote that letter ! I believe notices have been put in all the papers for him to come here. I have said briefly what 1 had to state. The prisoner closed his remarks and took his seat, an almost deathless sileuce having pervaded the room during 1 their delivery. j A rece's of a few minutes was then granted to the Jury.' At 5 P. M., C. .J. Shaw rose and delivered his Charge toj the Jury, the members, as is usual upon sueh occasions, I rising in their places. His Honor remarked that the{ Court was well aware of the responsibility which gde- volved upon it, in the solemn and important duty which he was about to perform. Late as were the hour and day of the week, he felt that it was best tbr all concerned to present the case to the Jury, and to complete the cause. On this account he should be more brief in what he might have to say than he should otherwise have been. The question was one mainly of fact, but the Court must lay down the principles upon which the Jury were to be guided in making up their verdict. He should con- fine himself to stating the rules of law, rather than go over the mass of testimony introduced. He did not deem it essential to make any appeal to the jury to do their duty; he was fully satisfied that the sol- emn proceedings already gone over, had impressed them more forcibly than he could possibly do. They had been called to ti-y one of the highest oflences known to the laws. To another department had been entrusted the power of making the laws, and whatever were those laws—whatev- er were the punishments provided for an infringement of them, it was'our only province to carry them into execu- tion. We are not, said his Honor, to consider their char- acter, and aje not responsible for their operations. When any individual is charged with crime, we are to consider what the law is—the facts in the case—and apply them to the charge;—and hence arises a division of duties. The Court may lay down the rules—the jury are to take them and apply them to the facts in the case, and return a ver- dict in accordance with those facts. With these few preliminary remarks, the Chief Justice passed to speak of the charge which had been brought against the prisoner at the bar; he was charged with the crime of murder; homicide embraces every mode by which life may be taken, and is of various degrees, according to the circumstances. To decide what is murder and what is manslaughter, we must resort to the common law, which our ancestors brought over with them from Eng- land, and which is no less the common law of this Commonwealth, than it is of England at the present day. And to these principles he should refer, making use of memoranda which lae had used upon a former and simi- lar occasion. Murder is killing with malice aforethought, or killing with any wicked intent, as when one kills another lor his money. Manslaughter is killing under sudden passion— in the heat of combat—or with sutiicieut provocation.— The ditference between the two crimes consists in the ma- lice, which may be express or implied—and imiilied ma- lice is inferred when, the fact of killing being proved, there appears no justification for the offence. To assail an individual with a deadly weapon, is suffi- cient to show malice aforethought. But no provocation by mere words, when-a mortal blow is given, will reduce a homicide from murder to manslaughter—that is, a blow intended to be mortal. There must be a suificient provo- cation; an assault—a technical term perfectly familiar to lawyers—and not a slight assault, must be proven to war- rant the employment ot a weapon, the use of which is cal- culated to cau.~e death. If two persons come together, not intending to quarrel, and strife ensues, and one party is slain, then tlie crime is manslaughter, no matter who gives the mortal blow; but if the parties meet with an in- tention to quarrel, then the crime is murder. These, with other distinctions, -were pointed out by the learned Judge, he at the same time remarking, that there was not much in the present case to require that they should be pointed out to the jury—not much evidence having been shown to the Court that the parties came together in the heat of blood, or that any marked provocations were given by the one or the other. To warrant a conviction in the case under trial, two things must be proved^the death of one paity—and that the death was inflicted by violence, and under such cir- cumstances as to exclude altogether the idea of death by suicide, or by visitation ot'God. or by the hands of anoth- er than the accused. -And in tlie present case the Jury must perceive from the mea^uies which have been adopt- ed by the officers of the law, that there was no distinction among peisoiis—sociiil pisitioii made no ditfereuce. fhe poor and the rich were alike in the eyes of tlie law—alike amenable to punishment for any violation ofit.s ordinan- ces. The object of an inque.^t is when a sudden <ieath occurs, to ascertain the facts, and if these fact.-j prove that a crime h-.-s been committed, to punish the ollender, be he who he may. In the case now under trial, a highly respected member of this community suddenly disappears, and evidence is iiitroduced going to show that he is de;id, and that he met his death by violence. Now arises the question who com- mitted the deed of violence? And this question is to be determined by cii-<;uinsf;intial evidenee, for there is no witnesses of the act, no diiect evidence in the cyse. If it were required to furnish direct evidence, most crimes would go unpunished. Can the deed he proved by cir- curastaiitial evidence? Yes, if thv i-.ircumstiiuci'S are suf- ficiently strong to warrant it. riiei'e is an al'solute ne- ce.ssit)'for a resort to circuinsl;iiiii.il :'vitence. Compar- isons have been drawn between .Ijm-oi :ind eiicumstan- tial evidence, but with no f,'re;il justice, ;is tin- two kinds are eiitirely dill'erent, eacii iios-(--,sing its iul\ :iiila^es and its di.~advantaj;es. lu direct evidence there is this advan- tage that tlie man who saw an act testifies to il himsell—](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b21083629_0059.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
